Content uploaded by G. C. Kajembe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by G. C. Kajembe on May 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tftl20
Download by: [64.20.48.83] Date: 28 January 2016, At: 12:19
Forests, Trees and Livelihoods
ISSN: 1472-8028 (Print) 2164-3075 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tftl20
Are miombo woodlands vital to livelihoods of
rural households? Evidence from Urumwa and
surrounding communities, Tabora, Tanzania
Marco Andrew Njana , George Chamungwana Kajembe & Rogers Ernest
Malimbwi
To cite this article: Marco Andrew Njana , George Chamungwana Kajembe & Rogers Ernest
Malimbwi (2013) Are miombo woodlands vital to livelihoods of rural households? Evidence
from Urumwa and surrounding communities, Tabora, Tanzania, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods,
22:2, 124-140, DOI: 10.1080/14728028.2013.803774
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2013.803774
© 2013 The Author(s). Published by Taylor &
Francis
Published online: 14 Jun 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 526
View related articles
Are miombo woodlands vital to livelihoods of rural households?
Evidence from Urumwa and surrounding communities,
Tabora, Tanzania
Marco Andrew Njana*, George Chamungwana Kajembe and Rogers Ernest Malimbwi
Department of Forest Management and Mensuration, Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation,
Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3013, Morogoro, Tanzania
This study investigated contribution of miombo woodland resources accrued from
Urumwa Forest Reserve (UFR) to income of rural households. Data and conclusions
are based on 84 randomly surveyed households in four villages adjacent to UFR. Using
descriptive statistics, the analysis was guided by the sustainable livelihood framework
conceptual model. Results show that the miombo woodlands of the UFR account for
42% of total household income. Further analysis reveals that woodlands contribute
28% and 59% of non-monetary and monetary income, respectively. This demonstrates
a significant role played by miombo woodlands. Woodland resources contribute to
household income through various livelihood activities. Accordingly the woodland
resources accrued from the UFR cover human basic needs. Results from this study
empirically demonstrate the vital role played by miombo woodlands in either
supporting current consumption or serving as safety net. It is, therefore, recommended
that current and future management strategies in the forest sector emphasize forest and
livelihood dimensions for sustainability of both livelihood and forest and woodland
resources.
Keywords: miombo woodlands; products and services; livelihood; household income
Introduction
Miombo woodlands constitute a large part of the African continent covering
2.4 million km
2
of southern, central and eastern Africa (Frost et al. 2003; Chidumayo &
Gumbo 2010; Dewees et al. 2011). This forest formation is dominated by legume trees of
the family Fabaceae (sub-family Caesalpinaceae), belonging to the genera Brachystegia,
Julbernardia and/or Isoberlinia, with an understory dominated by C
4
grasses (White
1983). Miombo woodlands have been reported as central to the livelihoods of millions of
rural and urban dwellers for providing fuel wood, building materials, medicines, food and
ecosystem services (Campbell et al. 2007; Chidumayo & Gumbo 2010; Dewees et al.
2011). A comparative study of rural livelihoods in Kenya, Uganda, Malawi and Tanzania
(Ellis & Freeman 2004) found that household total income was distributed almost equally
between farm (crop and livestock production) and non-farm activities (wages, self-
employment and remittances). However, the study did not mention the role of forests in
livelihoods. Elsewhere in the region, studies have documented the role of forest-based
income in total household income. Cavendish (1999) estimated that 35% of the total
income of rural households in communal area originated from environmental products;
Fisher (2004) reported that 30% of household income in rural Malawi was forest income;
Arnold (2008) reported that forest income represented 22% of the average total household
q2013 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis
This is an Open Access article. Non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work
is properly attributed, cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way, is permitted. The moral rights of the named
author(s) have been asserted.
*Corresponding author. Email: marconjana2002@yahoo.com
Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 2013
Vol. 22, No. 2, 124–140, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2013.803774
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
income (whereas the share of agriculture and livestock was 37% and that of off-farm
activities was 38%); Mutamba (2007) and Mulenga et al. (2012) in Zambia reported that
forest products contributed 54% and 34% to total gross income, respectively. Similar
findings have been reported by Babulo et al. (2009) and Tesfaye et al. (2011) in Ethiopia.
In Tanzania, miombo woodlands are largely distributed in the southern and western
part of the country. According to the national land cover and land use reconnaissance
carried out in 1996, miombo woodlands covered 374,356 km
2
or about 93% of the total
forest area of Tanzania (Mnangwone 1999), this represents a significant vegetation cover
at country scale. Majority (80%) of Tanzanians live in rural areas (NBS 2009) and highly
depend on natural resources. Moreover, the remaining population which is clustered in
cities and towns highly depends on natural resources, especially for source of energy.
Accordingly, nearly all miombo woodlands in Tanzania are under significant human
pressure (Luoga 2000; Abdallah & Sauer 2007; Yanda 2010; Giliba et al. 2011; Mangora
2012). However, a few studies have reported the role of miombo woodlands to livelihoods
in Tanzania (Lund & Treue 2008). This paper investigated the contribution of miombo
woodland resources accrued from the Urumwa Forest Reserve (UFR) (Tabora Region,
western Tanzania) to the livelihoods of rural households. Specifically, the study attempted
to answer the following research question: Does miombo woodlands contribute
significantly to household income (monetary and non-monetary)? Such information is
useful in understanding fully the vital role of this ecosystem in livelihood systems as a
basis for proper and effective management planning in the forestry, agriculture and
development sectors in Tanzania and in the region at large.
Study area and methods
Study area
The Tabora region is located in mid-western Tanzania on the central plateau between
latitude 40– 708South and longitude 31 –348East. The maximum monthly temperature
varies between 27 and 308C, while the minimum monthly temperature varies from 15 to
188C. Rainfall is markedly seasonal and ranges between 700 mm in the north-east and
1000 mm in the western part. The rainfall pattern is characteristically variable and
unpredictable both spatially and temporarily, with a risk of long dry spells at any time
during the rainy season, and incidences of long droughts are a common phenomenon
(Simon 1998). The region is endowed with substantial woodland estate of nearly three and
a half million hectares which are within 33 forest reserves, which altogether embrace two-
thirds of the regional total area and represents more than one-quarter of the national forest
resources (Wily & Monela 1999). The main socio-economic activities of people in the
Tabora region include agricultural production and livestock keeping.
More specifically, the study was conducted in four (Isukamahela, Kipalapala,
Masimba and Mtakuja) out of the eight villages that surround the UFR, Uyui district. The
UFR is located about 15 km south of Tabora town. The miombo woodland of the UFR
covers 12,800 ha, and the communities adjacent to the UFR are mostly farmers,
pastoralists or agro-pastoralists. Crops being farmed include cash (tobacco, groundnut and
sunflower) and subsistence (maize, paddy, millet, cassava and beans) crops. Inhabitants in
the study area either belong to Nyamwezi or to Sukuma ethnic groups. Villagers in
Isukamahela are mainly farmers or agro-pastoralists, whereas in Kipalapala villagers are
predominantly farmers. Furthermore, Masimba and Mtakuja villages are mainly inhabited
by agro-pastoralists and farmers, respectively.
Miombo woodlands and livelihoods 125
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
The UFR is among the ‘Pilot Joint Forest Management (JFM)’ initiated since 1996.
The Uyui district office in Tabora represents the Forest and Beekeeping Division in the
management of the UFR. JFM in the UFR was adopted in response to villagers’ request to
be granted access to the woodland resources. Accordingly, villages surrounding the UFR
were granted user rights and co-management responsibilities.
Methods
Conceptual framework of the study and model for analyses
We used a conceptual framework based on the sustainable livelihood framework model to
present the relationships between various factors (capitals, shocks, trends and seasonality,
structure and processes, household livelihood strategies and livelihood outcomes) and
how these factors interact to bring about livelihood outcomes. We adopted the definition of
livelihood given by Ellis (2000): ‘livelihood comprises the assets (natural, physical,
human, financial and social capitals), the activities and the access to these (mediated by
institutions and social relations) that together determine the living gained by the individual
or household’. Figure 1 depicts the conceptual livelihood framework model. The model
is adapted from Carney (1998) and Scoones (1998), with inputs to the model based on
this study.
The main focus of this study was to show how miombo woodland resources contribute to
livelihood outcomes through activities facilitated by institutions and policies. The livelihood
outcomes considered in this study are income and vulnerability, other outcomes being
beyond the scope of this study. We stratified income sources into four categories: woodland,
farm, livestock and business. By income we mean both monetary and non-monetary.
Natural capital
(miombo woodlands) Physical
capital Human
capital Financial
capital Social
capital
Structures and processes
(Institutions, policies, laws etc.)
Household livelihood strategies/Activities choices
Farming Livestock Burnt brick Charcoal Lumbering Petty business
keeping making making
Livelihood outcomes
(more income, reduced vulnerability, sustainable NRM, food security etc.)
Shocks, trends, seasonality
(Natural shocks, resource trends
Figure 1. Sustainable livelihood conceptual framework model. Source: DFID’s sustainable
livelihoods framework (Carney 1998) and IDS’s sustainable rural livelihoods framework (Scoones
1998).
126 M.A. Njana et al.
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
Our unit of analysis was the household which was defined here as the basic residential
unit in which economic production, consumption, inheritance, child rearing and shelter are
organized and carried out; it may or may not be synonymous with family. On analysing
household vulnerability, we focused on the contribution of forest income to total income and
on the role of the said income as either safety net, support of current consumption, a pathway
out of poverty, or a combined role. The livelihood functions may be defined as follows:
Safety net: forest income is used to cover unexpected income shortfall of cash needs
(Angelsen & Wunder 2003; Cavendish 2003; Arnold 2008).
Support of current consumption: forest products are important to maintain the current level of
consumption and prevent the household from falling into deep poverty (Angelsen & Wunder
2003; Cavendish 2003).
Pathway out of poverty: forest products provide a way to increase household income
sustainably through either a ‘stepping out’ strategy (accumulation of capital to move into
other activities) or a ‘stepping up’ strategy (intensification and specialization in existing
activities (Dorward et al. 2001; Arnold 2008).
Data collection
Data collection was carried out between August and December 2007. Four villages,
located at various distances from the forest and composed mainly of either farmers or
pastoralists, were purposively selected so as to capture variation across the study sites
(Jagger 2012) on the role of woodland resources to rural households. Primary data
collection entailed Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), household survey and interview
with key informants.
PRA aimed to acquire general knowledge about the study area on the set-up of
livelihood systems, particularly in relation to miombo woodland resources, opportunities
and constraints. PRA discussion meetings were held in Isukamahela and Mtakuja: 15 – 20
individuals participated in PRA meetings. PRA participants included village government
members, key informants and lay people, both men and women. PRA techniques used
include resource mapping, matrix scoring, local histories and time lines. During the entire
process, the researchers served as facilitators while insiders fully participated in the
dialogue. Local language, Kiswahili, served as a means of communication. Information
generated during PRA exercises was used to consolidate and triangulate the data obtained
through household survey.
A total of 84 households (10% of total households in each village) were sampled for
the household survey, consisting of 12 households in Isukamahela, 49 households in
Kipalapala, 9 households in Masimba and 14 households in Mtakuja. Households were
selected based on a random sampling procedure, with village registers used as sampling
frames. The survey was carried out using a structured questionnaire aimed to capture both
qualitative and quantitative information. The questionnaire was carefully designed to
include all information as outlined in the study conceptual framework. The questionnaire
included key issues such as livelihood activities, what do households accrue from the
miombo woodland, uses/purpose, species and price/income derived from sale of woodland
resources. Species identification was restricted to trees and shrubs; respondents identified
species used for different purposes in their mother tongue, which in this case is Sukuma or
Nyamwezi. Further translation of tree and shrub species to botanical names was done by
using a master checklist of tree and shrub species for the UFR. The checklist was prepared
by a renowned botanist in the country, C.K. Ruffo. Prior to full-scale data collection,
questionnaires were pretested in order to check applicability, reliability and validity of
Miombo woodlands and livelihoods 127
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
information collected. Secondary information which served as supplementary data was
collected from relevant administrative institutions, library and publications.
Key informant interviews were administered to individuals with specialized or
in-depth knowledge about a subject under investigation. The interviews were conducted at
Isukamahela village office with 10 herbalists; 5 from Masimba and 5 from Isukamahela.
Data analyses
Data analyses were guided by the conceptual framework model (Figure 1). The study used
descriptive statistical data analysis techniques. Tobacco farming is among the prominent
farming activities in the study area. Once tobacco has been harvested, it needs to be cured
before it can be marketed. This process heavily depends on firewood as a source of energy.
Thus, if income from tobacco was entirely treated as farm income, the role of firewood
would be largely underestimated because a share of firewood used in tobacco curing would
not be accounted. Conversely, if income from tobacco was treated as woodland-based
income, it would also be misleading. Accordingly, this necessitated partitioning income
from tobacco into farming and woodland income. However, during data collection, we did
not capture information (such as the monetary value of firewood used in curing tobacco)
that would have helped us to disaggregate the total income from tobacco as a basis for
accounting firewood used in tobacco curing into woodland-based income. Thus, on the
basis of practical experience, we assumed that the wood resource used as firewood in
tobacco curing represented 50% of the total income from tobacco per household.
Therefore, 50% of total income from tobacco was attributed to farm income and the
remaining 50% to woodland income. We report currencies in US$; the local currency is
Tanzanian Shillings (TZS). The exchange rate at the time of data collection was US$
1¼TZS 1260. All income values were further standardized to adult equivalent as
described by Cavendish (2002), in order to account for differences in household
composition and size. Woodland income which is referred to as environmental income by
Vedeld et al. (2004) and Jagger (2012) among others was obtained by multiplying the
quantity of woodland resources by the price or value of the respective woodland resources.
It is argued by Jagger (2012) that the data collected on environmental income are a
challenging task because environmental resources are obtained freely from the wild and
that there are less or missing market prices. Accordingly, in this study, we used average
prices based on reported prices of woodland resources to compute both non-monetary and
monetary incomes. A similar approach was used for farm incomes, whereas livestock and
business incomes are based on reported gross incomes.
Results
Contribution of miombo woodland resources to household income
This study sought to discover the role of miombo woodland resources in households’
livelihood. Descriptive statistics show that households earn a mean annual income of
US$ 154 per Adult Equivalent Unit (AEU) (Table 1). The household income accounts
for both monetary and non-monetary values. In a descending order, farming (45.8%),
miombo woodland resources (42.8%), business (9.2%) and livestock (2.2%) contribute to
household income (Table 1). Based on these results, farm and woodland resources are the
prominent sources of income. However, when income per AEU is disaggregated into non-
monetary and monetary values, the relative importance of each income source changes.
Results summarized in Table 1 show that the average non-monetary annual income per
128 M.A. Njana et al.
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
AEU is US$ 82, whereby farming and woodland resources, respectively, contribute 72%
and 28% of this non-monetary income. Accordingly, woodland resources and farming
contribute 59% and 16% of the monetary income, respectively (Table 1).
Maize, tobacco, sweet potatoes, groundnut and cassava are among the major crops
grown in the study area. Accordingly, tobacco, which heavily depends on wood resources
from miombo woodlands for curing, contributes 19% to the average household monetary
income per AEU (Table 2). Miombo woodlands are important source of both monetary
(65%) and non-monetary income (35%). Firewood which is used as a source of energy and
poles used for construction purposes contribute to a large share of the non-monetary
annual income, whereas the sale of charcoal and honey from miombo woodlands
contributes 29% and 25%, respectively (Table 2).
Livelihood activities
Like many places in rural settings, farming received 100% response among livelihood
activities practiced in the study area. As mentioned in the methodology, in this study
farming excluded an account of tobacco so as to capture dependency of tobacco farming
on miombo woodlands. Other livelihood activities observed in the study area include
beekeeping (32%), livestock keeping (31%), business (23%), charcoal making (21%),
collection of medicinal plants (15%), brick making (12%) and lumbering (10%).
Accordingly, 56% of the surveyed households claimed that their livelihood strategies
have been shaped by food insecurity and hunger periods. When households were asked
about livelihood strategies undertaken to cope with such challenges, 23% of the
respondents claimed that they resorted to woodland resources as source of income,
whereas 15% and 12%, respectively, mentioned wage labour and reducing number
of meals. Other livelihood strategies mentioned include selling of livestock (8%),
remittances (8%) and purchase food from others within the village or beyond (1%). During
PRA exercises, it was revealed that livelihood strategies (e.g. lumbering and charcoal
making) undertaken to cope with shocks are not permanent, rather households engage in
such activities during periods of shocks or stress associated with food insecurity.
Table 1. Distribution of households’ total income per AEU.
NMinimum Maximum Mean SE % Share of income
Non-monetary income (US$)
Farm income 84 10 157 59 3.2 72.0
Woodland income 84 0 107 23 2.0 28.0
Non-monetary total income 84 16 185 82 4.3 100.0
Monetary income (US$)
Woodland income 84 0 331 43 5.6 59.0
Business income 84 0 373 14 5.5 20.0
Farm income 84 0 101 11 1.6 16.0
Livestock income 84 0 105 3 1.4 5.0
Monetary total income 84 0 404 72 7.8 100.0
Overall income (US$)
Farm income 84 20 185 71 3.6 45.8
Woodland income 84 0 406 66 6.5 42.8
Business income 84 0 373 14 5.5 9.2
Livestock income 84 0 105 3 1.4 2.2
Overall household income 84 31 491 154 9.7 100.0
Miombo woodlands and livelihoods 129
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
Products and services derived from miombo woodland of UFR
Table 3 summarizes characteristics of the 16 reported woodland products and services
derived by households from the miombo woodland of the UFR. The reported woodland
products and services cover basic household needs including firewood, charcoal,
construction materials, food and medicines. Accordingly, households reported tree and
shrub species used for various purposes which are categorized into 14 products
(Appendix 1). Based on data in Appendix 1, 75 species are used for firewood, 72 species
support beekeeping through provision of bee forage and material for beehive, 67 species
are used for charcoal making and 60 species are used as medicinal plants. Accordingly,
57 species are used for making various household items such as wooden spoon, pestle
and tool handle, 42 species are used for pole, 30 species are edible, 20 species offer
fodder and 18 species are used for timber. Other categories used include carving (17
species), fibre (8), hedge (8), rope (4) and birdlime (2). It is observed that tree and shrub
species supporting a given category ranging from 2 to 75 (mean ¼34), e.g. over 70
species, are used for firewood; more than 40 species are used for pole. Similarly, each
tree and shrub species supports at least two categories (range ¼2 – 10; mean ¼6). For
example, Brachystegia boehmii supports five categories such as firewood, charcoal,
beekeeping (bee forage and beehive), household items (pestle and tool handle), fibre and
rope (Appendix 1).
Firewood and charcoal
In the study area, 95% of the surveyed households use firewood as the main source of
energy (Table 3). Data from PRA indicated that firewood is used for cooking, brick
making, local brew making, tobacco curing, warming and lighting.
Table 2. Distribution of households’ woodland income per AEU.
NMinimum Maximum Mean SE % Share of income
Non-monetary income (US$)
Firewood 84 0 61 16 1.1 69.0
Pole 84 0 37 5 0.7 20.0
Woodland vegetable 84 0 9 1 0.2 3.0
Woodland fruits 84 0 8 1 0.2 3.0
Thatch grass 84 0 4 1 0.1 2.0
Rope 84 0 6 0 0.1 1.7
Mushroom 84 0 3 0 0.0 1.0
Edible insects 84 0 1 0 0.0 0.3
Non-monetary total income 84 0 107 23 2.0 100.0
Monetary income (US$)
Firewood for tobacco curing 84 0 66 2 0.9 5.0
Charcoal 84 0 114 12 2.2 29.0
Timber 84 0 127 8 2.4 19.0
Honey 84 0 82 11 2.3 25.0
Brick making 84 0 73 7 1.7 17.0
Woodland medicine 84 0 26 2 0.5 5.0
Monetary total income 84 0 331 43 5.6 100.0
Overall income (US$)
Monetary total income 84 0 331 43 5.6 64.7
Non-monetary total income 84 0 107 23 2.0 35.2
Overall woodland income 84 0 406 66 6.5 100.0
130 M.A. Njana et al.
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
Most households collect firewood on a weekly basis. Based on data from household
survey, the mean gross monetary value of firewood collected annually from the woodland
is US$ 66 ^4 (SE) per AEU. Firewood is sold at US$ 0.8 ^0.1 (SE) per head load in the
study area. A head load means a pile of firewood carried on the head of men or women
with an average weight of 25 kg. Species used for firewood reported by household are
enumerated in Appendix 1. Data from household interviews revealed that attributes of a
species preferred for firewood include medium-to high-wood density, low-moisture
content, long-lasting coals, low-smoke yield, absence of thorns and absence of unusual
fumes or smells.
A few (21%) households in the study area claimed to be engaged in charcoal making in
the UFR (Table 3). However, this is contrary to researchers’ observations, as charcoal
making was observed to be a prominent livelihood activity in the UFR. Failure to admit
involvement in charcoal making may be related to the illegality of such undertaking. It is,
therefore, worth noting that income from charcoal has been significantly underestimated.
Households in the study area hardly use charcoal, instead charcoal is sold to generate
income, which supplements households’ total income. Species used for charcoal making
are listed in Appendix 1. Based on data from household interviews, households collect an
average of 32 ^5 (SE) bags/year annually from the UFR, which represents about US$
50 ^8 (SE) per annum on the AEU scale.
Construction materials
Construction materials reported by households include thatching grass (57%), pole (54%),
rope (48%) and timber (8%) (Table 3). On average, households collect 3 ^1 (SE) head
loads of thatching grass, 22 ^3 (SE) of poles, 2 ^0.3 (SE) kg of rope and 9 ^2 (SE)
planks of timber annually. Reported price of construction materials in local markets is as
follows: thatching grass US$ 0.6 ^0.04 (SE) per head load; pole, US$ 0.8 ^0.1 (SE) per
pole; rope, US$ 0.8 ^0.2 (SE) per kg and timber US$ 3 ^0.3 (SE) per plank. Species
used for various construction materials are annexed in Appendix 1.
Table 3. Woodland products derived from the UFR.
Products/service
Number of
species used
Mtakuja
(N¼14)
Isukamahela
(N¼12)
Masimba
(N¼9)
Kipalapala
(N¼49)
Overall use
(N¼84)
Firewood 76 14 (100) 12 (100) 9 (100) 45 (92) 80 (95)
Charcoal 68 1 (7) 2 (17) 1 (11) 6 (12) 10 (12)
Thatching grass NA 10 (71) 10 (83) 9 (100) 19 (39) 48 (57)
Pole 43 9 (64) 11 (92) 9 (100) 16 (33) 45 (54)
Rope 5 8 (57) 9 (75) 8 (189) 15 (31) 40 (48)
Timber 19 2 (14) 4 (33) 0 (0) 1 (2) 7 (8)
Edible wild fruit 31 6 (43) 4 (33) 8 (89) 2 (4) 20 (24)
Edible wild vegetable NA 6 (4) 2 (17) 7 (78) 0 (0) 15 (18)
Edible mushroom NA 3 (21) 3 (25) 9 (100) 0 (0) 15 (18)
Honey (bee forage) 73 5 (36) 8 (67) 0 (0) 2 (4) 15 (18)
Edible insect NA 2 (14) 3 (25) 9 (100) 0 (0) 14 (17)
Wild meat NA 0 (0) 1 (8) 2 (22) 0 (0) 3 (4)
Medicinal plant 61 6 (43) 7 (58) 9 (100) 2 (4) 24 (29)
Grazing NA 6 (43) 7 (58) 7 (78) 0 (0) 20 (24)
Beehive (bee forage) 73 5 (36) 8 (67) 2 (22) 0 (0) 15 (18)
Beeswax (bee forage) 73 4 (29) 6 (50) 5 (56) 0 (0) 15 (18)
Note: NA denotes not applicable. Percentages in parentheses.
Miombo woodlands and livelihoods 131
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
Wild food
Six types of wild food from the miombo woodland were reported in this study (Table 3).
They include edible wild fruit (24%), edible wild vegetable (18%), edible mushroom
(18%), honey (18%) edible insect (17%) and wild meat (4%). However, wild meat was
underestimated by surveyed households because it is unlawful.
Based on data from household survey, households collect an average of 6.7 ^1.5 (SE)
kg of edible wild fruits annually. Quantities of wild fruits reported account for domestic
consumption only because fruits are normally not commercialized in the study area.
Children who look after herds of cattle are those most engaged in wild fruit
collection/consumption. This leads to underestimation of the role of fruits at household
level because it is hard to precisely quantify. Furthermore, the seemingly low quantity of
collected wild fruits may be attributed to the limited sample size of surveyed households.
Over 30 woodland species consumed as fruits have been identified in this study
(Appendix 1). Fruits found to be common across households include Adansonia digitata,
Tamarindus indica,Parinari curatellifolia,Vitex doniana and Vitex mombassae. Price of
wild fruits could not be established because commercialization of fruits is not a common
practice in the study area; however, on visit to a neighbouring urban market in Tabora
town, a tin of V. mombassae and V. doniana fruits were sold at US$ 0.2, respectively,
whereas a tin of fruits of P. curatellifolia was sold at US$ 0.4. On average a tin is about 1 l.
Households collect about 10.7 ^(SE) kg of wild vegetable annually, this entails both
domestic and commercialized vegetable. Price of wild vegetable in local market in Tabora
varies depending on the species; however, the mean price is US$ 0.2 ^0.0 (SE).
In the study area, households use honey as sweetener, medicine and in brewing
alcohol. As food, honey is mainly taken with sweet potatoes, cassava or used instead of
sugar for porridge or tea. In the study area, honey is widely used as an ingredient in local
brew making. Household survey data showed that about 17 l of honey is accrued by
households from UFR annually. Honey is sold at US$ 2.2 ^0.2 (SE) per litre in the local
market. The reported quantities, however, do not include honey consumed domestically
because households could not quantify domestic consumption.
Medicinal plants
Over 60 species of medicinal plants have been reported in the study area (Table 3). Data
from key informant interviews revealed that medicinal plants are used by households as a
livelihood strategy to substitute the otherwise expensive and unreliable health services.
Diseases treated by enumerated species include coughs, headache, sores, diarrhoea,
hernia, asthma, snake-bite, fever, malaria, constipation and typhoid to name just a few.
For example, Combretum zeyheri is used to treat typhoid, Cassia abbreviata is used for
stomachache, headache, malaria and fever. According to interviewed herbalists, parts of
plants utilized as medicine include roots, leaves, barks or wood stem. It was further noted
that herbalists have acquired such knowledge from their ancestors.
Other products and services
Other woodland products enumerated in the study area include grazing, beehive and
beeswax (Table 3). Over 20% of all respondents depend on the UFR as a grazing area for
their livestock. Livestock includes cattle, goat and sheep. Results indicated that, among the
study sites, Masimba village appeared to be more involved in livestock keeping than other
villages because it is largely inhabited by people from the Sukuma ethnic group.
132 M.A. Njana et al.
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
Discussion
Contribution of miombo woodland resources to household income
Results revealed that woodland income is an important part of the household income
portfolio after farm income and that the difference between the two is not significant. We,
therefore, argue that, because in Tanzania agriculture is among the national priority,
management of forests and woodlands should be given an equal importance in
development planning.
The 43% contribution of woodland to households’ total income is less than the 54%
contribution of forest income reported by Mutamba (2007) in Zambia, whereas
significantly more than the 15% contribution of woodland products to total household
income is reported in Zimbabwe by Campbell et al. (2002). Similarly Dewees et al. (2011)
reported 43– 49% contribution of forest products in four villages in Zambia. Results
from the two studies are comparable because the scope of woodland/forest income entails
both monetary/cash and non-monetary/subsistent income. Despite variation in spatial
locations, differences in sampling intensity and slight differences in methods, woodland
and forest incomes remain an important part of household income portfolio, contributing
reasonably to both monetary and non-monetary income. Conversely, the variation in
income estimates may be attributed to differences in methods (Jagger et al. 2012) as well
as sample size.
When income per AEU is disaggregated into non-monetary and monetary values, the
relative importance of the various income sources changes dramatically, with woodland
income becoming the leading monetary income source (Table 1). The plausible reason
why woodland resources contribute less than farm income may be attributed to price of
key woodlands product, which in this regard is firewood. Although firewood is used in
large quantity domestically, it fetches low value in local markets (and is not in high
demand in neighbouring town of Tabora) than crops such as maize, particularly when sold
strategically (e.g. seasons of low supply).
Among other woodland products, charcoal contributes a large share in monetary
income. Plausibly this is due to high value fetched in neighbouring markets of Tabora
town. Conversely, tobacco as a cash crop contributes reasonably to farm monetary income,
but depends on wood resources from woodlands. Yanda (2010) and Mangora (2012) have
attributed deforestation of miombo woodlands to tobacco farming. This, therefore, calls
for intervention to sustainably manage miombo woodlands in order to sustain woodland-
based livelihoods, which are essential in generating both monetary and non-monetary
income to households.
Household income facilitated by livelihood activities may be regarded as a livelihood
outcome. In the study area with the exclusion of farming and business, the rest of
livelihood activities depend on miombo woodlands in one way or the other. Furthermore,
it is reported that households resort to exploit miombo woodland resources in various ways
in order to generate income, particularly cash income, e.g. households engaged in
lumbering and charcoal making which are said to be activities undertaken when
households suffer from food insecurity and prolonged hunger periods. In other words,
miombo woodland resources play two important roles on households; as safety net that
cushions households during hardship and as a support to current consumption/regular
subsistence. Woodland resources as safety net have also been reported by Lund and Treue
(2008) while studying the miombo woodland of southern Tanzania. They argued that the
need to buy food and other basic requirements is the main reason for pursuing cash
earnings from forest products.
Miombo woodlands and livelihoods 133
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
Woodland products and services
In the context of the sustainable livelihood conceptual framework, woodland products and
services form the backbone of natural capital. Results based on this study presents a range
of products and services which cover basic household needs. They include wood fuel
(firewood and charcoal), construction materials, food, medicine and other necessities.
Data on species used for various categories confirm the potential role played by miombo
woodlands in livelihoods, particularly through enhancing households’ resilience by
offering a range of options in terms of species per category. Furthermore, the multi-utility
nature of miombo woodland species explains their importance, and this calls for proper
management of miombo woodlands.
Households reporting in the study area narrated qualities of firewood as a sourceof energy.
Such qualities can be met by various species available in the UFR. Therefore, it is of
paramount importancethat tree and shrub speciesdiversity in miombo woodlands is sustained.
This in addition will ensure the well-being of households in rural areas through provision of
diverse species for construction purposes, wild food, medicines and other necessities.
Conclusions and policy recommendation
This study assessed the relative contribution of woodland income to total household
income. Similarly the study documented a number of products and services accrued from
miombo woodland of the UFR which through various livelihood activities contributed to
household well-being. On the basis of descriptive statistics, we conclude that miombo
woodlands of the UFR play a vital role in the livelihoods of rural communities, accounting
for 42% of the total household income. Further analysis revealed that woodlands
contribute 28% and 59% of non-monetary and monetary income, respectively. This
demonstrates a significant role played by miombo woodlands in supporting current
consumption as well as serving as safety net. Data from PRA showed that livelihood
strategies such as lumbering and charcoal making are not permanent, rather households
engage in such activities during periods of shocks or stress associated with food insecurity.
This finding suggests that monetary income derived from miombo woodlands is used to
cover unexpected income shortfall of cash needs. The woodland resources accrued from
the UFR provide wood fuel, construction material, wild food, medicine and other
necessities which altogether are central to the livelihood system of rural households.
However, it remains unknown whether extraction of woodland resources is sustainable.
There is a growing concern in supporting and understanding the link between forest and
livelihoods. This has led to policy change in Tanzania and many parts of the world in the
forest sector. In Tanzania, agriculture has consistently remained a national priority due to its
vital role in livelihoods. Accordingly, findings from this study demonstrate that farming is
important for non-monetary income whereas woodland resources are important for both
monetary and non-monetary income. On the basis of this study, we reiterate that the
interface between woodlands and forests and livelihoods is strong, thus current and future
management strategies in the forest sector should not underscore the said strong interface.
This will not only promote livelihoods but rather ensure sustainability of natural resources,
hence protecting forest and woodland dependents from falling into deeper poverty.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by International Foundation for Science (IFS) and the Council
for Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA) as part of M.Sc. work.
134 M.A. Njana et al.
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
The Authors are deeply indebted for their financial support. Besides, this research work would
not have been complete without the technical inputs of Christopher K. Ruffo in botanical
identification.
References
Abdallah JM, Sauer J. 2007. Forest diversity, tobacco production and resource management in
Tanzania. Forest Policy Econ. 9(5):421–439.
Angelsen A, Wunder S. 2003. Exploring the forest-poverty link. Key concepts, issues, and research
implications. Occasional Paper No. 40 Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Arnold JM. 2008. Managing ecosystems to enhance the food security of the rural poor. Gland: IUCN.
Babulo B, Muys B, Nega F, Tollens E, Nyssen J, Deckers J, Mathijs E. 2009. The economic
contribution of forest resource use to rural livelihoods in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Forest
Policy Econ. 11:109–117.
Campbell B, Angelsen A, Cunningham A, Katerere Y, Sitoe A, Wunder S. 2007. Miombo
woodlands – opportunities and barriers to sustainable forest management. Bogor, Indonesia:
CIFOR.
Campbell BM, Jeffrey S, Kozanayi W, Luckert M, Mutamba M, Zindi C. 2002. Household
livelihoods in semi-arid regions: options and constraints. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Carney D, ed. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods. What contribution can we make? London:
Department of International Development (DFID).
Cavendish W. 1999. Poverty, inequality and environmental resources: quantitative analysis of rural
households. UK: Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE) paper.
Cavendish W. 2002. Quantitative methods for estimating the economic value of resource use to rural
households. In: Campbell B, Luckert M, editors. Uncovering the hidden harvest. Valuation
methods for woodland and forest resources. People and Plants Conservation Series. London:
Earthscan; p. 17– 65.
Cavendish W. 2003. How do forests support, insure and improve the livelihoods of the rural poor?
A research note. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Chidumayo EN, Gumbo DJ. 2010. The dry forests and woodlands of Africa. Managing for products
and services. London: Earthscan.
Dewees P, Campbell B, Katerere Y, Sitoe A, Cunningham AB, Angelsen A, Wunder S. 2011.
Managing the miombo woodlands of southern Africa: policies, incentives, and options for the
rural poor. Washington, DC: (plus annexes: see http://www.profor.info/profor/sites/profor.info/
files/MiomboAnnexes_Nov11.pdf) World Bank Program on forests (PROFOR).
Dorward AR, Anderson S, Clark Keane B, Moguel J. 2001. Asset functions and livelihood strategies:
a framework for pro-poor analysis, policy and practice. EAAE Seminar on livelihoods and rural
poverty Wye, Kent: Imperial College London.
Ellis F. 2000. Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. UK: Oxford University Press,
273 pp.
Ellis F, Freeman HA. 2004. Rural livelihoods and poverty reduction strategies in four African
countries. J Dev Stud. 40(4):1– 30.
Fisher M. 2004. Household welfare and forest dependence in southern Malawi. Environ Dev Econ.
9(2):135–154.
Frost PGH, Timberlake J, Chidumayo E. 2003. Miombo–mopane woodlands and grasslands. In:
Mittermeier R, Goettsch Mittermeier C, Robles Gil P, Fonseca G, Brooks T, Pilgrim J, Konstant
W, editors. Wilderness: earth’s last wild places. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
p. 183–204.
Giliba RA, Boon EK, Kayombo CJ, Chirenje LI, Musamba EB. 2011. The influence of socio-
economic factors on deforestation: a case study of the Bereku forest reserve in Tanzania. J
Biodivers. 2(1):31–39.
Jagger P. 2012. Environmental income, rural livelihoods and income inequality in Western Uganda.
Forests Trees Livelihoods. 21(2):70– 84.
Jagger P, Luckert MK, Banana A, Bahati J. 2012. Asking questions to understand rural livelihoods:
comparing disaggregated vs aggregated approaches to household livelihood questionnaires.
World Dev. 40(9):1810– 1823.
Lund JF, Treue T. 2008. Are we getting there? Evidence of decentralised Forest Management from
the Tanzanian miombo woodlands. World Dev. 36(12):2780 – 2800.
Miombo woodlands and livelihoods 135
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
Luoga EJ. 2000. The effect of human disturbances on diversity and dynamics of eastern Tanzania
miombo arborescent species. A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Science, University of the
Witwaterrand, Johannesburg in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
Mangora MM. 2012. Shifting cultivation, wood use and deforestation attributes of tobacco farming
in Urambo district, Tanzania. Curr Res J Soc Sci. 4(2):135 – 140.
Mnangwone IY. 1999. Forest management in Tanzania: Constraints and opportunities. Paper
presented at Workshop: May 24– 28, 1999, Olmotonyi-Arusha, Tanzania. Proceedings of
Workshop on Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management in Tanzania; Arusha,
Tanzania.
Mulenga BP, Richardson RB, Mapemba L, Tembo G. 2012. The contribution of non-timber forest
products to rural household income in Zambia. Food Security Research Project, Working Paper
No. 54. Lusaka: FSRP.
Mutamba M. 2007. Farming or foraging? Aspects of rural livelihoods in Mufulira and Kabompo
districts of Zambia. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
National Bureau of Statistics [NBS]. 2009. Household budget survey 2007. Dar es Salaam: NBS.
Scoones I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis., IDS Working Paper 72.
Brighton, UK.
Simon MMS. 1998. Peasants strategic resource use under free market conditions and factors
affecting its optimal allocation. A case of tobacco based farming systems Tabora. Dissertation
for Award of M.Sc. Degree at Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania. 101 pp.
Tesfaye Y, Roos A, Campbell BM, Bohlin F. 2011. Livelihood strategies and the role of forest
income in participatory-managed forests of Dodola area in the bale highlands, southern Ethiopia.
Forest Policy Econ. 13:258– 265.
Vedeld P, Angelsen A, Sjaastad E, Kobugabe Berg G. 2004. Counting on the environment. Forest
Incomes and the Rural Poor. June 2004. EDP 98. Washington, DC: World Bank.
White F. 1983. The vegetation of Africa, a descriptive memoir to accompany the UNESCO/
AETFAT/UNSO Vegetation Map of Africa (3 plates, Northwestern Africa, Northeastern Africa,
and Southern Africa). 1:5,000,000, Paris: UNESCO.
Wily LA, Monela GC. 1999. Project experience with joint forest management and Ngitiri
registration in the Tanzania Forest Resources Management Project (FRMP), Tabora Region,
Tanzania. Second Interim Evaluation Report for World Bank, FRMP, Tabora, Tanzania. 46 pp.
Yanda PZ. 2010. Impact of small scale tobacco growing on the spatial and temporal distribution of
miombo woodlands in Western Tanzania. J Ecol Nat Environ. 2(1):010 – 016.
136 M.A. Njana et al.
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
Product
No. of
usesSl No. Tree/shrub species Timber Pole Firewood Charcoal Medicinal Edible* Fodder Beekeeping* HH items* Fibre Birdlime Carvings Hedge Rope
1Acacia drepanolobium Harms ex
Sjostedt
pp p p 4
2Afzelia quanzensis Welw. pp p p p p p 7
3Albizia antunesiana Harms. pp p p p p p p 8
4Albizia harveyi E.Fourn. pp p p p p p p 8
5Annona senegalensis Pers. pp p p p p p p 8
6Azanza garckeana (F. Hoffm)
Exell & Hillcoat
pp p p p p p p 8
7Berchemia discolor (Klotzch)
Hemsl.
pp p p p p p p p 9
8B. boehmii Taub. pp p pp p
6
9Brachystegia spiciformis Benth. pp p p p p p p 8
10 Brychystegia microphylla Harms pp p p p p p p p 9
11 Brychystegia wangermeeana De
Wild.
pppp ppp 7
12 Burkea africana Hook. pp p p p p 6
13 Calotropis procera (Aiton) W.T.
Aiton
pp 2
14 C. abbreviata Oliv. ssp. abbreviata pp p p p p 6
15 Cassipourea mollis (R.E. Fries)
Alston
pp p p p p 6
16 Catunaregam spinosa
subsp. taylorii (S.Moore) Verdc.
pp p p p 5
17 Chrysophyllum bangweolense
R.E. Fries
pp p p p p p 7
18 Cissus cornifolia (Bak.) Planch. pp p 3
19 Clerodendrum myricoides
(Hochst.) R. Br. ex Vatke
pp p 3
20 Combretum adenogonium Steud. pp p p 4
21 Combretum collinum
subsp. binderianum (Kotschy)
Okafor
pp p p p p 6
22 Combretum molle R. Br. ex G. Don pp p p p p 6
23 Combretum obovatum F. Hoffm. pppp
4
(Continued)
Appendix 1. Use of tree and shrub species found in the UFR
Miombo woodlands and livelihoods 137
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
Appendix – continued
Product
No. of
usesSl No. Tree/shrub species Timber Pole Firewood Charcoal Medicinal Edible* Fodder Beekeeping* HH items* Fibre Birdlime Carvings Hedge Rope
24 C. zeyheri Sond. ppp p p 5
25 Commiphora africana (A.Rich)
Engl.
ppp p 4
26 Commiphora mossambicensis
(Oliv.) Engl.
pp p 3
27 Crossopteryx febrifuga (Afzel. ex
G. Don) Benth.
ppp p p 5
28 Dalbergia melanoxylon Guill. &
Perr.
pp p p p p p p p p 10
29 Dalbergia nitidula Welw. ex
Baker
pp p p p p 6
30 Diospyros fischeri Gu
¨rke ppp p p 5
32 Diplorhynchus condylocarpon
(Muel. Arg.) Pichon
pp p p p 5
33 Ekebergia benguelensis C. DC. ppp p p 5
34 Erythrophleum africanum (Welw.
ex Benth.) Harms
pp p p p p 6
35 Ficus sycomorus L. ppp 3
36 Flacourtia indica (Burm.f.) Merr. pp ppp p 6
37 Friesodielsia obovata (Benth.)
Verdc.
pp p p p p p 7
38 Garcinia livingstonei T. Anderson pp p p p p p 7
39 Grewia conocarpoides Burret pp p p p p p 7
40 Hymenocardia acida var. mollis
(Pax) Radcl.-Sm.
ppp p p 5
41 Isoberlinia angolensis (Welw. ex
Benth.) Hoyle & Brenan
ppp p p 5
42 Julbernardia globiflora (Benth.)
Troupin
pppp ppp 7
43 Kigelia africana (Lam) Benth. pppp 4
44 Lannea humilis (Oliv.) Engl. ppp p pp p 7
45 Lannea schimperi (Hochst. ex
A. Rich.) Engl.
pp p p 4
46 Lonchocarpus capassa Rolfe pp p p p p p p 8
47 Maerua parvifolia Pax pp p p p 5
48 Manilkara mochisia (Baker)
Dubard
pp p p p p p p 8
138 M.A. Njana et al.
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
49 Markhamia obtusifolia (Baker)
Sprague
pp p p 4
50 Monotes adenophyllus Gilg pp p p p 5
51 Mundulea sericea (Willd.)
A. Chev.
pp p p p p 6
52 Multidentia crassa (Hiern) Brid-
son & Verdc.
ppppp p p 7
53 Oldfieldia dactylophylla (Welw.
ex Oliv.) J. Le
´onard
pp p p p p p 7
54 Ormocarpum trachycarpum
(Taub.) Harms
ppp p 4
55 Ozoroa insignis subsp. reticulata
(Baker f.) J.B. Gillett
ppp p p p 6
56 P. curatellifolia subsp. mobola
(Oliv.) R.A. Graham
pp p p p p p p p 9
57 Pavetta schumanniana F. Hoffm.
ex K. Schum.
pp p 3
58 Pericopsis angolensis (Baker) van
Meeuwen
pppp pp p 7
59 Phyllanthus engleri Pax pp ppp p p 7
60 Piliostigma thonningii (Schu-
mach.) Milne-Redh.
pp p p p p p p 8
61 Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifo-
lia Pax
pp p p p p p p 8
62 Pterocarpus angolensis DC. pp p p p p p 7
63 Pterocarpus tinctorius Welw. pp p p p p p p 8
64 Schrebera trichoclada Welw. pp p p p p 6
65 Securidaca longepedunculata
Fresen.
pp p p p 5
66 Solanum incanum L. pp 2
67 Sterculia quinqueloba (Garke)
K. Schum.
pp p p 4
68 Strychnos cocculoides Baker pp p p p p 6
69 Strychnos innocua Delile pp p p 4
70 Strychnos potatorum L. f. pp p p p 5
71 Strychnos spinosa Lam. pp p p p p 6
72 T. indica L. pp p p p p p p p 9
73 Tapiphyllum floribundum Bullock pp p 3
74 Terminalia mollis M.A. Lawson pp p p p 5
75 Terminalia sericea Burch. ex DC. pp p p p 5
(Continued)
Miombo woodlands and livelihoods 139
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
Appendix – continued
Product
No. of
usesSl No. Tree/shrub species Timber Pole Firewood Charcoal Medicinal Edible* Fodder Beekeeping* HH items* Fibre Birdlime Carvings Hedge Rope
76 Vangueriopsis lanciflora (Hiern)
Robyns
pp p p p 5
77 V. doniana Sweet pp pp p p p 7
78 V. mombassae Vatke pp ppp p 6
79 Xeroderris stuhlmannii (Taub.)
Mendonc¸ a & E.C. Sousa
pp p p p p p p p 9
80 Xylopia antunesii Engl. & Diels ppp p p 5
81 Zanha africana Exell pp p p p p p p 8
82 Ziziphus mucronata Willd. pp p p p p p 7
No. of tree/shrub
species used per
each use category
18 42 75 67 60 30 20 72 57 8 2 17 8 4
Note: pindicates tree/shrub species use; *Edible ¼edible plant, beekeeping ¼beehive and bee forage, HH items ¼household items including storage pot, wooden spoon, pestle and
tool handle.
140 M.A. Njana et al.
Downloaded by [64.20.48.83] at 12:19 28 January 2016
