DOCSLIB.ORG

Monela Et Al 2005

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Monela Et Al 2005 FINAL REPORT THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM FORESTRY AND BEEKEEPING DIVISION AND IUCN – THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION EASTERN AFRICA REGIONAL OFFICE A Study on the Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts of Forest Landscape Restoration in Shinyanga Region, Tanzania Prepared by: G.C. Monela, S.A.O. Chamshama, R. Mwaipopo & D.M. Gamassa. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................. v LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... vii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...........................................................................................viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................. x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................xvii 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study background ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Environmental management and problems in Tanzania ............................................... 1 1.1.2 Land and forest management practices in semi- arid areas ............................................ 2 1.1.3 Livelihoods and natural resources management in Shinyanga Region.......................... 4 1.1.4 Context of the study........................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Objectives and terms of reference ............................................................................................. 6 1.2.1 Terms of reference and scope of work ........................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Composition of the Task force ....................................................................................... 6 1.2.3 Limitations of the study.................................................................................................. 7 1.2.4.Organization of the report .............................................................................................. 8 2: STUDY METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................ 9 2.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 9 2.1.1 Biophysical characteristics ............................................................................................. 9 2.1.2 Social-cultural characteristics ......................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Institutions and organizations ........................................................................................10 2.1.4 Land use, ownwership and tenure rights .......................................................................11 2.1.5 Economic activities .......................................................................................................11 2.1.6 Demographic factors .....................................................................................................11 2.1.7 Stakeholders in the study area .......................................................................................12 2.2 Data collection ..........................................................................................................................13 2.2.1 Pilot study methodology................................................................................................13 2.2.1.1 Plan and main outcomes............................................................................................13 2.2.1.2 Outcomes specific to sections ...................................................................................14 2.2.2. Biodiversity data collection and analysis ....................................................................17 2.2.2.1.Flora inventory ..........................................................................................................17 2.2.2.2 Study methodology – fauna section ..........................................................................21 2.2.3 Economic data collection and analysis ..........................................................................25 2.2.4 Social-cultural and institutions data collection and analysis.........................................26 3. STUDY FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................27 3.1 Biodiversity ..............................................................................................................................27 3.1.1 Flora biodiversity findings ............................................................................................27 3.1.1.1 Tree species composition ..........................................................................................27 3.1.1.2 Stocking.....................................................................................................................27 3.1.1.3 Basal area and wood volume .....................................................................................29 3.1.1.4 Dominance.................................................................................................................31 i 3.1.1.5 Plant Diversity ...........................................................................................................31 3.1.1.6 Ground cover of the studied Ngitili in Shinyanga Region ........................................33 3.1.1.7 Comparison between different types of studied Ngitili in Shinyanga region ...........34 3.1.1.8 Comparison between the Ngitili in HASHI and non-HASHI areas of Shinyanga Region....................................................................................................................................34 3.1.1.9 Harvested tree species in the surveyed Ngitili of Shinyanga Region........................35 3.1.1.10 Scale and extent of Ngitili within the studied area of Shinyanga Region ...............36 3.1.2 Fauna biodiversity findings ...........................................................................................36 3.1.2.1 Wildlife (Birds and Mammals) ...................................................................................36 3.1.2.1.1. Birds ......................................................................................................................36 3.1.2.1.2 Bird conservation....................................................................................................37 3.2.Economics findings ..................................................................................................................43 3.2.1 Overall economic contribution of Ngitili to livelihoods ...............................................43 3.2.1.1 Values of forest goods and services from Ngitili ......................................................43 3.2.2 Assessment by broad groups of species of the direct values to the household and village economies ...................................................................................................................52 3.2.3 Assessment of the contribution of Ngitili to a reduced effort to collect certain forest products ..................................................................................................................................57 3.2.4 Assessment of the increased and improved economic well being at the household level in terms of nutrition, health, housing and seasonal use of Ngitili .................................58 3.2.4.1 Nutrition improvement ..............................................................................................59 3.2.4.2 Health improvement ..................................................................................................59 3.2.5 Improved housing and seasonal use of Ngitili products for safety net functions..........63 3.2.6 Cost -benefit analysis from the time before Ngitili and the present situation................65 3.2.7 Impact of value of benefits from Ngitili on the household livelihood strategies ..........67 3.2.8 Standard mechanisms developed for valuing the different products.............................70 3.2.9 Assessment of the marketing constraints, prospects and opportunities for benefits from Ngitili.............................................................................................................................72 3.3 Social-cultural and institutional aspects related to woodland restoration ................................75 3.3.1 Local meanings and practice of Ngitili restoration and management ...........................75 3.3.1.1 Changing perceptions with socio -economic reality ..................................................76 3.3.1.2 Differences according to ecological zones ................................................................76 3.3.1.3. Intervention, restoration and ownership ...................................................................77 3.3.1.4 Types and ownership categories of Ngitili at village level .......................................78 3.3.1.5 Ownership and tenure rights......................................................................................79
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The United Republic of Tanzania Shinyanga
    THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA SHINYANGA REGIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE Joint publication by: NATIONAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS (NBS ) AND SHINYANGA REGIONAL COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE CO-ORDINATED BY: MINISTRY OF PLANNING, ECONOMY AND EMPOWERMENT DAR -ES -SALAAM SECOND Edition JULY 2007 i TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD .......................................................................................................................................iv SECTION ONE.....................................................................................................................................1 1.0 LAND, PEOPLE AND CLIMATE.................................................................................................1 1.1 Geographical Location..........................................................................................................1 1.2 Surface Area and Administrative Units ................................................................................1 1.3 Population....................................................................................................................................4 1.4 Climatic Features.........................................................................................................................9 1.5 Drainage ....................................................................................................................................10 1.6 Topography and Vegetation......................................................................................................10 SECTION
    [Show full text]
  • W Ater Supply and Sanitation Programmes Shinyanga Region
    IOB Impact Evaluation | no. 305 | May 2007 Water Supply and Sanitation Programmes Shinyanga Region, Tanzania 1990-2006 IOB Impact Evaluation | Policy and Operations Evaluation Department | no. 305 | May 2007 Water Supply and Sanitation Programmes Shinyanga Region, Tanzania 1990-2006 Printing OBT, The Hague Design Corps, The Hague Cover design Eindeloos, The Hague Lay-out Eindeloos, The Hague Cover picture Mwandutu Water User Group ISBN 978-90-5328-354-7 Ordercode OSDR 0571/E www.minbuza.nl/iob May 2007 Preface Support to water supply and sanitary facilities has been a priority for Netherlands development co-operation for many years. For the current policy on development co-operation, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the guiding principle. These include the target to halve, by 2015, the proportion of people in 1990 without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. The purpose of support to water supply and sanitary facilities goes beyond sustainable access: it is intended to reduce the burden of water collection (typically a task of women and girls); improve health; raise school enrolment and attendance; improve livelihoods and ultimately reduce poverty. The Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs has initiated a series of impact evaluations of Netherlands-supported water supply and sanitation programmes. There is consensus worldwide on the impacts of programmes for water supply and sanitary facilities; conventional evaluation studies do not, however, normally quantify these. In the impact studies, a combination of quantitative statistical and qualitative methods and techniques are used. With the series of impact studies IOB wishes to explore how the magnitude of the effects of these programmes can be measured.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Diversity and Carbon Stock of Natural Regeneration Woodlands of Kishapu District, Tanzania
    The University of Dodoma University of Dodoma Institutional Repository http://repository.udom.ac.tz Natural Sciences Master Dissertations 2018 Vegetation diversity and carbon stock of natural regeneration woodlands of Kishapu district, Tanzania Kwilasa, Gisandu M. The University of Dodoma Kwilasa, G. M. (2018). Vegetation diversity and carbon stock of natural regeneration woodlands of Kishapu district, Tanzania. Dodoma: The University of Dodoma http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12661/1762 Downloaded from UDOM Institutional Repository at The University of Dodoma, an open access institutional repository. VEGETATION DIVERSITY AND CARBON STOCK OF NATURAL REGENERATION WOODLANDS OF KISHAPU DISTRICT, TANZANIA BY GISANDU MALUNGUJA KWILASA A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION THE UNIVERSITY OF DODOMA OCTOBER, 2018 DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT I, Gisandu Malunguja Kwilasa, declare that this dissertation is my original work and that it has not been presented and will not be presented to any other University for a similar or any other degree award. Signature: …………………………………………… No part of this thesis/dissertation may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission of the author or the University of Dodoma. If transformed for publication in any other format shall be acknowledged that, this work has been submitted for degree award at the University of Dodoma”. i CERTIFICATION The undersigned certify that they have read and hereby recommend for acceptance by the University of Dodoma dissertation entitled “Vegetation Diversity and Carbon Stock of Natural regeneration Woodlands of Kishapu district, Tanzania” in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biodiversity Conservation of the University of Dodoma.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Article Public Health Risks from Mismanagement of Healthcare Wastes in Shinyanga Municipality Health Facilities, Tanzania
    Hindawi Publishing Corporation e Scientific World Journal Volume 2015, Article ID 981756, 11 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/981756 Research Article Public Health Risks from Mismanagement of Healthcare Wastes in Shinyanga Municipality Health Facilities, Tanzania Kizito Kuchibanda and Aloyce W. Mayo Department of Water Resources Engineering, University of Dar es Salaam, P.O. Box 35136, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Correspondence should be addressed to Aloyce W. Mayo; [email protected] Received 1 July 2015; Revised 4 November 2015; Accepted 8 November 2015 Academic Editor: Rui C. Marques Copyright © 2015 K. Kuchibanda and A. W. Mayo. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The increase of healthcare facilities in Shinyanga municipality has resulted in an increase of healthcare wastes, which poses serious threats to the environment, health workers, and the general public. This research was conducted to investigate management practices of healthcare wastes in Shinyanga municipality with a view of assessing health risks to health workers and the general public. The study, which was carried out in three hospitals, involved the use of questionnaires, in-depth interview, and observation checklist. The results revealed that healthcare wastes are not quantified or segregated in all the three hospitals. Healthcare wastes at the Shinyanga Regional Referral Hospital are disposed of by on-site incineration and burning and some wastes are disposed off-site. At Kolandoto DDH only on-site burning and land disposal are practiced, while at Kambarage UHC healthcare solid wastes are incinerated, disposed of on land disposal, and burned.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Final ESIA Report November 2009
    Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA) for the Proposed 400 kV Power Transmission Line Iringa - Dodoma - Singida - Shinyanga Draft Final Report - November 2009 Submitted to: National Environment Management Council P.O Box 63154, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Tel: +255 22 2134603 Email: [email protected] Prepared by: Institute of Resource Assessment P.O. Box 35097 Norsk-Data-Strasse 1 61352 Bad Homburg v.d.H., Germany Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Tel: +49-6172-9460-108 Tel: +255-22-2410144 Fax: +49-6172-9460-20 Fax: +255-22-2410393 eMail: [email protected] eMail: [email protected] Declaration The following individuals prepared this ESIA Report: • Dr. Herbert HANKE: Environmental Assessment (ESIA Team Leader) • Ulrich OTTEN, Socio-economist and Resettlement (RPF Team Leader) • Dr. Hussein SOSOVELE: Social Scientist • Dr. Claude Gasper MUNGO'NG'O: Resettlement Action Plan (RPF) • Mr. George SANGU: Biodiversity (ESIA) • Ms. Beatrice MCHOME: Public Consultations and Participation (RPF) • Prof. Palamagamba KABUDI: Environmental Law and Regulations • Ms. Zubeda KICHAWELE - Social Surveys • Mr. C. MSONGANZILA- Social Surveys • Mr. Alexander CHAMBI - Social Surveys • Mr. Florian SILANGWA - Social Surveys • Mr. Emmanuel HANAI - Social Surveys • Ms. Zaina KIJAZI - Social Surveys ESIA for 400 kV OHL Iringa - Dodoma - Singida - Shinyanga: Draft Final Report MVV decon ♦ IRA November 2009 Acknowledgement The ESIA report would not have been possible without the assistance of many people. The ESIA team wishes to thank all of them for their generous contributions, expertise and resources that have been used in this report. The information and insight provided by the village people, government officials, agencies and organizations along the route of the proposed 400 kV transmission line have greatly been useful in drawing up the report.
    [Show full text]