\documentclass[english,german]{scrartcl}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage{geometry}
\geometry{verbose,a4paper,tmargin=1.75cm,bmargin=2cm,lmargin=2cm,rmargin=2cm,headheight=0.8cm,headsep=0.5cm,footskip=0.5cm}
\usepackage{babel}
\usepackage{url}
\urlstyle{same}
\newcommand\email{\begingroup \urlstyle{same}\Url}\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{units}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{wasysym} % enable use of \permil instead of \textperthousand
\usepackage{marvosym}
\usepackage{arabtex}
\usepackage{hyphenat}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{mdwlist}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\relax}
\usepackage{index}
\newindex{key}{kdx}{knd}{Keywords}
\newindex{author}{idx}{ind}{Authors}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}
\fancyfoot{}
\usepackage{ifpdf}
\ifpdf
%\usepackage[activate]{pdfcprot}
%\usepackage[owner=Tapioka, print=true, copy=true, edit=false, annotate=false,set]{pdfcrypt}
%encryption: not supported any more (since pdftex 1.10)
\usepackage[pdftex]{thumbpdf}
\usepackage[pdftex]{hyperref}
\hypersetup{pdftitle={Boundaries as Opportunities, Boundaries as Obstacles: Strategic Framing of Traditional and Administrative Boundaries on the Wildlife"=land-livestock  Nexus in Mbire District, Zimbabwe},pdfauthor={Steven Matema},pdfsubject={Tropentag 2010: Abstract},pdfkeywords={Boundary mismatch, livestock , resettlement, wildlife conservation},pdfpagemode=None,colorlinks=true}
\else
\usepackage{ae}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\fi
\begin{document}
\ifpdf
\parbox[b]{2.5cm}{\resizebox*{2.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{dtt2010.jpg}}}
\else
\parbox[b]{2.5cm}{\resizebox*{2.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{dtt2010.eps}}}
\fi
\hfill
\parbox[b]{13.4cm}{\centering \large{\textbf{Tropentag, September 14-16, 2010, Zurich}}\\[1ex] \Large{``World Food System  ---\\A Contribution from Europe''\\[2ex]}}
\hspace{0.1cm}
\begin{center}
\Large{\textbf{Boundaries as Opportunities, Boundaries as Obstacles: Strategic Framing of Traditional and Administrative Boundaries on the Wildlife"=land-livestock  Nexus in Mbire District, Zimbabwe\footnote{\textbf{Contact Address:} Steven Matema, Wageningen University, Department of Animal Sciences, Marijkeweg 40, 6709 PG~Wageningen, The Netherlands, \mbox{e-mail}: \email{steven.matema@wur.nl}}\\[0.8ex]}}
\normalsize{\textsc{Steven Matema}}
\end{center}
\begin{itemize*}
\item[]{\small{\textit{Wageningen University, Department of Animal Sciences, The Netherlands}}}
\end{itemize*}
\index[author]{Matema, Steven}
\begin{center}
\vspace{1.1cm}
\textbf{Abstract}
\begin{abstract}
\normalsize{
Traditional and administrative boundaries are congruent with natural resource related conflicts in semi"=arid regions, and studying these boundaries is important for improving local situations. The objective of this paper was to identify traditional and administrative boundaries in Mbire district of Zimbabwe, with the hypothesis that traditional and administrative boundaries are different, thus causing conflict. A sub"=hypothesis was that boundary mismatches are deliberate, and are exploited by farmers, traditional leaders and the state for different agendas. Two case studies, one on resettlement and another on community based wildlife conservation, were used to explore boundary mismatch related conflicts. Study sites were representative of a tsetse fly gradient, a demographic gradient, and contiguity with wildlife areas. Basic assumptions were that tsetse fly infestation and wildlife determined where people settled and demographic pressure would result in competition on natural resources; altogether influencing  what traditional and administrative boundaries emerge.  Data were gathered through key informant interviews with state department representatives and traditional leaders, secondary sources and focus group discussions with farmers. Qualitative data analysis was based on three dimensions of boundary creation and formalisation; process, level of decision making and sources of legitimacy. Findings reveal that ethnicity, tradition and state hegemony are the main axes of boundary differences in Mbire district. For the state, process and decision making are pre"=emptive strategies to weaken local resistance to top"=down planning. For the local people and their traditional leaders culture and tradition are idioms for expressing social grievances, and strategies to counter state hegemony. We conclude that on a spatial"=temporal scale, administrative and traditional boundaries are different, but not all boundary mismatches result in conflict. Depending on the socio"=ecological situation, boundaries can be obstacles or opportunities. Boundary mismatch related conflicts in coupled human and nature systems are thus idiosyncratic, because it is people with jurisdiction over territories who are more important, than unclear boundaries. We recommend that in order to gain an improved understanding of boundary mismatch related conflicts and improve local situations, history, the present state of coupled human and nature systems and future scenarios as envisioned by stakeholders should be key considerations.   }

\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{abstract}
\end{center}
\noindent \textbf{Keywords:} Boundary mismatch, livestock , resettlement, wildlife conservation
\index[key]{Boundary mismatch}
\index[key]{Livestock!}
\index[key]{Resettlement}
\index[key]{Wildlife conservation}
\end{document}