INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 1543
www.rsisinternational.org
The Effectiveness of Institutional Governance in Mitigating the Conflicts
Between Farmers and Herders in Coastal Regions, Tanzania
Christine E. Macha
The Institute of Judicial Administration (IJA) Lushoto P. O. Box 20, Lushoto , Tanga.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100123
Received: 10 November 2025; Accepted: 20 November 2025; Published: 02 December 2025
ABSTRACT
The study aimed to assess the effectiveness of institutional governance in mitigating conflicts between farmer
and herder in Kilosa and Kilindi Districts. The findings from the study revealed that there was poor
effectiveness with respect to power interaction and sharing during the mitigating conflicts between farmer and
herder at the study area. The qualitative and quantitative researches were used. The study adopted the Cross-
Sectional Research Design.The methods of data collections used were household survey, questionnaire,
documentary, key informant interview, focus group discussion and non- participant observation during the data
collection. The respondents used to get the information were 88 people in the study. Statistical Package for
Social Science (SPSS Version 21) was used to analyze the data. The factors which contributed the conflicts
between the parts such as: population growth, insecure land tenure, policies deficiencies and contradictions.
The negative impacts of conflicts between the parts include: loss of lives of people, lack of peace and security
and decreased productivity. The study concludes that there were poor effectiveness of institutional governance
in mitigating the conflicts between farmer and herder at study area. The study recommends that the
effectiveness of the institutional governance should be improved through the power interaction and sharing
from the experts, experienced and proper involvements of the disputing parts in conflict mitigating between the
parts at the study area.
Keywords: Conflict Mitigation, Local Governance,Institutional Governance and Power Interaction and
Sharing.
INTRODUCTION
The conflicts between the parties are a widespread phenomenon which can occur at any time and any place in
the world and most of them use alternative dispute resolution (UN, 2021). According to the United Nations,
conflicts in the world between parties have got different sources of disputes which depend on geographical,
climatic, economic, technological, political, social and cultural aspects (World Bank, 2016). The conflicts
between parties are influenced by an interest, resource and status or power (UN, 2021). The conflicts between
parties are caused by the traditional pastoral resource, land degradation, impacts of climate change, impacts of
land tenure policies, expansion in commercial agricultural activities, creation of conservation areas, ignoring of
tradition by- laws, customs and restrictions (FAO, 2021).
The conflicts rooted from the disputing parties who fail to reach a consensus as a result, they need a third party
which intervenes through institutional governances (Lenyeletse et al., 2017). The institutional governances are
formal and informal institutions which have a mandatory, authority and power to effect the mitigating the
conflicts between the parties (Howell & Richter, 2020). The conflicts have been mitigated by using various
approaches including: involvement, participation, discussions, dialogue, organized system and sharing
experiences, knowledge and bottom-up in decisions making without success (Ide et al.,2020).
The Institutional Governance
The Institutional governance is an organization which has an authority, mandated and power on specified
responsibilities legally (Ali et al., 2016). The institutional governance includes: national, province, regional,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 1544
www.rsisinternational.org
district to village/street, hamlets and cell levels (URT, 2021).The public institutional governance’s structure
starts from the central to local governments. The central government includes: President, Vice President and
Prime Minister) who are described by the three pillars which include: Parliament, Executive and Judiciary. The
local government is composed of rural and urban authorities. The urban authority is composed of towns,
district, municipals and city councils. The rural authority is composed by district, division, ward, and
villages/street authorities (Taylor, 2019).
The district level involves: District Commissioner (DC), District Executive Director (DED), District
Administrative Secretary (DAS), members of parliament, member of councils, district defense and security
committees where by the members are militia advisor, district prisons commander and police, the prevention
and combating of corruption bureau (PCCB) and district security officer (DSO) (URT,2020). At ward level
includes: ward executive officer, ward security committees and ward land committees (which include farmers
and herders). Village council is composed by: village executive officer, village assembly, village council,
village land committee and village security committees including auxiliary police, hamlet executive officers
and cell executive officers (URT, 2016).
The existence of institutional governances in district level for mitigating conflicts between farmer and herder
there are some indicators included: district commissioner, district executive officer, district courts, district
commissioner commander, political institutions, division officer, ward executive office, street executive
officers, hamlet officer and cell officers in Kilosa and Kilindi Districts (URT, 2014).The structure of the local
institutional governances starts from district, division, wards, villages, hamlet to cell levels. The process of
local institutional governances for mitigating conflict between farmer and herder has indicators some which
include: norms, regulations, reciprocity, exchange and support in mitigating at the study area (URT, 2020).
The strengths of power interaction and sharing from institution governances in conflicts between parties
identified by some indicators include: inclusiveness, persuasiveness, involvement, dialogue, invitation,
tolerance, obedience and trust (Chomba et al., 2016).The weaknesses of conflict mitigation some include:
irresponsibility, poor commitment, personal unskilled, poor political will, poor information, poor leadership,
poor trust and intolerance and discouragement on mitigating land conflicts between farmer and herder ( Ali et
al., 2016).
The developing integrated, user-friendly and cost-effective strategies in mediating and arbitrating the conflict
mitigation between parties through researcher knowledge from findings, experienced people and expertise’s
from different discipline of study, land district officers, ministries, judges, magistrates, religious leaders,
farmers and herders as shown by some indicators include: facilitation, moderation, consultation, conciliation,
negotiation, mediation, arbitration and adjudication in order to end conflicts between parties of the study area
(Scheffran et al., 2019).
The relationship between independent, intermediate and dependent variables complements each other in order
to mitigate the land conflicts and finally the study expects to have the dispute resolutions. The facilitation is to
make things possible, the moderation of things reasonable and not be extremely unreasonably, the consultation
is an act of discussing something with somebody on a particular issue before making a decision (WB, 2016),
conciliation is to make somebody less angry and be friendly’s, the negotiation is to make discussion between
people who try to reach an agreement (Ide etal.,2020), mediation is to try to end disagreement between two or
more people that everyone is supposed to agree and the arbitration is the official process of settling an
agreements and adjudication to make an official decision by stating who is right and who is wrong (Leewen
&Haar, 2016).
The institutional governances through political have influence and effect to change in mitigating the conflicts
between parties (Leewen &Haar, 2016). For the most of time, the conflicts between parties occur when
regulatory institutions fail to control the mechanisms of sanctions which are powerless and disorganized
(Scheffran et al., 2019). Even though, the institutional governances from public and private have made several
efforts in mitigating the conflicts between parties but they are faced by several problems including: poor
sharing experiences, disunity and lack of knowledge, the misuse of authority and poorly power exercise in
decision making (Scartozzi,2020).The institutional governances sometimes diverged, unshared and diffused
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 1545
www.rsisinternational.org
to power legitimated: as a result, they fail to mitigate the conflicts between farmers and herders (Rossman,
2014).
In Sub-Sahara Africa, particularly in Ethiopia, Sudan and Tanzania, the conflicts between parties have been
caused by several factors including: increased human and livestock populations, insecurity of land tenure,
climate change and inefficiency of local institutions to mitigate the conflicts (Scartozzi,2020) and inability in
preparation of plans and decisions (Chomba et al., 2016).The government of Tanzania has vexed different
efforts to mitigate conflicts between parties which are conducted by several institutions including: ministry of
land, tradition and religious institutions, regional land committees, district land committees, ward land
committees, village land committees and street land committees have been used to mitigate the conflicts
between parties with a little success (Ali et al., 2016).
The Judiciary of Tanzania, 1994 introduced the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods in
handling cases before court (how and which court proceedings). The methods such as: negotiation,
conciliation, mediation, arbitration and other than mitigation court processes. Presently all courts in Tanzania
are required to follow this system. At local level for the village land councils have no powers to handle
disputes and ward tribunals which are vested with powers to handle disputes between respective village/street
members at their areas of operation are required to use ADR methods (URT, 2010). Village land council has
no power to conduct some of the methods such as arbitration (Massoi, 2015; RRI, 2016).
The country where different types of conflicts have become common phenomena compared to other districts in
Tanzania some include Kilombero, Rufiji, Ulanga, Bagamoyo, Mvomero, Kiteto, Monduli, Loliondo and
Ngorongoro districts. For example, in Kilindi district between years 2000 and 2016 about 58 farmers were
killed, 2600 cows and 50 goats were also killed (Rights and Resource Initiative, 2016; Jehovaness & Aikaeli,
2017). In addition to that about 1234 land conflict cases have been reported from 2005 to 2014 in Kilindi
district (Aikaeli &Laseko, 2015). From 2010-2015 in Kilosa district about 340 people, 675 of cattle were
killed and about 230 people and 2200 cattle were injured due to land conflicts between farmer and herder
(Makoye, 2017).
The governments of Tanzania through formal and informal institutions have tried to mitigate the conflicts
between parties by using their own capacity, experience, knowledge, power and authority from village to
district level with little success (RRI, 2016). Hence, the institutional governances need an elaboration and
deserve extensive research to mitigate the conflicts between parties. Link with informal and formal institution
with institutional governance by showing the similarity. In Tanzania, the conflicts between parties are in many
parts of the country and have been widely documented (Chomba et al., 2016). In Tanzania, about 75% of
conflicts are caused by parties (Makoye, 2017). In Kilosa district, about 80% of land conflicts are caused by
farmers and herders (RRI, 2016). Also, in Kilindi district, about 78% of conflicts are caused by famers and
herders (URT, 2023).
The main causes of conflicts between parties in Tanzania among others include population growth, insecure
land tenure, policies deficiencies and contradictions (Mwamfupe, 2015; Lenyeletse et al., 2017). The conflicts
between parties in Tanzania have led to loss of lives of people and live stocks, created enemity, fear, disability
and decrease of productivity (Zammuto, 2013; Mwamfupe, 2015; Massoi, 2015; RRI, 2016)
Some of the domain areas where conflicts are practices by taking examples are rampant and have caused
immense consequences including loss of lives of people about 198, 3325 of live stocks and decreased land
productivity (Mwamfupe, 2015). The government of Tanzania has been trying to mitigate the problem of
conflicts between parties by using different measures or strategies including: a creation of awareness
education, preparation and implementation of land use plans, policy reviews and reconciliations (Lenyeletse et
al., 2017). Despite these measures or strategies little success has been recorded. It is also argued by different
scholars on institutional governance for mitigating land conflicts between farmer and herder (Zammuto, 2013;
Rosen & Chen, 2013; Roseman, 2014; Leewen & Hear, 2016 and Makoye, 2017).
Despite these measures and strategies little success has been done by different scholars on institutional
governance in mitigating the conflicts between the farmers and herders (Zammuto, 2013; Rosen & Chen,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 1546
www.rsisinternational.org
2013; Roseman, 2014; Leewen & Hear, 2016 and Makoye, 2017). From the studies, a power interaction and
sharing are not clearly known with respect to the influence of institutional governance in mitigating conflicts
between farmer and herder. Thus, prompting an academic inquiry. This proposed study is an attempt to that
end.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The Description of Kilosa and Kilindi Districts
Kilosa and Kilindi Districts are located in Northern Eastern Tanzania within latitudes 4° 22’ to 4° 08’ and
longitude 37 5° to 37 and cover 4500Km
2
of which 2200 km
2
are arable (Mowo et, al,2002). The targeted
population will involve all residences between parties from Kilosa and Kilindi districts were estimated to have
a population of 567,212 people in Kilindi district has 631,524 people thus making a total of 1,198,736 people
(URT, 2023).
The major soil types are acrisols, luvisols and lixisols. The districts grow maize, beans; fruits like pitches,
pears and plums. Agriculture is dominated by smallholder, low input subsistence farmer and herder with
landholding below one hectare. Kilosa district includes 5 wards namely: Twatwatwa, Mbwade, Msowero,
Changarawe and Kirungi wards and Kilindi district includes five wards namely: Songe, Kibirashi,
Kimbe,Negero and Pagwi ward by taking villages from the headquarters of the wards.
Methods of Data Collection
The data collection covered ten wards and the data collection methods help the study to get information from
the field through different approaches of data collection such as using primary and secondary data. From the
primary data, the researcher gets the actual and real information by taking physically from the field. Some
methods of data collection include: the documentary reviews which the secondary data. The primary data some
include: household survey questionnaire, key informant interview and non- participant observation to get
information from primary data. The data collection in this research was done in two phases; the first phase
were be pre-testing which was aimed at testing the validity of the data collection tools through questionnaire,
guide and checklist and The pre -testing phase was done to modify tools for actual data collection during
questionnaire, checklists and observation guide during the data collection.
Table 1: Sampling Distribution of Respondents from Sample Size of Study Area
Respondents
Kilosa District
Kilindi District
Total
Herders
12
12
24
Farmers
12
12
24
Shina Officers
4
4
8
Hamlet Officers
5
5
10
Village Executive officer
5
5
10
Ward Executive officer
2
2
4
Member of Council(MC)
3
3
6
Division Executive Officer
1
1
2
Member of Parliament(MP)
1
1
2
District Administrative officer(DAO)
1
1
2
District Executive Director(DED)
1
1
2
District Commissioner(DC)
1
1
2
Total
50
50
100
Source: Field Data, 2025
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 1547
www.rsisinternational.org
Sample Size
A sample size is the representation of a certain population to provide reliable information of the population
(Yamane, 1967). A 95% confidence level and p=0.05 were guided by the study. The formula for calculating
the sample size by using the Precision level Error which is: e = 0.1 and where N is total population and n is the
number of sample size.
The formula n=N/1 +N (e
2
)
=1,198,736 /1 +1,198,736 (0.1)
2
=98.8 ≈ 100 .
n=100 number of the respondents.
Therefore the sample size used was 100 respondents from residences in Kilosa and Kilindi Districts.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Introduction
This part presents the research findings by making the analysis and discussion of the findings of study area.
The study focused on existence of institutional governances composed with central and local governments in
mitigating conflicts between farmer and herder. The indicators include: district commissioner, district
executive officer, district courts, district commissioner commander, political institutions, division officer, ward
executive office, village/street executive officers, hamlet officer and cell officers in Kilosa and Kilindi
Districts (Field Report, 2025).
The study focused on the effectiveness of the institution governances in conflicts between parties. The
indicators of the strengths some include: inclusiveness, persuasiveness, involvement, dialogue, invitation,
tolerance, obedience and trust. The study observed the weakness with some indicators include: irresponsibility,
poor commitment, unskilled, poor political will, poor information, poor leadership, poor trust and intolerance
and discouragement on mitigating the conflicts between the farmers and herders (Field Report, 2025).
The study observed the developing integrated, user-friendly and cost-effective strategies in mitigating
conflicts between parties through researchers’ knowledge, knowledge from findings, experienced people and
expertise’s from different discipline of study, land district officers, ministries, local leaders, religious leaders,
farmers and herders as shown by some indicators like: facilitation, moderation, consultation, conciliation,
negotiation, mediation, arbitration and adjustification in order to end conflicts between parties of study area.
The relationship between independent, intermediate and dependent variables complement each other in order
to mitigate the land conflicts and finally the study expects to have the dispute resolutions (Field Report, 2025).
The Source of Conflicts of Study Area
From the field, it was observed by the respondents that the among others some sources of conflicts between
parts such as : the respondents who replied that the crop destruction was the source of conflicts by
28(31.8%),boundaries by 36(40.9%), pastures were 14(15.9%) and final group who replied that the water was
the source of the conflicts between parties by 10 (11.5%) as shown in Table 2.
Table2: Sources of Conflicts at Study Area
Sources
Frequency
Percent
Crop Destruction
28
31.8
Boundaries
36
40.9
Pastures
14
15.9
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 1548
www.rsisinternational.org
Water
10
11.4
Total
88
100.0
Source: Field Data, 2025.
Most of the respondents replied that the boundaries were the main source of conflict at the field of study by
36(40.9%) compared to other sources of conflict. The reasons why the boundary seemed to be the main
sources of conflict was due to the following: the large population of farmers and herders, land scarcity, and
immigration of herders from different areas in Tanzania, poor land management and poor handling of
boundary of study area.Kwasamila (2015) argues that the boundary is one of the main sources of conflicts of
many areas in Tanzania.
The Structure and Process of Power and Authority of Study Area
From the finding, the respondents at the fields showed the Structure and process of power and Authority such
as: the respondents who replied that cell by 33(37.5 %), who replied the Hamlet were 30(34.1%), village/street
were 15 (23.2%), division were 3(8%) and the respondents who replied that structure and lastly the
respondents who replied that the authority which deals with the conflicts was the district by 1(2.4 %) as shown
in Figure
Figure1: The Structure and Process of Power and Authority
Source: Field Data, 2025.
Most of the respondents replied that the cell was the authority which was reliable in mitigating the conflict at
study area by 33(37.5%) compared to other authorities. The reasons why the cell appeared the most: known by
the members, close the members and reachable by the members easily. The lowest authority of cell has the
contribution in knowing the members behaviours and their status in mitigating the conflicts at study area.
The Impacts of Local Power Structure on Governance and Conflict Resolutions
Local government structures significantly impact conflict resolution by providing mechanism for inclusive
governance, social cohesion, and localized problem-solving, but their effectiveness is often hindered by a lack
of resources, capacity, and clear delineation of authority(Mbambe,2021).Proximity and accessibility:
Government is closer to the people and can offer more accessible platforms for dialogue, debate, and
discussion, allowing the voices of ordinary individuals and marginalized groups to be heard.legitimacy and
trust building; inclusive and accountable local governance can help restore social cohesion and build trust in
divided communities. By facilitating participation and distributing resources equitably, local institutions gain
legitimacy, which is vital for long term peace building (Taylor, 2019).
Frequency, Shina, 33
Frequency, Hamlet,
30
Frequency,
Village/Street, 15
Frequency, Division, 9
Frequency, District, 8
Percent, Shina, 37.5
Percent, Hamlet, 34.1
Percent,
Village/Street, 23.2
Percent, Division, 10.2
Percent, District, 9.1
Frequency Percent
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 1549
www.rsisinternational.org
Integration of formal and informal mechanisms; local structures often blend formal governance process with
informal, traditional conflict resolution mechanisms, such as mediation by elders or community leaders, which
can be highly because of their alignment with local customs and social values. To have a targeted solutions;
this provides context-specific and tailored solutions to local conflicts examples land disputes and resources
allocation that a distant a central government might overlook (URT,2023).
The Influence of Traditional Practices on Governance and Conflict Resolutions
Traditional practices significantly influence governance and conflict resolution by providing community-
embedded, culturally mechanisms that often work in parallel with or are integrated into modern
systems.Traditional practices provide a framework for governance that emphasizes social cohesion and
continuity. To Maintain of the social order; these systems focus on maintaining the status quo and social
equilibrium, utilizing respected elders and community councils to provide a sense of stability and security;
Cultural preservation; they help to preserve cultural heritage and foster a strong sense of identity, which can
strengthen community ties essential for effective self-governance. To have the Local ownership; governance
mechanisms rooted in local customs which promote a sense of local ownership over decision-making
processes, which can be more effective in addressing specific, context-dependent community needs.
Traditional conflict resolution mechanisms are widely used and have a distinct approach compared to Western
formal legal systems as it (Taylor, 2019).
Emphasis on reconciliation and restoration; a key feature is the focus on restoring relationships and
reintegrating parties into community, rather than merely determining individual rights or assigning blame;
Community involment; these processes often involve the entire community or specific local actors (elders,
community councils and spiritual leaders) in informal forums, aiming for consensus rather than a single
judicial decision.Foundation for modern approaches; many aspects of traditional conflict resolution, such as
the principles of mediation restorative justice, and community involvement, have influenced the modern
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) movement (UN,2021
The Power Interaction and Sharing of Study Area
From the finding, the respondents at the fields showed the power of Interaction and Sharing (PIS) such as: the
respondents who replied that norms by 33(37.5 %), who replied the regulation were 24(27.3%), law were 13
(14.8%), authority were 7(8%), legitimate were 3(3.4%), mandated were 3(3.4%) and lastly, the respondents
who replied that one of the reciprocities were 5(5.7%) as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: The Power Interaction and Sharing
Source: Field Data 2025.
Frequency, Norms,
33
Frequency,
Regulation, 24
Frequency, Law, 13
Frequency,
Authority, 7
Frequency,
legitimate, 3
Frequency,
Mandated, 3
Frequency,
Reciprocity, 5
Percent, Norms, 37.5
Percent, Regulation,
27.3
Percent, Law, 14.8
Percent, Authority, 8
Percent, legitimate,
3.4
Percent, Mandated,
3.4
Percent, Reciprocity,
5.7
Percent Frequency
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 1550
www.rsisinternational.org
Most of the respondents replied that the norms appeared mostly the at field of study by 33(37.5%) compared
to other. The reasons why the norms seemed to be the culture of the people on how to handle the conflict at
study area.
The study observed that: The culture of the people at particular areas has the power and influence on how to
mitigate the conflicts between parts at the study area should be implemented effectively (Researcher, August,
2025).
The Strengths of the Power Interaction and Sharing at Study Area
From the finding, the respondents at the fields showed that the strengths of power interaction and sharing (PIS)
such as: the respondents who replied that the strengths of PIS) were knowledge by 9(10.2 %), who replied the
involvement were 37(42 %), capacity were 14 (17 %), experiences were 19(21.6%) and the respondents who
replied that one of the strengths of the power interaction and sharing through commitment were 9 (10.2%) as
shown in Figure 3.
Figure3: The Strengths of the Power Interaction and Sharing
Source: Field Data, 2025.
Most of the respondents replied that the involvement occurred most compared to others weaknesses by
25(28.4%) The reasons why the poor information appeared most were due to the following: trust each other
and have a sense of belongings of issues between parties. During the interview, one of the respondents replied
that: “The power of involvement of parts helps the process of in mitigation conflict to be conducted
effectively and efficiently of study area (Interviewee, September, 2025).
The Indictors of the Power Interaction and Sharing of Study Area
From the finding, the respondents at the fields showed the strength of power Interaction and Sharing (PIS)
such as: the respondents who replied that the values of PIS) were inclusiveness by 11(12.5 %), who replied
the persuasiveness were 14(15.9 %), involvement were 25(28.5 %), dialogue were 16(18.2%), trust were
Frequency,
Knowledge, 9
Frequency,
Involvement, 37
Frequency,
Capacity, 14
Frequency,
Experiences, 19
Frequency,
Commitment, 9
Percent,
Knowledge, 10.2
Percent,
Involvement, 42
Percent, Capacity,
17
Percent,
Experiences, 21.6
Percent,
Commitment, 10.2
Percent Frequency
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 1551
www.rsisinternational.org
13(14.8%) and the respondents who replied that one of the strengths of power interaction and sharing through
obedience were 9(10.2%) as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: The Values of Power Interaction and Sharing
Source: Field Data, 2025.
The Weakness of the Power Interaction and Sharing of the Study Area
From the finding, the respondents at the fields showed the weakness of power Interaction and Sharing (PIS)
such as: the respondents who replied that the weakness of PIS) were irresponsibility by 11(12.5 %), who
replied the lack of skills were 14(15.9 %), poor information were 25(28.5 %), favourism were 16(18.2%),
entrust were 13(14.8%) and the respondents who replied that one of the weakness of power interaction and
sharing through revenge were 9(10.2%) as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Weakness of Power Interaction and Sharing
Source: Field Data, 2025.
Frequency,
Inclusiveness, 11
Frequency,
Persuasiveness, 14
Frequency,
Involvement, 25
Frequency, Dialogue,
16
Frequency, Trust, 13
Frequency,
Obedience, 9
Percent,
Inclusiveness, 12.5
Percent,
Persuasiveness, 15.9
Percent, Involvement,
28.4
Percent, Dialogue,
18.2
Percent, Trust, 14.8
Percent, Obedience,
10.2
Frequency Percent
Weakness, , 0
Weakness, , 0
Weakness, , 0
Weakness, , 0
Weakness, , 0
Weakness, , 0
Frequency, , 11
Frequency, , 14
Frequency, , 25
Frequency, , 16
Frequency, , 13
Frequency, , 9
Percent, , 12.5
Percent, , 15.9
Percent, , 28.4
Percent, , 18.2
Percent, , 14.8
Percent, , 10.2
Percent Frequency Weakness
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 1552
www.rsisinternational.org
The most of respondents replied that the poor information appeared most compared to others weaknesses by
25(28.4%) The reasons why the poor information appeared most due to the following: lack of closeness, poor
friendship and unaware of chain of command at study area. The power of information is a key driver of any
organ to fulfill the responsibilities especially in mitigation conflict at study area.
The Strategies of the Power Interaction and Sharing of Study Area
From the finding, the respondents at the fields showed the strategies of the power interaction and sharing (PIS)
such as: the respondents who replied that the power of PIS) were facilitations by 11(12.5%), who replied the
moderation were 16(18.2%), consultation were 14(15.9%), conciliation were 13(14.8%), negotiation were
12(13.6%), mediation were 5(5.7%), arbitration were 8(9.1%) and the respondents who replied that one of the
strategies of power interaction and sharing through adjudication were 9(10.6%) as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Strategies of Power Interaction and Sharing
Source: Field Data, 2025.
Most of the respondents replied that the moderation was most appeared compared to others strategies in
mitigating the conflict at study area by 16(18.2 %). The reasons why the boundary seemed to be the main
sources of conflict due to the following: few respondents have little knowledge and skills and actors lack
knowledge and experiences on how to mitigate the conflict between parties.
Frequency,
Facilitation, 11
Frequency,
Moderation, 16
Frequency,
Consultation, 14
Frequency,
Conciliation, 13
Frequency,
Negotiation, 12
Frequency, Mediation,
5
Frequency,
Arbitration, 8
Frequency,
Adjudication, 9
Percent, Facilitation,
12.5
Percent, Moderation,
18.2
Percent, Consultation,
15.9
Percent, Conciliation,
14.8
Percent, Negotiation,
13.6
Percent, Mediation,
5.7
Percent, Arbitration,
9.1
Percent, Adjudication,
10.2
Percent Frequency
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 1553
www.rsisinternational.org
During the interview, one of respondents replied that: “The Strategies of the power interaction and sharing
needs the proper training, knowledge, friendship and trust” (Interviewee, September, 2025).
From the review, the government and other stakeholders should be given the training on how to mitigate the
conflicts between parties (Scheffran et al., 2019).
The Capacity Building for Local Leaders on Handling the Conflicts at the Study Area
To enhance the capacity building for local leaders in handling conflict focuses on providing essential skills,
fostering inclusive institutions, and promoting dialogue to manage disputes constructively and build
sustainable peace. Capacity building for local leaders in handling conflict involves providing them with a mix
of practical skills (mediation, negotiation, communication) and fostering an environment that support dialogue,
trust and inclusivity. The goal is to empower local actors to resolve disputes internally and prevent them from
escalating into violence (Scheffran et al., 2019).
To insure the effective capacity building programs focus on several core competency areas: Conflict
Resolution and Mediation Techniques: Training in the use of structured processes like ‘The Exchange’ which
helps in managing dialogue or the 5 ‘Cs’ approach such includes (Clear communication, calmness,
clarification, collaboration, compromise), enable leaders to facilitate constructive conversation and find
common ground. To have an active listening and communication: leaders are trained to create an environment
where all parties feel heard, using techniques for example giving full attention and asking open-ended
questions to prevent misunderstanding and build trust (Mdope,2025).To have the negotiation skills:
community leaders learn how to navigate competing interests and limited resources by focusing on underlying
needs rather than immediate demands, which helps in finding win-win solutions. To conduct the situational
analysis and early warning: Training helps leaders to identify root causes and triggers of conflict and establish
early warning systems to monitor emerging tension and intervene before they escalate.The local leader should
be given the strategies on how to improve the conflict handling such as: facilitations, moderation consultation,
conciliation, negotiation, mediation, arbitration and adjudication ( Ojeleye (2017).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
From the findings, it is revealed that there was poor training to impart knowledge, poor inclusiveness, lack
of persuasiveness, poor involvement, poor dialogue, poor invitation, poor tolerance, disobedience lack of
trust, irresponsibility, poor commitment, unskilled, poor political will, poor information, poor leadership, poor
trust and intolerance and discouragement on mitigating conflicts between parts, poor facilitation, poor
moderation, lack of consultation, poor conciliation, lack of negotiation, poor mediation, lack of arbitration and
poor adjudication in mitigating the conflicts between parts of the study area.
Recommendations
The government and ministries of land, water and natural resources should use the power interaction and
sharing between the disputing parts at the study area. The government and other stakeholders should select the
team which has persuasiveness in mitigating the conflicts. The experts and experienced team should allow free
dialogue for both parties deeply. The responsible third part should a proper invitation to both parties to the
meetings. Both parties should have tolerance during the mitigating on the conflicts. Both parties should obey
the rules and regulation from the authorities. Both parties should trust the authorities and the third parties and
responsibility in the whole process. The selected team should be experts, committed, experienced in conflict
mitigating. The third party should provide the true and justifiable information found during the processes in
mitigating conflicts between parts. The ministry of Constitution and Legal Affairs and the justice stakeholders
should have the use of the process in conflict resolutions some include: facilitation, moderation, consultation,
conciliation, negotiation, mediation, arbitration and adjudication in mitigating the conflicts with reflection to
power interaction and sharing between parts of the study area.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 1554
www.rsisinternational.org
REFERENCES
1. Ali, D etal., (2016). “Small Price Incentives Increase Women’s Access to Land”. Journal of
Development Economics 123, 107-122.
2. Aikaeli, J. & Laseko,B.(2015). ‘The Role of People Identification, Land and Businesses Registration in
Transformation and Development” in How can Tanzania Move from Poverty to Prosperity? Dar es
Salaam University Press.
3. Ary, D. (2010). Introduction to Research Education: USA, Wadworth.
4. Berg, B.L. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences: Calfonia State University,
Long Beach.
5. Binningsbø, H. M. (2011). A Piece of the Pie: Power Sharing and Post Conflict Peace. Doctoral Thesis.
Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).
6. Bjerregaard et al., (2016). Practice transfer in the MNC: A Process of Tension and Contestation. Critical
Perspectives on International Business. In press. Vol 37, Issue 9.
7. Borden, M. (2008). Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach, Indian University-Purdue
University Forty Wayne.Mac Graw Hill.
8. Chomba, S., Kariuki, J., Lund, J.F. and Sinclair, F. (2016). Roots of Inequity: How the Implementation
of REDD+ Reinforces past Injustice, Land Use Policy, vol. 50, 202-213.
9. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches,3.
[Update] Edn, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
10. De Vaus, D.A. (2001). Research Design in Social Research. SAGe Publication, INC.London.
11. FAO (2021). News Article: Lake Chad Facing Humanitarian Disaster. Available From
web: www.fao.org. Retrieved on 18 September, 2025.
12. Howell, A & Richter,M, (2020). Is Securitization Theory Racist? Civilizationism, Methodological
Whiteness, and Antiblack Thought in the Copenhagen School Security
Dialogue. 51 (1):322. doi:10.1177/0967010619862921. ISSN 0967-0106. S2CID 197697420
13. Hornby, A.S. (2004). Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University
Press. London.
14. Ide et al.,(2020). "Multi-Method Evidence for When and How Climate-Related Disasters Contribute to
Armed Conflict Risk". Global Environmental Change. 62:
102063. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102063. ISSN 0959-3780.
15. Kaswamila, A.& Songorwa, A. (2012). Participatory Land Use Planning and Conservation in Northern
Tanzania.Rangelands. African Journal of Ecology, No. 47.
16. Kothari,C.R.(2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age International India.
New Delhi.
17. Lenyeletse et al.,(2017).Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University
of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
18. Leeuwen, V. & Mand, G. (2016). Theorizing the Land-Violent Conflict Nexus. World Development 78:
94–104. Varley A (2010) Modest Expectations.
19. McMichael, G. (2016). Land Conflict and Informal Settlements in Juba, South Sudan. Urban Studies
53(13): 2721–2737.
20. McDonald, M. (2021). Ecological Security: Climate Change and the Construction of Security.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-51961-5.
21. Mwamfupe, D. (2015). Persistence of Farmers-Herders Conflicts in Tanzania: International Journal of
Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 5, Issue 2, and February 2015 7 ISSN 2250-3153 from
website: www.ijsrp.org.Retrieved on 20 July, 2025.
22. Rights and Resource Initiative (RRI) (2016). Regional Comparison of Change in Land Owned or
Designed for Indigenous People and Local Communities, 2002-2015. Available from:
http://www.rightsandresources.org/en/publication/closing-the-gap/#.VufHA2Odcky.Retrieved on 20
November, 2016.
23. Spencer et al.,(2016).The Functionalist Perspective Theory. Available from
website:https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociologytextbook/sociology-
1/theoretical-perspectives-in-sociology-24/the-functionalist-perspective-155-3284/.Retrived on
20June,2023.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025
Page 1555
www.rsisinternational.org
24. Scheffran et al., (2019). Climate and Conflict in Africa: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate
Science, Oxford University Press: Doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.557, ISBN 978-0-19-
022862-0.
25. Scartozzi, C. M. (2020). Reframing Climate-Induced Socio-Environmental Conflicts: A Systematic
Review". International Studies Review. 23 (3): 696–725. doi:10.1093/isr/viaa064.
26. Taylor, C. ( 2019). Global Tension Is Hampering Our Ability to Fight Climate Change. Davos survey
warns. CNBC.
27. URT (2023). Population and Housing Census Unpublished Report, Ministry of Finance, Dodoma.
28. UN (2021). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change "Climate Change Is an
Increasing Threat to Africa". Available from unfccc.int. Retrieved on 12 September, 2021.
29. Weddy, K.S and Tracey, P. (2016). Institutional Complexity and Paradox Theory: Complementarities of
Competing Demands .First Published April 4, 2016 research-article Vol 14, Issue 4.
30. Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An Introduction Analysis 2
nd
Edition. Harmply and Row, New York.
