Green Economy in Biosphere Reserve (Gebr) Project Socio-Economic Baseline Survey Report

GREEN ECONOMY IN BIOSPHERE RESERVE (GEBR) PROJECT SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE SURVEY REPORT

FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO UNESCO DAR ES SALAAM OFFICE

BY THE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM

MAY 2014 Acknowledgements

Development of this report received support from various institutions and individuals.

Research team would like to express their heartfelt gratitude to authorities and individuals who contributed information and experience which lead to the finalisation of this study.

Heartfelt thanks go to the technical staff at Amani Nature Reserve, Tanzania Forest

Conservation Group (TFCG), and district officers in Muheza, Mkinga and Korogwe for their logistical arrangements and technical guidance. Thanks go to officials who participated in the key informant interview, village government officials as well as households who participated and provided vital information during household interviews and focus group discussion.

Research team is indebted to village government officials and households in Kimbo,

Mashewa, Kisiwani, Foroforo, Makumba, Muzi Kafishe, Shebomeza, Kwelumbizi, Mtoni

Bombo, Kijango and Hemsambia villages for their information and effective participation in focus group discussion and household interview.

Research team also acknowledges the financial support by UNESCO-Dar es Salaam Office, which facilitated the undertaking of this baseline study.

Executive Summary

United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization (UNESCO) with a fund support

from Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) developed the Green Economy in

Biosphere Reserve (GEBR) project to promote biodiversity and/or green business as a viable

tool for conservation while at the same time contributing to household livelihoods. The

baseline survey was conducted in order to analysing baseline data of the beneficiary

community which will serve as the benchmark for the implementation of the GEBR project

activities and the basis of measuring project impacts.

This baseline study was conducted in 11 villages surrounding the East Usambara Biosphere

Reserve (EUBR). Villages were selected basing on three interrelated criteria: administrative

units in order to ensure representation from the three districts surrounding EUBR (Muheza,

Mkinga and Korogwe Districts), set of drivers of deforestation and degradation; and past or

ongoing interventions to improve forest conservation and communities’ livelihoods.

Primary data were collected through Focus Group Discussion, Key Informant Interviews,

Household surveys and Direct Field observations. Secondary data were collated from published and unpublished reports obtained from government, non governmental organisations and private sector libraries as well as online searches. Theme-content analysis and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) were used for data analysis. Findings are presented in various forms, including the use graphs, charts and tables.

About 78% (N=120) of the surveyed households were headed by men and only 22% (N=34) households were headed by women. Males constituted 57 % (N=88) of the respondents and females were 43%. About 35.7% (N=55) of the respondents were aged 51 years and above,

16.2% (N=25) were aged between 21 years and 30 years. Other respondents were aged between 31 and 50 years. About 50.6% of respondents were born in the village and 49.4%

outside of the studied villages. Most of the migration occurred before 1990s. Reasons for

migration included search for arable land, 47%, marriage 21%, following relatives 13%,

search for job 18%, and business reasons 1%. About 74% of the total respondents were

married, 11.7% widowed and 9.1% divorced. Household sizes ranged from 1 to 15 members.

It was also revealed that majority of the respondents were primary school leavers (96%), and

only 4% had passed through secondary education and vocational training.

Field survey findings indicated that important livelihood activities were crop production,

livestock keeping, fish farming, butterfly farming, bee keeping, tea plantation, spice making,

herbs and tree nursery and wood and wood products. Majority of households were found to

be engaged in single livelihood activity 70.7% (N=109). 12.3% (N=19) are involved in two

livelihood activities, 7% (N=12) in three and 2% (N=4) in four livelihood activities. Majority

of these activities earned a maximum average of Tshs.100, 000 per month. About 6.5% of

respondents indicated that the status of their activities was very good, 28% good and 66 %

struggling.

Study findings indicated that key natural resources in the area were land (70.8%), forest

(17.5%), rivers (6.5%), and natural spring and dams (5.1%). Majority of the respondents

(73.4%) were using available natural resources for farming activities. Other uses of natural

resources were collection of firewood (12.7%), fetching water for domestic use (8.2%),

beekeeping (2.5%), butterfly farming (2.5%), irrigation (1.3%), traditional herbs (0.6%) and building poles (0.6%). Majority of the respondents (83.1%) were depending on firewood as major source of heat energy.

Findings show that 88% of respondents use own farms for their livelihood activities while

12% use forest reserves for their activities. Key informants were of the opinion that adjacent

iii

villages are responsible for deforestation and forest degradation in the EUBR through

extraction and artisans/mining activities.

Various groups in the surveyed communities had equal access to natural resources for their

socio-economic activities. However, inheritance of family resources was mentioned to be favouring men than women with such segregations highly depending on the setting of the individual households. Social capital among respondents across the studied villages was partly associated with the membership to community financial groups. Majority of the

respondents who were members to community financial groups had more than Tshs. 100,000

while others had amount ranging between Tshs. 50,000 and Tshs. 100,000 as well as less than

Tshs. 50,000. About 91.6% of the respondents in all studied villages reported to have no

saving at all, while 8.4% reported to have savings. These savings had estimated highest

amount of Tshs. 100,000. Access to microcredit in the surveyed villages was relatively

difficult with only 8.4% reporting to have accessed services related to credits. Majority of the

respondents were aware of existence of the green economies with some being engaged in

green business.

Respondents mentioned beekeeping, fish farming, spice farming, processing and selling and butterfly farming as major activities relevant for green economies. Income from green

economy activities varied accordingly depending on the level of investment and capability of

the household to implement the activity. 72 % (N=111) reported to earn between Tshs.

50,000 and 100,000 per month from green businesses. About 26.6% were earning less than

Tshs. 50,000 and 1% were earning more than Tshs. 100,000 per month. About 61.7 % perceived the status of their economic activities as struggling, 24.7% as good and 13.6 % as very good.

Markets for the green business products varied across the study area. Majority of respondents depended much on selling their produce to neighbours within and adjacent to their villages, individual business people from the district, Tanga, Arusha and Dar es Salaam towns who normally go to their villages for collecting spices and other farm and non-farm products and researchers who visit their villages. Other buyers come from come from Moshi Town in

Kilimanjaro region. Respondents informed that there was no clear arrangement for accessing markets for farm and non-farm produce. Other respondents, especially those involved in butterfly farming reach their customers through an agent, mainly the Tanzania Forest

Conservation Group (TFCG).

Some identified challenges facing green economies are price fluctuation (50%), inadequate capital (39.6%), lack of markets (26%), lack of transparency (25.3%), poor means of transport (19.5%), effects of climate variability (7.8%) that affected normal production patterns of the households and exacerbates more pressure on the biodiversity resources.

Other respondents (4.5%) indicated poor farm implements as another challenge affecting their livelihoods.

Potential green economies activities in the study area include small scale based enterprises such as beekeeping, butterfly farming, spice farming, spice making; and eco-tourism or cultural industries such camping and canoeing activities, boat riding, site views, parachuting, waterfalls and canopy walk. Key informants emphasized that joint efforts between government institutions, non-governmental organisations including faith institutions, private sector, and individuals will improve the performance of green business activities.

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...... i

Executive Summary ...... ii

List of Tables ...... ix

List of Figures ...... x

List of Abbreviations ...... xi

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE ...... 1

1.1 Overview of Green Economies ...... 1

1.2 Objectives of the Baseline Survey ...... 5

CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY ...... 6

2.1 Description of the Study Area ...... 6

2.1.1 Climatic Condition ...... 7

2.1.2 Socio-Economic Activities ...... 8

2.1.3 Demographic ...... 8

2.2 Sample and Sampling ...... 8

2.2.1 Selection of Study villages...... 8

2.2.2 Selection of Respondents ...... 10

2.2.2.1 Selection of household interview ...... 10

2.2.2.2 Key Informants ...... 10

2.2.2.3 Focus Group Discussion ...... 11

2.2.3 Data collection methods ...... 11

2.2.3.1 Interviews ...... 11

2.2.3.2 Focus Group Discussion ...... 11

2.2.3.3 Direct Field Observation ...... 12

2.2.4 Data Analysis ...... 12

CHAPTER THREE: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...... 13

3.1 Respondents Characteristics ...... 13

3.1.1 Household Heads ...... 13

3.1.2 Age ...... 13

3.1.3 Sex...... 14

3.1.4 Marital Status ...... 15

3.1.5 Household size ...... 15

3.1.6 Education ...... 16

3.1.7 Reasons for Migration...... 17

3.1.8 Type of house ...... 18

3.1.9 Engagement in Economic activities ...... 19

3.1.10 Natural Resources ...... 23

3.1.11 Utilization of natural resources ...... 24

3.1.12 Access to Natural Resources ...... 26

3.2 Social capital ...... 26

3.3 Financial capital ...... 28

3.3.1 Savings/debt ...... 28

3.3.2 Credit...... 28

vii

3.4 Household Engagement in biodiversity businesses ...... 30

3.4.1 Types of Green Businesses ...... 30

3.5 Markets for the green business products ...... 31

3.6 Challenges facing livelihood activities ...... 32

3.7 Opportunities for Green Economies in the area ...... 33

3.7.1 Small scale technology- based enterprises ...... 33

3.7.1.1 Beekeeping ...... 33

3.7.1.2 Butterfly Farming...... 34

3.7.1.3 Spice farming and spice making ...... 34

3.7.2 Eco-tourism/Cultural Industries potentials ...... 34

3.7.2.1 Camping ...... 34

3.7.2.2 Canoeing/Boat riding ...... 35

3.7.2.3 Site Views ...... 35

3.7.2.4 Parachuting ...... 36

3.7.2.5 Canopy Walk ...... 36

3.7.2.6 Water Falls ...... 37

3.8 SWOC Analysis of Green Businesses ...... 38

CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 42

4.1 Conclusion ...... 42

4.2 Recommendation ...... 42

References ...... 44

Appendices ...... 45

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Selected Study Villages in Muheza District ...... 9

Table 2: Selected Study Villages in Korogwe District ...... 9

Table 3: Selected Study Villages in Mkinga District...... 9

Table 4: Sample Households ...... 10

Table 5: Age of the Respondents ...... 13

Table 6: Trends of Migration and Age ...... 14

Table 7: Respondents Years of Migration ...... 14

Table 8: Sex of the respondents ...... 15

Table 9: Marital status of the respondents ...... 15

Table 10: Respondents’ household size ...... 16

Table 11: Household sizes in the studied villages ...... 16

Table 12: Respondents’ level of education ...... 17

Table 13: Year of migration ...... 18

Table 14: Type of respondent’s houses ...... 19

Table 15: Respondents Activities ...... 19

Table 16: Households activities in the studied villages ...... 20

Table 17: Number of household socio-economic activities in the studied villages ...... 21

Table 18: Respondents view on second socio-economic activities ...... 22

Table 19: Natural resources and its importance in household income ...... 24

Table 20: Sources of heat energy for households ...... 25

Table 21: Respondents responses on the membership to community financial groups ...... 29

Table 22: Perceived income per month from of household economic activities ...... 30

Table 23: Perceived status of household economic activities ...... 31

List of Figures

Figure 1: Reasons for migration ...... 18

Figure 2: Respondents view on the status of their socio-economic activities ...... 23

Figure 3: Respondents views on the use natural resources ...... 24

Figure 4: Respondents views on the membership to community financial groups ...... 27

Figure 5: Respondents views on membership to community groups ...... 27

Figure 6: Respondents views on the amount of savings ...... 29

Figure 7: Respondents view on challenges facing Green Business ...... 33

List of Abbreviations

ANR Amani Nature Reserve

EUBR East Usambara Biosphere Reserve

GEBR Green Economy Biosphere Reserve

KOICA Korea International Cooperation Agency

SACCOS Savings and Credit Cooperatives

TaTEDO Tanzania Traditional Energy Development Organisation

TFCG Tanzania Forest Conservation Group

UNDSD United Nations Division for Sustainable Development

UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme

URT United Republic of Tanzania

VICOBA Village Community Bank

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

CHAPTER ONE

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

1.1 Overview of Green Economies

Green economy is one of the recent evolving concepts in the field of natural resources management and development approaches. In its simplest expression, a green economy can be thought of as one which is low carbon, climate-compatible development pathways, resource efficient and development which is socially inclusive. UNEP (2011) considers green economy as the strategy towards the improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. UNEP (ibid) also conceptualises green economy in the context of natural resources and socio-economic development approaches that is concerned with fairness and inclusiveness or as one which increasingly invests in environmental technologies such as renewable energy, and natural capital such as productive soil, forests and water resources. Study by UNEP (ibid) further

emphasized that investments in green economies have to be catalysed and supported by

targeted public expenditure, policy reforms and regulation changes.

Globally, the concept has become important tool for decision making in aspects pertaining to

natural resources management and development policy, which gained momentum after the

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). The Rio +20 decided that

green economy should drive economic growth, poverty eradication, employment and decent

work for all, whilst maintaining the healthy functioning of the Earth’s ecosystems (UNDSD,

2013). The policy has become one of the important pathways towards sustainable

development (UNEP, 2011). Since the beginning of the 21st century, especially in recent

years, many countries have been keen on developing green industries as a major means to

restructure their economies. Likewise, according to UNDSD (2013), policy makers in many

countries have given higher priority to “green” concepts and ideas and adopted “green

policies” with a view to promoting long-term development in the post-economic crisis era. It

is widely recognized that green economy provides opportunities to improve resource

efficiency, reduce pollution, increase market demand and create new jobs. As such, it

represents an important point of convergence between environmental protection and

economic growth. Green economy policy is now leading natural resources and development

policies in various countries, with ultimate goal of implementing green economy policies

(UNEP, 2012).

The diversity of Tanzania’s natural resources, especially forest and woodland provide wildlife habitat, unique natural eco-system and biological diversity and water catchment. The

resources also provides an excellent climatic conditions for a wide range of green economy

products such as fruits that include pineapples, passion, citrus, mangoes, peaches, pears and

bananas. Other opportunities provided by the diversity of natural resources include

favourable climatic condition for the production of spices that include black, sweet and hot

peppers, chillies, ginger, onion, vanilla, garlic, onion, cinnamon and cardamom (UNDP,

2012; Lusekelo, 2013).

Green economy policy has been implemented through various socio-economic approaches. It

encompasses livelihoods activities which are environmental friendly and contributes to the

livelihoods of local communities. These may include spice farming, beekeeping, butterfly

farming, and vegetable and/or gardening (UNEP, 2011). Spice farming in the Eastern

Usambara and other parts of the country such as Zanzibar has been identified as potential in contributing to national efforts in poverty reduction, with more unemployed groups who are

mainly youths and women will have greater opportunity of being engaged in income

generation activities (ITC, 2001; Adam and Evelyne, 2007). Until recently, though in small

quantities, farmers have been involved in spice farming through intercropping with other

crops including banana, citrus, and a variety of tree crops (pawpaw, coconut, mango, etc)

(Adam and Evelyne, 2007). Spice farming including traditional herbs is also included in most

discussion of global supply and demand trends for spices.

Butterfly farming is another green economy activity which is practiced in the Eastern

Usambara Mountains. Amani has established links with European pharmaceutical

corporations that purchase butterfly pupae, providing a substantial source of income for local

farmers. According to Theron (2003), the East Usambara Mountains are home to around 400

species of butterfly. However, only some of these species are suitable for butterfly farming

and live export. Generally, buyers in the live exhibit market prefer butterflies that are large,

colourful, and active. Butterflies that fly too fast, like the genus Charaxes are not popular

with the live exhibit market, but can be very popular with the dealers in dead stock who have

similar preferences for size and colour, but are not concerned about behaviour. Overtime, according to Theron (2007), sales from butterfly farming have increased each year from

$20,000 USD in 2004 to $50,000 USD in 2006. Theron (2007) further explained that about

sixty-five percent of the project’s earnings go directly to about 300 member farmers and 7%

accrue to a village government development fund, which is controlled by the elected

committee of butterfly farmers and used for projects like school buildings. Baseline income

surveys conducted in 2003 and subsequent sales data indicates that participating households

have increased their annual income by about 20% (Theron, 2007).

Green economy is also related to eco-tourism activities for its potential to simultaneously support conservation and the sustainable development of local communities (Ross and

Wall, 1999). Community based ecotourism has become popular as a means of supporting biodiversity conservation all over developing countries. It is based on the idea that ecotourism can generate economic benefits to local people and therefore increase local appreciation of nature conservation (Kiss, 2004). However, there are numerous debates on 3 the concept of eco-tourism since the term was first coined in the 1980s (Goodwin, 1996).

Despite of these controversies, eco-tourism activities (e.g. night walks, campsites, visits to butterfly farms, and bird watching) have been contributing to the revenue for communities within the Amani Nature Reserve, with funds also being re-invested in conservation activities

(UNDP, 2012). Until recently, local communities of the Amani buffer zones, which form part of East Usambara Biosphere Reserve (EUBR), were receiving approximately USD 4,000 per year, which was equivalent to 20% of the tourist revenues (Ohanna, 2008; UNDP, 2012).

The study by UNDP (2012) revealed that mushroom farming is also promoted in the Eastern

Usambara as part of the green economy approaches. The purpose of the activities, according to UNDP (2012), is to create alternative income generating activities and thus reducing pressure on forest resources for their livelihoods and fuel wood from the reserve. Other activities sites by UNDP (2012) that are being promoted in Amani Nature Reserve include agro-forestry activities in the reserve buffer zone, to sustainably manage forest products and to reduce local dependency on biodiversity within the reserve (UNDP, 2012). Beekeeping is also practised in various villages bordering Amani Nature Reserve (Lusekelo Philemon,

2013).

Given potentials in the East Usambara Nature Reserve, UNESCO is envisaging implementing country green economy project in the biosphere reserves (GEBR) under the support of Korea

International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), which aims at poverty reduction, biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in Sub-Saharan Africa. The project is intending to create opportunity to the communities living around biosphere reserve in the East Usambara biosphere reserve. Through the implementation of the project beneficiaries have been empowered to conserve biodiversity resources in EUBR and other ecosystem in the country.

Addition to that community engagement in other livelihood activities has significantly

reduced their direct dependence on natural resources.

1.2 Objectives of the Baseline Survey

The objective of the baseline survey was to analyse baseline data of the beneficiary

community which will serve as the benchmark for the implementation of project activities and the basis of measuring project impacts.

CHAPTER TWO

METHODOLOGY

2.1 Description of the Study Area

The Usambara Mountains situated in Tanga region North-East of Tanzania are part of the

series of the eastern arc Mountains in Africa (WWF, 2006). The eastern arc chain of

mountains that begins in the north with the Taita hills in Kenya and continues south with the

Pare, Usambara, Nguu, Nguru, Uluguru, Ukaguru, Malundwe, Rubeho, Udzungwa and

Mahenge in Tanzania (Sayer, 1991; WWF, 2006). Traditionally the mountains are divided

into two main blocks, West and East Usambaras, which are separated by the North-South running Lwengera Valley. The East Usambara Mountains are situated in northeastern

Tanzania within 40 km of the coastal town of Tanga between 4O48’-5O13’S and 38O 32’-

38O48’E.

The East Usambara Mountains are among the areas in Tanzania where a concern for

environmental degradation is relatively higher compared to the Western part of the Usambara

Mountains. The degradation is largely attributed to rapid population growth, which result

into high demand for agricultural land, communities’ involvement in non-environmental

friendly economic activities such as mining and timber extraction. East Usambara Mountains

form part of the chain of isolated mountains stretched in an arc around eastern Tanzania. The

arc comprises the Pare, Kilimanjaro, East and West Usambara series of mountains.

According to Hamilton and Smith (1989), the East Usambara alone covers about 1300km² by

area, and it is located between several administrative districts, including Muheza, Mkinga and

Korogwe (WWF, 2006).

This study was conducted in 11 villages located within the East Usambara Biosphere

Reserve. The villages were selected from Muheza, Korogwe and Mkinga districts. The East

Usambara Biosphere Reserve is part of the Eastern Arc Mountain Range which is considered

one of the twenty five biodiversity hot spots in the world (Rantalla et al., 2011). Biological significance of the East Usambara has been compared to the Galapagos Islands (Burgess, et al., 2007). The Eastern Usambara Biosphere Reserve (EUBR) is covering a total area of about 90,000 hectares; the major ecosystem type being tropical Sub-montane rainforest

(Burgess, et al., 2007).

2.1.1 Climatic Condition

The East Usambara Mountains rise sharply to over 1000m and peak at 1500m above sea level and have unusual high rainfall and low temperatures at higher altitudes, possibly due to their proximity to the sea (Hamilton and Smith, 1989). The study by WWF (2006) shows that rainfall is monsoonal, with a wetter south-easterly monsoon rainfall patterns, raining mainly from April to October and a drier north-easterly monsoon starting from November to March.

WWF (2006) further indicated that rainfall peaks in the area correspond to the movement of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone. Annual mean rainfall increases with altitude from

1200mm in the foothills to over 2200 mm in the highest areas annually. The annual average rains vary between 1000mm to 2000mm (Mwanyoka, 2006).

Temperatures drop with altitude. The lowland mean temperatures are typical for their altitude, in contrast to the abnormally cool climate of the uplands (ibid). These rains help to regulate the volume of water in the Zigi River which is the principal source of water for the

Tanga City with a population of around 250000 people. The Amani Division, which is part of

EUBR, enjoys annual rainfall of 1945mm, the humidity being very high with an annual mean temperature of 20.8C. IUCN (2003) states that rainfall in the Zigi Catchment is bi-modal, however its distribution varies from 1,000 to 2,000 mm. Yearly average rainfalls is estimated at 1200 to 1400mm (Mwanyoka, 2006).

2.1.2 Socio-Economic Activities

Forest resources of the East Usambaras are important for driving socio-economic activities of

the local population in and around the Biosphere reserve (WWF, 2006). Forest provides

medicinal plants, fuel wood, building materials, mushrooms, fruits and vegetables and a regular supply of water. Other important activities conducted in the forest area beekeeping,

butterfly farming and eco-tourism, all of which are potentially important sources of income

for local communities (ibid).

2.1.3 Demographic

The East Usambara Mountains are fairly densely populated, and lie within the more densely

populated North of Tanzania. Burgess et al. (2007) reported that the area supports more than

155,000 people living around the biosphere reserve with their main source of livelihood being

small scale farming and cattle breading. Likewise, Mwanyoka (2006) emphasised that the

population is growing rapidly and this is attributed to natural increase (high birth rates) and

in-migration. Mwanyika (ibid) added that in-migration is so high with an increasing number

of people coming in from west Usambaras and areas further afield. This in-migration is

related to favourable climatic conditions for crop production and mining activities.

2.2 Sample and Sampling

2.2.1 Selection of Study villages

This study was conducted in 11 villages which were selected in a participatory manner, with

a discussion between ANR officers and researchers (Table 1, 2 and 3). The selection was

based on mixture of number of criteria which were set by ANR and research team in order to

get the best representation of the target villages adjacent EUBR. Criteria which guided

selection of the study villages were administrative units, set of drivers of deforestation and

degradation and basing on interventions to improve forest conservation and communities’

livelihoods. A criterion of administrative units was used in order to ensure that villages from three districts (Muheza, Korogwe and Mkinga) are represented in the study.

Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation were also used in the selection of villages. It

enabled researchers to select villages which were reported by ANR officers to be facing high

deforestation and forest degradation emanating from human activities. The villages were also

selected for the purpose of recommending interventions to address such challenges can be

proposed.

The third criterion was based on the environmental conservation in the EUBR villages.

Selected villages under this criterion were those which were reported to have no interventions. The villages were selected in order to come up with a suggestions of interventions, those which with interventions which can complement the GEBR mission.

Table 1: Selected Study Villages in Muheza District S/N ISSUES WARD VILLAGE 1. Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Kisiwani Mashewa 2. Butterfly Farming Kisiwani Kisiwani 3. Mining, Timber Extraction, Illegal Carving, Bush Potwe Kimbo Fires, Illegal logging, Charcoal and Settlement 4. Tea Production Amani Shebomeza 5. Gardening and Spice production Zirai Kwelumbizi Source: Field Survey Data, 2014 Table 2: Selected Study Villages in Korogwe District S/N ISSUES WARD VILLAGE 1. Mining, Timber Extraction, Illegal Carving, Bush Fires, Magoma Kijango Illegal logging, Charcoal and Settlement. 2. Siltation, Fishing, Eco tourism, Canoeing Kizara Folofolo 4. Fishing, Eco-Tourism and Canoeing Kerenge Makumba Source: Field Survey Data, 2014

Table 3: Selected Study Villages in Mkinga District S/N ISSUES WARD VILLAGE 1. Mining, Timber Extraction, Illegal Carving, Bush Kigongoi Hemsambia 2. Fires, Illegal logging, Charcoal and Settlement. Bosha Muzi Kafishe 3 Daluni Mtoni Bombo Source: Field Survey Data, 2014

2.2.2 Selection of Respondents

2.2.2.1 Selection of household interview

Household was used as a sample unit as well as a unit of analysis for this study as presented in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Sample Households Sn Name of Village Total Households Sample 1 Foroforo 248 12 2 Hemsambia 250 12 3 Kijango 240 13 4 Kimbo 260 13 5 Kisiwani 250 12 6 Kwelumbizi 281 14 7 Makumba 251 12 8 Mashewa 276 14 9 Mtoni Bombo 273 14 10 Muzi Kafishe 360 18 11 Shebomeza 414 20 Total 3103 154 Source: Field survey data, 2014

A sample size of 5% of all households in each village under study was selected randomly for interview. A total number of 154 household interviews were conducted involving 73 households in Muheza district, 37 households in Korogwe district, and 44 households in

Mkinga district. The household members from the project villages were interviewed to collect baseline information on natural resources management, livelihoods activities and their engagement in green economy activities.

2.2.2.2 Key Informants

Key informants were selected purposively. At least 2 members from relevant institutions encompassing technical staff and officials from government, private sector, nongovernmental organisation and community based organisations were interviewed. This included officers from Muheza district, Korogwe and Mkinga district. Other key informants were selected from EUBR, and Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG).

2.2.2.3 Focus Group Discussion

One focus group discussions were held for 1-2 hours in each studied village. The discussions comprised of 10-12 participants comprising of men and women. Participants for focus group discussions were selected randomly for the purpose of ensuring representation of respondents and collect data which are biased free, and thus be used validation of information collected through household questionnaire.

2.2.3 Data collection methods

This study employed both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection. Secondary data was collated from published and unpublished reports obtained from government, non governemrntal organisations and private sector libraries as well as online searches. Primary data were collected through the use of household interviews, key informant interviews, focus group discussion and field observations.

2.2.3.1 Interviews

Interviews were held to households in the selected villages and key informants from relevant institutions. Key informants were selected from various institutions that included: officials from EUBR, Districts Community Development Officials, Tanzania Forest Conservation

Group (TFCG) officers, and village government officials. Face-to-face interviews to selected households were conducted using semi-structured questionnaire. These were interviewed in order to gather detailed information on various activities that are being conducted in the area, including community engagement in natural resources management and green economy activities (Appendix 1 &3).

2.2.3.2 Focus Group Discussion

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) through an interactive group setting where participants were free to talk with other group members were conducted. FGDs comprising of between 10-12

participants in each studied village were held. The discussions comprised of selected household members, sub-village leaders, village government officials, influential people, prominent people, and in some villages, religious leaders were included. The purpose of the discussions was to collect information related to natural resources management, community livelihoods and their engagement in green economy activities. A checklist of questions that was used to guide this process throughout the discussions is shown in Appendix 2

2.2.3.3 Direct Field Observation

Observation method was used to note the actual activities undertaken at household and village level, including natural resources available as well as their potentials in the green economy. It included analysis of physical landscape, vegetation, soils, and village structures in relation to various green economy and livelihood options. The information collected was useful in triangulating data collected through the Focus Group Discussion and interviews.

2.2.4 Data Analysis

Data collected using semi-structured questionnaires were coded, summarised and analysed

using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Data collected through focus group

discussion and key informant interviews were summarised basing on the study objectives and

themes. Summarised information was then subjected to theme-content analysis technique in order to generate information which was used to answer key research questions. Findings are presented in various forms, including the use graphs, charts and tables.

CHAPTER THREE

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Respondents Characteristics

3.1.1 Household Heads

This study found that most of the household heads across the studied villages were men. The survey findings showed that out of 154 households surveyed, about 78% (N=120) households were headed by men and only 22% (N=34) households were headed by women. This implies that majority of the households in the study area are headed by men. This is linked to the fact that most of the communities in Tanzania, including the study area are Patrilineal.

3.1.2 Age

Field survey findings revealed that there were variations of age for respondents interviewed.

As shown in Table 5, about 35.7% (N=55) of the respondents were aged 51 years and above, whereas about 16.2% (N=25) were aged between 21 years and 30 years. Other respondents had ages ranging from 31 to 40 years, and 41 to 50 years.

Table 5: Age of the Respondents Age Group Frequency Percent 21-30 25 16.2 31-40 34 22.1 41-50 40 26.0 51+ 55 35.7

Total 154 100.0 Source: Household survey data, 2014

Such variations in the age group from the sampled population in the biosphere reserve

provide baseline perception on potential activities that can be implemented by various

segments of the population. This is linked to the fact that different age groups possess different levels of activeness, mobility, endurance, flexibility and experience, which are important elements for the implementation of socio-economic activities as well as attributes

13 to natural resources management. Field survey findings further indicated that most of the migrants had ages above 41 years (Table 6).

Table 6: Trends of Migration and Age Age Place of Birth Total Group In the village Outside the village 21-30 20 5 25 31-40 23 11 34 41-50 21 19 40

51+ 14 41 55

78 76 154

Source: Household survey data, 2014

As indicated in Table 7, household survey findings further indicated that most of the migration occurred before 1990s. This corresponds to the findings from the focus group discussion that most of the migrants came into their villages during villagization programme.

It was also mentioned by focus group discussion that recent migration has been largely attributed to the presence of socio-economic opportunities around the EUBR.

Table 7: Respondents Years of Migration Place of Birth Total Year of Migration In the village Outside the village 1950-1970 0 17 17 1971-1990 0 38 38 1991-2010 0 21 21 2011+ 0 2 2 N/A-Born in the Village 76 0 76 78 76 154 Source: Household survey data, 2014

3.1.3 Sex

This study found that majority of the respondents interviewed males. It was found that about

57 % (N=88) of the respondents were males while 43% of the respondents interviewed were females. However, there were also variations of the respondents’ composition. As shown in

Table 8, there were disparities in gender of the respondents that were interviewed across the studied villages.

Table 8: Sex of the respondents Village Sex Male Female Total Foroforo 11 1 12 Hemsambia 6 6 12 Kijango 10 3 13 Kimbo 7 6 13 Kisiwani 7 5 12 Kwelumbizi 9 5 14 Makumba 7 5 12 Mashewa 7 7 14 Mtoni Bombo 7 7 14 Muzi Kafishe 12 6 18 Shebomeza 5 15 20 Total 88 66 154 Source: Household survey data, 2014

3.1.4 Marital Status

Out of 154 respondents 114 were married, this is equivalent to 74% of the total respondents.

11.7% were widowed and 9.1% are divorced. Table 9 below shows the marital status of the respondents and their respective percentage.

Table 9: Marital status of the respondents Category of Marital Status Frequency Percentage Single 6 3.9 Married 114 74 Divorced 14 9.1 Widowed 18 11.7 Separated 2 1.3 Total 154 100 Source: Household survey data, 2014

3.1.5 Household size

This study found that there were variations of household sizes across the study area. Field

survey findings indicated that majority of the respondents reported that their household sizes

ranged from 1 to 5 people (Table 10).

Table 10: Respondents’ household size Frequency Percent Number of people 1-5 70 45 6-10 63 41 11-15 21 14 Total 154 100 Source: Household survey data, 2014

Field survey findings further indicated that household sizes varied between the studied

villages. As illustrated in Table 11, villages that had large sizes of households above 10

people were Makumba, Hemsambia, Kimbo, Kwelumbizi, Mashewa, Mtoni Bombo,

Kisiwani, Muzi Kafishe and Shebomeza. According to the household survey findings,

Foroforo and Kijango reported to have a maximum of 10 people per household. However, it

was not established clearly reasons behind variations of the household size among the studied

villages.

Table 11: Household sizes in the studied villages Total number of household members Village 1-5 6-10 11-15 Foroforo 6 6 0 Hemsambia 5 4 3 Kijango 5 8 0 Kimbo 4 6 3 Kisiwani 5 6 1 Kwelumbizi 8 3 3 Makumba 2 5 5 Mashewa 7 5 2 Mtoni 6 6 2 Bombo Muzi 5 12 1 Kafishe Shebomeza 17 2 1 Total 70 63 21 Source: Household survey data, 2014

3.1.6 Education

This study found that majority of the respondents interviewed were primary school leavers, with very few individuals having passed through secondary education and vocational training. Field survey findings showed that about 96% of the respondents across the study

area were primary school graduates. As indicated in table 12, other respondents were

secondary school and vocational training graduates.

Table 12: Respondents’ level of education Level of education Frequency Percentage Primary school graduate 148 96 Secondary school graduate 5 3 Vocational training graduate 1 0.6 Total 154 100 Source: Household survey data, 2014

Analysis of findings indicated that education level is a vital tool that ensures diversity to

different livelihood options, ranging from on-farm and off-farm activities. Basing on the

household survey findings, it is likely that most of the respondents are depending on on-farm

activities for their livelihoods. This is linked to the fact that most of the off-farm activities

such as business and formal employment require skills that goes hand in hand with education

beyond secondary school level. Nevertheless, it is important to note that when devising

strategies for improving livelihoods of the communities in the Biosphere reserve, one should

plan for different livelihood options in order to encompass different categories of education.

This is also an indication that strategies to improve communities’ livelihoods should be

accompanied with intensive awareness raising programmes.

3.1.7 Reasons for Migration

Field survey findings also showed that most of the reasons for migration were linked to the search for arable land. Other reasons for migration were marriage, following relatives, search for job, while others were migrated due to business reasons.

Business 1%

Marriage Search for job 21% 18% Following rela tives 13% Search for arable land 47%

Figure 1: Reasons for migration Source: Field survey data, 2014

About 71% of the respondents reported that they migrated into the studied villages between

1971 and 1990. It was also found that about 30% of the respondents migrated to the current villages from 1991 to date (Table 13).

Table 13: Year of migration Year of Migration Frequency Percentage 1950-1970 17 22 1971-1990 38 49 1991-2010 21 27 2011+ 2 3 Total 78 100 Source: Field Survey data, 2014

3.1.8 Type of house

Analysis of the types of respondents’ houses was undertaken during the survey. Field survey findings indicated that majority of the respondents were living in mud houses roofed by iron sheets. As indicated in table 14 below, about 52% of the respondents were living in houses with mud under iron sheets, while other respondents were living in houses with bricks under iron sheets and mud under thatch. This reflects the economic variations among the studied households. It implies that those who were living in better houses (e.g. bricks under iron sheets) were economically better-off compared to those who had poor houses (e.g. mud under thatch).

Table 14: Type of respondent’s houses Categories of houses Frequency Percent Bricks under iron sheets 35 22.7 Mud under iron sheets 80 51.9 Mud under thatch 39 25.3 Total 154 100.0 Source: Field survey data, 2014

3.1.9 Engagement in Economic activities

Household survey findings revealed that most of the respondents were being involved in various socio-economic activities including crop production, business, livestock keeping, and waged labour for subsistence and income. As indicated in Table 15, about 75% of the respondents reported that farming activities which encompassed food crop production and spice farming was their major economic activity. Farming activities was reported as the major economic activity undertaken by most members of the surveyed household.

Table 15: Respondents Activities Activities performed Frequency Percent Waged labour 8 5 Business 30 19 Farming (food crop production and spice farming) 116 75 Total 154 100 Source: Household survey data, 2014

As illustrated in table 16, this study further found that, on average, most of the households

had one socio-economic activity for both food production and income generation.

Table 16: Households activities in the studied villages wood Tea Herbs and Fish Butterfly Beekeepi Spice and Number of plantatio tree farming farming ng making wood Actitivities n nursery product s 1 2 3 4 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 4 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 2 13 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 12 1 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 2 4 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 12 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 8 1 3 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 4 20 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 109 19 12 4 154

Source: Household survey data (2014)

Findings from household survey across the study village also indicated that on average, most of the households in Foroforo had high number of socio-economic activities followed by

Kwelumbizi and Mashewa (Table 17)

Table 17: Number of household socio-economic activities in the studied villages

Activities farming Herbs wood (food crop Livestock Fish Butterfly Tea Spice and Number of wage/ Beekeeping and Studied villages Trading production keeping farming farming plantation making tree Activities salary wood and spice nursery products farming 1 2 3 4 Total Foroforo 0 4 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 12 Hemsambia 0 2 10 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 4 12 Kijango 0 1 12 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 2 13 Kimbo 0 1 11 7 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 12 1 0 13 Kisiwani 2 4 6 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 2 0 12 Kwelumbizi 0 1 13 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 2 4 14 Makumba 1 3 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 12 Mashewa 0 2 12 10 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 8 1 3 14 Mtoni Bombo 1 0 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 14 Muzi Kafishe 3 1 14 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 18 Shebomeza 1 11 8 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 4 20 Total 8 30 115 105 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 109 19 12 4 154 Source: Household survey data, 2014

Household respondents reported that on average, farming activities were also contributing to household income. In this regard, about 60% reported that they were getting less than Tshs.

50,000 per year, while 23% were getting between Tshs. 50,000 and Tshs. 100,000. The analysis of household findings also indicated that only 17% of the respondents were able to attain average of more than Tshs. 100,000 per year.

Other activities reported by respondents were livestock keeping, beekeeping, tree nurseries, butterfly farming, fish farming, and spice processing and selling. About 68.2% of the households surveyed mentioned livestock keeping as their second important socio-economic activity (Table 18). Households respondents reported that livestock kept were mainly cattle, goats, sheep and others were being involved in poultry keeping activities. The respondents mentioned that they were using livestock for both food and income generation.

Table 18: Respondents view on second socio-economic activities Households second socio-economic activity Frequency Percent Waged labour 4 2.6 Business 8 5.2 Farming (food crop production and spice farming) 30 19.5 Livestock keeping 105 68.2 Beekeeping 4 2.6 Spice processing and selling 3 1.9 Total 154 100.0 Source: Household survey data, 2014

About 58.4% of the household respondents indicated that on average, livestock keeping could enable them to obtain less than Tshs. 50,000 per year, while 34.4% reported an average of

Tshs, 50,000 to Tshs. 100,000 per year, and only 7.1% reported that average income from livestock keeping was above Tshs. 100,000 per year.

Household survey findings further indicated that most of the activities performed by the respondents were not performing well. About 65.6% of the respondents reported that they were struggling in their activities, partly due to inadequate capital, poor farm implements,

lack of reliable markets and the changing climatic condition. About 6.5% indicated that the

status of their activities was very good and the remaining portion of respondents reported that

the status of their activities was good (Figure 2).

Very good 6%

Good 28%

Struggling 66%

Figure 2: Respondents view on the status of their socio-economic activities Source: Household survey data, 2014 The survey also found about 25% of the respondents were being involved in off-farm

activities such waged labour and business in order to generate income. Focus group

discussion and key informant interview indicated that most of the off-farm activities were being undertaken by men as compared to women.

3.1.10 Natural Resources

Field survey findings revealed various types of natural resources in the studied villages. Some

of the key natural resources mentioned by household respondents were land (70.8%), forest

(17.5%), rivers (6.5%), and natural spring and dams (5.1%). Household respondents further

reported that available natural resources were being utilised for various purposes as presented

in Table 19 and discussed in the subsequent subsection.

Table 19: Natural resources and its importance in household income

Natural resources Very important Less important utilised Household activities Important Various Wage/ salary 4 3 1 Various Trading 5 16 9 Land Farming (food crop production and 28 64 23 spice farming Forest Wood and wood products 1 0 0 Land Livestock keeping 24 61 20 Forest Beekeeping 2 0 0 Land/forest Herbs and tree nursery 2 0 0 Land/forest Spice making 1 1 0 Land Tea plantation 1 0 0 Total 68 145 53 Percentage 44.16 94.16 34.42 Source: Household survey data, 2014

3.1.11 Utilization of natural resources

Household survey findings found that majority of the respondents (73.4%) were using available natural resources for farming activities. As indicated in figure 3, other respondents mentioned firewood, water for domestic use, beekeeping and butterfly farming, irrigation, medicine and building poles.

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Water Butterfl Building Agricult Firewoo for Beekeep Irriga tio Medicin y material Total ure d domesti ing n e fa rming s c use Series1 113 20 13 4 4 2 1 1 158 Series2 71.5 12.7 8.2 2.5 2.5 1.3 0.6 0.6 100.0

Figure 3: Respondents views on the use natural resources Source: Field survey data, 2014

Household survey findings further indicated that most of the respondents’ activities were being practised in their own farms, and only few respondents reported to be using forest 24 reserves for their activities. About 88% reported to use own farms for their activities while

12% reported to use forest reserves for their activities. Findings from focus group discussion indicated that forest reserves were being used for environmental friendly activities and activities which had no detrimental effects to the forest reserve. It was mentioned by both household survey respondents and focus group discussion participants that forest reserves were used for beekeeping and collection of local herbs. However, findings from key informant interview indicated that there some illegal activities such as timber extraction and artisans/mining activities, which were not mentioned during household survey and focus group discussion due their legal implications. Household findings on the sources of heat energy indicated some household activities such as charcoal making and firewood collection could contribute to the deforestation and degradation of forest resources (Table 20).

Table 20: Sources of heat energy for households Sources of Heat Energy Villages charcoal firewood kerosene Foroforo 0 12 0 Hems ambia 2 9 1 Kijango 3 10 0 Kimbo 4 8 1 Kisiwani 2 10 1 Kwelumbizi 1 13 1 Makumba 2 10 1 Mashewa 3 11 0 Mtoni Bombo 0 11 0 Muzi Kafishe 2 16 0 Shebomeza 2 18 0 Total 21 128 5 Percentage 13.6 83.1 3.2 Source: Household survey data, 2014

Key informants added that adjacent communities were degrading EUBR through timber extraction, firewood collection and carvings.

3.1.12 Access to Natural Resources

This study found that various groups in the surveyed communities had equal access to natural

resources for their socio-economic activities. It was reported by household respondents that

men, women, poor and rich people had equal opportunities in the access of natural resources.

Access to resources by men was supported by 82.5% of the respondents and access to natural

resources by women was supported by 84.4% of the respondents. Equally, focus group

discussion and key informant interview reported that there was no segregation to the access o

natural resources among the poor and rich given that all resources were owned through

customary, laws and bylaws which do not segregate human beings. However, during focus

group discussion there was concern from women which is no equal treatment in owning natural resources between man and woman. The concern was largely attributed to the inheritance of family resources. It was further clarified that such segregation does not apply at community level, rather depends on the setting of the individual households. This implies that despite the fact that there is no segregation in the access to natural resources at community level; however, individual households may constitute some elements which segregate women in the access of natural resources.

3.2 Social capital

This study found that social capital among respondents across the studied villages was partly

associated with the membership to community groups. However, majority of the respondents

in the studied villages were not members to community groups. As indicated in Figure 4,

only 28% of the respondents reported to be members of the community groups.

Yes 28%

No 72%

Figure 4: Respondents views on the membership to community financial groups Source: Field survey data, 2014

As illustrated in figure 5, household survey respondents reported that some of the community groups in their villages were characterised by women groups, men groups especially those focusing on beekeeping, Savings and Credits Cooperatives (SACCOS) and Village

Community Bank (VICOBA).

3% SACCOS 4% 5% Women groups

Men groups for 16% beekeeping VICOBA

72% Not members to community financial groups

Figure 5: Respondents views on membership to community groups Source: Field survey data, 2014

Discussions with focus group participants on community groups indicated that most of the groups were formed voluntarily without formal procedures and proper documentation. It was mentioned by focus group discussion participants that most of the groups had a mixture of men and women, and were formed on the basis of neighbourhoods to ease assisting each other during hardship. It was also clarified by the focus group discussion participants that the groups have been emerging and disappear partly due to lack of awareness and mission guiding the formulation and operationalization of their groups.

3.3 Financial capital

3.3.1 Savings/debt

This study found majority of the respondents were not members to the saving and/or debit

organizations (e.g. VICOBA). According to the household survey findings, about 91.6% of

the respondents in all studied villages reported to have no saving at all, while about 8.4% of

the respondents across the studied villages reported to have savings. However, according to

the focus group discussion participants, these savings had small balance, with an estimated

highest amount to be Tshs. 100,000. Focus group discussion participants reported that for

those men who do, they had individual bank accounts. Focus group discussion participants

also added that women with individual savings often use informal saving approaches, by

keeping their money in a box within their home, or in bank accounts. It was further clarified

by focus group discussion participants that women occasionally have savings within a self-

help group where they maintain a group bank account.

3.3.2 Credit

This study found that access to microcredit in the surveyed villages was relatively difficult. It

was found that only few individuals (8.4% of the respondents across the studied villages), encompassing women and men were being engaged in microcredit activities. As shown in

Table 21 below, it was further revealed through household survey findings that there were variations of membership among the studied villages. According to the household survey findings, there were no respondents who were members to community financial groups in

Kijango, Makumba and Mtoni Bombo villages (Table 21).

Table 21: Respondents responses on the membership to community financial groups

Do you have saving/ debt Total Village Yes No Foroforo 2 10 12 Hems ambia 1 11 12 Kijango 0 13 13 Kimbo 2 11 13 Kisiwani 1 11 12 Kwelumbizi 1 13 14 Makumba 0 12 12 Mashewa 3 11 14 Mtoni Bombo 0 14 14 Muzi Kafishe 1 17 18 Shebomeza 2 18 20 Total 13 141 154 Source: Household survey data, 2014

Household survey findings further indicated that majority of the respondents who were members to community financial groups had more than Tshs. 100,000, while other had amount ranging between Tshs. 50,000 and Tshs. 100,000 as well as less than Tshs. 50,000

(Figure 7).

1 Less than 50,000

2 Between 50,000 and 100,000

3 More than 100,000

4 Not members to community financial groups

Figure 6: Respondents views on the amount of savings Source: Field survey data, 2014

Discussions with key informants and focus group discussions showed that low number of respondents with membership to community financial groups were largely associated with lack of start-up capital to put down as deposits, high interest rates charged and stable income generation that can sustain membership contribution to the group and loan repayment.

3.4 Household Engagement in biodiversity businesses

3.4.1 Types of Green Businesses

Majority of the respondents were aware of existence of green economies. The Focus group discussion findings revealed that some communities were actually engaged in green business.

The mentioned green economies were beekeeping, fish farming, spice farming, processing

and selling and butterfly farming. However the importance of these businesses to household

income lagged behind farming and livestock keeping. As illustrated in Table 22, household

respondents indicated that income from household socio-economic activities, including the

green economy activities, varied accordingly depending on the level of investment and

capability of the household to implement the activity.

Table 22: Perceived income per month from of household economic activities Less than 50,000- More than Activity 50,000 100,000 100,000 Wage/ salary 0 22 1 Trading 18 11 1 Farming (food crop production and spice 26 92 0 farming) Wood and wood products 0 1 0 Livestock keeping 18 87 0 Beekeeping 0 2 0 Herbs and tree nursery 0 2 0 Spice making 1 1 0 Tea plantation 0 1 0 Fish farming 1 0 0 Butterfly farming 0 0 1 41 111 2 Source: Household survey data, 2014

Discussion with key informants and focus group participants indicated that the performance

of green business activities was poor partly due to lack of financial resources to invest in the activities, inadequate awareness on proper management of some of the activities such as beekeeping, and lack of awareness on proper procedures to acquire area in the forest reserve for beekeeping activities. Key informant interview also clarified that it was difficult to quantify income from green business activities due to poor performance and since some of

the activities were practised on trial and error basis among households in and around EUBR.

As presented in Table 23, findings from Focus Group Discussion and Key Informant

Interview corresponded to household survey findings whereby majority of the respondents

(61.7%) were of the opinion that they were struggling to improve productivity of their household activities.

Table 23: Perceived status of household economic activities Activities Status Very Good Struggling good Wage/ salary 2 2 4 Trading 5 8 17 Farming (food crop production and spice farming 14 28 73 Wood and wood products 0 0 1 Livestock keeping 13 28 64 Beekeeping 0 0 2 Herbs and tree nursery 0 0 2 Spice making 1 0 1 Tea plantation 0 0 1 Fish farming 0 0 1 Butterfly farming 1 0 0 Tea plantation 1 0 0 Total 21 38 95 Percentage 13.6 24.7 61.7 Source: Household Survey Data, 2014

3.5 Markets for the green business products

This study found there were various levels of market sources for green economy products across the study area. It was reported FGD respondents that they depend much on selling their produce such as spices to neighbours within and adjacent to their villages, individual business people from the district, Tanga, Arusha and Dar es Salaam towns who normally go to their villages for collecting spices and other farm and non-farm products and researchers who visit their villages. According to the FGD and household survey findings, other business people were coming from Moshi Town in Kilimanjaro region for collecting and/or spices.

Household survey findings further indicated that there was no clear arrangements for

accessing markets for farm and non-farm produce. According to the findings from

discussions at household level and FGD, apart from local markets from their villages and

adjacent town centres, depending on the type and quantity of produce, individual households

were also able to contact their customers in the village, district, region and neighbouring town

centres and cities. Other respondents, especially those involved in butterfly farming, were of

the opinion that they were able to reach their customers through an agent, mainly the

Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG). Furthermore, findings from household survey indicated that about 96.8% of the respondents across the study area reported that they depended on personal efforts to secure markets for spices and honey, while only 3.2% reported that they were using agents. According to the focus group discussion and key informants interview, the use of agents was largely associated with butterfly farming.

3.6 Challenges facing livelihood activities

Field survey findings found several challenges that were affecting communities in and around

the EUBR in their efforts to implement green business activities. Household respondents mentioned that some of the key challenges for green business were price fluctuation (50%), inadequate capital (39.6%), and lack of markets (26%), lack of transparency (25.3%), poor means of transport (19.5%), effects of the changing climate (7.8%) that exacerbates more pressure on the biodiversity resources and poor farm implements (4.5%) (Figure 7).

Poor means of Climate change Poor farm transport 4% implements 11% 3%

Inadequate ca pita l 23%

Price Lack of fluctuation markets 29% 15%

Lack of transparency 15%

Figure 7: Respondents view on challenges facing Green Business Source: Field survey data, 2014

Therefore, for sustainability purposes, the design of interventions for GEBR project has to consider strategies for counteracting these challenges.

3.7 Opportunities for Green Economies in the area

Analysis of field survey findings showed that the East Usambara Biosphere Reserve (EUBR) can be utilised through a number of green economies activities. Key informants and focus group discussions mentioned that communities in and around EUBR can benefit through small scale based enterprises such as beekeeping, butterfly farming, spice farming, spice making; and eco-tourism or cultural industries such camping and canoeing activities, site views, parachuting and canopy walk. Key informants emphasized that joint efforts between government institutions, non-governmental organisations including faith institutions, private sector, and individuals will improve the performance of green business activities.

3.7.1 Small scale technology- based enterprises

3.7.1.1 Beekeeping

Discussions with household respondents, focus group discussion participants and key informants indicated that beekeeping is one of the important activities that can improve communities’ livelihoods and promote biodiversity conservation in and around the EUBR. It was mentioned by key informants that although currently there is no active involvement of villagers in beekeeping activities, it has a potential to contribute significantly to the conservation of biodiversity and/or natural resources and communities livelihoods in and around EUBR if well promoted. It was informed by FGD and KII that implementation of beekeeping activities can be succeed through the formulation of community groups, ranging

from 5-10 members, and an average of 5 beehives per member.

3.7.1.2 Butterfly Farming

Butterfly farming was one of the activities mentioned by majority of the key informants,

FGD participants and household respondents in the studied villages. The respondents

mentioned that butterfly farming can improve income generation and thus reduce pressure on

natural forest resources. However, during focus group discussion, it was mentioned that lack

of transparency on the markets for butterflies hinders the effectiveness of butterfly farming

business. Therefore, they recommended that initiatives to improve transparency on the

business should be given priorities. Women engaged in butterfly farming in Shebomeza

village were also interested in establishing some small scale industries for making ornaments

from butterfly wings. This will enhance markets for butterflies reduce dependency on one

agent (TFCG) for markets. However, the industry is no longer operating due to lack of funds

for purchasing raw materials and was under the same agent, (TFCG).

3.7.1.3 Spice farming and spice making

Spice farming and spice making were also recommended by majority of the respondents during household survey, focus group discussion and key informants interviews. Key informants interview recommended that spice farming is crucial for both household livelihoods and biodiversity conservation. Key informants interview further emphasized that spice farming can only be sustainable if farmers can be trained on spice processing and marketing skills. It was also recommended by focus group discussion participants that provision of processing machines, and packaging materials can improve spice business and thus increasing household income and contribute to biodiversity conservation.

3.7.2 Eco-tourism/Cultural Industries potentials

3.7.2.1 Camping

Key informants interview revealed that camping is one of the environmental friendly

activities that can be promoted in order to improve livelihoods of local communities and

biodiversity conservation. It was also emphasized that camping activities can also promote

utilisation of other tourist attractions sites such as parachuting, canopy walk and site views.

For sustainability purposes, implementation of this activity has to be accompanied by the

development of exit strategy which will set framework of management after the phase.

3.7.2.2 Canoeing/Boat riding

Canoeing and/or boat riding were one of the activities recommended by key informants at

Amani Nature Reserve technical staff. The informants suggested that the activities can be

effectively be implemented in Foroforo and Makumba villages, where there is a dam which be utilised for canoeing and boat riding. The dam can also be used by villagers for fishing activities. However, it was mentioned by key informants at Amani Nature Reserve that canoeing and boat riding as well as fishing activities can be effectively undertaken if there is improvement of water level through the control of siltation. Basing on the discussion with key informants and FGD, it is recommended that implementation of this activities be spearhead by LGAs and Tanzania Forest Service Agency (TFS) through EUBR office.

However, GEBR can provide necessary support (financial and materials) as an enabling environment for the canoeing and boat riding investments.

3.7.2.3 Site Views

Technical staff at Amani Nature Reserve office mentioned site views as one of the activities

that can promote eco-tourism in EUBR. It was mentioned that site views can be effectively

developed at Mbomole, Kiganga and Ngua villages which are within and around the EUBR.

Key informants were of the opinion that site views can promote eco-tourism and thus

contributing to the conservation of biodiversity in the EUBR. In this regard, it is

recommended that GEBR builds on the ongoing initiatives by EUBR by providing material

and financial support. It is also emphasized that adjacent LGAs be encouraged to utilize the

ecotourism opportunities. However, GEBR support should be based on agreeable business

plan which encompasses SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Reliable and Time

Bound) exit actions.

3.7.2.4 Parachuting

Key informants interview at Amani Nature Reserve office identified parachuting as one of

the important tourism activities given the landscape of the EUBR. It was mentioned that

some of the areas suitable for parachuting activities include Rutindi peak. It was further

emphasized that Nature reserve office has started identifying how such opportunities can be

utilised in order to promote eco-tourism and generation of income which can further be

invested in biodiversity conservation. In this regard, it is recommended that GEBR builds on

the ongoing initiatives by EUBR by providing material and financial support. However,

GEBR support should be based on agreeable business plan which encompasses SMART

(Specific, Measureable, Attainable, Reliable and Time Bound) exit actions.

3.7.2.5 Canopy Walk

Canopy walk is one of the potential opportunities for eco-tourism in the EUBR given forest canopies in the area. Interview with technical staff at Amani Nature Reserve indicated that canopy walk can be used to attract tourists in the area. During the interview with technical staff at Amani Nature Reserve revealed that utilisation of canopy walk has been integrated in the conservation and eco-tourism programme. However, it was indicated that inadequate

funds has been a barrier to utilize canopy walk for eco-tourism. In this regard, it is

recommended that GEBR builds on the ongoing initiatives by EUBR by providing material

and financial support. However, GEBR support should be based on agreeable business plan

which encompasses SMART (Specific, Measureable, Attainable, Reliable and Time Bound)

exit actions.

3.7.2.6 Water Falls

Waterfalls sites are some of the sites in the EUBR that can be developed for eco-tourism.

Officials at Amani Nature Reserve office mentioned that Pacha falls, Chemka and Derema falls provide opportunities for the development of eco-tourism in and around the EUBR.

According to the informants, development of waterfalls sites in conjunction with other tourist sites can promote tourism activities and thus contributing to the improvement of communities’ livelihoods and biodiversity conservation. In this regard, it is recommended that GEBR builds on the ongoing initiatives by EUBR and LGAs by providing material and financial support. However, GEBR support should be based on agreeable business plan which encompasses SMART (Specific, Measureable, Attainable, Reliable and Time Bound) exit actions.

3.8 SWOC Analysis of Green Businesses

Sn Activity Strength Weakness Opportunities Challenges Remarks 1 Beekeeping  Environmental friendly  Informal groups have  There is informal groups  Require financial  Beekeeping is important activity that can no support from that can be promoted and material for environmental promote biodiversity government, private support to conservation and provides conservation and and nongovernmental  Suitable forest area for implement this opportunities for alternative income generation organisation beekeeping activities activity income generation among among participating local communities households in and  Inadequate awareness  support from LGA and  Investment in around EUBR on beekeeping Amani Nature Reserve awareness raising is  Strengthening capacity and activities office for promoting also important and formalisation of existing  Readiness of villagers beekeeping require financial groups, and formulation of to engage in  lack of facilities for and material new groups for beekeeping beekeeping beekeeping activities  Readily local and support can promote beekeeping international market for activities  Potential for bee products engagement of women  Provision of facilities and and men engagement equipment for beekeeping in beekeeping such as beehives can promote beekeeping activities in the area

 Sustainability of beekeeping activities depend on needs assessment and proper accounting of income and development of appropriate investment plan 2 Butterfly  Environmental  Lack of transparency  There is individual  Inadequate  Butterfly farming is Farming friendly activities for on the sources of families and groups who knowledge on important for income income generation and market and price for are engaged in the activity markets and lack of generation and contributes to contributes to butterfly business that be supported through materials for environmental conservation biodiversity causes of blames GEBR project butterfly farming conservation among participating  Existing individual  support from Tanzania  Engagement of households  Variation of households and groups can Forest Conservation communities in  Require start-up funds climatic condition is be supported so that other Group (TFCG) and butterfly activities which is a challenges emerging to be community members to learn

 potential for in most households Amani Nature Reserve critical challenge to and engage in the butterfly engagement of women  Require special skills provides opportunity for butterfly farming farming and men in butterfly for undertaking such promoting butterfly farming activity farming  Support for butterfly farming may encompass  There is market at start-up funds, pesticides, international market entrepreneurship skills, access to markets, facilities and equipment for butterfly farming

 Transparency in market opportunities for butterfly farming may have significant contribution to the sustainability of butterfly farming 3 Spice farming  Contributes to  Inadequate knowledge  Favourable climatic  Limited  Important for improvement environmental  Inadequate financial condition for spice knowledge on spice of household income and conservation and material support farming farming biodiversity conservation  Generates income for  Lack of  Readiness of communities  Awareness raising is households entrepreneurship in and around EUBR for important tool for  Both men and women skills engagement in spice improvement of spice can be engaged in farming farming activities spice farming  Support from LGAs and  Up-scaling lessons from Amani Nature Reserve farmers can be important for office spice farming business  Local and potential international market for spice products 4 Spice making  Provides value  Require processing  Communities in EUBR  Lack of  Provision of appropriate addition for spice facilities which is a are using local traditional appropriate processing technology will products challenge in most knowledge to process and technology on improve spice products for  Potential for local and households market spice products. proper processing local and international international markets  Require start-up funds Thus improvement of of spices markets  potential for which is a challenges local communities  Entrepreneurship skills is engagement of women in most households entrepreneurial skills,  Lack of modern an important tool for and men in butterfly  Require special skills financial and technical packaging materials promotion of spice products farming for undertaking such support can promote spice  Provision of packaging 39

activity making activities  Poor access to materials and skills will marketing improve spice products and information attract local and international markets  Lack of reliable  Few groups and individual markets for spices households who are currently engaged in spice making can be supported so that other community members to learn and engage in the business 5 Camping  Environmental  No evidence of how it  Roman Catholic has  Heavy investment  Camping is important for friendly activities for can perform even started investing in on camping revenue and biodiversity income generation to though Roman camping activities facilities and conservation adjacent households Catholic has started  Amani Nature Reserve services may  Require analysis of and participating camping sites, and office has identified require significant environmental assessment to institutions Amani Nature camping as one of the amount of funds avoid detrimental effects to  Promotes other tourist Reserve has identified key activities to be the environment sites and the activity for promoted for eco-tourism  Require time and  Provides off-farm promoting eco- investment in facilities and employment tourism infrastructures opportunities for both  May require start-up  Require clear plan on how men and women funds to set up local communities will be infrastructures and involved facilities 6 Canoeing/Boat  Promotes  Siltation to the dam is  There is a dam in  Heavy investment  Important for eco-tourism, riding environmental a major barrier for this Foroforo village which on canoeing analysis of investment costs conservation activity can be improved for facilities, and its potential in  Potential for income  Performance of this canoeing and boat riding. infrastructures, and contributing to tourism is generation activity require  The dam can also be used services may required  Potential for tourist investment in for other livelihood require significant attractions infrastructures and activities such as fishing amount of funds.  Potential for other facilities to attract livelihoods activities tourists such as shops, and  Adequate funds is fishing for business required for investing and subsistence in entrepreneurship programmes 7 Site Views  Potential for  May require adequate  There is a number of site  Heavy investment  Important green economy promoting biodiversity funds for setting up views which can be on site view activity, but if not well 40

conservation infrastructures to promoted and used for facilities, implemented, benefits to  Potential for enable tourists to eco-tourism infrastructures, and adjacent communities can be complementing other enjoy site views services may marginal. Therefore, its tourist sites  Need to invest in require significant importance to the local advertisement in order amount of funds. communities will need a to promote the clear framework for their activity involvement 8 Parachuting  Potential for  Require special skills  There are several  Heavy investment  Important green economy contributing to the for undertaking such landscape peaks which on parachuting activity for revenue and performance of other activity can be promoted for infrastructures, biodiversity conservation. tourism  Require adequate for parachuting and thus facilities and However, requires investing in improving tourism services may investments for facilities, infrastructures and activities in the EUBR require significant infrastructures and skills that facilities amount of funds. cannot be reached by most

 Require investment in adjacent communities the advertisement and promotion 9 Canopy Walk  Potential for  Require careful  There is favourable  Heavy investment  Highly recommended contributing to other assessment to avoid canopy environment for on canopy walk activity for income and tourism activities environmental establishing canopy walk infrastructures / biodiversity conservation.  Potential for impacts in the infrastructure facilities and However, environmental contributing to creation of pathways  Support from Amani services may impact assessment can environmental  Require adequate Nature Reserve office as require significant provide proper framework conservation funds for one of the activities which amount of funds. for monitoring ecological advertisement and can be used eco-tourism change promotion activities

10 Water Falls  Potential for  Require adequate  There is favourable and  Heavy investment  Highly recommended contributing to funds for adequate number of on the facilities and activity for income and environmental advertisement and waterfalls which can be services necessary biodiversity conservation. conservation promotion improved for eco-tourism for utilising  Potential for activities waterfalls may contributing to the  Support from Amani require significant performance of other Nature Reserve office for amount of funds. tourism activities promoting eco-tourism through the utilisation of waterfalls sites

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusion

This study concludes that local communities in and around Amani Nature reserve have been/are engaged in green businesses. This was partly linked to the awareness of local communities about green economy businesses. The respondents also indicated their involvement in some green economy activities such as beekeeping, spice farming, processing and selling and butterfly farming. Despite these potentials of green economy, it was reported by respondents that there was poor performance of green business due to lack of financial resources to invest in the activities, inadequate awareness on proper management of some of the activities such butterfly farming, and lack of awareness on proper procedures to acquire area in the forest reserve for beekeeping activities. This study also revealed that the East

Usambara Biosphere Reserve (EUBR) is also potential for other green economies activities, mainly for eco-tourism and livelihoods of communities in and round the Biosphere reserve.

Therefore, it is important that available opportunities be utilised in order to improve local communities’ livelihoods and contribute to biodiversity conservation.

4.2 Recommendation

This study recommends enhancement of the following green businesses in the study area.

. Beekeeping is recommended for its income and biodiversity conservation. It is

practised by a good number of people although at a small scale level. It requires

relatively low start-up funds and can be done in groups in order to accommodate

relatively large number of communities. Strong support from Amani Nature Reserve

office and other institutions, both government and nongovernmental organisations,

and availability of local and international market gives room for beekeeping to be one

of the activities that has to be support and promoted.

. Butterfly farming is recommended for its role in promoting local communities income

and contribute to biodiversity conservation. Favourable climatic condition, local

communities’ engagement and participation of nongovernmental organisation in the

business provides avenues for being successful if financial and materials as well as

technical support are provided.

. Spice farming and spice making is recommended for both household livelihoods and

biodiversity conservation. A good number of people are engaged in the business

although in a very small scale level. Awareness raising, provision of processing

machines and packaging materials can improve spice business at local and

international market and thus increasing household income and contribute to

biodiversity conservation.

. Camping is also recommended for its potentials in contributing to livelihoods of local

communities and biodiversity conservation as well as its contribution to the

utilisation of other tourist attractions sites such as parachuting, canopy walk and site

views.

. Site view is recommended since it is relatively cheap investment, with potentials to

contribute to the promotion of other eco-tourism activities and thus contributing to the

conservation of biodiversity in the EUBR.

. Canopy walk is recommended for its potential contribution to eco-tourism and

presence of favourable forest canopies in the area. There is also strong support from

Amani Nature reserve officials.

. Promotion of waterfalls sites for eco-tourism provides opportunities for the

development of eco-tourism in and around the EUBR. It is recommended for its

potentials in the promotion of other tourism activities and thus contributing to the

improvement of communities’ livelihoods and biodiversity conservation.

References

Adam Akyoo and Evelyne Lazaro (2007). The Spice Industry in Tanzania: General Profile, Supply Chain Structure, And Food Standards Compliance Issues. DIIS Working Paper no 2007/8 Goodwin, H. (1996) In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5, 277-291.

ITC (2001) Product Profile: Spices and Culinary Herbs. UNCTAD Discussion Document. Brussels. Pp. 2-11.

Kiss, A. 2004. Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 232-237

Lusekelo Philemon, (2013) Villagers abandon fish farming, switch to beekeeping. Guardian News Paper. http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/?l=55603 Accessed on 2nd May 2014

Ohanna K., Johari M.,Raymond K and Juhana N., (2008) Magoroto Mlinga Community Ecotourism Project (Mamcep)

Ross, S. & Wall, G. (1999) Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and practice. Tourism Management, 20, 123-132.

Theron Morgan-Brown (2003), Butterfly Farming in the East Usambara Mountains. A report submitted to COSTECH

Theron Morgan-Brown (2007), Butterfly Farming and Conservation Behavior in The East Usambara Mountains Of Tanzania. A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of The University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science University of Florida

UNEP, FAO, IMO, UNDP, IUCN, World Fish Center, GRID-Arendal, (2012) Green Economy in a Blue World www.unep.org/greeneconomy and www.unep.org/regionalseas United Nations Development Programme (2012), Amani Nature Reserve, Tanzania. Equator Initiative Case Study Series. New York, NY

United Nations Division for Sustainable Development - [UNDSD] (2013), A Guidebook to the Green Economy Issue 4: A guide to International Green Economy Initiatives United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways Towards Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. http://www.unep.org/GreenEconomy/Portals/93...pdf Accessed on, Friday 02nd May 2014

Rantala, S., Lyimo, E., Powell, B., Kitalyi, A. and Vihemäki, H. (2011). Challenges and opportunities for collaborative landscape governance in the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. ICRAF Working Paper nr. 127 & CIFOR Working Paper nr 61. Nairobi & Bogor.

Appendices

APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS

1. Household No…………………………...... 2. Date …………………………………………… 3. Village………………………………………. 4. Name of respondent ………………………….. 5. Age of respondent………………………….. 6. Gender: A ( ) Male B ( ) Female

7. Name head of household……………………………………………………………………………… 8. Gender head of household: A ( ) Male B ( ) Female

9. Interview is administered A. household head B. A close family member

10. His or her relationship to household head ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………

11. Place of birth of household head A. In the village B. Outside the village

12. If outside the village, why did he/she move to the village? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………

13. Mention the year he/she arrived at the village ……………………………………………………

14. What is the ownership status of your house? A. Owner of the house B. Renter (If so how much is the rent?)...... C. Provided by employer D. User not paying rent E. Other...... F. I do not know

15. Type of house Bricks under tile Bricks under iron Bricks under Mud under iron Mud under thatch sheets thatch grass sheets

Household Characteristics and Socio- Economic Status

16. Total number of household members------17. Household members’ characteristics

No A. Name B. C. E F G. Is the of the I. If not working, please give J. Who is she/he working Gender Age Marital Status Family member Household member reasons for? 1. 1. Single Level of education involved in any 11. If household member is not 1. His/her own business Female 2. Married 1. Below school age activity working, please (gets all 2. Male 3. Divorced 2. Primary School Student which mention the reason. or a share of the profits) 4. Widowed 4. Primary School graduate brings income to 1.Retired 2. Family business (Works 5. Separated 5. Secondary school Student the family (For the 2.Student with 999. I do not 6. Secondary school graduate last 3 months) 3.Housewife a wage) know 7. Vocational School Student 1.Yes 2. No 4.Cannot find a job 3. Family business (unpaid) 10. Vocational School 999. I do not know 5.Pregnant 3. Small enterprise (less Graduate 6.So ill that he/she cannot work than 10 11. University Student 7.Too old workers) 12. University Graduate 8.Too young 4. Medium or large 999. I do not know 9.Handicapped enterprise 10.Does not want (More than 10 workers) 11 Looks after house State 12.Looks after elderly which industry (e.g. Spice 13.Looks after children processing) 14. Not allowed to work (e.g. 5. Government female members) 998. Not applicable 15. Other (please specify) 999. I do not know 998. Not applicable

18. Fill the following table, only for the livelihood activities practiced by a family member.

Activity Practiced by a Time J. Who is she/he Average monthly Status Importance in For Biodiversity business only family started working for? income from the household income (Activity 3 to 15), Where do you member 1. His/her own activity 1 very (1 important, 2 less get the resources 1 (Yes) business (gets 1. Less than good important, 3 least 1. Forest reserve 2 (No) all 50000 Tshs 2 Good important) 2. Community forest or a share of the 2. 50000> 3 3. Own farm profits) 100000 Struggling 4. Other (Please mention) 2. Family 3. More than business (Works 100000 with a wage) 3. Family business (unpaid) 3. Small enterprise (less than 10 workers) 4. Medium or large enterprise (More than 10 workers) State which industry (e.g. Spice processing) 5. Government 998. Not applicable 999. I do not know 1. Wage/salary 2. Trading 3. Farming 4. Livestock keeping 5. Wood and wood

products 6. Eco- Tourism 7. Fish farming. 8. Sugarcane farming. 9. Butterfly farming 10. Local rafting 11. Beekeeping. 12. Herbs and tree nursery 13. Spice Making 14. Tea Plantation 15. Logging 16. Other (please mention)

19. For biodiversity products, how do you reach your customers? A. Personally B. Through community association C. Through an agent (mention the agent) D. Other (Mention)

20. If market reached through community association and/or an agent, how do you pay them? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………

21. Mention some challenges you face in biodiversity business? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………..

22. Mention other natural resources found in your area which you think can be used to support your livelihood.

Resource Use Access 1. Men 2. Women 3. Rich 4. Poor

23. A. What is your most preferred livelihood activity? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………… B. Give reason ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………......

24. Livestock : Do you have any of the following animals?

Type Number Use a. Food b. Cash c. Both d. Other (Mention) No livestock N/A Chicken/ducks/guinea fowls Goats/Sheep Cows Pigs Donkey Other (Mention)

25. Financial capital: Do you have any of the following? Item Yes/No . Less than 50000 Tshs 2. 50000> 100000 3. More than 100000 Savings/debt Credit

26. Social capital: Are you a member of any community financial group A. Yes B. No

27. Mention that group. SACCOS Women group Men group VICOBA Other (Mention)

28. Where do you get water (Multiple responses allowed in order of priority)

River/Community Well or Pump Forest Reserve Private Well Private Pump Private Pump Private Pump

29. Where do you get building poles? (Multiple responses allowed in order of priority) Forest Reserve Farm Community Forest Own Trees Bought

30. Where do you get local medicine? (Multiple responses allowed in order of priority)

Forest Reserve Farm Community Forest Own Trees Ought

31. Where do you get heat energy? (Multiple responses allowed in order of priority) Type Response Source (Community ) Charcoal Fire wood Kerosene Saw dust Electicity Other (Mention)

32. Where do you get light?

Kerosene Lamp Battery/Solar Generator TANESCO

33. Have you ever heard of energy saving stoves? A. Yes B. No

34. If yes, do you have energy saving stove? A. Yes B. No

35. If do not have but have heard of them, are they available in your village? A. Yes B. No C. I don't know

36. Where do you get the energy saving stove? …......

37. Values of forest products

Product Cost Bunch of Firewood Dose of Traditional Medicines Single Building Pole Sack of Charcoal Litre of Local Honey Bunch of Firewood

38. Do you have any of the following?

Resource Size Land for Subsistence Agriculture Forest farm Land for commercial agriculture

39. Is there any organization which is currently involved in biodiversity businesses in your area? A. Yes B. No 40. If yes, please mention it and the work it does ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………….... 41. Why do you think it is important to conserve our environments/forests? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………...

APPENDIX II: CHECKLIST FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION 1. Please, describe your village. (Probe the form of administration, environment condition, level of development e.t.c) 2. Describe a typical day of a villager in your village (Probe typical day of a man and woman, division of daily activities, roles of men and women in the society) 3. Describe the natural resources found in your area. 4. Do you think the resources are important to you? Do you think it is important that we conserve the environment? 5. Do you have access to the resources? How do you utilize the resources? (Probe access to resources by different social classes and gender, form of management) 6. Are you happy with the current access to the resources? What would you like to change? 7. How do people in your village earn their living? (Probe the division of labor by age, gender). 8. How do you benefit from the natural resources found within/around your village? (Probe the utilization of the resources for various livelihood activities including the biodiversity businesses, Eco-tourism/Cultural Industries potentials including possible clusters) 9. Do you think it is possible to utilize our natural resources without causing problem to it? How? (Study their awareness on the green businesses). 10. Do you think women should get equal access to resources and be involved in livelihood activities as men (Probe women involvement in livelihood activities with an emphasis in biodiversity businesses). 11. Where do you get the markets for the biodiversity products? (Probe, local, international markets, how they reach their markets, charges for using agents if any and challenges in accessing the markets) 12. How do you describe the earnings from biodiversity resource utilization/biodiversity businesses? Is it enough to satisfy your family needs? If not enough, why do you think it fails to earn enough earnings for the family? What do you think should be done to improve the earnings from biodiversity businesses? 13. Suggest some businesses that you think can be done by using the natural resources around village without compromising their sustainability (Probe opportunities for small technology-based enterprises development).

APPENDIX III: CHECKLIST FOR KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS

The interviews focused on the following areas.

a. Brief description of the organization/institution activities b. Demography and political/administrative boundaries c. Natural resources found in the area, management and utilization of the resources. d. Organization/institution role/involvement in natural resources conservation and/or community livelihood support. e. Access to natural resources by gender and social groups. f. Views on Green businesses: involvement, Importance, challenges, advice on way forward. g. Views on potential markets for green economies products: Available markets, access and limitations. h. Current policy and infrastructure support to green businesses i. Opportunities for small technology-based enterprises development with an emphasis in biodiversity based green businesses, potential markets j. Eco-tourism/Cultural Industries potentials including possible clusters k. The capacity of local governments and various GEBR implementing organizations.