Agroforestry Potential on Household Lands Outside the Mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve, Tanzania: Forest Conservation And Livelihood Implications
By
Amy Kathryn Quandt
B.S. University of Puget Sound, 2005
Professional Paper
presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Resource Conservation, International Conservation and Development
The University of Montana Missoula, MT
Spring 2010
Perry Brown, Associate Provost for Graduate Education Graduate School
Laurie Yung, Chair Department of Society and Conservation
Steve Siebert Department of Forest Management
Jeffrey Bookwalter Department of Economics Quandt, Amy K. M.S., Spring 2010 Resource Conservation
Agroforestry Potential on Household Lands Outside the Mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve, Tanzania: Forest Conservation And Livelihood Implications Chairperson: Laurie Yung
Rural residents throughout Tanzania depend upon trees and other forest products for cash income, domestic consumption, and fuelwood needs. Increased tree harvesting has led to forest resource depletion and degradation throughout Tanzania and is a growing national concern. This research explores the interest in and potential of agroforestry on privately owned land to meet household domestic needs and generate cash income through timber, fuelwood and other forest products in the forest dependent- village of Barjomot and the potential of agroforestry to reduce tree harvesting in the adjacent Mt Hanang National Forest Reserve (HNFR). This study was conducted in Barjomot Village from August 2007 until July 2009 using participant observation, focus groups, and 40 household interviews. Firewood and large poles for home construction were the primary forest products collected from HNFR. Sixty five percent of villagers had planted trees, mostly Eucalyptus sp., Grevillea robusta, and fruit trees around their homes, in living fences, and on private cropland. Wealthier households were more likely to have planted trees, and tree planting varied by household location. Additionally, the vast majority of villagers would prefer to collect tree products on their own land, and not from the HNFR. This research suggests that the development of agroforestry on privately owned land could help meet household fuelwood and construction needs in Barjomot and reduce tree harvesting pressure in HNFR. However, individual household needs and interests in cultivating fuelwood and timber species in agroforestry- based systems varies, as does household access to land. Thus, agroforestry development projects should not pursue a ‘one size fits all’ approach even at the village level.
11 Dedication
For my grandmother, Mary Quandt, whose spirit for adventure and love of life has undoubtedly shaped my own.
For the people of Barjomot Village, who have touched my life and helped make Barjomot my home for two years, mtakiiwa kariba na moyo wangu daima.
Ill Acknowledgements
I want to start by thanking all the people of Baijomot Village, Tanzania. In particular I want to thank my research assistant and good friend Martin Beko and his amazing family. Without him this research would not have been possible, and without the support from him and his family life in Barjomot would not have been the same. Additionally, I need to thank villager, friend, and adopted mother Selina Danieli and her ten beautiful children for taking me in and making me a part of their family for two years. Other important villagers that deserve mention include: Mama Yona, Michael Baha, Safari Baha, Yaro, Mwalimu Bura, Mama Rebecca and her children Musa, Haibu, Rebecca, Raheli, Neema and Baraka, BabaNina, Stephano Bohay, my women’s group members, Pascalina, and last but not least little Russell.
I also wish to extend my sincere appreciation to the United States Peace Corps and their staff in Tanzania. My fellow Peace Corps Volunteers also served as an invaluable source of strength and friendship. Thank you Stephanie, Jerusha, Steve, Carla, Tony, Jess, Charlie, Emma, and everyone else who spent two years in Tanzania with me.
I want to express my gratitude to my advisor Laurie Yung. Without your guidance and support through the past 4 years this project would not have been possible. You have been a true joy to work with! Additionally, I want to thank the rest of my committee, Steve Siebert and Jeffrey Bookwalter. Thank you Steve for coordinating the International Conservation and Development graduate program, it has been a truly unique and fantastic graduate school experience studying in this program. Additionally, I am very grateful to John Chandler Pepelnjak- for assistance with statistical analyses.
To all my fellow graduate students: your laughter, friendship and occasional study breaks at the Kettlehouse have made graduate school an incredible and fun time.
And last, but not least, I need to thank my friends and family. My parents and grandmother have been incredibly supportive of my adventures and studies. My parents visit to Tanzania was a highlight of my two years there and I am sure a highlight of their lives as well. And as always, Emily Castor, whose trips to Tanzania and Missoula and countless letters provided laughter and friendship like she has since we became friends in 3rd grade.
IV Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1. Development, Biodiversity, and Local Communities 1 2. The Potential of Agroforestry for Conservation and Livelihood 3 Improvement 3. The Knowledge Gap 5 4. Research Questions 7
Chapter 2: Literature Review 8
1. Livelihoods 8 2. Agroforestry: Practices and Benefits 11 3. Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation 14 4. Challenges of Agroforestry 16 5. Agroforestry in Tanzania 23
Chapter 3: Methods 33
1. Study Area 33 2. Data Collection 40 Participant Observation 41 Focus Group Interviews 42 Household Interviews 44 3. Data Analysis 47 Participant Observation 47 Focus Group Interviews 48 Household Interviews 49
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion 55
1. Barjomot Village Demographics and Context 55 2. Tree Product Collection from Mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve 63 3. The Benefits Villagers Receive and Want to Receive from Trees on 67 Their Land 4. Agroforestry Practices and Trees 74 5. Tree Planting, Tree Product Collection, and Household Location 83 6. Tree Planting and Wealth 90 7. The Agroforestry Potential Outside Mt. Hanang National Forest 97 Reserve
Chapter 5: Conclusions 106
1. Summary of Important Results 106 2. Recommendations for Agroforestry in Barjomot Village 108 3. Broader Implications 119
References 123
Appendix A: Sample Focns Gronp Interview Gnide 131
Appendix B: Sample Honsehold Interview Gnide 133
Appendix C: 16 Major Agroforestry Practices Gnide 138
Appendix D: Additional Tables and Fignres 142
Appendix E: Resnlts That Were Not Statistically Significant 144
VI List of Tables & Figures
Table 1. Framework for assessing adoption potential of agroforestry practices 17 Table 2. Interview schedule and notes 47 Table 3. Tree products collected in Mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve 48 according to focus groups. Table 4. Household crops 142 Table 5. Benefits received from trees 67 Table 6. Why households plant trees 68 Table 7. Why interviewees have not planted trees 71 Table 8. What is preventing interviewees from planting trees 72 Table 9. Agroforestry practices 75 Table 10. Tree product collection from Mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve 89 Table 11. Where interviewees would prefer to collect tree products in the future 97 Table 12. Where interviewees would prefer to collect if they had an 100 agroforestry project ton their land Table 13. Reasons why interviewees want agroforestry education 104 Table 14. Reasons why interviewees would join a village agroforestry project 105 Figure 1. Relationship of agroforestry products and services 13 Figure 2. Approximate boundaries of Baijomot Village 33 Figure 3. Examples of the two main forest types 37 Figure 4. Photographs of Mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve 39 Figure 5. Number of interviews in each sub village- 55 Figure 6. Household livestock 143 Figure 7. Wealth distribution of households 59 Figure 8. How households obtained farm and home plots 61 Figure 9. Households and tree products from Mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve 143 Figure 10. Photographs of illegal tree product harvesting 63 Figure 11. Household utilization of large poles and firewood 64 Figure 12. Benefits interviewees want to receive from agroforestry 70 Figure 13. Photograph of Grevillea robusta planted behind a house 75 Figure 14. Photographs of live fences 78 Figure 15. Photographs of alley cropping and intercropping 79 Figure 16. Approximate boundaries of 4 sub villages- 83 Figure 17. Logistic regression of sub village- and tree planting on home plots 86 Figure 18. Logistic regression of sub village- and tree planting on farm plots 88 Figure 19. Logistic regression of wealth and tree planting on farm plots 91 Figure 20. Logistic regression of wealth and tree planting on home plots 92 Figure 21. Logistic regression model of wealth, sub village,- and tree planting 94 on home plots Figure 22. Photos of poor farmer's land who have planted trees 96 Figure 23. Number of interviewees who would prefer to collect tree products 97 on ‘public’ or ‘private’ land Figure 24. Where interviewees would prefer to collect tree products if they 100 had an agroforestry project Figure 25. Collection of tree products in HNFR and on household land 103
Vll CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
Development, Biodiversity Conservation, and Local Communities
Worldwide, 1.2 billion people have consumption levels below 1 USD a day and
2.8 billion live on less than 2$ US a day (Adams et al. 2004). While understanding that
different countries have different costs of living, living below 2$ a day, or 730 USD per year, means living in some form of poverty. Poverty remains concentrated in rural areas,
home to half the world’s poor and 75% of people who are considered to be extremely
poor (Naughton Treves,- Holland, and Brandon 2005). Unlike surrounding countries where large populations live in urban centers, the majority of Tanzanians live in rural
areas of the country. Tanzania is also plagued by poverty, the per capita GDP is only 800
USD, and 36% of the population lives on less than a dollar a day (United States
Department of State 2007).
The Tanzanian people and economy are heavily dependent on natural resources to
meet livelihood and development demands. As stated by the former president Julius
Nyerere, “the land is the only basis for Tanzania’s development; we have no other”
(Snyder 2005). For example, small holder farmers contribute about 85% of Tanzania’s
GDP and about 80% of the country’s total foreign exchange earnings (Mohamed 1989).
Additionally, the forest sector contributes 10% of official foreign exchange earnings, or
11% of total merchandized exports, and employs 730,000 people (Monela 2000).
Agriculture and forestry also contribute to non market- household consumption and
livelihoods. For example, 92% of the total energy consumed in Tanzania is wood based,-
largely firewood collected by households to meet livelihood cooking and heating needs (JICA 2006). These figures illustrate the use of natural resources to meet livelihood needs.
The dependency of rural households on the often unsustainable use of natural resources has become a serious problem and led to widespread forest degradation and conversion. According to the FAO (2005), Tanzania is losing forest cover at a rate of
4,212 square kilometers per year. The loss of forest cover is largely due to agricultural expansion by farmers near and around forests (FAO 2005). There are many reasons that rural populations contribute to the deforestation of forested landscapes. Not only is 80% of the population dependent on farming for a livelihood, but tree products are used for fuelwood, construction, and an endless number of household necessities and cash sales.
Forest dependence and degradation for tree products and agriculture is also prevalent at the site of this research, Barjomot Village, which is located in north- central Tanzania in
Manyara Region. In the words of a local farmer who has lived in Barjomot Village his entire life, the landscape of Barjomot “used to be like wilderness with lots of big trees, but now it is nothing but houses and farms.”
Tanzania has historically valued biodiversity conservation and this has helped to save large tracts of land from total deforestation. Tanzania currently has 39.6% of its land area in protected areas of lUCN categories I -IV (Naughton -Treves, Holland, and
Brandon 2005). Furthermore, around 13 million hectares of forest are protected within
540 state- managed forest reserves (Wily 1999). The livelihood needs of people have caused some local populations to turn to protected forests to meet their tree product needs in areas where alternative tree resources have been depleted. Different types of protected forests have different regulations about local use of forest resources, ranging from no allowed use to permitting collection of specific tree products and resources.
Communities living near protected forests often find that they have no choice but to illegally and/or unsustainably collect tree products from such forests in order to meet livelihood needs. This situation is evident in Barjomot Village, which borders Mt.
Hanang National Forest Reserve (HNFR).
To address the many complex issues surrounding local communities, livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation innovative development schemes are necessary. Large - scale development initiatives are often not suitable at the local level. This creates a need for a new paradigm for conservation and development issues. Community based natural- resource management initiatives and projects have become wide spread- in response to the failures of large scale- development and conservation schemes. One such example is agroforestry, which is often seen as an alternative paradigm for rural development worldwide and addresses many of the global challenges highlighted by the UN
Millennium Development Goals and environmental conventions (Leakey et al. 2005).
Additionally, some indigenous agroforestry systems have existed for millennia and thus agroforestry is often perceived as a bottom up -development paradigm. In the past, agroforestry initiatives have been introduced in situations where both production and biological conservation are important (Rocheleau, Weber, and Field Juma- 1988).
The Potential of Agroforestry for Conservation and Livelihood Improvement
Agroforestry encompasses a large range of land use- practices and is practiced in both modem and traditional forms around the world. Currently, almost 1.2 billion people or 20% of the world’s population depend on agroforestry products and services for their livelihoods (ICRAF 2006), and approximately 1.8 billion people make some use of
agroforestry products and services (Leakey et al. 2005). A more recent study by the
World Agroforestry Center suggests that these numbers may in fact be low and that
nearly half of the world's farmlands have at least 10% tree cover, spanning more than 10
million square kilometers in total (World Agroforestry Center 2009).
Agroforestry is a multifaceted, ecologically based,- natural resource management
system that, through the integration of trees on farms and in the agricultural landscape, is
believed to diversify and sustain production for increased social, economic, and
environmental benefits for land users (Franzel and Scberr 2002; Scbrotb et al. 2004). To
put it simply, agroforestry involves the combination of trees, crops, and animals on the
landscape. Environmentally, agroforestry has the potential to reduce pressure on natural
forests, serve as windbreaks and erosion barriers, facilitate the movement of pollinators,
and aid in soil nitrogen fixation as well as a wide variety of other benefits (Franzel and
Scberr 2002). Economically, agroforestry can supply households with tree products,
medicines, livestock feed, and timber. Examples of the social benefits of agroforestry
include shade for meetings areas, religious practices, and the aesthetic value of the
landscape.
Within the landscape surrounding protected areas, agroforestry can be used to
protect biodiversity and help alleviate deforestation and edge effects (Gascon et al. 2004).
Agroforestry systems can be integrated into areas outside of protected forests in order to
play a conservation role by producing tree product and thereby minimizing the potentially unsustainable use of protected forests (Gascon et al. 2004). The Knowledge Gap
While there is a large and impressive body of literature on agroforestry, many questions remain unexplored. My research aims to fill gaps in the current body of agroforestry research. Addressing issues of adoption potential are crucial when evaluation at how agroforestry may affect livelihoods and thus a large body of research exists about the adoption potential of agroforestry because of the specificity and contextual nature of agroforestry practices and their impacts (for examples see: Bellow
2008; Belsky 1993; Leakey et al. 2005; McGinty, M, Swisher, M. and J. Alavalapati
2008; Mercer 2004). The applicability and efficacy of agroforestry practices vary from site to site and between different agroforestry systems. Designing appropriate agroforestry programs is difficult because many things must be considered such as multiple production goals, livelihood needs and resources, and cultural values (German,
Charamila, and Tolera 2006). A great deal of natural resource research has been conducted in Tanzania (see Chamshama et al. 1998; Conte 1999; Holmes 1995; Kajembe et al. 2005; Petersen L. And A. Sandhovel 2001; Skutsch 1983; Stocking and Perkin
1992; Toner 2003; Westman 1990), but little information available about Hanang District or Mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve. The site specific adoption potential of agroforestry in this region is a focus of this study.
Research specifically focusing on agroforestry outside of protected areas is sparse. Most such literature focuses on how agroforestry outside of protected areas can create biological corridors (Laurance, S.G.W. 2004), forest microclimate buffers
(Laurance, W.F. and Vasconcelos H.L. 2004), and provide an intensified land use - strategy that could help prevent the clearing of additional forest (Schroth et al. 2004). There is little information focusing specifically on the potential of agroforestry outside of
protected areas to provide tree products in order to relieve pressure on the protected
areas. It is important to note that the collection of tree products or non timber- forest
products may be done sustainably or be beneficial for the conservation of the forest,
however many villagers in Barjomot stated that local use of trees was not sustainable.
One villager commented that "the people will finish the forest." This study will examine the assumption that providing tree products through agroforestry will relieve the pressure
on protected forests to provide these products. My study will also help our understanding
of how and what agroforestry practices have the potential for reducing pressure on
protected forests for providing tree products, while improving local livelihoods equitably.
By equitably I mean spreading the work and benefits of agroforestry between different
groups of people, for example between men and women, and rich and poor, or that the use or adoption does not favor certain groups. This research is a case study, that I hope will serve as a call to action in Barjomot Village, and Hanang District more generally, to
improve the current land use- management practices and livelihood strategies. The
objectives of this project include:
1. Determine which tree products are collected from the Mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve, by whom, and for what purposes in Barjomot Village.
2. Determine which current agroforestry practices and species currently exist and which have potential for adoption, are of significant interest and value to local populations, on individual land holdings outside the HNFR and whom they would benefit. 3. Explore socio- economic factors in Barjomot Village that contribnte to tree prodnct collection and/or agroforestry potential.
4. Make specific recommendations for fntnre agroforestry projects in Barjomot Village.
Research Qnestions
What is the potential of agroforestry for redncing the collection of tree prodncts from within the Hanang National Forest Reserve and meeting honsehold livelihood needs in Barjomot Village, Tanzania?
1. What tree products do villagers collect in Hanang National Forest Reserve, what did they collect in the past, and what do they anticipate collecting in the future? • Which products are for sale and which for subsistence? If they are for household use, what purposes do they serve? When are they collected and by whom? Has tree product collection changed over time? 2. How might land tenure affect the potential for agroforestry? • How is land distributed between villagers? How is land controlled at the household level? How does the current land tenure system affect the potential for agroforestry and affect the distribution of benefits amongst agroforestry project participants? 3. What are the agroforestry practices currently utilized on individual holdings outside Hanang National Forest Reserve? • What are specific agroforestry practices employed, by whom, using which species, and for what products? How do villagers conducting agroforestry describe the benefits and challenges? 4. What is the potential for agroforestry to reduce collection of tree products in the reserve? CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW
This research builds on a fore structure of knowledge provided by the agroforestry paradigm, as well as information on livelihoods. Some aspects of agroforestry relevant to this specific research project are presented here in order to better situate the project in the broader body of agroforestry research. The first section reviews livelihoods and livelihood strategies relevant to Tanzania. The majority of the literature review focuses on agroforestry research, which has been largely conducted in experimental field plots by research institutions and of limited applied relevance. I begin by looking at the potential benefits from agroforestry identified by previous research, then move to focus on conservation benefits more specifically as they are related to my research. Next, I cover some of the challenges facing agroforestry, focusing on adoption potential and reviewing a few failed attempts at creating agroforestry programs. And lastly, I look at relevant literature focused on Tanzania and East Africa.
Livelihoods
The body of literature on livelihoods, and in particular sustainable livelihoods, is immense and this section is by no means comprehensive. A livelihood consists of a household’s capabilities, assets, and activities required for a means of living (Dahlquist et al. 2007). There are five main types of livelihood capital: human, social, financial, natural, and physical (Leakey et al. 2005; Toner 2003). Livelihoods are therefore not purely financial, but encompass a wide range of activities, assets, and non market- goods and services. Households in a community are typically not homogenous in their levels of engagement in different livelihood strategies and practices. Their entrepreneurship. financial and resource capital, labor availability, personal drive, and choice often play a pivotal role in determining whether or not households take advantage of certain opportunities (Leakey 2005). This, among many factors, leads to significant socio economic differentiation between households in a community, and according to
Shackleton and Shackleton (2006) acknowledging such differentiation is important when considering interventions to support rural livelihoods and promote sustainable resource use. Livelihood options are also often of a gendered nature, with different opportunities available for men and women. This is most evident in resource access and control and a whole range of resources in Tanzania are gendered including land, water, trees, income, credit, government social protection, infrastructure, education, health facilities, and political power (Nelson and Stathers 2009).
Livelihoods are not intrinsically sustainable and some may be environmentally damaging. Marschke and Berkes (2006) state that a livelihood is sustainable “when it accounts for the long term- impact in terms of maintaining the natural resource base for use by others and future generations, while being resilient to external shocks and stresses.” This means a sustainable livelihood must not deplete the natural resources it depends upon and ought to also be able to deal with external shocks including changes in the economy, climate change, and many other factors.
Agriculture is the basis of the Tanzanian economy accounting for 43.3 % of GDP,
80% of the workforce and 85% of exports (United States Department of State 2007) including coffee, cotton, cashew nuts, tea, tobacco and sisal (Skutsch 1983). Barjomot
Village is no exception, and agriculture is practiced by virtually every village member.
Alternative, non -agricultural, cash-generation options are very limited in rural areas (Kwesiga et al. 2003). Some alternatives observed in Barjomot Village include bee keeping, small businesses, crafts, brewing of alcohol, sale of tree products, providing paid labor, and working as a clothing tailor. Bee keeping can play an important role in the economy of small- scale farming households in Tanzania, contributing about 50% of household income for some households (Monela 2000). The collection, use, and/or sale of fuelwood are also important livelihood activities. According to JICA (2006), 98.8% of households in Hanang District, where Baijomot Village is located, use wood based- energy for cooking and heating. This means that virtually all households need fuelwood and the collection of fuelwood is a major livelihood activity. Additionally, 90% of fuelwood in Tanzania is collected by women (Chibwana 2005). Even if a household simply collects their own firewood without selling or buying it, this can amount to substantial human and natural assets of a household’s livelihood. Additionally, Monela
(2000) attempted to put a monetary value on all the fuelwood consumed in Tanzania.
Monela estimates that the amount of fuelwood used amounts to more than 30 billion TZ shillings a year when valued at 1000 TZ shillings per cubic meter, the present royalty rate
(1 US dollar = 1250 TZ shillings).
Trees also produce much needed timber for local house construction and after household needs are met, trees provide poles and timber for sale (Snyder 2005). While both timber/lumber and fuelwood are often collected in natural forests, they are also collected from agroforestry trees when natural forests become scarce. For example, in
Kenya farmers have been forced to look for alternative sources of wood due to the depletion of natural forests and most have resorted to Grevillea robusta (a commonly
10 planted agroforestry species in East Africa) trees which are present on farms in much of the Kenyan highlands (Mburu et al. 2007).
Agroforestry: Practices and Benefits
As stated earlier, agroforestry involves the combination of crops, trees, and animals on the landscape. The association of these different elements may be separated temporally or seasonally (Rocheleau, Weber and Field- Juma 1988). The three most widely used categories of agroforestry are agrisilvicultural, agrosilvopastoral, and silvopastoral systems (Nair 1993). Agrisilvicultural systems are those agroforestry practices that combine crops and trees. Agrosilvopastoral systems merge all three components of agroforestry trees,- crops, and animals, while silvopastoral involves trees and animals. The association of trees, agricultural crops, and animals in a farming system is an ancient practice throughout the world, and probably dates back as far as
7000 EC, in the form of shifting cultivation (ICRAF 2006). Many of these traditional indigenous agroforestry practices have been modified and transformed into new techniques throughout the world (Sinclair 1999). Rocheleau, Weber, and Field Juma-
(1988) describe 16 major agroforestry practices. These include the following:
1. Dispersed trees on cropland 2. Contour vegetation strips 3. Alley cropping 4. Trees in home gardens 5. Improved fallows 6. Trees, shrubs and grasses on small earthwork structures 7. Trees and shrubs on terraces 8. Protection and stabilization of waterways and gullies
11 9. Micro- catchments and water management 10. Living fences 11. Trees and shrubs along waterways and floodplains 12. Trees and shrubs on borderlines and boundaries 13. Windbreaks 14. Trees and shrubs along roads and paths 15. Trees and shrubs around bouses and public places 16. Agroforestry in pastures and rangelands This list covers a wide variety of land uses and natural resource management techniques and will be used to classify current agroforestry practices in Barjomot Village (see
Appendix C for detailed descriptions of each practice).
Agroforestry can have social, economic and environmental benefits, and has the potential to link sustainable livelihoods and biodiversity conservation (Kwesiga et al.
2003). The benefits listed by Rocbleau, Weber, and Field Juma- (1988) include cash income, food supply, energy supply, shelter and structures, savings and investments, medicine, raw materials for crafts and cottage industry, resources to meet social needs, and the conservation of water, soil and vegetation. These potential benefits are varied, but it is important to point out that a single agroforestry practice or initiative is unlikely to provide all these benefits. Different practices aim at providing specific services and benefits.
Agroforestry can contribute to household livelihood strategies in many ways. For example, agroforestry can supply fuelwood and charcoal for cooking, fruit and food to help improve nutrition, and improve soil conditions to make agriculture more sustainable and potentially more profitable. A figure by Garrity et al. (2006) helps to briefly outline
12 not only how Agroforestry agroforestry can 1 1 ■ Tree services Tree products (AFTPs) benefit livelihoods, Global challenges: • Improved human welfare Increased Income for but also how it can • Alleviation of poverty poverty alleviation • Reduced environmental degradation help increase Food an d nutritional security environmental Environmental resilience J resilience and Figure 1. The relationship between the two functions of agroforestry trees and their potential to mitigate problems of sustainable biodiversity livelihoods. (From:Garrity et al., 2006). conservation (Figure 1).
Timber and non timber- tree products that arc sourced from trees cultivated outside forests are often called agroforestry tree products (AFTPs) in the agroforestry literature (Leakey et al. 2005). Examples of AFTPs include fuel wood, lumber, poles for construction, fruit, leaves for fodder, traditional medicines, and spices. Trees, both from natural forests and agroforestry practices, often enhance household food security by producing foods, but also provide inputs into other food producing parts of the farm system and by providing fuel for cooking (Belsky 1993). Agroforestry can also help provide health benefits to HIV/AIDS sufferers by providing nutritious fruits and nuts
(Leakey et al. 2005).
Peterson (2008), in a study of Barjomot Village found that there are a number of important tree products that the village members use regularly but are increasingly becoming scarce. Fuelwood adequacy was ambiguous, meaning that villagers felt it was not plentiful, but not at a critical scarcity yet. However, building materials (poles, etc) were inadequate. Peterson also noted that the scarcity of tree products had really only
13 begun to be felt in the previous 5-7 years. Additionally, the villagers of Baijomot felt that a scarcity of local forest resources had decreased the quality and quantity of rainfall
and forest springs.
Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation
Schroth et al. (2004) provide three main hypotheses for how agroforestry can
improve biodiversity conservation. The first is that agroforestry can help reduce pressure
to deforest additional land for agriculture if it is adopted as an alternative to less
sustainable land use practices, or it can help the local people cope with limited
availability of forest land and resources (Schroth et al. 2004). Some of the critiques of
this hypothesis are that if agroforestry proves to be excessively profitable it may expand
into natural forests, and that even potentially sustainable land use practices can be used in
an unsustainable manner (Schroth et al. 2004).
Schroth et al. (2004) also suggest that agroforestry systems can provide habitat
and resources for partially forest dependent native plant and animal species that would
not be able to survive in a purely agricultural landscape. Several critiques of this
hypothesis include the idea that the size and location of agroforestry systems within the
landscape may strongly influence the biodiversity present, and that regardless of how
forest- like an agroforestry system is, there is no substitute for native habitat. In a study
by Naidoo (2004), it was found that in Uganda, a neighbor to Tanzania, the value of
agroforestry contributions to native species will mostly benefit areas close to existing
forest and are likely to favor frugivores and larger species.
14 Finally, Schroth et al. (2004) state that agroforestry can serve as a benign matrix
land use for fragmented landscapes, such that the biodiversity conservation of the
remaining forests will be greater if the agricultural areas are dominated by agroforestry
systems. Agroforestry systems can provide a smoother transition between agricultural
areas and forests by buffering the edge effects on forest microclimate and wind. The
critiques of this hypothesis are that agroforestry could promote invasive species in natural
forests, as well as exotic diseases and that wildlife could threaten crops and human lives.
The three hypothesis provided by Schroth et al. (2004) about how agroforestry
can contribute to biodiversity conservation are important to consider, but the most
relevant to the current study is the first hypothesis that agroforestry could help reduce
pressure on natural forests and help people cope with limited forest resources. People
living close to protected forests are seen as playing an important part in either the
conservation or destruction of these forests as they often rely on forest products, both
inside the protected forest and in surrounding areas, for their livelihoods and subsistence.
Additionally, the protected status of forests may have a large impact on local populations
if access to forest products is restricted. Thus it is these local peoples who should receive
a high priority for development activities which reduce their dependence on the
sometimes unsustainable collection of forest resources taken from protected forests
(McNeely 1988). Promoting agroforestry in communities bordering protected areas has become increasingly recognized as an essential aspect of biodiversity conservation
(McGinty, Swisher and Alavalapati 2008). This is largely because agroforestry can
provide tree products that would have otherwise been collected from the forest, but also because it can serve the purpose of a buffer for the natural forest. In one study that took
15 place in Tanzania the conservation of the forest reserves was further enhanced through
boundary demarcation, using teak, eucalyptus and cedrella. The establishment of forest
nurseries, which now supply a total of up to 84,000 tree seedlings a year has also been
successful (Stocking and Perkin 1992).
Mumiati, Garrity, and Gintings (2001) looked at the contribution of agroforestry
systems to reducing farmers’ dependence on the resources of Kerinci Seblat National
Park on the Sumatra Island of Indonesia. They mainly analyzed the effects of different
household land uses in villages near the national park and their propensity to harvest
resources from the park. They looked at three different types of farming systems that a
particular household could have; rice fields only, mixed perennial gardens (including trees) only, or a combination of the two. What they found is that farmers who had both
mixed gardens and wetland rice fields, and thus a more diversified farming system
overall, extracted the least amount of tree products from the forests. The authors
indicated that the key factors that propelled households to depend on the extraction of
protected forest resources were low farm income, decreased sources of forest products on the farm, and lack of alternative livelihood options. This means that farmers without tree
products available on their farms were more likely to harvest more tree products from the
protected forest. Murniati, Garrity, and Gintings (2001) demonstrate that farmers who
have a more diversified farming system may be less likely to exploit forest resources.
Challenges of Agroforestry
In this section I will focus on three challenges that are specifically related to the
study at hand: the adoption potential of agroforestry, land tenure rights, and the
16 Table 1. Framework for assessing the adoption potential of an agroforestry practice. (From: Franzel and Scherr, 2002). FACTORS KEY QUESTIONS Biophysical performance Does the practice result in higher yields, lower variability and provide the anticipated environmental services? Are these biophysically sustainable? Profitability Is the practice profitable to the farmer as compared with altemative practices? How variable are retums, and how sensitive to changes in key parameters? Feasibility and Do farmers have the required information and resources, and are they acceptability willing and able to establish and manage the practice and cope with problems that occur? Boundary conditions Under what circumstances (biophysical, household, community characteristics, market conditions) is the practice likely to be profitable, feasible and acceptable to farmers? Lessons for effective What does farmer feedback suggest will help interest farmers in the dissemination: extension practice? What type of extension support do they need? What types of and policy changes in institutional arrangements, public investments or market conditions would enhance the adoption potential of the practice?
Feedback to research and How do farmers modify the practice? What does farmer experience extension suggest are research priorities for further modification and development of the practice? equitability of agroforestry programs for different groups of people. Regardless of how
technologically superior an agroforestry method may be over conventional methods of
farming, if farmers do not adopt the practice it becomes fairly useless technology.
Franzel and Scherr (2002) identify 5 different factors affecting adoption potential
including biophysical performance, profitability, feasibility and acceptability, boundary
conditions, extension and policy, and research and extension (Table 1). Mercer (2004)
found 5 factors that include risk and uncertainty, household preferences, resource
endowments, market incentives, and biophysical factors. Mercer (2004) states that the
most important factor is risk and uncertainty, and he breaks down risk into 4 main types
of variables: tenure, experience, extension and training, and membership in cooperatives
and community organizations. Mercer (2004) found that more secure land tenure always
had a positive impact on adoption because there was less risk involved and incentives to
invest in practices that may not yield results for years.
17 Additionally, many authors point to the fact that the expected gains from a new
agroforestry system must be higher than the alternatives for the use of their land, labor,
and capital (see Mercer 2004; Pearce and Mourato 2004). If these gains are not higher than other alternatives people have no incentive to change their land use- practices just because it would contribute more to biodiversity conservation. Another factor to be
considered is labor constraints (McGinty, Swisher, and Alavalapati 2008). If the time of year when tree planting would take place is already busy with other farm or off- farm
activities a technology may not be adopted for the simple reason that people do not have time to complete the necessary labor. Another often cited reason why agroforestry technologies are not adopted by farmers is a lack of market for agroforestry products
(Leakey et al. 2005). If a farmer cannot sell their product, either due to distance from
markets, a lack of demand, or other factors, then the farmer will be unlikely to adopt the
practice.
Achieving the full benefits promised by agroforestry requires a fundamental understanding of why farmers make long -term land -use decisions and why they may
choose some agroforestry practices and not others. The various factors and issues
previously mentioned must carefully be considered before an agroforestry program is
initiated or a particular practice is recommended. Recommendations and research should
go beyond simple biological factors and encompass multiple production goals, livelihood
goals, and cultural values (German, Charamila and Tolera 2006). Additionally, Belsky
(1993) states that socioeconomic research in the field of agroforestry has found that
agroforestry practices with high adoption rates are usually those that offer multiple benefits to the people involved. The farmers and land users- thus can avoid some of the
18 risk involved by incorporating practices that offer multiple benefits instead of a singular
product or function.
Additionally, several authors point out that current agroforestry success has been
relatively localized while to achieve the ultimate goals of poverty alleviation there is a
need to scale up- the benefits of agroforestry (Franzel and Scherr 2002; Garrity et al.
2006; Kwesiga, et al. 2003). It also must be stressed that sustainability is not an intrinsic
characteristic of agroforestry (Schroth et al. 2004). While many agroforestry practices,
such as improved fallows, aim at improving the sustainability of a farming system, not all
agroforestry practices are sustainable or environmentally beneficial (for examples see
Schroeder 1997, Rochealeau and Edmunds 1997).
While the challenge of farmer adoption of agroforestry is crucial when looking at the potential for agroforestry in biodiversity conservation and improving livelihoods, understanding how labor costs and benefits are distributed is also important. While
looking at equity between various classes, levels of wealth, ethnicities, religions, and
other groups is crucial to understanding how to improve livelihoods equitably, the main
focuses of this study is gender equity and wealth. A focus on gender equity is seen as
particularly important in the context of Baijomot Village, Tanzania because of the
societal divide that exists between males and females. Most types of work and duties are
gendered in nature. For example females almost exclusively collect firewood, while
males are largely in charge of thatching a house.
Schroeder (1997) explored how an agroforestry program implemented in The
Gambia took benefits away from women, resulting in an unequal distribution of benefits.
In the study area women had kept gardens in order to sell their vegetables and receive
19 some income. A development project then came in focusing on agroforestry and tree planting and sought to tap into unpaid female labor when in reality the women were losing control over their gardens and not receiving the benefits. This example illustrates the challenge of creating equitable agroforestry projects. Agroforestry programs and agroforestry practices that aim to distribute benefits and meet multiple needs should take into account these sorts of spacial or even temporal collection of forest products, labor inputs, and benefits received.
Rocheleau and Edmunds (1997) propose that instead of incorporating women’s agroforestry practices into existing property frameworks, a more appropriate approach would be to pursue ways of looking at property that reflect the realities and aspirations of women and men. They propose a multiple user approach instead of rigid boundaries and guidelines between users. This means that certain spaces may have multiple user groups and that the groups themselves may be fluid. Development agencies should try to recognize and reinforce spaces in the landscape where women exert relatively more control over resource management decisions and where they are most likely to receive benefits. These could include often overlooked “in between”- spaces not desirable to men such as bush along roads and fences lines, small gardens, and wooded hill sides
(Rocheleau and Edmunds 1997). This is important for the current study in Barjomot
Village because tree resources may not only be found on male dominated- lands. Smaller yet important spaces need to be identified as possible sources of tree products currently, or potentially in the future. Also different genders could have access to different parts of a single tree. For example the women could use the limbs for firewood, while the men sell the lumber, and thus both genders receive benefits from one tree.
20 Livelihoods and wealth can also play an important part in tree planting and
agroforestry adoption. There are a multitude of factors that influence tree planting at the
household level including land tenure security, household income, gender of household
head, labor availability, and number of household acres, to name a few. One of the key
factors examined in this study is household wealth. According to Belsky (1993) there are
two contradicting theories of how wealth influences household tree planting in poor rural
communities. The first is that poor farmers prioritize meeting basic food needs and
therefore do not, or cannot, plant trees because they view trees as competing with food
crop production, require too many years to produce useful products, and necessitate
secure land tenure. The second theory is that tree planting and agroforestry are beneficial to poor households who cannot subsist from their own agricultural production, and who therefore achieve food security through engaging in a diversity of income generating
activities, including tree planting. This, however, can be risky because it may be
susceptible to the boom and bust of globally determined commodity prices.
The majority of literature supports the first theory that poorer households are less
likely to plant trees and participate in agroforestry activities. For example, a study by
Bewket (2005) in Ethiopia found that on average poor households had planted 161.7 trees, medium households 361.3 trees, and rich households 454.5 trees. A study in
Zambia by Phiri et al. (2004) discovered that as wealth declines the proportion of farmers
planting improved fallows tended to decline. While 53% of well off farmers- had
improved fallows, only 22% of the poor and 16% of the very poor had planted improved
fallows. In Malawi, Hansen et al. (2005) studied specific factors influencing tree
planting. They discovered that a higher level of education in females seemed to
21 significantly promote household tree planting and those households that possessed more
land and more livestock had planted a greater number of trees.
The broader topic of land tenure must also be addressed in detail when discussing
the challenges of agroforestry. Schlager and Ostrom (1992) describe property as a bundle
of rights. The bundle of rights they identify are access rights, withdrawal rights,
management rights, exclusion rights, and alienation rights. Different combinations and
strengths of these five rights create special types of land tenure systems. Different land tenure systems may either promote or hinder the planting of trees and practicing of
agroforestry systems. For example, a person may be less likely to plant trees if they are unsure they will continue to manage and control their land in the future. Alternatively, the planting of trees can help create more secure land tenure rights. Tree planting can
also be a strategy to claim land rights in areas with open and ‘unclaimed’ lands (Schroth
et al. 2004).
Tanzania has an interesting history pertaining to land tenure. Created in 1967 the
Arusha Declaration nationalized all land (Skutsch 1983). This meant that land that was
not being actively used for production could not be claimed as private property and that
all tree resources on unused, undeveloped land became communally owned. The current
situation in Tanzania is that all land is ‘officially’ owned by the government, which is a
potential major constraint to the current study. Land is then allocated to smaller levels of
government, who then divide the land among citizens. For example, during the early years of land division in Barjomot Village each household, and in particular the male
household head, was given 4.5 acres of land. These households then have a de facto tenure and ownership over the land. In the context of Tanzania, Snyder (2005) found that
22 tree planting gave farmers greater security over their land. The Tanzanian government
must compensate farmers for any crops on fields they are using if they decide to allocate the land to another person or designate it for another use such as a school or hospital. If trees are on the land the government must compensate the farmer for the estimated value
of those trees when they are at a harvestable age. This makes tree planting advantageous to land owners because it makes their land more valuable if it should be taken by the
government. Additionally, Snyder (2005) found that tree planting on farm boundaries
allows farmers to cement their claims to land vis -a-vis their neighbors. On the other
hand, tree planting is a land use strategy that reinforces individual claims to land, and can
thus lead to conflicts within the community which in Tanzania was historically a more
communally natured society (Snyder 2005).
Based on this literature, agroforestry and tree planting can influence land tenure
rights and tenure rights also affect tree planting. In Peterson’s (2008) research of the
study site of Barjomot Village he found that 100% of the interview respondents perceived their tenure relationship with their farms and homesteads as ‘ownership.’ ‘Ownership’ was characterized by respondents’ confidence that they had the rights to sell and manage their land however they wanted.
Agroforestry in Tanzania
I will focus now on research about specific agroforestry practices in Tanzania
and East Africa because it helps shed light on what practices are common, which ones work and which ones do not, and other potential challenges. Due to the location of the
World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, extensive research
23 has been done on different agroforestry techniques throughout East Africa. Agroforestry
research in Tanzania has focused primarily on wood production, dry season fodder
supply, soil fertility improvement of crop production, and the domestication of trees
(Tanzania Agroforestry Research and Dissemination Team 2000). The different
techniques that will be covered in this discussion are tree domestication, improved
fallows, rotational woodlots, fodder trees, alley cropping, living fences, and dispersed
trees on farms. Additionally, certain commonly planted tree species will also be
discussed.
Indigenous tree domestication for fruit production in Tanzania has shown to be a
potential agroforestry technique that promotes sustainable livelihoods and biodiversity
conservation. The rationale behind indigenous tree domestication is that the
domestication and commercialization of indigenous trees through agroforestry may
provide an incentive for farmers to plant trees in ways that may reduce poverty, enhance
food and nutritional security, human health, and environmental resiliency (Garrity et al.
2006). Indigenous tree domestication has been pursued and researched in Tanzania
specifically because there are more than 50 indigenous fruit tree species in the miombo woodlands which bear edible fruit (Tanzania Agroforestry Research and Dissemination
Team 2000). There has also been an emphasis on farmer driven and market led-
processes that provide examples of more participatory approaches to tree domestication.
The key for indigenous tree domestication to be profitable is finding markets for tree
products. This is one of the main critiques of tree domestication, unless they meet
domestic, non -market household needs. Scaling -up the markets for these products has so
far proven difficult and farmers have been wary of adopting this technique. Currently,
24 due to the low prices for most indigenous fruits in the markets, fruit collection is not of high importance to most farmers and fruit collection is mainly done by children
(Tanzania Agroforestry Research and Dissemination Team 2000).
In contrast to indigenous trees used for fruits, improved fallows and rotational woodlots have been relatively successful and are the most commonly increasing practice being used by farmers (Tanzania Agroforestry Research and Dissemination Team 2000).
The practices of improved fallows and rotational woodlots will be grouped together in this discussion because they are often utilized simultaneously. Rotational woodlot technology and improved fallows attempt to simulate the traditional fallow system in shifting cultivation in which trees contribute to maintaining soil fertility through nutrient cycling during the fallow phase (Tanzania Agroforestry Research and Dissemination
Team 2000; Franzel and Scherr 2002). In addition to soil fertility benefits, farmers can also harvest wood from these trees periodically and before the field is to be converted back to agriculture. To put it simply, rotational woodlots and improved fallows improve soil fertility, increase crop yields, and provide fuel wood.
In a study conducted on improved fallow and rotational woodlot practices in
Zambia, it was found that farmers used 11% less labor on their improved fallow plot than on an unfertilized maize plot, but harvested 83% more maize (Franzel and Scherr, 2002).
These results are astounding and have contributed to a strong farmer interest in this technology. The main plant that has been recommended for this practice is Sesbania sesban because it grows rapidly, fixes nitrogen, and is indigenous throughout East Africa
(Franzel and Scherr, 2002). This idea of improved fallows is relevant to the current study because many farmers in Barjomot Village plant Cajunus cajun and leave it in the fallow
25 field during the dry season. Potential limitations to the use of improved fallows and rotational woodlots are that some trees are susceptible to disease and parasites, theft of wood and animal damage.
Dry season fodder trees for livestock are another example of an agroforestry technology that has been heavily researched but has a low adoption rate by local farmers in Tanzania. The rationale behind dry season fodder is to provide fodder to livestock species during the dry season, reduce land degradation due to grazing, and provide erosion control (Garrity et al. 2006). Using this practice means that livestock are kept in one area during the dry season and tree leaves are brought to the livestock instead of livestock grazing already dried up and susceptible lands. The main tree species that has been proposed for dry season fodder is Leucena species. There are several critiques of dry season fodder practices. One is that tree leaves alone are not typically nutritional enough to be the only food for the livestock and thus additional plants and supplements must be provided (Franzel and Scherr 2002). Additionally, there is a potential to over harvest leaves and deplete this resource. Dry season fodder techniques have not been highly adopted by local farmers and farmer interest in this agroforestry practice has been low.
The next agroforestry technique to be discussed is alley cropping. Alley cropping has generated a lot of interest among agroforestry researchers because it aims to increase crop yields, maintain soil fertility, and provide a sustainable alternative to shifting agriculture (Chamshama et al. 1998). This technique is typically composed of rows of maize interspersed with rows of Leucena. However exciting the potential of alley cropping may have seemed to researchers, it has thus far proved unviable and is not being
26 highly adopted by farmers. One study in Tanzania found that alley cropping did not
significantly increase the maize yield (Chamshama 1998). Additionally, alley cropping is
not viable in areas experiencing a soil moisture deficit during the cropping season
because of the competition between the maize and Leucena for water (Chamshama
1998). Soil moisture availability is an important factor in many of the semi arid-
ecosystems in Tanzania, and has thus limited the viability of alley cropping.
Dispersed trees on farm land is possibly the most widely used agroforestry
practice. According to Rocheleau, Weber and Field Juma- (1988) dispersed trees on
farms are defined as trees, spaced systematically or randomly, that are grown on farmland
while crops are grown in the understory. These trees are actively protected, managed, and
harvested by farmers to yield construction poles, fuelwood, fodder, edible fruits, nuts and
leaves, medicines, and a range of other products. Trees on farm lands may also increase
soil fertility and crop yield. For example, the presence of Acacia albida trees in fields of
millet or sorghum was found to increase crop yields up to 2.5 times over that obtained in
open fields (Felker 1978). Additionally, Markhamiaplatycalyx and Grevillea robusta are
common in farm fields in several East African countries, where they are both valued for their wood and soil enriching- litter fall (Winterbottom and Hazlewood 1987).
Living fences are also a common agroforestry practice in Barjomot Village, and warrant attention. In the literature, there are arguments about the definition of live
fences, and in particular the differences between live fences and live hedges. Harvey et
al (2005) define live fences as “fences established by planting large cuttings, that easily
produce roots and on which several strings of wire are attached with the obvious purpose
of keeping livestock in or out.” Alternatively, live hedges are defined by Ayuk (1997) as
27 “one or more rows of trees closely planted to form a continuous barrier around the
desired area.” According to these authors the main difference is that live fences are
planted with trees spaced further apart with barbed wire in between. However, for the
purpose of this research live fences and hedges will not be differentiated because the
agroforestry guide used here is by Rocheleau, Weber, and Field Juma- (1988), who define
living fences as “trees or shrubs planted close together and may demarcate areas or help
control grazing animals.” This definition encompasses both of the above definitions for
live fences and hedges.
Live fences are widely planted in Baijomot Village and worldwide are an old, traditional agroforestry practice. For example, in the Americas, live fences were used by
native people and even by the Spaniards after the conquest of America (Budowski and
Russo 1993). The main purposes of live fences are to control livestock movement, and to
provide protective barriers or boundaries around homes or farms (Ayuk 1997). Other benefits of live fences include wind breaks, soil erosion prevention, nitrogen fixation,
niches for animals, and aesthetic value. In addition, in some agricultural regions where
deforestation and conversion to agriculture have been prevalent, live fences can constitute the most prevalent form of tree cover remaining in the landscape (Harvey et al. 2005).
Ayuk (1997) investigated the adoption of live hedges in Burkina Faso and found
interesting results pertaining to farmer perceptions of the advantages/ disadvantages of
live hedges, and criteria for species choice. This study found that farmer’s perceptions of the advantages of live hedges were: 1. Permanent/durability, 2. Protective efficiency, 3.
Erosion control, 4. Labor efficient, 5. Cost effectiveness, 6. Windbreak function, and 7.
Fodder supply. This is interesting and relevant information because it shows why
28 fanners like live fences. Alternatively, the study found farmer’s perceptions of the
disadvantages of live hedges, which were: 1. Thorns hurt children, 2. Pruning the hedges,
3. Competition with crops, 4. Hide out for scorpions and termites, and 5. May lead to
conflict with neighbors. This information is equally important because it highlights some
of the disadvantages of live fences. Additionally, Ayuk (1997) studied farmer’s criteria
for species choice for live fence plants and these included: 1. Resistance to drought, 2.
Rapid growth, 3. Protective efficiency, 4. Convenience to soil type, 5. Advice from forest
officials, 6. Medicinal value, 7. Fruits/fodder, and 8. Resist grazing. These different
preferred criteria for species selection are important because it highlights preferred
species characteristics, which include secondary values of species including providing
fruits, fodder, and medicine. This is consistent with observations from Barjomot Village,
whtxQ Agave sisalana is one of the main live fence species and also produces secondary
products including materials for rope making, and lumber for roof building.
There are several important agroforestry species that are commonly planted in
East Africa and Barjomot Village. The first, and arguably most important, tree species is
Grevillea robusta, which is considered the most common exotic tree species associated
with crops in the Mt. Kenya region (Takaoka 2008) and is also widely planted in
Barjomot Village. According to Peterson (2008) Grevillea robusta is the 5* most
frequent tree species on home and farm plots in Barjomot Village. Grevillea robusta is a
native to subtropical eastern Australia. It has been widely planted in warm temperate,
subtropical and tropical highland areas including parts of Africa, India, Sri Lanka and
Latin America (Booth and Jovanic 2002). Grevillea robusta is an exotic species but has been planted in Tanzania for decades. It was originally used as a shade tree in coffee and
29 tea plantations (Booth and Jovanic 2002) and Grevillea robusta later became a very
common boundary tree to claim land rights in Tanzania after the Villagization program in the 1970s (Reyes, Luukkanen and Mendiburu 2009). According to Reyes, Luukanen, and
Mendiburu (2009), in the 1980s tree planting was promoted in the East Usambara
Mountains, Tanzania with free seedlings distributed to many households and most
farmers chose to plant Grevillea robusta because it is fast growing, easy to propagate,
and it provides tree products including good quality timber. Today, Grevillea robusta is
planted in many different agroforestry practices and for multiple purposes. It is
sometimes planted in pure stands or woodlots, planted along boundaries, planted in rows with crops (alley cropping) or in less regular spatial arrangements with crops
(intercropping) (Mucbiri, Pukkala and Miina 2002b).
Grevillea robusta is widely used to provide tree products including timber and
firewood. It tolerates intensive pruning and its branches provide fuelwood to households.
In a study by Mucbiri, Pukkala and Miina (2002b) they found that in Kenyan maize-
Grevillea robusta systems trees are not felled before they attain a size that can product timber and that 80% of the firewood is harvested when Grevillea robusta is pruned and the remainder when suppressed trees are removed and large trees are harvested. Mburu
et al. (2007) claim that in Kenya deforestation has forced farmers to look for alternative
sources of wood, many people resorting to using Grevillea robusta. In Guatamala, Rice
(2008) found that Grevillea robusta was the first choice for a fuelwood source by 14% of
farmers. Grevillea robusta can also provide more benefits than just providing tree
products. For example, dead leaves and twigs serve as manure in the topsoil layer (Raju
1992). Grevillea robusta is also easy to propagate and not significantly affected by pests
30 and diseases, making it a good candidate for agroforestry (Akycampong et al. 1999). The
pruning of Grevillea robusta represents a compromise between limiting tree production
and promoting crop growth (Lott, Ong, and Black 2009). This means that pruning
provides tree products, limits light competition between the trees and crops, and only
minimally impacts tree growth.
One of the challenges of many agroforestry techniques is competition between
crops and trees, but Grevillea robusta seems to compete less with adjacent crops when
compared to other trees available to farmers due to its deep rooting system (Reyes,
Luukkanen and Mendiburu 2009). Grevillea robusta has the ability to harvest water in
the deeper horizons beneath the crop’s rooting zone, thus reducing competition for water
(Harwood and Booth 1992). While models have indicated that high competition by
Grevillea robusta trees decreased maize yields considerably, the normal field level of
under 200 trees per hectare only causes small decreases (Mucbiri, Pukkala, and Miina
2002a).
A second important tree species is Eucalyptus sp. According to Peterson (2008),
Eucalyptus sp. is the 4* most frequent tree on home and farm plots in Barjomot Village.
Eucalyptus sp. often serves to enhance boundary demarcation (Stocking and Perkin
1992). A third common agroforestry species is pigeon peas or Cajunus cajun. Cajunus
cajun is an herbaceous legume and used for multiple agroforestry practices including
intercropping, alley cropping, and improved fallows. Cajunus cajun ranks high among
preferred species for improved fallows because it also provides food in addition to
improving the soil and providing fuel wood (Kwesiga et al. 2003). Cajunus cajun is
largely planted to improve soil fertility and yields of associated crops through biological
31 nitrogen fixation, nutrient pumping and the incorporation of green manure (Kimaro et al.
2009). Planting Cajunus cajun with crops is a strategy for diversifying food production
and household income since the legumes are both cash and food crops. Cajunus cajun
plants are also fairly tolerant to drought, thus providing farmers insurance against total
crop failure during a season of low rainfall (Kimaro et al. 2009). One of the challenges
of planting Cajunus cajun with crops either in an intercrop or alley crop system is
competition. Kimaro et al. (2009) conducted a study looking at crop yields in Cajunus
cajun- maize farming systems and found that yields of maize intercropped with Cajunus
cajun are often similar or less than that of maize- only fields, indicating that competition
does exist that reduces the yield of maize. However, intercropping did increase maize yield over maize- only when fertilizer was added to the field. Additionally, improved
fallows planted with Cajunus cajun with or without fertilization enhanced yields of maize
and Cajunus cajun. The deeper rooting and slower initial growth of Cajunus cajun
relative to most crops may reduce competition through differentiation of root niche and
peak resource demand (Kimaro et al. 2009).
In this literature review of agroforestry I have focused my discussion on a few
relevant topics to my proposed research. I looked at the general benefits behind
agroforestry as well as the benefits agroforestry can potentially have on biodiversity
conservation. In particular I discussed the relevant literature focusing on how
agroforestry can reduce pressure on protected forests for tree products and resources.
Also important to consider are the challenges facing agroforestry, including adoption
potential, and equity of costs and benefits. And to conclude a brief overview of past
research on different agroforestry practices in Tanzania was given.
32 CHAPTER 3 - METHODS
Study Area
This study was conducted in Barjomot Village, Tanzania where I lived from
August 2007 to July 2009 as a United States Peace Corps Volunteer. Baijomot was
selected as the study site for several reasons. Barjomot Village borders Mt. Hanang
National Forest Reserve, and the boundary between the forest and farms and pastures is
quite drastic, with much more tree cover remaining in the reserve. Also, villagers in
Approximate boundaries of Baijomot Village
Figure 2. Barjomot village and the HNFR from near the top of Mt. Hanang. The Malbadow escarpment and Lake Balangda are visible in the distance.
33 Barjomot collect a wide variety of products from the reserve including firewood, lumber,
and wood for bee hives. Furthermore, agroforestry is already practiced by some land - users. A fourth reason is because I, the researcher, was familiar with many aspects of the village and had many contacts and relationships in the area.
As mentioned above, Barjomot Village is on the northern slope of Mt. Hanang
and borders Mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve (HNFR). If unsustainable, the
collection of tree products from HNFR may be a problem because the forest serves a vital
role in water catchment services (in fact it is often referred to as Mt. Hanang Catchment
Forest Reserve) and the springs running from Mt. Hanang are the main source of water
for the surrounding area (Holmes 1995). Barjomot Village is located in the 3,435 square
kilometer Hanang District in the southwestern corner of Manyara Region in the north -
central portion of Tanzania. Barjomot Village is located in between the 3,418 meter high
Mt. Hanang and the Malbadow escarpment, a feature of the rift valley system, which runs
from the southwest comer of the district to the north central border with Babati district,
making the landscape slopping and un even.- Rainfall in northem Tanzania is bimodal with long rains lasting from Febmary until May and short rains lasting from October through December (Peterson 2008). Baijomot Village has particularly fertile soil.
Peterson (2008) took 12 soil samples at various elevations in Barjomot Village and found that the average organic content of the samples was 3.2%, total nitrogen .24% and the soil
pH was 6.3.
Hanang District is a relatively underdeveloped part of the country and according to Peterson (2008) the main development strategy in Barjomot Village is agriculture.
For example, 9.6% of Tanzania is electrified and 12.2% of roads are paved, while in
34 Hanang District only 3.6% is electrified and there are virtually no paved roads (JICA
2006). The literacy rate of Hanang is 56% which is lower than the national average of
62% (JICA 2006). There are approximately 204,602 people in Hanang District, with an
average household size of 5.6 and 90.4% of the population living in rural areas (JICA
2006). The annual population growth rate is 3.5% compared with 2.1% nationally (JICA
2006).
The origin of the name ‘Barjomot’ comes from the Barbaig word Baryomodi, which is the Barbaig name for the tree speciesAcacia nilotica. Barjomot Village
encompasses an area of 2,825 hectares. The village itself was created by the Villigization
Program of 1973. This program took place during the socialism period in Tanzania in the
1970s when 70% of the country’s population was forced to migrate, mostly to village
centers (Scott 1998; Skutsch 1983). Peterson (2008) found that 11 of the 16 farmers he
interviewed in Barjomot Village received their homestead and farmlands as a direct result
of the Villagization Program of 1973. Villagization disrupted traditional livelihood
practices and traditional ecological knowledge because it caused people to move to new
areas that may be different from what they were used to. Barjomot Village is made up of
four smaller sub -villages: Barjomot, Getalili, Moshonda, and Songa -Mbele and three
tribal groups: Iraqw, Barbaig, and Nyarturo. The vast majority of villagers belong to the
Iraqw tribe, who are said to have migrated from Ethiopia centuries ago and who speak a
Cushitic dialect (Snyder 2005). They are a traditionally semi- nomadic pastoralist
people, but are quickly converting to agriculturalists. During times of drought some
villagers will take their cattle to sparsely inhabited bush land areas of the region, and
therefore maintain some of their semi- nomadic traditions. According to Snyder (2005),
35 tree planting is quickly becoming a popular land use- with Iraqw people and is seen as a very ‘modem’ local land use strategy.
The population of Barjomot, as well as the amount of cultivated land (37% of total land area), has increased significantly in the last 34 years (Peterson 2008). In 1974 there were 172 homesteads cultivating 43 acres, while in 2006 there were 473
homesteads cultivating 2,495 acres (Peterson 2008). The drastic increase in cultivated
area compared to number of homesteads suggests that each homestead is now cultivating
more area than in the past. The most likely causes of this are a higher standard of living
and involvement in the national and intemational economy by selling crops to larger
markets and not merely growing for subsistence. Additionally, this change was
accompanied by higher incomes, and inflation has been slowly increasing the prices of
goods. The main crops include com, beans, sunflowers, pumpkins, pigeon peas {Cajunus
cajan), and wheat. Pumpkins are grown solely for household consumption while the
other crops are cultivated for a mixture of household consumption and market sales.
36 There are 2 main types of natural forests in Barjomot Village (for photographs see
figure 3). Occurring in the village center and at lower elevations is Acacia Commiphora-
woodland which includes tree species such as Acacia nilotica, Cordial monoica, Grewia fallax/mollis, Commiphora africana, Acacia tortillis, and Erythrina lysistemom
(Westman 1990). The
second forest type occurs in
the Mt. Hanang National
Forest Reserve where
approximately 70% of the
land is composed of dry
tropical evergreen montane
forest (Hanang District
Government 2003). This
type of forest is dominated
byCasearia engleri,
Cassipourea malosana,
Ekebergia capensis,
Fagaropsis angolensis,
Olea africanan, Olea Figure 3. Examples of the two main types of forests in capensis, and Podocarpus Barjomot Village. The top photo was taken inside Hanang National Forest Reserve. The vegetation is latifolius (Westman 1990). fairly lush and green. The bottom photo is an example of the Acacia- Commiphora woodland, with Mt. There are currently 5 Hanang in the background, characteristic to lower elevations of Barjomot Village. different forest reserves in
37 Barjomot but since this study focuses on the Mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve the
others will only be mentioned briefly. Barjomot Village has 2 village forest reserves that were created in 2004: the Getalili Village Forest Reserve (12 hectares) and the Moshonda
Village Forest Reserve (17 hectares) (Peterson 2008). Both of these reserves are under the management of the village government with the approval of the village assembly.
Additionally, there exists the Barjomot Beekeeping Group Community Forest Reserve which is 17 hectares in size, was also created in 2004, and is under the management of the Barjomot Beekeeping Group. There is also a reserved piece of land called the
Hudhuma (Kiswahili for ‘services’). This area is a village communal land of 700
hectares and under the management of the village government with the approval of the village assembly. The Hudhuma is only half natural woodland and is currently used for
churches and church farms, teacher’s farms, landless farmer’s homes, and natural woodland. Barjomot currently has 2.5% of the village land under community based-
forest management (Peterson 2008). These four forest reserves are largely highly
degraded forest lands of a small size, and therefore their conservation potential is quite
small.
The largest forest, and most relevant to this study, is the Mt. Hanang National
Forest Reserve (see figure 4 for photographs). The reserve has a total of 5,698 hectares
(Holmes 1995), with 280 hectares under joint forest management between the Barjomot
Village Assembly and the Hanang District Government. The reserve was established by the British colonial government in 1932 and throughout the colonial period the reserve’s
35 km border was annually cut by local farmers (Forestry and Beekeeping Division
1991). The larger part of the reserve is officially classified as ‘protected’ which under
38 Tanzania forest policy is an area of forest land which had been set aside for the purpose of protection against erosion, providing catchment, protecting ethnic and cultural interests, and as reservation for future generations and all activity is strictly forbidden
(Holmes 1995). In this legally
‘protected’ part of the Mt. Hanang
Forest Reserve all activities are prohibited including any collection of tree products. The
-■ ‘protected’ part of the reserve is conserved largely to provide vital ecosystem services - .“ i IN ' * ' . including water ' ' ■ catchment and the prevention of soil erosion. In the j oint figure 4. Photos of HNFR. The bottom photo shows HNFR forest management and the village land directly below HNFR. The top photo was taken at the boundary between HNFR and Barjomot Village. area of the reserve Both photos illustrate the drastic nature of the boundary.
39 shared with Baijomot Village some activities are allowed without a permit, some are
allowed only with a permit, and others are prohibited. It is currently permitted to collect
dead and down wood three times a week (Friday, Saturday and Sunday), cut grass, collect
soil, cut herding sticks, cut toothbrush sticks, cut vines for home construction, and make
religious offerings. The activities that are allowed with a permit, payable to the Village
Environmental Committee, include collecting downed timber (1900 Tsh), collecting dry
poles (950 Tsh), collecting one load of sticks (1800 Tsh), collecting traditional medicine
(1500 Tsh), environmental education (10,000 Tsh), and mountain climbing (2500 Tsh per
guest) (Hanang District Government 2003). It is forbidden to damage forest springs,
construct any type of structure, harvest honey, hunt, farm, graze, create a fire, fell live
trees, or mine (Hanang District Government 2003). While the area of the forest under joint forest management helps provide some tree products to villagers, it has been my
observation that most villagers do not collect only in the joint forest management area.
They often collect illegally in the area beyond the joint forest management area and many
do not know where the boundary between the joint forest management area and the rest
of the forest reserve is located.
Data Collection
This study is multidimensional and addresses a wide variety of issues including
village tree product usages, land tenure issues and rights, and current agroforestry
practices. Therefore, a range of data collection methodologies were used including
participant observation, focus group interviews, and household interviews.
40 Martin Beko, a local research assistant aided me in virtually every aspect of data
collection. Beko was 38 years old at the time of this study and had lived in Barjomot
Village his entire life. Beko also served as the village assigned- person in charge of
helping and assisting Peace Corps. Because of his intimate knowledge of Barjomot
Village and the village members, Beko helped me to create questions for the focus group
and household interview guides and ask them in Swahili words and phrases that the
village members would understand. Additionally, data collection techniques were
discussed with Beko in order to judge if they would be culturally appropriate and
acceptable. Beko was an unpaid research assistant, but at the end of a long day of
interviews I would buy him dinner or a soda in order to thank him for his excellent work
and assistance. While Beko may have influenced the research and injected some of his
own biases, he served as more of a consultant for bouncing ideas off of and was not
writing the interview questions himself or telling me how I should conduct the research.
Participant Observation
Participant observation is a technique where a researcher attempts to study the
“socially meaningful action” of people through direct observation (Neuman 2000). For
the duration of my tenure in Barjomot Village I observed the villagers through direct
observation and interaction and recorded my observations in a field journal. I feel that
through participant observation I was able to capture information, as well as trends, that
may have been missed through other methods including seasonal farming activities and
tree collection activities. For example, the month of September seems to be the main
month for wild fruit collection, which is mostly done by school children on their way
41 home from school. Participant observation largely took place during my daily routine
and activities, but also when opportunities arose to go with villagers while collecting
forest products. Some participant observations may not be representative of all villagers
since I, not only as a researcher but as a community member of the village, spent more time with certain people and talked to certain village members more than others.
Focus Group Interviews
I conducted two focus group interviews, one with men and one with women. I
chose to divide the groups by gender due to the highly gender segregated culture of
Barjomot Village. The focus groups involved people of varied ages, social, and
economic status. The women’s focus group interview took place at my house on March
29, 2009 (after 19 months of living/working in Barjomot Village) and had 11 participants
between the ages of 36 and 52. The men’s focus group interview took place in the village
meeting place on March 22, 2009 and had 9 participants between the ages of 25 and 70.
For each group one village member was put in charge of inviting participants. The male
village member put in charge of inviting participants for the male focus group was
research assistant Martin Beko. The female village member in charge of inviting
participants for the female focus group was Selina Danieli, who was a close personal
friend of mine and assisted me in several of my Peace Corps projects. These two village
members were given an idea about what kinds of questions would be asked and also
instructed to invite a mix of participants based on age, wealth, and knowledge of trees.
Invitations were informal and extended verbally the day of the focus group interviews. In
the male focus group a wide age range was represented, although the men who were
42 invited were those in the main village area at the time of the interview, so other men who live far from the village center or who do not hang around the village center may have been excluded. The female focus group included a more narrow age range of participants, and because it took place on a Sunday afternoon I suspect that most the participants were invited at Danieli’s church (the Lutheran church in Barjomot Village).
The fact that the women's focus group was almost entirely Lutheran may have influenced the results because different religions may have different ideas about land management practices and natural resources.
These groups discussed topics related to tree product use, where tree products are obtained, and tree planting (see Appendix A for complete interview guide). The researcher provided only the minimal necessary explanation for each question. Both groups used similar techniques for answering the questions. All questions were asked and answered in Swahili, the national language of Tanzania. For the first two questions, which focused on tree product use and collection, I asked the questions, they were discussed by the groups in Kiiraqw (the tribal language), and one person was appointed by the group to write their answers in Swahili. These two questions were not tape recorded. For the six questions about agroforestry and tree planting the two groups also used a similar style in answering the questions. For each question, I read the question to the group, they discussed in Kiiraqw, and then chose one person to answer the question into the tape recorder. The groups rotated who answered the questions and the person answering was different for each question. The men’s group became very interested in the questions asked and decided to add some questions and information at the end of the interview. My understanding of Kiiraqw is very elementary and I did not understand the
43 discussions taking place in Kiiraqw. These focus group interviews took place before the
household surveys and helped guide the questions asked during the household surveys.
Household Interviews
Household interviews were used to understand the range of practices and views between the different ethnicities, ages, religions, classes, genders, and land user- groups in
Barjomot Village. Household interviews can obtain a wide variety of information
including how people see and use their environment, population demographics, current
practices in the management of natural resources, experience of and future agroforestry
plans, specific tree products collected, and gender differences (Rocheleau, Weber and
Field- Juma 1988). A single household was defined as a group of people who eat from a
common pot, share a dwelling house, and may cultivate the same land and recognize the
authority of one person (Kajembe et al. 2005). In order to capture an overall picture of
Barjomot Village a relatively similar number of interviews were conducted in each of the village’s four sub villages,- with the total number of interviews equaling 40. The sub villages are Songa Mbele- (with 83 households total), Barjomot (168 households), Getalili
(125 households), and Moshonda (102 households). The households to interview were
selected randomly from a list of households that exists in the village registrar for each
sub- village. To randomly select households from each list the number of names was
divided by 14 to get ‘x’ and then every ‘x’th household on the list was selected for an
interview. While the goal was 10 household interviews per sub village,- 14 names were
selected. This was done at the advice of Martin Beko (local research assistant) because
some households may no longer exist, may be hard to find, or may not have anyone at
44 home when we were conducting interviews. Therefore, if this was the case for a specific household, we went to the nearest household on the list as a replacement. Households were selected randomly in an attempt to capture a range of various types of households including different classes, ethnicities, farm sizes, and tree planting practices.
There were 14 interviews conducted in Moshonda sub village,- 9 in Barjomot, 9 in Getalili, and 8 in Songa Mbele.- The interviews were conducted in Swahili and there were 21 females and 19 males interviewed. When possible the interviews were conducted with the male or female heads of the households. In the case that the male/female household heads were not present, or did not speak Swahili at a proficient enough level, another household member, typically an older child or young adult, was interviewed in their place. This occurred a handful of times and the adult youth may not have had as insightful answers and in depth- knowledge of the household. The choice between interviewing a male or female house hold head was made randomly and depended on who was at home at the time of the interview, with the goal of obtaining a 50/50 gender split in the sample. I conducted the interviews myself as my Swahili skills are at a near fluent capacity, and most villagers are also fairly proficient in Swahili. Additionally, I also felt that as a woman interviewer I could more accurately capture the feelings and opinions of women as compared with a male interviewer. In a study done by Skutsch
(1983) in Tanzania, the author concluded that because no female interviewers could be recruited the interviewers were sometimes not permitted to interview women without the presence of a male member of the household, who could therefore influence the woman’s responses. I also felt that being female had a minimal influence over the answers of the male interviewees because through my experiences in Barjomot Village my status as a
45 ‘white person’ puts me on the same social level as older, respected men. Research
Assistant Martin Beko accompanied me during the interview process, and helped to
explain to the interviewees the purpose of the interviews, but when it came time for the
interview Beko would leave and give me and the interviewee privacy. A tape recorder was used to record the second half of the interview, which was later transcribed and translated. The first half of the interview was not recorded because the questions were
short and largely focused on household demographics and wealth. The second half was tape recorded because the questions were more open ended- and answers were longer and
it would have been impossible to record the answers word for word without using a tape
recorder. Only one interview was not tape recorded because the interviewee seemed very uncomfortable with the tape recorder. Furthermore, one household did refuse to be
interviewed. The interviews were conducted during the months of April, May, and June
2009 (see table 2).
The interviews were semi- structured with questions covering demographics, land
management practices, and views and perspectives about agroforestry and tree product
collection. For the full household interview guide see Appendix B. The interviews
included a walk around the farmer’s property, both near the house and on the farm, to
look at what current agroforestry practices are taking place. The classification of the
different agroforestry practices used and considered in this study is given in Appendix C.
Additionally, in order to ensure the quality of the interview questions, two preliminary
interviews were conducted and questions modified, added, deleted, or reworded based on the results of the preliminary interviews. The preliminary interviews were not used as
part of the data and results.
46 Table 2 . Interview schedule and notes. Interview # o f Sub- villages Important Notes Dates Interviews April 13, 2009 8 Getalili, Some re- wording of questions was necessary to help Moshonda people understand exactly what was being asked. Some villagers stmggled with Swahili. People did not seem afraid to talk about harvesting in the forest reserve. April 15, 2009 7 Songa-Mbele Most of these households were farther down the Baqomot mountain towards the salt lake. There are more naturally occurring trees in these areas. May 22 and 12 Moshonda Several times the household heads were not May 23, 2009 available because of limited Swahili ability. June 23, 2009 4 Baqomot There are good amount of naturally occurring trees in the Baijomot sub-village, especially farther from the town center. June 25, 2009 6 Songa-Mbele General observations that people in this sub-village do not collect from the HNFR and do not plant trees. June 29, 2009 3 Baqomot None Getalili
Data Analysis
There are three different sources of data that were analyzed: participant
observation, group interviews, and household interviews. Before any analysis took place,
I translated all the interviews from Swahili to English. This was done with assistance
from The Friendly Swahili- English Dictionary (Baba Malaika 2002) in order to capture
the most accurate definitions of words.
Participant Observation
Data analysis for participant observation involved reading through all the notes
taken during my 23 month stay in Barjomot Village and drawing out main themes and
ideas that were noted in my field journal. These main themes were compared and
contrasted with other themes that arose in the group and household interviews.
47 Focus Group Interviews
The two group interviews were analyzed individually and together in order to
compare and contrast the different responses given by both the men and women’s groups.
In question one the products from HNFR named by men and women for each section of
the question were placed in three categories: items named by both men and women, items
named by men only, and items named by women only. Question two concerning tree
products was analyzed in a Table 3. Everything collected from Mt. Hanang similar manner. From National Forest Reserve by women and by men.
comparing and contrasting Group Collected by Men Collected by Women Male 1. Firewood 1. Firewood these different categories 2. Timber/lumber 2. Grass 3. Trees/poles conclusions can be drawn 4. Rope 5. Water 6. Animals pertaining to tree product 7. Honey Female 1. Timber/lumber 1. Firewood collection and use, and how 2. Poles/ trees 2. Water 3. Beehives perceptions of tree product use 4. Rope 5. Honey 6. Mirangi (narcotic) and collection vary by gender.
For questions one and two schematic illustrations were created where appropriate. This
helped to visually illustrate the results. Table 3 is an example of a schematic created to
analyze part three of question one.
The six questions pertaining to agroforestry were also analyzed using this
compare and contrast method between the two groups. Differences and similarities
between the two group’s answers illustrate how the different groups perceive
agroforestry, what tree species are planted and for what reasons, and where they would
like to plant in the future. An hour and a half group discussion at the University of
48 Montana involving several Masters and PhD students, and two professors was held
discussing different themes and emergent ideas from the group interviews. This outside
input helped to increase the quality of my analysis because patterns and themes that I had
not noted were brought up by members of this group. It also helped to increase the transparency of my analysis and results because the main themes of the group interviews were not just my own opinion, but included the thoughts of others. Excerpts from the
interviews will be used in the results/discussion section to illustrate key themes. While
excerpts are drawn from both group interviews, quotations will be chosen based on their
ability to succinctly and clearly express the key ideas and opinions. A few participants in the group interview were randomly chosen and interviewed for the household interviews.
Household Interviews
Data analysis for the household interviews involved several different methods.
The quantitative data was entered into an Excel database and SPSS statistics 17.0.
Quantitative data was used to create a demographic picture of each of the households
interviewed, and expanded out to Baijomot Village. To explore the relationships
between wealth, sub- village, and tree planting logistic regression models were fit to the
data. The variables for tree planting are binary response variables because tree planting
was a yes or no question. For details about logistic regression models and how they work
please reference The Statistical Sleuth: A Course in Methods of Data Analvsis by Ramsy
and Schafer (2002).
Using the quantitative data, a wealth index was created. The wealth index was
modeled after a study by Shackleton, Paumgarten, and Cocks (2008) examining how
49 household attributes promote a diversity of tree holdings in rural South Africa. There were 11 different factors or household attributes used to create the wealth index. The eleven attributes are:
1. Household age composition 2. Non- agropastoral business 3. Total acres of land 4. Acres of land under cultivation 5. Amount paid to employ laborers for farm work per season 6. Number of cattle 7. Number of all other animals 8. Number of houses per household compound 9. Type of house 10. Fuel source 11. Mode of transportation For each factor a scale of 0-3 was created, with the higher number indicating a greater wealth. Generally speaking a 0 was assigned if the household did not possess that resource, and the rest of the data was divided into three equal parts. The lowest third assigned a 1, the middle a 2, and the highest third a 3. For household age composition the household labor potential was examined and defined to be the total number of household members minus the number of members of prime labor age between 18 and
55. Therefore the higher the number the greater number of household members that are not of prime labor age (younger than 18 and older than 55), creating more mouths to feed who are not contributing significant labor. Thus a higher number would decrease household wealth. If a household has 7+ members not of prime labor age it was assigned a 0, 5-6 a 1, 3- 4 a 2, and 1-2 a 3.
The ownership of a non agropastoral- business by a household means that they have a source of income outside agropastoral activities, and thus assumes greater wealth.
A household was assigned a 0 if they did not have a non agropastoral- business, 1 if they had a minor business including small crafts, mat weaving, farm laborer, a 2 if they had a
50 major business including a store, restaurant, or were involved in buying and selling com and beans, and a 3 if they possessed multiple non agropastoral- businesses and sources of income. To create the wealth index for acres owned and acres under cultivation the general method of thirds of assigning numbers was used. If a household possessed no acres they were assigned a 0, the bottom third was assigned a 1, middle third a 2, and top third was assigned a 3. This assumes that families who have fewer acres of land and cultivated land thus have fewer resources. The hiring of farm labor is assumed to be a sign of wealth because the household has to have cash in order to afford to pay their laborers. The method of thirds was used for this household attribute, with households that did not give a number estimate placed in the middle third. The number of cattle and number of other animals possessed by a household is a sign of greater wealth since animals can be sold for cash and represent a kind of traditional savings account. For these two household attributes the method of thirds was used to assign their household wealth numbers. Along the same lines, the number of houses in a household complex is a sign of wealth because the larger number of houses indicates that the household had the resources to build those houses. The method of thirds was used to assign the household wealth number for the number of houses. The type of roof a house has is also important because different materials cost different amounts. For this household attribute a household was assigned a 0 if they had no houses, a 1 if they only used grass thatching to build roofs, a 2 if they had houses built with grass thatching and others built with corrugated tin sheets, and a 3 if they only had houses built with corrugated tin sheets. Tin houses are more expensive to build and therefore indicate a wealthier household.
51 The fuel source used by the household for heating and cooking also indicates a level of wealth since charcoal is bought while firewood is generally collected without a monetary cost. A household was assigned a 0 if they had no source of fuel, a 1 if they only used firewood, a 2 if they used a combination of firewood and charcoal, and a 3 if they used only charcoal. The last household attribute is mode of transportation. Since different modes of transportation cost different amounts to buy, for example a car costs more than a bicycle, this is an indicator of wealth. A household was assigned a 0 if they had no mode of transportation, a 1 if they used a bicycle only, a 2 if they possessed a motorcycle and a bicycle, and a 3 if they possess an automobile, a motorcycle and a bicycle.
To determine a household’s wealth index, all the numbers assigned for a given household were simply added up. The highest wealth ranking if a household scored a 3 for all 11 factors is 33 and all households were between 0 and 33. The results show that the households ranged between 9 and 30 for the household wealth index. This illustrates that more of the households rest in the lower half of the households between 9 andlS, while there are outlier wealthier households between 15 and 30.
While I did my best to most accurately capture different levels of household wealth, the wealth index I created has limitations. First, each attribute of wealth was weighted equally and worth the same amount of weight in the overall wealth score of a household. I decided to do this because all the different factors that contribute to wealth are interconnected and, based on my personal observations, if a household scored high in a few categories, they probably scored high in most of them. In retrospect, it may have been better to involve villagers and the focus group in the creation of the wealth index.
52 Having the villagers identify and rank attributes of wealth may have given a more
accurate picture of what contributes to wealth in Barjomot Village because the villagers understand the nuanced factors that contribute to household wealth much better than I
may have.
The qualitative data from the household data was analyzed using two strategies,
comparing across interviews, and creating household summaries. In order to understand
each household a page long analytic summary was written to help condense, summarize,
and interpret the information in each 6 page household interview. The main items
considered in the summary were the household demographics, perceived land tenure
security, tree product collection from the Mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve,
agroforestry practices, future preferred tree product collection locations, and general
interpretations of this information. The important aspect under analysis in the analytic
summaries is context and how the context for each household plays into their views on
agroforestry and tree product collection. For example, do households with similar
contexts view agroforestry similarly? Different contextual factors considered are
household locations, wealth, tree planting practices, views on tree product collection,
household demographics, farming practices, leadership roles, and conservation ethics.
Comparing across interviews was used to analyze the answers to each qualitative
question. To compare across interviews for each qualitative question all 40 responses for
a question were grouped together. Grouping all the answers together made it easy to
draw out main themes and ideas that arose from the responses. To add to the transparency of the data analysis and results the same group of Masters and PhD students,
and two professors, held an hour long discussion group about the household interviews
53 comparing a handful of questions across all 40 interviews. Comparing across interviews was conducted for several questions including what benefits interviewees would like to received from agroforestry, what does agroforestry mean, can interviewees currently collect tree products on your farm or at home, and in the future where would interviewees prefer to collect tree products. Excerpts from the interviews will be used in the results/discussion section to illustrate the key themes drawn from the qualitative questions. The quotations will be chosen because they are representative of the themes in the data set as a whole, and for their ability to succinctly and clearly express their thoughts in a deep and thoughtful manner. Additionally, pseudonyms are used to protect the confidentially of the interviewees.
The findings from the qualitative analysis were used to help identify questions for statistical testing, and the results from the quantitative data analysis help explain the results for the qualitative analysis of interview questions. An iterative process was used in overall data analysis and all data and results were used to help explain each other and create a complete picture of the results.
54 CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Barjomot Village Demographics and Context
Below I present
some of the ■ Moshonda demographic ■ Barjomot characteristics of my ■ Getalili ■ Songa Mbele sample to provide a broader picture of Fignre 5. The number of interviewees for each of the four sub- villages. socioeconomic status,
livelihood strategies, and use of tree products. All regressions that were performed but
provided insignificant results are available in appendix E. As described in the methods
chapter, I conducted 40 interviews, 21 with women and 19 with men. Figure 5 illustrates
how participants were distributed in the four sub villages.- The average age of
interviewees was 36, with the youngest respondent at 20 and the oldest at 58. The
average interviewee had 6.62 years of formal education, with several respondents having
no formal education, and the most educated respondent having received a college degree.
Out of the 40 households 37 of the respondents belonged to the Iraqw ethnic group and 3
from the Barbaig ethnic group. It is hard to infer differences between these two groups
with respect to tree product collection and agroforestry because the minority ethnic group
is very small. Fifty three percent of interviewees identified themselves as Catholic, while
20% identified as Pentecostal, 15% Christian, and 13% Lutheran. Thirty two out of the
40 interviewees were married, two of whom were involved in a polygamous arrangement,
and 8 respondents were unmarried.
55 Ninety three percent of respondents identified their work or livelihood as farmers
and/or livestock raisers. The other 3 individuals answered that they work at a store, are a
student, or have no work. What agricultural crops are grown and for what purposes in
Barjomot is illustrated in Table 4, Appendix D. Every household plants com, beans, and
pumpkins. Corn and beans are planted for both household consumption and sale, while
pumpkins are purely for household consumption. Sunflowers, pigeon peas {Cajunus
cajun), and wheat are of secondary importance and are mostly planted for sale. Hired
labor was used by 55% of households to help with farming activities, largely for weeding
twice per farming season. The amount of money spent varies, which might indicate a
lack of labor availability in the household, or a wealthy household that can afford to pay
more laborers. Household food security is a key issue. Only 23% of interviewees said
that their household crops are enough to feed the household, 15% answered that their
crops are not enough and they must also buy food, and 63% of respondents said that it
depends on the year. According to one respondent named Baraka ‘7t depends on the year
that comes. I f it is like this year it is not enough, but if it is a good year it is enough.'' A
good year was generally defined by rainfall and this is illustrated by George when he said
‘7t is able to be enough. It depends on the ”rain. To further illustrate how important
rainfall is to livelihoods Ezekiel commented that “A year like this there is nothing. A good year it is enough for us and to sell for the purpose of hired labor and household
necessities I' It is important to note that in early 2009 when the household interviews
took place, the village was in a drought and received food aid from the Tanzanian
government and this could have influenced the household responses. Potentially, during
56 a good rainfall and harvest year the percentage of households who would have felt insecure about their household food security may have been lower.
All households interviewed raised livestock (See Appendix D for details about livestock). The most common animals are cows, goats, sheep, and chickens. Donkeys, pigs, and ducks are less common animals. The average household had 7 cows and 8 goats, while the household with the most animals had 30 cows and 32 goats.
Additionally, a few households had modem breed cows (3 households), goats (1 household), and chickens (2 households). These modem breed animals are worth more both if sold and for contributing to household income. According to one villager a modern breed cow can produce 30 liters of milk a week, and she eamed about 30,000 TZ shillings a month from selling the milk.
Twenty three percent of households had a non- agropastoral business or source of income, including a small restaurant, mat weaving, small stores, a passenger vehicle, and participation in the buying and selling of com and beans. This last activity is especially important when examining household wealth. A few villagers buy com and beans in
Barjomot Village and transport these crops to the large city of Amsha in northern
Tanzania near the Kenyan border to be sold on the national and intemational markets.
They buy for low prices in Barjomot Village and then sell the crops for higher prices in
Amsha. During my stay in Barjomot I noted that most of the wealthy families participated in the buying and selling of corn and beans. One key informant noted that
“a// the wealthy people got rich by buying corn here for cheap and selling it for a lot more in Arusha.'" This practice concentrated wealth in a few households, but also helped contribute to the local economy by providing farmers with a market for selling their
57 crops. It’s possible that access to the Arusha market may have contributed to the recent rapid expansion of agricultural land because it promotes crop production for sale and not simply for subsistence. This is interesting in the context of lack of food security and that households are farming larger plots than in the past. Perhaps what is occurring is that because of modernization, school fees, medicines, inflation, and other factors there is an increased need for cash, and therefore farmers are forced to sell more crops, with the remaining crops perhaps not being enough to feed some families.
There are several other important factors that influence livelihoods and household wealth. Roof materials also help us understand household wealth because materials for tin roofs must be bought while grass thatch roofs are collected. The majority of interviewees, 63%, have only grass roofed houses, while 35% have houses of both tin and grass roofing, and only one interviewee had all tin roof homes. The average household has 2.7 separate homes or buildings in their household complex. These can be organized in a wide variety of ways, and have different purposes, for example, one building could be a kitchen and sleeping area, another could be for sleeping, and a third for livestock.
The type of fuel wood used for cooking and heating is also important. Ninety three percent of households use only firewood, while the remaining 7% use both firewood and charcoal. None of the interviewees only used charcoal. During my stay in Barjomot, I only observed teachers, restaurant owners, and store owners purchasing charcoal, perhaps due to the need for cooking at a restaurant or lack of time to collect firewood. Mode of transportation is also indicative of household wealth. Almost half, or 17 out of 40 interviewees, owned no mode of transportation, while 20 respondents own a bicycle.
Two of the households owned not only a bicycle, but also a motorcycle and an
58 automobile, and one household owned a bicycle and a motorcycle. Both households use their automobiles for business purposes, which mean that they can use their wealth to continue to increase their wealth. Bicycles allow people easier access to the nearest com grinding machine located 7 km away. The staple diet in Barjomot Village is ugali, which is made from corn flour so having a bicycle saves on the labor of carrying com to be ground to the machine. Households that scored high on one wealth indicator typically scored high on others as well. For example, one of the households that possessed a car also had tin roof houses and cooked with charcoal.
To better understand how wealth contributes to tree planting, I created an index which combines 11 measures for wealth scores of 0- 33. Household wealth varied between 9 and 30, with a mean of 16 and a median of 15. Thirty percent of households had a wealth between 9 and 12 and 25% of households had a wealth greater than or equal to 20 as illustrated in Figure 7. This demonstrates how a greater number of households are lower on the wealth index and fewer households fall into the upper sections of the
Figure 7. Wealth Distribution of Households
Number 3 of Household^
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Wealth Index
59 household wealth index.
Land tenure and decision making can also play a role in tree planting. As noted
earlier, many villagers were initially provided with their land during the Villagization
movement of 1973, but despite recent acquisition of land, land tenure was perceived to be
quite secure. When asked if they were certain that their farm and home plots will be
theirs indefinitely, 80% answered that they felt very certain. As Happiness indicated, “/
have certainty because it is my plot.'" Hoti similarly stated ""I have certainty because I was given it from the government" However, 13% felt unsure, while 8% felt that they
had no certainty. Hotay thoughtfully explained why he is uncertain by saying:
“We have no certainty because land is the governments. This means that the government later is able to change that land, and therefore it will become the property of the government... even if you buy [land] from another person the government is able to take it and it will be theirs. ”
So while the majority of villagers feel certain that their land will belong to them
indefinitely, there is a minority that recognize that all land technically belongs to the
government.
The second question about land tenure security asked the interviewees if they had
concerns that their land would be taken by the government or other people. Seventy five
percent stated that they had no concerns that their land would be taken. Hope said that
she has no concerns because “We were given it by our father. There is no one who will
take it again. ” Ameliana explains that “We were divided among from the government"
However, 22% of interviews said they were somewhat concerned and 3% were very
concerned. As Najima explained “I have no certainty. The government if they decide
they can take it. ” The majority, but not all, of villagers feel secure in their land tenure
60 Home ■ Government ■ Inheritance
■ Brought, another person 20 ■ Bought, Government
■ Bought, unspecified
■ Farmed without tenure rights
■ Government and farmed without tenure rights ■ Did not answer question
Farm I Government
I Inheritance
I Brought, another person
20 I Bought, Government
I Bought, unspecified
1 I Farmed without tenure rights
I Government and farmed without tenure rights I Did not answer question
Figure 8. Breakdown of how households obtained their land for both the farm and home plots,
rights, an important prerequisite to tree planting which requires long term investment in
their land.
Half of respondents received their farm and home plots from the government
(figure 8). Another 10 respondents received their home plots by inheritance, and 6
households received their farm plots through inheritance. Therefore the majority of
61 households either inherited their land, or were given land by the village government.
This may contribute to perceived secure land tenure rights because, as the previous quotes illustrated, some people feel secure in their rights simply because their land came from the government or was inherited. The inheritable rights to land are interesting because villagers do not actually own their land, but the use of a plot can be kept in the family. The remainder of interviewees said they bought their land or farmed it without permission or rights to the land. It is also important to note that villagers have sold and/or bought land, so even though they do not technically own it, the use of that land is still transferred to another person. Through the entire data collection process and my personal experiences in Barjomot Village I never heard anyone discuss using their land as equity to obtain loans or lines of credit, and I am not sure this is possible under the current land tenure system.
To better understand how household decision making- and gender equity relate to agroforestry practices I asked households who is the main decision maker on their farm plot. While in 55% of the households the male household head is the main decision maker, the fact that 40% of the households make decisions together is encouraging for the promotion of equity. It illustrates that in some households women may have at least some say in what is planted on the farm and how the farmland is managed. There were two households where the female household head is the main decision maker, and in these households the male head had either died, or had other wives and was therefore largely absent. I also asked about the distribution of land between household members, who may individually control a small portion of land in order to provide for their own personal necessities including clothing. For example, I observed that one household had
62 given the two oldest children (15 and 12 years old) a small area of land for them to manage and farm and use the money from their crops for their own personal needs. This is potentially significant for agroforestry and tree planting because an individual could decide to grow trees on that land, even if the main household decision maker has not decided to plant trees. About 38% of households had divided land among household members.
Tree Product Collection from Mt.
Hanang National Forest Reserve
During both the household interviews and focus group interviews villagers discussed collecting the following products from HNFR: firewood, large poles, small poles, rope, grass, fruit, beehives, walking sticks, honey, animals, water, and mirungi (a narcotic drug) (see figure 10 for photos of illegal harvesting). For more details about what tree products the households Figure 10. Two photos of illegal tree product harvesting from HNFR. On the collect see Appendix D. It is important top is a saw pit inside the HNFR. The bottom photo is a normal backload of to note that water is named as a forest firewood that was collected in HNFR.
63 product, both for conservation purposes and in understanding what importance villagers place on the forest. Both male and female focus groups named water as only being inside the HNFR. Villagers do not have to hike up to the forest to collect their household water, but the water in the 25 spigots in Barjomot Village is piped from a natural springs that runs from HNFR. The villagers therefore recognize the importance of the mountain as their only water source. This could help in promoting an agroforestry project if the proponents of the project emphasize the importance of the HNFR as the only local source of water, thus emphasizing forest Firewood conservation as a I Not from HNFR benefit of agroforestry. I Collected I Sell In focus I Buy I Collect +Sell groups, both men and I Collect + Buy I Collect+ Sell + Buy women cited large poles and water in their Large Poles top 5 most collected ■ Not from HNFR tree products. During ■ Collected ■ Sell the focus group ■ Buy discussions the ■ Collect +Sell ■ Collect + Buy meaning of the term ■ Collect+ Sell + Buy ‘most’ was ambiguous and left up to the Figure 11. Household utilization of large poles and firewood originating in HNFR. participants to
64 interpret. The men also named firewood, honey and lumber, and the women named rope.
Fifty percent of household interviewees utilize large poles and 35% utilize firewood which comes from the HNFR. The third most commonly used product is rope and 10% of household interviewees mentioned utilizing rope from HNFR. Thus based on this combination of data, firewood and large poles appear to be the most common and important tree products collected, sold, and bought from HNFR.
In order to explore the dynamics of large poles and firewood more in depth, interviewees were asked if they participate in the collection, buying, selling, or any combination of these activities, of firewood or large poles (figure 11). The livelihood dynamics of these two tree products is very different and unique. Large poles play a role in household economics; for example 9 households purchased large poles, 2 households collected and then sold poles, and 4 households collected and bought poles. This means that out of the 20 households using large poles from HNFR 75% of those households were involved in the sale or purchasing of large poles. This is drastically different than firewood, and only 29% of households were involved in the buying and selling of firewood. One potential reason explaining this may be that males are typically in charge of home construction, the primary use of large poles, and also are usually in control of household finances. Therefore males may be more likely to buy or sell large poles because of their greater monetary resources compared to most women. While 2 interviewees did buy firewood, and 2 sell firewood, these are smaller numbers than for large poles. Additionally, in the focus group interviews both men and women named large poles as a tree product that is collected for sale. There is also a correlation between wealth and the buying/selling of firewood and large poles. For the households who
65 bought firewood the mean wealth was 18.3 and for households who bought large poles the mean wealth was 17.8. Both these numbers are slightly higher than the overall mean
of 16 and this illustrates that wealthier households may be more likely to buy large poles
and firewood than poorer households, presumably because of their greater access to cash.
The division of labor between large poles and firewood differs by gender. The
male focus group said that both men and women deal with firewood, and only men deal with large poles. This is supported by the household interviews, which indicate that only
men are in charge of large poles, while out of the 14 households that use firewood from
HNFR, in 10 women deal with firewood, in 3 both genders, and in 1 men are in charge of
firewood. However, the female focus group suggested that only women deal with
firewood. It is likely the case that females are largely in charge of firewood collection, while men typically only play a small or infrequent roll. The collection of firewood is an
arduous task that for most households is done several times a week and can take up a
significant amount of women’s time. Therefore the women’s focus group may have been thinking about their own experiences collecting firewood and how hard they work to
collect firewood. The drastic division of labor for firewood and large poles is another
example of the gender separated culture that exists in Barjomot Village. Women have their labor tasks, and men have theirs and this must be taken into account when designing
equitable agroforestry projects.
In conclusion the most important products that are collected, sold, or bought from
HNFR are large poles and firewood. This is important for forest conservation because
according to key informants and village members the collection of these products is
causing forest degradation and also impacts household livelihoods. Collection impacts
66 livelihoods because it can add to household income, but collection takes time and can
thus detract from other livelihood activities.
The Benefits Villagers Receive and Want to Receive from Trees on Their Land
Household interviewees who had Table 5. Benefits received from planted trees were asked why they plant trees trees Tree % of all % of all Produet respondents respondents and what benefits they receive from their wbo plant trees trees and all interviewees were asked what Firewood 44.5 65.4 Lumber 54.5 80.1 benefits they would want to receive from an Lumber for 12.5 19.2 sale agroforestry project. Village members who
have already planted trees are receiving some benefits from their trees; primarily
lumber/timber, firewood, and lumber to sell (table 5). A total of 26 interviewees, or 65%
said that they have planted trees and out of these respondents the percentage that obtains
lumber and firewood is quite large. Several respondents separated lumber for household use and lumber for sale, which shows that lumber is important both to household home
construction and as a source of income. As Ezekiel explains, ""the benefits are firewood,
lumber, and the benefit is if I sell [lumber] I am able to get necessities and money Other I' benefits named by respondents include rope, fruit, and windbreaks. Understanding that village members already receive benefits of lumber and firewood is important for understanding current tree planting practices and species selection.
67 Table 6. Answers given for why Interviewees were also asked why they households plant trees. Why do you plant trees? # of plant trees and responses fell into the following respondents Prevent soil erosion 2 categories: future benefits, governmental Fntnre honsehold tree 1 prodnct needs influences, environmental reasons, and tree Lnmber/constmction 14 Firewood 13 Benefits of trees 1 products (see table 6 for more detail). Danieli Trees are good 1 Fence 4 named most of these categories for why he has Benefits of the honsehold 2 Tree needs 1 planted trees: Fmit 1 Government told ns to 2 Government forbidden the 1 “For the purpose o f later household uses. cntting of live trees Trees have been finished up in the bush land Bnsiness 1 and even for building it will be a problem in Fntnre honsehold nses 1 the future, firewood availability and lumber, Tree prodncts finished in 2 many things. And even a certain period of time bnsh land experts advised us that trees have benefits, they Experts advised ns to 1 Rednce hot weather 1 help a little to reduce the hot weather, and they Attract clonds and bring 2 are able to attract the clouds in the distance, rain we would get rain easily. ” It will help me 1 Raise the qnality of the 2 Note how Danieli mentions later uses, or in environment Closeness 1 Benefits 1 other words the future benefits of trees, Fntnre benefits 1 recognizing that trees take time to mature but still can provide benefits in the future. Similar to other interviewees, Danieli mentions that experts and the government have told village members to plant trees. Most likely these messages are reaching the villagers through village meetings and seminars held by the village, ward, and district governments, since most households do not have radios, newspapers or other forms of media communication. Additionally, Danieli and other interviewees demonstrate an understanding of the environmental benefits of trees, citing soil erosion prevention, improving the local climate, and overall raising the quality of the environment as reasons to plant trees. This is important because it shows that a few
68 respondents understand the environmental benefits of trees and plant for these reasons,
and not simply for household benefits. Lastly, and most importantly, a large number of
interviewees said they plant trees to obtain tree products, most often mentioning firewood
and lumber. Fourteen respondents cited lumber/construction and 13 cited firewood as the
main reasons they plant trees and these numbers far outnumber those for any other
response.
biterviewees also argued that they needed to plant trees because trees are
increasingly unavailable in the surrounding bush land stating that tree products are
'finished' or no longer exist in these areas. The bush land usually refers to places where
no one has built or farmed and there are naturally occurring trees, but it could refer to
HNFR as well. Danieli names this as one reason be has planted trees and Amani
reinforces this stating ""Trees in the bush land have been finished up, now I would get
even at least firewood and lumber. It will be available here [on his own land]. Both ” these respondents show that some village members recognize that the bush land no longer
contains enough trees to provide firewood and building materials for them, and that
planting trees on your own plots is one way to solve this problem.
When asked what types of trees and benefits they wanted from future agroforestry
projects interviewees most often cited firewood, lumber, and fruit/food (see figure 12).
Again, note the recurring focus on lumber and firewood, but also the desire for fruit and
fruit trees. Domesticated non native- fruit is relatively unavailable in the village and when there is fruit in the village for sale it is often too expensive for poorer households.
There are numerous indigenous fruit trees, but their fruit is largely collected and eaten by
children. The indigenous fruit is typically small in size, bitter, or not as tasteful as non
69 native fruits.
Therefore
respondents
mainly desire
domesticated,
non indigenous-
fruit trees and in
their answers
cited mango Figure 12. Benefits respondents would like to receive from a future village agroforestry project. {Mangifera indica), papaya(Carica papaya), orange {Citrus sinensis), guava {Psidium guajava), and topetope or wild custard apple {Annona senegalensis). Participant
observation showed that households that have planted non native- domesticated fruit trees
consume the fruit and do not sell it. Fruit that is for sale in the village typically comes
from other, more tropical, regions of Tanzania.
The main theme regarding received/desired agroforestry benefits is the desire for
lumber or large poles and firewood, which were cited by both men and women as the
most important benefits. This is important because the most commonly harvested tree
products from HNFR are large poles and firewood. Peterson (2008), in a study of
Barjomot Village, found that local forest resources are inadequate for building materials
and may not be sufficient for fuelwood. Similarly, villagers in this study suggested that
large poles and firewood resources are scarcer in HNFR than in the past. Hoti explains that in the future
""it will be [collecting tree products] on the farm for which reasons? Because right now the trees are finished [in the bush land] and now we expect to plant
70 trees. I f you plant now, and if the trees grow you cut their branches and your firewood is available here on your plots I'
Interviewees also suggested that many households have just begun planting trees
and that their trees are not yet of harvestable age for desired benefits. For example, 8
respondents mention that their trees are still small, 6 cite how later they hope to receive
benefits, and one said that they have not harvested yet. As Regina explains, ''They [trees]
are still small. It will agree later for firewood and other mattersl" This suggests a recent
change and that households have only begun to plant trees. A reason for this could be
that according to Peterson (2008) only within the last 5-7 years have villagers perceived
building materials and firewood to be scarce. Therefore households have only recently
recognized that obtaining these tree products in the HNFR and the bush land will become
more difficult in the future and then began planting trees to prepare for this.
While exploring the motivations behind tree planting and what benefits villagers
want to receive from trees is important, it is equally important to investigate why village
members say that they do not plant trees and what may be preventing them. Thirty- five
percent of interviewees have not planted trees and table 7 illustrates the reasons given by
Table 7. Answers given for why interviewees have not planted trees. Some interviewees answered specifically for their farm or home plots, while others answered more generally. Also any answer without a number next to it was given by one interviewee, and if an answer was given by more than one interviewee the number of interviewees who stated the same answer is in the parentheses. On the farm plot On the home plot In general - Drought - Trees do not grow well - Trees do not grow well (2) - Crops and trees do not prosper - Rocky soil causing trees to - Insect damage (2) together dry up - Drought/shortage of water (2) - No money - Lack of water - 1 do not know (2) - People causing destmction/ - Insect damage - Trees dried up (3) uprooting trees - Have not decided to plant (3) - Far distance to water - Far distance to water - Decision of the husband - Have not collected seedlings - Cows enter the farm - Rocky soil - Have not decided to plant (4) - Newly started household
71 villagers. The most common answer given by interviewees is that they simply have not
decided to plant trees. This suggests that for many households there may not be large barriers to tree planting, but instead they have not made the conscious choice or decision to plant, for example, Amani merely ''did not decide'" to plant trees. Water scarcity,
drought, and distance to water sources also have played a large part in why some
interviewees have not planted. Israel has planted trees but "then they dried up due to drought" Only one interviewee mentioned that they have not planted because of a lack
of money. This is very significant because it suggests that people are not facing major
financial barriers to tree planting. One female interviewee had not planted on the
household’s home plot because it was the decision of the husband. This illustrates that
access to land and/or decision making power may be a reason for why some women have
not planted trees.
Interviewees were also asked about what was preventing them from planting trees
(table 8). There were some similar answers for this question as compared to the previous
question, and the most common answer from interviewees was that nothing and/or
nobody are preventing them from planting trees. Avelina stated that for her "there are no
Table 8. Responses for what was preventing interviewees from planting trees. Some interviewees answered specifically for their farm or home plots, while others answered more generally. Also any answer without a number next to it was given by one interviewee, and if an answer was given by more than one interviewee the number of interviewees who stated the same answer is in the parentheses. On the farm plot On the home plot In general - Nothing and/or nobody (4) - Trees dry out - Insect damage - Far distance to water - Trees do not flourish - Nothing and/or nobody (8) - People causing harm to trees - Trees dry up (2) - Lack of water - Rocky soil (2) - Destmction from cows - Lack of water - No money - 1 do not know
72 barriers whatsoeverand Mile said that ‘Ve have not been prevented except we had not
decided.'" The fact that multiple interviewees believe that nothing is preventing them
from planting trees is important because it means that for many villagers there may not be
any large socio- economic barriers to tree planting. Another common answer is water
scarcity and distance to a water source. Based on household interviews it appears that water is a barrier to tree planting and is a reason why some households have not planted.
This is interesting in light of the focus group responses for what is preventing villagers
from planting trees. The female focus group named three things that prevent villagers
from planting trees: trees dry up, water sources used to be very far away, and that villagers do not know the importance of trees. The male focus group had similar answers
and said that: villagers have not understood the advantages of trees, there is a lack of
education, and some areas have rocky soils that cause trees to dry up. The frequent theme of water scarcity is seen in these focus group response, and not only the household
interviews. However, a convincing argument uncovered by both the male and female
focus group responses is that a lack of education and knowledge may be preventing tree
planting. The male focus group thoughtfully commented that
""The villagers have been prevented... they have not been impeded by something, except they have not understood the advantages o f trees and what. Therefore, nothing has prevented them, except their education. They have not been given education about the advantages of trees. Then if they are given education about trees, and if they plant, if they get lots o f trees near their homes it is possible that they will not even go to the forest. Therefore the advantages of getting lumber will be close, firewood will be close. Therefore they need to be brought education. ”
This is particularly interesting in light of the household interview responses that nothing
is preventing many villagers from planting trees and that several households have simply
not decided to plant trees. What can be concluded from this is that perhaps people who
73 said they are not being prevented are in fact simply uneducated about trees and this is why they have not decided to plant.
However, education is not the only barrier to tree planting and should not be seen
as the single or most important way to improve agroforestry in Baijomot. Other
solutions, including promoting trees that can grow in rocky or drought prone soils and trees that can address food security issues need to be considered. It is also a possibility that the existing agroforestry practices have not been successful enough to motivate more widespread adoption. However, because most trees are still small and just beginning to
produce tree products, success is difficult to assess.
As discussed in the literature review, land tenure security and tree planting are
often related, with more secure land tenure creating incentives for tree planting. The
rationale behind this is that trees take time to mature to a harvestable age and if land
tenure is insecure people may not have future access to the trees they planted if their land
is taken or they are forced to move. Tree planting rates in Barjomot did differ between
households who had doubts about their land tenure security and those who felt more
secure. On home plots, 54% of households who felt certain of their land tenure rights had
planted trees, while 80% of households who felt some uncertainty of their rights had
planted trees. One potential reason for why this trend does not follow what is expected is
that tree planting can also be a way to secure land rights by making a long term
investment into the land. People may 'claim' land by planting trees. On farm plots the
results between the two groups was less pronounced, as 21.4% of households that felt
some uncertainty about land tenure had planted trees and 29% of households who felt
certain in their land tenure rights had planted trees.
74 Agroforestry Practices and Trees in Barjomot Village
Based on household interviews Table 9. Agroforestry practices and the number of households participating in and observations I categorized the each practice Agroforestry Practice #of different agroforestry practices utilized households 1. Trees and shmbs around 36 houses and in public places by each household including both 2. Living fences 31 3. Alley cropping/ 16 planted trees and naturally occurring or intercropping 4. Dispersed trees on cropland 10 retained trees. Of the 16 agroforestry 5. Trees and shmbs on 7 borderlines and boundaries practices outlined by Rocheleau, Weber 6. Trees in home gardens 5 7. Contour vegetation strips 1 and Field Juma- (1988), 9 are practiced 7. Windbreaks 1 7. Trees and shmbs on terraces 1 in Baijomot Village (Table 9). There
are some discrepancies between the number of respondents that said they planted trees
and the number of households participating in different agroforestry practices. This is
caused by the inclusion of naturally occurring trees in the agroforestry practices, and the
fact that sisal (Agave
sisalana) was counted as
a tree because it is used
for live fencing and as a
building material, even
though most respondents
did not consider sisal a
tree. The inclusion of Figure 13. Grevillea robusta trees planted behind a unplanted and naturally house. Behind the Grevillea robusta trees is an example of a michengoma live fence.
75 occurring trees is important because those trees may be managed and retained for a
reason, and can be part of agroforestry.
Trees and shrubs around houses and in public places is the most common
agroforestry practice with only four households not having any types of trees around their
homes (figure 13). Eighteen households had naturally occurring trees, while 17 had
planted trees around their homes. Trees are planted and retained around homes for many
reasons including windbreaks, shade, tree products, soil erosion prevention, and aesthetic
values. Rebecca has planted trees near her home “to prevent soil erosion,'' and Esau says
that because he has planted trees near his home""now there is no wind. The trees take the wind up. ” For households who have planted trees around their houses Grevillea robusta
(13 households) and Eucalyptus sp. (7 households) were the most commonly used
species. Other minor tree species included Acrocarpus fraxinofolius. Commiphora
eminii, orange {Citrus sinensis), banana, Jacaranda mimosifolia, lemon {Citrus lemon),
mango {Mangifera indica), and avocado {Persea americana).
Living fences are the second most common agroforestry practice utilized by
77.5% of households. Living fences consist of trees and shrubs planted closely together
and are principally used to demarcate areas and control livestock movement. Controlling
livestock is especially important in Barjomot Village since 100% of households
interviewed have livestock and this is illustrated by Dagaro who planted “to prevent cows from harming our areal' Dina says she had planted a living fence around her home ""for
the reason o f the fence o f the house... security," and Avelina planted a living fence “to
circle the farm. ” The main species planted in live fences were sisal {Agave sisalana, 24
households), michengoma (10 households), and minyaa {Euphorbia candelabrum, 5
76 households). Other minor species include Schinus molle, Grevillea robusta, and
Jacaranda mimosifolia. There were several typical types of living fences planted. Many
homes had sisal, michengoma, or minyaa planted close together with no other species
incorporated into the living fence. These species, and in particular sisal and minyaa, are
drought resistant and low maintenance. These species also have protective traits that help
in preventing the movement of livestock including thorns (michengoma), spikes (sisal),
or poisonous sap (minyaa). A few live fences incorporated larger trees as well, but still were mostly made of the three main shrub species. Sisal has multiple benefits beyond
simply serving as a fence. The large tree- like trunks of sisal plants are a particularly valuable material for roof beams because it has similar properties to lumber, but is very
lightweight. Additionally, the fibers in the sisal leaves are used for weaving rope and at
least one household sold the rope weaved from household sisal plants to generate a
supplementary income.
77 Figure 14. Examples of different types of live fences. Clockwise from right: a sisal fence between a home plot and a road, a live fence of minyaa encircling a home plot, a row of michengoma planted between the farms of two different households.
The third most common agroforestry practice, employed by 40% of households, is
alley cropping or intercropping. While these two practices are different, they both
involve trees or woody plants planted in lines with annual crops grown in the rows
between and in the understory. In the agroforestry guide used in this study there is no
category for intercropping, so that is another reason why intercropping and alley cropping
are being lumped together as alley cropping. Alley cropping is used to improve the soil
through nitrogen fixation, prevent soil erosion, and to provide tree products. In Barjomot
Village the two species used for alley cropping are pigeon peas (Cajunus Cajun) and
Grevillea robusta. Pigeon peas are a leguminous shrub and were planted by 16 out of 40
households and are grown similar to annual crops. They are planted at the same time as
78 Figure 15.Examples of alley cropping/intercropping. The photo to the left shows mature pigeon peas on the farm after all other crops have been harvested. The photo on the right isGrevillea robusta planted in rows with crops planted in rows and in the understory. other crops, largely corn, beans, and pumpkins, but mature more slowly. While corn is growing the pigeon peas remain shorter than the corn but by the time the corn is harvested the pigeon peas have grown significantly. Pigeon peas are the last crop harvested from the farm and the peas are both for sale and household consumption. The small diameter wood from the pigeon pea stocks is then harvested, dried, and used for firewood. Pigeon peas are then replanted the next year. The Baijomot Village Executive
Officer commented to me that ""pigeon peas can provide a good source o f firewoodl'
There are numerous leguminous shrubs similar to pigeon peas that are not utilized in
Barjomot, for reasons that are unclear. The one respondent who had used Grevillea robusta as an alley crop only had a V4 acre home plot and no farm (figure 15). He may
79 have used Grevillea robusta as an alley cropping species in order to maximize the
potential of his land, and obtain both crops and tree products.
The fourth most common agroforestry practice, used by 10 households, is
dispersed trees on cropland. Eight respondents had planted trees on their farm, and two
had retained naturally occurring trees. Dispersed trees on farmland are usually spaced
randomly and crops are grown in the understory. The benefits of dispersed trees on
farmland are varied and include providing tree products, diversifying the farm products,
and preventing soil erosion. The most common species for this agroforestry practice are
Grevillea robusta (6 households) and Eucalyptus sp. (5 households). Other minor species
include guava {Psidium guajava), bananas, lemons {Citrus lemon), Leucena, and Schinus
molle. The utilization of Grevillea robusta and Eucalyptus sp. may imply that farmers
are trying to diversity their farm products to also obtain firewood and lumber.
The most common trees species that interviewees said they planted are Grevillea
robusta. Eucalyptus sp. and fruit trees. Sixteen respondents said they had planted
Grevillea robusta. Baraka has planted Grevillea robusta ""for the purpose o f future
household tree product needs,'' Pascalina has planted to obtain ""firewood and trees for
roofing a house," and Stephano has ""planted trees because offirewood and trees for
building" These quotes illustrate that Grevillea robusta is largely planted for firewood
and construction materials. Eucalyptus sp. was planted by 13 interviewees for similar
reasons as Grevillea robusta. Ameliana planted Eucalyptus sp. ""in order to help us in
building construction andfirewood" Many households have planted both these tree
species because they provide the same benefits. Several households recognized that
Eucalyptus sp. may have harmful effects on soil and surrounding crops. Bura said that
80 his household had planted Eucalyptus sp. but they cut them down""because it dries out the soil."" Ezekiel clarifies further saying that he""plants Grevillea robusta because it brings nutrients to the farm. It does not bring drought... because Eucalyptus sp. takes a lot o f water the soil is left in drought Such I" harmful effects may have been directly observed and/or learned of through government official and tree experts. This is critical information because agroforestry trees that cause damage to crops should not be recommended as trees for farm plots or areas near farmland. Eleven interviewees said that they have planted fruit trees including lemon {Lemon citrus), avocado (Persea americana), mango {Mangifera indica), mtopetope {Annona senegalensis), guava
{Psidium guajava), bananas, and peaches. Intuitively, fruit trees are planted to obtain fruit and Januari has planted multiple fruit tree species for ""the purpose o f fruit.""
The results from the household interviews about common agroforestry tree species are supported by the focus group interviews. On home plots the male focus group said they plantEucalytpus sp., Grevillea robusta, and fruit trees, while the women answered Eucalyptus sp. and fruit trees including mtopetope {Annona senegalensis), lemon {Citrus lemon), guava {Psidium guajava), and papaya {Caricapapaya). For their farm plots, the male focus group said they planted Eucalyptus sp., Grevillea robusta, and fruit trees, while the women said Grevillea robusta. These are the same tree species commonly named in the household interviews. Interestingly, the women said Grevillea robusta is planted on the farm and Eucalyptus sp. is planted at home, which suggests recognition that Eucalyptus sp. can cause problems if planted near crops.
The tension between the wide spread use of Eucalyptus sp. and its harmful effects on soil have been cited in others parts of East Africa, including Ethiopia (Bewket 2005).
81 Based on comments from household interviews and participant observation, village
members do not resist the planting of Eucalyptus sp., but recognize that it should not be
planted near crops. Villagers plant Eucalyptus sp. because of it grows quickly and is
fairly drought resistant. How Eucalyptus sp., an exotic species, was first brought to
Barjomot Village is unclear, but many village members are knowledgeable about the
species. For example, a 15 year- old boy demonstrated to me bow to cut branches for
firewood and harvest seeds from a mature Eucalyptus sp. tree.
The results are consistent with Peterson’s (2008) assessment of tree planting in
Barjomot Village. Unfortunately, in the current study numbers of trees were not counted
and this therefore makes it bard to make statements about the most frequently planted trees or the most numerous trees. However, Peterson counted tree species on both the
home and farm plots of the 14 households be interviewed. The most numerous tree
species in Peterson’s study were michengoma (1081 trees). Agave sisalana (770), Acacia kirkii (653), Eucalyptus sp. (537), and Grevillea robusta (460). Acacia kirkii is a native tree species that was retained on both farm and home plots. This is consistent with my
study if you consider that interviewees did not usually include michengoma or Agave sisalana when citing trees they bad planted. In this study, interviewees were not asked
about trees that they bad not planted and why they bad retained those trees.
To conclude, the main agroforestry practices in Baijomot Village are trees and
shrubs around bouses and public places, living fences, alley cropping /intercropping, and
dispersed trees on cropland and the most common agroforestry species are Grevillea robusta. Eucalyptus sp., and fruit trees.
82 Tree Planting, Tree Prodnct Collection, and Honsehold Location
Tree product collection, tree planting, and agroforestry practices varied in the 4
sub- villages (figure 16), which might be due to microclimate, proximity to tree products.
Songa Mbele-
Banomot Getalili
Moshonda
m
Figure 16. The approximate boundaries of the 4 sub villages- that make up Barjomot Village.
village layout, socio economic- characteristics, and landscape features. Moshonda sub
village is located in the eastern portion of the village. The main road that circles the
north side of Mt. Hanang runs through Moshonda and the sub village- borders the
neighboring village of Gitting, which is a larger, more developed village compared to
Barjomot. Gitting has electricity, and is where the Baijomot Primary School students
attend secondary school. From the center of Barjomot Village to Gitting Village is about
7 kilometers. Houses in Moshonda are spaced fairly close together, and there are large
open farmland areas with relatively few houses. Comparatively, there are fewer naturally
occurring and retained trees left in Moshonda opposed to the other sub villages.-
Additionally, several village members commented on how the climate and soil in
Moshonda is conducive for tree planting and agriculture in general. This may be because
83 Moshonda is largely located on the windward side of Mt. Hanang and may receive more
rainfall. The southern border of Moshonda borders HNFR and Moshonda has the
Moshonda Village Forest Reserve, which is 17 hectares of largely degraded forest land.
The water for the entire village originates in Moshonda from a mountain spring located in
HNFR.
Barjomot sub village- is located in the western portion of the village. The main
road also runs through Barjomot, but the nearest village of Gendabi is 13 kilometers
away. Barjomot can be described as a bushy, rural area of the village with a good
number of natural and retained trees. Barjomot is fairly dry because it is largely on the
leeward side of Mt. Hanang. There is a large farmland area in Baijomot that was cleared
in the late 90s and village members from other sub villages- own farm plots there. The
southern part of Barjomot borders the HNFR, but it also stretches north toward Lake
Balangda. Barjomot is the most populous sub village- with 168 households, but the
households are fairly spread out. However, the section of Barjomot that is close to the
Barjomot Village center has houses that are spaced close together.
Getalili sub- village is located in the central part of Barjomot Village and stretches
southward to the border of HNFR. Getalili is the center for commerce in the entire village and contains the vast number of shops, restaurants, and services. The main road
also runs through the center of Getalili. My house was located in Getalili sub village.-
There are several protected forest and bush land areas in Getalili including the protected
Hudhuma (700 hectares), Barjomot Beekeeping Group Community Forest Reserve (17
hectares), and the Getalili Village Forest Reserve (12 hectares). Because of higher
rainfall in the southern portion of Getalili there is a large farmland area located there.
84 Songa -Mbele sub-village is located in the northern, lower elevation portion of
Barjomot Village. It borders Mande village to the north. There are currently no roads in
Songa Mbele- but the community had begun construction on a road at the end of my stay in July 2009. Songa -Mbele is the least populated sub -village with only 83 households.
Songa Mbele- contains a relatively large amount of retained bush land and naturally occurring trees. There are only a few water spigots in Songa Mbele- and it is fairly dry climatically. Songa- Mbele has fairly rocky soils and several village members cite this as a struggle for tree planting in Songa Mbele.-
Tree planting on home plots varies significantly by sub village,- as seen in the logistic regression model. The results were highly significant with a p value- on the resulting likelihood ratio test of under 0.0008. Recall that villagers were not asked about the number of trees planted, but simply whether or not they planted trees. Figure 17 shows that Barjomot and Getalili sub villages- were fairly close to the overall average of
65% of households having planted trees. However, Songa Mbele- and Moshonda sub villages vary significantly. In Moshonda 92.9% of household interviewees said that ‘yes’ they have planted trees on their home plots. The main characteristics of Moshonda that may be influencing tree planting there is the lack of naturally occurring trees, the physical spacing of households, and more suitable microclimate. Moshonda has fewer naturally occurring trees and this may have caused households to plant trees in order to obtain tree products and receive the benefits of trees, and 57.1% of interviewees there have planted trees around their homes. The close spacing of most households in Moshonda has created a need for living fences, and 85.7% of interviewees had planted live fences. The perceived suitability of Moshonda’s microclimate for tree planting may also play a role in
85 the prevalence of tree planting. Additionally, 3 of the 5 households interviewed who
have planted home gardens live in Moshonda. Conversely, in Songa Mbele- only 12.5%
of households had planted trees on their home plots. This may be caused by the relative
abundance of naturally occurring trees, drier microclimate, and rocky soils. Ruso said
Home Plant rates by Village
o
CO C)
0 TO CD a: < 3 C ro CL 0) E 0 1 <3
eg <3
p <3
Village
Figure 17. Logistic regression model comparing village and planting trees on home plots. The y-axis is the home plant rate which is the percentage of households in each sub-village which have planted trees and is represented by the dot. The x- axis represents the different sub- villages with 1= Moshonda, 2 =Barjomot, 3 Getalili,= and 4 Songa= Mbele. The bars represent standard deviation.
86 that he has attempted to plant trees but ""here the rock formations are very close. This here is a hole for a tree. I watered and watered and it dried out and I was still watering I'
Damas reinforced this problem saying ""here at home, trees do not agree. The reason
being that here there are rocks, if you plant it dries up Eighty I' - seven percent of villagers in Songa Mbele- have retained trees around their homes, and therefore the need to plant trees might be significantly less than in Moshonda where only 21.4% of
households have naturally occurring trees.
Tree planting on farm plots also varied significantly between sub villages- and is
illustrated in the logistic regression model in figure 18. The p value- from the likelihood
ratio test is under 0.012. In Barjomot Village 25% of homes answered that ‘yes’ they
have planted trees on their farm plots. Getalili sub village- was close to this overall
average with 22.2 % of households planting. As with the farm plots, in Songa Mbele-
only 12.5% had planted trees on their farms, likely due to reasons discussed above. One
interesting result is that no interviewees in Baijomot sub village- planted trees on their
farms. This is probably due to a drier microclimate, water availability issues, livestock
damage from dry season grazing on farms, and a relative abundance of bush land. Also,
most farms in Barjomot sub village- are located far from a water spigot and this can
prevent people from planting trees on their farms. For example, Magdalena said when
asked what is preventing her from planting trees that
“We have no obstacle except... we saw there we will not be able to because water is locatedfar away. Trees here if you plant little ones the trees need water. We will be afraid of these things. The service of water is locatedfar away. ”
This sentiment is echoed by Dagaro who says""We were not planting because water was far and right now we are planning to plant trees because now water is close. Dagaro ”is
87 probably referring to the new water spigots brought to Barjomot Village in 2003 as why
water is now close to her farm plot. Additionally, Hotay has concerns about livestock
damage to trees and says the farm there is lots o f harm from people’s cows walking
Farm Plant rates by Village
CD d
ID d
0 d q: +c- »
CO d
CN d
o d
Village
Figure 18. Logistic regression model comparing village and planting trees on farm plots. The y-axis is the home plant rate which is the percentage of households in each sub-village which have planted trees and is represented by the dot. The x axis- represents the different sub villages with 1= Moshonda, 2 =Barjomot, 3 Getalili,= and 4 Songa= Mbele. The bars represent standard deviation.
8 8 carelessly. Therefore it is not easy to plant on the farm, and then later it will be ruined. ”
Once again, Moshonda has the highest percentage of households planting trees on the farm with 53.8% of households planting. Several agroforestry practices were also more commonly practiced in Moshonda sub village- compared with the other three sub villages. Forty three percent of households in Moshonda have planted dispersed trees on their croplands and 78.5% of households practice alley cropping, compared to 62.5% for
Songa Mbele- and 0% for Barjomot and Getalili. Alley cropping is fairly common in
Gitting Village, which borders Moshonda, so that could be an additional explanation for why alley cropping and in particular the planting of pigeon peas {Cajunus cajun) is more prevalent there.
Besides tree planting, tree Table 10. Tree product collection from the product collection from HNFR also HNFR based on sub village.- Sub-village # of households % of collecting products households varied by sub- village (table 10). In
Moshonda, Baijomot, and Songa - Moshonda 5 35.7 Baijomot 3 33.3 Mbele sub- villages the percentages Getalili 8 88.9 of households collecting any tree Songa-Mbele 3 37.5 products from HNFR is in the 30s. However, in Getalili 88.9%, or all but 1 household, collect products from HNFR. This is almost certainly explained by the close proximity of Getalili to HNFR. While both Barjomot and Moshonda also border HNFR, more houses in Getalili are close to HNFR. It is logical that village members living closer to
HNFR would be more likely to collect tree products there because the labor inputs and time commitments are lower. However, the proximity of homes in Getalili sub village- to
HNFR does not appear to influence tree planting in Getalili and 77.7% of households
89 have planted at home and 22.2% on their farms. These numbers are fairly close to averages for Barjomot Village where 65% of households have planted at home and 25% at home. Interestingly, increased tree planting in Getalili did not necessarily mean that households were not also collecting tree products from HNFR. But because the question about collecting tree products from HNFR was a yes/no question, we cannot say if households in Getalili were collecting a small or large amount of specific species from
HNFR.
To conclude, tree planting, agroforestry practices, and tree product collection in
HNFR vary by location within Barjomot Village. On home plots, households in
Moshonda were the most likely to have planted, and Songa Mbele- the least likely. On the farm, Moshonda was again the most likely to have planted trees, while no one in
Barjomot sub village- planted on the farm. The variation in microclimate, landscape characteristics, retained naturally occurring trees, and other factors may have influenced tree planting and agroforestry practices in the 4 sub villages.-
90 Tree Planting and Wealth
Similar to
W eal th vs. Farm plant household location, household wealth was a significant predictor of tree planting on home plots. For home ciC.J plots, wealthier households were more likely to 10 15 20 25 30
W ealth answer that ‘yes’ Figure 19. The relationship between wealth and tree planting on the household farm plot. The x -axis is the wealth index and the y-axis they have planted represents the probability that a household has planted on their farm plots. The small numbers on the top and bottom of the chart represent trees on their land. individual households. The number is the sub village- of that household with 1= Moshonda, 2= Barjomot, 3 =Getalili, and 4 = The logistic Songa -Mbele. If the number is at 0 on the y-axis it means that that regression model individual household has not planted, if it is at 1 on the y axis- that means the household has planted trees on their farm. in figure 19 illustrates the probability that a household has planted on their farm based on the household’s wealth. While there is some correlation between wealth and tree planting on the farm, the result is not significant, like it is for home plots, and has a p value- of
0.2617.
91 The logistic regression model in figure 20 illustrates the probability that a
household has planted on their home plot depending on the household wealth. For
example, a household with a wealth index score of 12 has a 48.2% probability that they
have planted on their home plot, while a household with a wealth index score of 19.25
Wealth vs. Home plant
o
oo o
CD o _cc CL (D E o
o
CN O
O O
10 15 20 25 30
Wealth
Figure 20. The relationship between wealth and tree planting on the household home plot. The x-axis is the wealth index and the y-axis represents the probability that a household has planted on their home plots. The small numbers on the top and bottom of the chart represent individual households. The number is the sub- village of that household with 1= Moshonda, 2 =Barjomot, 3= Getalili, and 4= Songa Mbele. - If the number is at 0 on the y axis it means that that individual household has not planted, if it is at 1 on the y axis- that means the household has planted trees on their farm.
92 has an 82.4% probability that they have planted trees on their home plot. Additionally, every household with a wealth index score greater than 18.5 planted trees at home. The findings are very significant and have a p value- of 0.0182.
The household interview data does not readily point to causal factors for the correlation between wealth and tree planting at home; therefore I can only speculate. A wealthier household may have more available labor and this labor may be put towards tree planting and care. Hansen et al. (2005) found that, in Malawi, household factors that promote tree planting include more livestock, more land, and a higher level of education for the female household head. In Barjomot Village, wealthier households tend to have more land, and this gives households more space for tree planting and crop production.
In particular wealthier households had larger farm plots, while home plots appeared to be of relatively similar sizes regardless of wealth. Wealthier households also tend to have more livestock, potentially promoting the planting of living fences to help control livestock movement. The education of the female household head does not seem to be important in Barjomot Village. Of the female household heads interviewed the average years of education for households who have planted trees is 5.7 and for households who have not planted is 6.5. It is likely that many factors causing wealthier households to planting trees on home were not revealed in this study. Furthermore, poor households (9
- 12 on the wealth index) were the only households that said they would plant what a specialist instructed or trees that would grow well.
Another important question is why is tree planting at home is significantly correlated with wealth while tree planting on the farm is not. One possible explanation is that there is not a large variation in farming techniques and crops between households at
93 different levels of wealth. All households plant com, beans, and pumpkins as their
primary crops, with some households expanding to other crops. Another possible
explanation is that regardless of wealth the farm plots may be seen as a place for crops
Wealth + Village vs. Home plant
Cl E o X Cl Cli
di d i
10 15 20 25 30
W e a lt h
Figure 21. Illustrates the role of wealth in predicting home planting as it varies by sub village.- The x-axis is the wealth index, and the y-axis is the probability that a household has planted trees on their home plot. The four separate curves represent the different sub villages- with 1 =Moshonda, 2= Barjomot, 3= Getalili, and 4 =Songa Mbele. The curves extend only as far as the wealth values within that sub- village.
94 and traditional agriculture, while on home plots households may be more willing to experiment with tree planting and other sources of income generation.
The relationship between wealth, sub- village, and tree planting on home plots provides further insight. Figure 21 is a logistic regression of wealth, sub village,- and tree planting at home. Tree planting on home plots in Moshonda sub village- is higher regardless of the wealth. Tree planting in Barjomot sub village- varies widely with respect to wealth. Those households in Barjomot sub village- with a wealth index score greater than 14.5 have a 50% probability of planting trees on their home plots. Getalili sub-village tends to plant trees at home at a higher rate than Baijomot sub -village, but less than Moshonda sub village- for comparable wealth scores. Finally, Songa Mbele- sub village has a large number of poorer households, and has a maximum probability of tree planting on home plots of 25% at a wealth score of 18. In this logistic regression the p- value for wealth is 0.0448 and for sub -village is 0.0012. Therefore sub -village is more significant than wealth in determining the probability that a household has planted trees on their home plot. However, for every sub village- the greater the wealth index score a household received the higher the probability that they have planted trees on their home plots.
A higher percentage of households practice agroforestry and plant trees than the results show because most households did not consider the planting of sisal (Agave sisalana) or michengoma or the planting of pigeaon peas (Cajunus cajun) as tree planting. Tree planting is also more nuanced than the wealth data suggests and there are several examples of poor households that had planted a large number of trees (figure 22).
For example, Esau, an older, poorer farmer in Getalili sub village,- had a wealth index of
95 12, but had planted a
large number and
variety of trees. He
was the only farmer
interviewed who had
created terraces on his
farm and planted a
coffee and Grevillea robusta agroforestry
system. He had
planted over 450 trees,
largely Grevillea
robusta and Eucalyptus
sp. However, Esau has
20 acres of land (the
average was 5.3 acres),
and this had Figure 22. Examples of poor farmers who have planted a large number of trees. The top photo is research assistant undoubtedly factored Martin Beko (in blue) and Esau (in red) on his terraced farm land. The bottom photo is of Danieli’s small home plot. into his tree planting
efforts. Another example is Danieli who has no farm and only 1 acre for his home plot.
This household was one of the poorest interviewed with a wealth index score of only 9.
On his small plot Danieli had planted Grevillea robusta and Eucalyptus sp., as well as
pigeon peas {Cajunus cajun) and sisal (Agave sisalana). Grevillea robusta and
96 Eucalyptus sp. were intercropped or alley cropped on the small farm he had on his home
plot, thus maximizing the potential of his acre of land. Danieli said that he collects
firewood from his trees, and later will harvest timber. There were probably 50 or so trees
planted on the household home plot and during the interview Danieli seemed proud and
excited to show me his trees.
The Agroforestry Potential Outside Mt. Hanang National Forest
The main purpose of this study is to determine if agroforestry on individual
household farm and home plots has the potential to provide tree products for households,
thus decreasing tree product collection in HNFR and supporting local livelihoods. In
Table 11. In the future, would you prefer order to assess this potential interviewees to collect tree products from the forest or from your farm and home plots? were asked several questions, the first Collection Site(s) # of interviewees Home 7 being where they would prefer to collect Farm 10 Home and Farm 21 tree products in the future, from home and HNFR 1 Bush land 0 farm plots or from HNFR and/or the bush Bush land and HNFR 1 Total 40 land. Ninety five percent of interviewees
said that in the future they would prefer to
collect tree products on their own farm and
home plots as opposed to HNFR or the
Private property ■ Public bush lands (see table 11 and figure 23).
^ignre 23. Number of interviewees who This is important because it illustrates that would prefer to collect on ‘public lands’ (bush land or HNFR) or ‘private lands’ most households potentially do not collect (household farm and home plots). tree products from HNFR because of
97 preference, but instead due to a lack of other options.
Interviewees listed many reasons why they would prefer to collect tree products
on their own land, the most often cited (11 interviewees) being the benefits of lumber and
trees if planted on household land. This means that households want to receive tree
products from trees, and that they only have full control over this if the trees belong
solely to them and are on their land. Januari states that ""I will need to collect at home
and here on the farm. For the purpose of lumber and offruit I plant The trees second I'
most common reason (8 interviewees) is that collecting in HNFR is illegal and forbidden.
Joseph would prefer to collect the farm and at home because there [HNFR] is forbidden f and Pascalina would prefer to collect "dnly here on the farm, because there
on the mountain they have forbid Theitl' fact that restrictions on access to HNFR are a
deterrent from tree product collection is significant. The possibility of being caught
collecting tree products illegally, either without a permit or in areas where collection is
forbidden, and being required to pay fines to the village government is a serious
constraint on collecting tree products within HNFR.
The third most cited reason (7 interviewees) is that household plots are closer
than the HNFR or bush land areas are to households. The labor and time required to
climb up the lower slopes of Mt. Hanang to the forest, cut firewood or lumber, and carry
these products back down to households can be quite considerable. Depending on where
a household is located within Barjomot Village it can take up to an hour to reach the
forest, and the paths to get there are fairly steep. Therefore, some households simply
want to collect on their own land in order to decrease the labor and time commitments of
collecting tree products. Israel says he would prefer to collect “at home because there
98 [the forest] is far and now I do not go because I have tree products here at home''
Teresa agrees and said "dwillprefer to collect at home because it is easy, there is no need
to go there and there I' Clearly, some villagers may not collect from HNFR if they have trees available on their own land.
The fourth reason (6 interviewees) is that households currently possess trees or
anticipate that in the future they will have trees on their land. Therefore, some villagers would prefer to collect on their own land because they have trees on their land. Esau
stated that he would collect ""only on the farm. I have trees. I f I have trees why will I go
to the forestl" The fifth most commonly cited reason (5 interviewees) is the scarcity of trees and tree products in HNFR and the bush land. Amani said that he would prefer to
collect ""on the farm. In the bush land it was available in the beginning, but now in the
bush land it is not available. The bush land has been finished Similarly,up I' Happiness
stated that ""I will plant trees; the bush land has been finished up The I' last reason given
(2 interviewees) is that the government has told village members to plant trees. Dionisi
said that “thegovernment has said ‘to plant trees for your benefit
Many interviewees cited more than one of the reasons above for preferring to
collect on their own land. However, two interviewees answered that they would prefer to
collect in HNFR and the bush land. Domi would prefer to collect in HNFR because ""to plant trees does not agree because trees take a long time to grow," and Damas would
prefer to collect ""In the forest. The reason being that it [tree products] is present in the forest." These dissenting opinions are important to consider because they present a
possible challenge to getting 100% participation in an agroforestry project in the future.
99 Interviewees were also asked if they had an agroforestry project on their land would they continue to collect tree products in HNFR, would they collect from their
agroforestry trees, or would they collect from both locations. Consistent with the results
presented above, 87.5% of interviewees would collect tree products from their
agroforestry trees, 10% from agroforestry and the HNFR or bush land, and only 2.5% would collect solely from bush land Table 12. If you had an agroforestry project on your land would you continue to go to the (see table 12 and figure 24). No HNFR to collect tree products, would you collect from your agroforestry project, or interviewees answered that they would you collect from both the agroforestry project and the forest? would collect solely from HNFR. Collection Site(s) # of interviewees Agroforestry at home 8 When asked why they would Agroforestry on the farm 6 Agroforestry on the farm 21 collect from their own trees if they and at home Agroforestry and HNFR 3 had an agroforestry project, Agroforestry and bush land 1 HNFR 0 responses were again consistent with Bush land 1 Total 40 those above. The most commonly
cited reason (9 interviewees) is the
personal ownership of trees and that
these trees will be enough to supply
the household tree products. I Agroforestry Demonstrating that households that I Agroforestry & Public Land
have trees do in fact collect tree I Public Land Figure 24. The number of interviewees who, products on their land, 6 out of the 10 if they had agroforestry trees, would collect from agroforestry, agroforestry and ‘public households who have planted trees lands’ (HNFR and bush land), and solely public lands (HNFR and bush land). on their farm land said that they
100 collect tree products on their farm, while only 1 of 29 interviewees who have not planted
trees on their farm land can collect on their farm land, and this household likely has trees
on their farm that they did not plant. The 4 interviewees who had planted trees on their
farm but do not collect tree products on the farm may be unable for several reasons.
Priscilla said that the farm there are only a few trees, ”and Najima stated our plots it [tree products] is not enough I'
Dina reiterated the importance of trees when she said "df I plant I will only use
mine [trees]. To climb to the forest is far. As yours [trees] are here close to home then
also it is yours privately I' This fact that most household farm and home plots are closer
to homes than the HNFR or bush land for tree product collection was the second most
cited reason for why households would prefer to collect from their own trees (8
interviewees). This quote also shows a sense of ownership over trees planting on
household plots. Dagaro agreed with Dina and said "A will only collect from my plot. I
do not go to the forest for the reason that I will have good necessities here close to our
home I'
The third most cited answer (6 interviewees) is the benefit of tree products. Ester
stated that "df I plant trees I will get my household needs here, not on the mountain The I'
fourth most common response (5 interviewees) was to protect the HNFR from
environmental damage. Bura very eloquently expressed his opinion that “Mt. Hanang,
that mountain is like a mother... we get things there, but to enter and take out trees is
bad. It is badl' Pascalina expressed concerns about how the forest regulates the weather
and climate and stated "dwill collect here ...on our plots, because there on the mountain,
if you collect trees, if they [trees] are finished there in the forest the rain will not come I'
101 Finally, the fifth most common reason cited (4 interviewees) was that HNFR is protected
and it is illegal to collect tree products there. Ameliana said that she ''will collect from agroforestry because in the forest it is not permitted to carelessly cut treesl'
While 87.5% of interviewees said that if they had an agroforestry project on their
land they would collect solely from their household trees, four interviewees would collect
from both agroforestry and the bush land and/or HNFR and this is illustrated by Priska
who "would collect on my farm together with in the forest One I' reason why some
village members may combine their sources for tree products is a concern that
agroforestry alone may not provide a sufficient amount of tree products for the household
livelihood. Magdalena expressed this concern saying "It will not be enough fo r me
truthfully. Maybe only firewoodfrom the bush landl"
The general response that village members would prefer to collect tree products
on their own land as opposed to the HNFR is supported by results from the focus group
interviews. Both the women’s and men’s focus groups were asked if they could get tree
products near their homes or on their farms would they continue to collect tree products
from the forest. The men answered that "we will not return to collect trees in the forest
because we have gotten trees on our homes andfarms alsof and the women responded
"no, because we will not get rain if we collect in the forest, i f we continue to collect in the forest. We are not continuing because we will miss the rain.""
102 Exploring
if interviewees 70.00% 60.00% who say they 63.20% 50.00% 47.60% 52.40% collect tree 40.00%
products on their 30.00% 36.80% 20 .00% own land do or 10.00%
do not collect in 0 .00% Collect on household Do not collect on HNFR is land household land
important ■ Collect tree products in HNFR ■ Do not collect tree products in HNFR Figure 25. The percentage of interviewees who do/do not collect tree because it may products in HNFR and who do/do not collect tree products on household land. reveal that if
households can collect tree products on their own land they could be less likely to collect
in HNFR. Currently, 36.8 % of interviewees who collect from their own land also collect
in HNFR, while 63.2 % of interviewees who do not collect on their own land collect from
HNFR (figure 25). This means that if interviewees can collect tree products on their own
lands, they may be less likely to collect in HNFR. These are significant findings because
it may mean that people who collect on their own land are less likely to collect in HNFR.
Two additional questions that are important to the agroforestry potential in
Barjomot Village are if village members want education about agroforestry and if they would join a village agroforestry project. Thirty nine out of 40 household interviewees
stated that they want education about agroforestry. One interviewee was unsure if she wanted agroforestry education. The reasons for why interviewees want education about
agroforestry are in table 13. Baraka wanted education ""because I want to use
103 agroforestry in order to receive Table 13. Reasons for why interviewees want education about agroforestry. benefits o f laterf Priska wanted “to Reason #of interviewees know how to plant and f Joseph said ""it To understand/know better 13 It benefits me/ it is my benefit 8 is my benefit when I live in an Benefits of later 7 I want to know how to plant 3 environment with agroforestry The I' trees To protect/help the 3 most common answers are that environment How else will I understand? 2 interviewees want to understand To get tree products 2 To leam 2 agroforestry better and know more Education is good 2 I want to use agroforestry I It helps for other matters I about it and also want to receive the Because I want it I To educate everyone I benefits that agroforestry has to offer. Education is a benefit I To know the quality of a I It is important to note here that there thing For progress I may be some biases in the For education to increase I
interviewee’s responses caused by my role in Barjomot Village as a Peace Corps
Volunteer. Most village members saw the role of Peace Corps as bringing education to
the village and therefore interviewees may have stated that they want agroforestry
education in order to coerce me into bringing agroforestry education to the village.
Lastly, 100% of household interviewees said that they would join a village
agroforestry project. The reasons interviewees gave for why they would join an
agroforestry project are shown in table 14. The top reasons stated by interviewees are to
receive education, to help themselves, and to help the community. Stephano would join
an agroforestry project ""in order for me to get trainingf and Bura would join because ""I
like to know more because right now, how I said we have no trees even for firewood on
104 our farms, we have none. If we would have Table 14. Reasons for why interviewees would join a village agroforestry project. Reason #of had this education, we would have planted. interviewees For education and to know 14 Therefore I would like to join with my more It is an advantage for me 8 villager si' To help the community 5 In order for us to plant trees 3 It is important to note here that for It protects the land/ 3 environment the majority of the above questions Tree products 2 Future benefits 2 interviewees may have been trying to give I like agroforestry 2 For better food 1 me, the researcher and interviewer, answers Because I want to 1 1 The govemment says this that they thought I wanted to hear. This agriculture is suitable Because trees help you 1 may have played a part in some To bring the rains 1 Prevent soil erosion 1 I have decided 1 interviewee’s answers. The findings in this
section support the hypothesis that agroforestry can aid forest conservation because if village members have trees they would collect tree products from their trees and not the
HNFR. Villagers also want education about agroforestry and would participate in a village agroforestry project.
Lastly, there is one important aspect of this research that needs to be mentioned.
The research was done using interviews and participant observation, and the results are based on what interviewees said, and not what they did. While observations about
practices were recorded as part of the participant observation and the farm tour section of the interview, the majority of the results are from the interviewees answers and
comments. Therefore, there could be a disconnect between what interviewees said they would do and what they actually will do.
105 CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSIONS
Summary of Important Results
An examination of tree product collection from Mt. Hanang National Forest
Reserve revealed that 50% of households utilize large poles and 35% utilize firewood which originated in HNFR. These results are similar to what interviewees who had
planted trees on their plots reported receiving as the benefits of their trees: firewood
(44%), lumber (54.5%), and lumber for sale (12.5%). Additionally, from a future
agroforestry project interviewees stated that they want to receive the benefits of
lumber/construction (57.5%), firewood (32.5%), and fruit (22.5%). There was little
difference between men and women in their desired benefits from agroforestry. The
recurring theme of firewood and large poles/lumber is important because it illustrates that what villagers receive and want to receive from agroforestry are the same tree products that they collect from HNFR. This makes agroforestry projects that focus on these tree
products not only potentially more desirable to villagers, but more likely to aid in forest
conservation if the collection of large poles/timber and firewood in HNFR could possibly be reduced.
Sixty- five percent of interviewees had planted trees using 9 different agroforestry
practices. The most common practices were trees and shrubs around houses and in public
places (90%), living fences (77%), alley cropping/intercropping (40%), and dispersed
trees on cropland (25%). The most common tree species planted were Grevillea robusta.
Eucalyptus sp., and assorted fruit trees, as stated in household and focus group
106 interviews. These results are important because current agroforestry practices and species may serve as a starting point for a future agroforestry project.
Tree planting varied significantly between the 4 sub villages,- for example 92.9% of households in Moshonda sub -village had planted trees while only 12.5% in Songa -
Mbele had planted. Twenty- five percent of households had planted trees on their farm plots, with 53.8% of households having planted in Moshonda and no households having planted in Baijomot sub village.- These trends are most likely due to microclimate and soil variations, and the extent of naturally, retained trees left on the landscape. Tree planting on home plots and wealth was positively correlated for all four sub villages.- A household with a wealth index score of 12 had a 48.2% probability that they have planted at home, while a wealth score of 19.25 indicated an 82.4% probability. Results about tree planting, sub village,- and wealth illustrate the nuanced nature of tree planting in
Barjomot Village based on different socio economic- and physical factors.
The potential for agroforestry on household plots for aiding forest conservation and improving livelihoods may be high. In the future, 95% of interviewees would prefer to collect tree products from their own land because they would receive the benefits of lumber and trees, it is illegal to collect in HNFR, their plots are closer to the household than HNFR, they possess trees, there is a scarcity of trees in HNFR and the bush land, and the government tells villagers to plant trees. If households had an agroforestry project, 87.5% would collect tree products only from their own trees, 10% from agroforestry and the HNFR or bush land, and 2.5% only from the bush land. Reasons cited by interviewees for why they would prefer to collect from agroforestry includes: possession and ownership of trees, the nearness of household plots as opposed to HNFR,
107 the benefits of tree products, to protect HNFR from environmental damage, and the
illegality of collecting in HNFR. The fact that most interviewees would prefer to collect tree products on their own lands as opposed to HNFR or the bush land is essential for
illustrating the potential for agroforestry in Barjomot Village. It shows that villagers may
not necessarily be collecting tree products in HNFR by choice, but rather out of a lack of
other options.
Recommendations for Agroforestry in Barjomot Village
One of the main goals for this research is to serve as a call to action in Barjomot
Village for the promotion of agroforestry and the potential creation of a future
agroforestry project. The results may help shape a more effective agroforestry project because they highlight current agroforestry practices, desired agroforestry benefits, and the potential of agroforestry to assist forest conservation and improve local livelihoods.
Agroforestry could improve local livelihoods by providing easier access to tree products
needed for household subsistence, but also as an additional source of income from the
sale of tree products. This section includes recommendations for agroforestry in
Barjomot Village, as well as issues where more research should be undertaken. My main
recommendations are outlined here and expanded upon in more detail below:
• Wealth and household location need to he taken into account.
• Gender differences, and in particular the division of labor for
different agroforestry practices, should he explored in greater
detail.
• Desired agroforestry benefits should he emphasized.
108 • Local experts and available local resources need to he utilized to
their maximum potential
• An agroforestry project should he multifaceted and work with
existing practices and tree species, but also work with early
adopters to pilot new practices and species.
• Different agroforestry practices should he promoted on home
plots and on farm plots.
• Agroforestry practices and species should provide products for
both sale and household use.
• There should he a focus on agroforestry education.
• A project should work to overcome identified harriers to
agroforestry revealed in this study.
• An aim in the improvement of food security would benefit
household livelihoods.
• Utilize already existing infrastructure to sell agroforestry
products in Arusha for higher margins ofprofit.
Since wealthier households were more likely to have planted trees at home, an
agroforestry project should focus on tree planting by poor households. According to
Belsky (1993), poor farmers may prioritize meeting basic food needs and therefore do not
plant trees because they view trees as competing with food crop production, require too
many years to produce useful products, and necessitate secure land tenure. While land tenure was fairly secure in Barjomot Village, an agroforestry project should address the
competition of trees and crops, and the long term investment of trees planting. One way
109 to overcome the fact that poor farmers may see trees as taking too long to produce the
desired benefits is to diversify the agroforestry practices promoted, with some requiring
shorter periods of time to produce desired benefits. For example, the planting of pigeon
peas {Cajunus cajun) can produce firewood after only one rainy season and produces an
edible food crop at the same time.
The different tree planting rates and agroforestry practices prevalent in the four
sub- villages illustrates that an agroforestry project should be site specific even within one village. For example, in Songa Mbele,- where rocky soils and drought were commonly
cited for why villagers have not planted trees, efficient watering methods and seedling
care, as well as drought resistant trees should be promoted. Alternatively, in Moshonda, where tree planting is common and many different agroforestry techniques are utilized,
innovative and new agroforestry techniques may be promoted because most households
already have a basic familiarity with tree planting techniques and tree species.
While gender was not found to be a significant factor in the results of this study, there are several gaps in the research that require further exploration. Mainly, the
division of labor for tree seedling care and tree maintenance should be examined in detail because an unequal division of labor or a burden of labor on one gender could create
social inequalities in an agroforestry project. Also, the main decision maker for most
households is the male household head, so a better understanding of how this influences tree species choice and tree planting could help create greater equality. However, the
desired benefits of an agroforestry project were the same for men and women and this
illustrates how tree products are utilized by the household as a whole, firewood cooks the
household food and large poles/timber builds the household’s homes. Additionally, some
110 households divide the household plots between members and certain members may have control of small pieces of the household land. More research should be done in order to explore how this could either be advantageous to agroforestry, or may inhibit agroforestry.
The desired benefits of agroforestry, principally firewood, timber, and fruit, should be highlighted by an agroforestry project and tree species and agroforestry practices promoted and emphasized should produce these benefits. German, Charamila and Tolera (2006) recommend that agroforestry species selection should go beyond biological factors and encompass multiple production goals, livelihood goals, and cultural values. Additionally, Belsky (1993) states that research in the field of agroforestry has found that agroforestry practices with high adoption rates are usually those that offer multiple benefits to the people involved. Therefore, any practices and species that produce more than one of these benefits should be promoted. For example, currently
Grevillea robusta and Eucalyptus sp. are used for both firewood and lumber as their branches are cut for firewood and the trunks are later harvested for lumber. Also integrating several tree species into one agroforestry practice could yield multiple benefits. For example an increased integration of Grevillea robusta into sisal (Agave sisalana) live fences would produce firewood, lumber (from both species), and the raw materials for rope construction.
Local experts and resources should be utilized as much as possible to keep an agroforestry project at a local and grassroots level. Several village members have significant knowledge and experience in tree planting and they could be used as teachers and advisors to other villagers. They could also serve as a go between- for villagers and
111 official agroforestry experts. Isaac et al. (2007) studied the structure and utility of farmer advice networks in Ghana and they found a core periphery- relationship with a few core farmers and a greater number of periphery farmers. They discovered that many of the core farmers used external information from government institutions, and thus functioned as a bridge linking formal and informal networks. Both external and farmer derived- sources of knowledge of agroforestry practices were transferred through informal advice networks, and served as a foundation for community based- adaptive management.
Therefore, current practitioners of agroforestry in Barjomot Village should be utilized for the spread of knowledge and communication for an agroforestry project. Alongside village experts, local governmental tree experts should be an integral part of any agroforestry project
The local water resources also need to be properly utilized to benefit the community agroforestry activities. The 25 water spigots in the village could serve as the sight for household tree nurseries and this would make the labor of watering seedlings significantly less than having to carry water to households for watering. Several water spigots are the sight of community gardens, and each household can pay for a small plot.
A similar system should be utilized for tree nurseries with care that tree nurseries do not take the place of these household gardens. Additionally, the village govemment should not place a fee on purchasing a tree nursery plot because this may inhibit poorer households from starting a tree nursery.
An important recommendation for a future agroforestry project is to be multifaceted in promoting agroforestry practices and tree species. By this I mean that a project should build on existing practices and species, work with early adopters and more
112 innovative farmers to pilot new practices and species, and investigate the potential for domestication of native tree species currently being utilized within HNFR. The promotion of current trees and agroforestry practices is significant because Mercer (2004) states that the most important factors in agroforestry adoption are risk and uncertainty.
Therefore, the promotion of familiar agroforestry practices and species would reduce risk and uncertainty because they are already practiced in Barjomot Village and their benefits have already been realized and observed locally. New farmers to agroforestry can simply observe the benefits received from agroforestry by currently practicing households and this reduces the risk of the unknown that a totally foreign and new agroforestry practice may have. Thus, the most common agroforestry practices (trees and shrubs around homes, living fences, alley cropping/ intercropping, and dispersed trees on farms) should be promoted for households who have not previously practiced agroforestry and expanded for households who have already began utilizing agroforestry practices. In addition, villagers who are already knowledgeable about agroforestry and practicing agroforestry may be identified as early adopters and new practices and techniques could be taught to them. If these farmers adopt new practices they may eventually become popular and spread to other farmers.
Similarly, agroforestry tree species already utilized in Barjomot Village should be promoted, particularly Grevillea robusta. Extensive research has been done (see literature review) about Grevillea robusta and most of the findings have found that
Grevillea robusta is generally a beneficial agroforestry tree species. Alternatively, the wide- spread use of Eucalyptus sp. should be minimized because of the environmentally damaging (both observed in the literature and by villagers in Baijomot Village) and the
113 political nature of the species. Tree species with similar characteristics to Grevillea robusta and Eucalyptus sp. (fast growth, timber, firewood) could be explored and piloted with early adopters. This could include species such Markhamiaplatycalyx which is common in farm lands of East Africa and highly valued for its wood and soil enriching litter fall (Winterbottom and Hazlewood 1987). Cajunus cajun could be promoted in an agroforestry project or similar species including Gliricidia septum and Sesbania sesban because they produce food and/or fodder and firewood in a short period of time, as well as improve soil fertility through nitrogen fixation, and many households already plant
Cajunus cajun. Additionally, for more innovative farmers who are already practicing agroforestry, indigenous hardwoods such as Olea sp., Combretum sp., Podocarpus latifolius, Juniperusprocera. Acacia ndotica, Dombeya rotundifolia, Cordia monoica and Grewia sp. could be promoted for providing wood for home construction (Peterson
2008). Common fruit tree species including mtopetope (Annona senegalensis), lemons
{Citrus liman), oranges {Citrus sinensis), guavas {Psidium guajava), avocados {Persea americana), and bananas, should also be encouraged in an agroforestry project for planting around homes in order to improve household nutrition and food security. In the long term, an agroforestry project could also utilize and domesticate native tree species from within the HNFR. Such species and their uses are already familiar to villagers, but would need to be suited to conditions outside the reserve to prove useful.
The agroforestry practices on home plots were different than those on farm plots, and therefore agroforestry projects should recognize this and make recommendations for both home and farm plots. For example, fruit trees and trees for firewood might be promoted on home plots because this makes collection of tree products more convenient.
114 On farm plots, careful consideration of potential competition between tree and crop
species needs to be taken into account. On the farm, live fences might continue to serve
as an important practice and should be promoted because they minimize competition and
can keep livestock from damaging crops.
Agroforestry projects should aim to provide a source of cash income as well as
tree products for household consumption. Also, agroforestry should be promoted as an
additional livelihood activity, and not as a replacement for current livelihood practices.
Problems could arise if the commoditization of tree products results in large land use
changes that lead to less diversification, increased vulnerability to market fluctuations,
and environmental degradation.
A future agroforestry project in Barjomot Village must have a significant
education component. The majority of households interviewed stated that they want
education about agroforestry and both male and female focus groups emphasized that a
lack of education about trees has inhibited agroforestry in Barjomot Village. The male
group stated that ""they [villagers] have not understood the advantages o f trees and what... they have not been given education about the advantages o f trees Education I'
could be conducted at village meetings, in smaller groups and organization, sub village -
meetings, in the primary school curriculum or projects, or preferably all of these venues.
I would also recommend that education focus on women and youth. Based on my
experience facilitating educational seminars in Barjomot Village I would recommend that
education targeted at women take place on Sunday afternoons because that is when
women are able to attend. Also based on my own experiences bringing education to
Barjomot, the villagers, village govemment, and school teachers were very receptive and
115 encouraging of any seminars and classes I taught. Different topics for education should
include the importance of trees, the benefits provided by agroforestry, and how to
properly plant and maintain trees and seedlings. While 100% participation is not realistic
or achievable, having different venues for agroforestry education may encourage more
people to participate.
Barriers identified in this study that currently prevent households from planting trees need to be addressed as much as possible. Some barriers have already been
addressed in previous recommendations but others include rocky soils, drought, insects,
and distance to water sources. Most of these issues are centered on water and drought
resistant trees that grow in rocky, poor soils should be encouraged, particularly in drier
areas of the village. Also, insect resistant trees should be explored and potentially
encouraged. However, I feel that most these barriers could be largely overcome with
proper education about water techniques, seedling care, tree maintenance, and natural
pesticides. Additionally, there needs to be recognition that seasonal variations make the timing of an agroforestry project important. As several villagers recommended to me while creating my own tree nursery for a Peace Corps project, tree seeds should be
planted during the dry season months of June and July so that by December when the
rainy season begins the seedlings will be ready to be transplanted. This improves the
chances of seedling survival because they will receive rain for the first few months after being transplanted, and this saves on the labor required for watering.
An agroforestry project in Barjomot Village should aim to improve food security.
Only 23% of households said that the household crops are always enough to feed the
household and this is a significant problem for local livelihoods. Agroforestry could
116 directly and indirectly help improve food security. Directly, agroforestry can produce food and fruit trees around homes need to be a key component of a project, as well as
Cajunus cajun on farm land for producing edible pigeon peas. Leakey et al. (2005) found that agroforestry can also help provide health benefits for HIV/AIDs sufferers by providing nutritious fruits and nuts. HIV/AIDS in Manyara Region only affects 2% of the population, as opposed to 13% nationally, but there are a handful of villagers in
Barjomot Village suffering from HIV/AIDS. While no nut trees were observed in
Barjomot Village, they could be incorporated into the later stages of an agroforestry project, or early in a project by innovative farmers at a small scale. Indirectly, agroforestry can enhance household food security by providing inputs into other food producing parts of the farm system and by providing fuel for cooking (Belsky 1993).
This may be in the form of improving soil through nitrogen fixation or providing green manure. However, for some households, trees might compete with crops (for land, water, and labor) and, in the context of food insecurity, tree planting might be undesirable. To the extent that households have time and resources for trees, tree products could be sold for cash to purchase additional food and thus contribute to food security. Interestingly, several households in Baijomot with very small household farms or no farm plots at all had planted trees. Exploring the decision making- rationale among these households might shed more light on relationships between tree planting and food security.
Lastly, utilizing existing infrastructure to sell agroforestry products in larger markets could create incentives for agroforestry and improve livelihoods by increasing the cash income derived from agroforestry. Several authors cite a lack of markets for agroforestry products as a reason for why agroforestry may not be adopted (see Leakey et
117 al. 2005 for an example). While currently the local need for timber is fairly high and most
timber utilized in the village is either harvested illegally from HNFR or brought in from
other areas, if an agroforestry project creates an oversaturation of timber this could be a
problem. To combat this issue, existing infrastructure should be utilized. Currently,
several of the wealthier villagers buy corn and beans in Barjomot Village and then transport the crops to Arusha for sale at a higher price. This same system could work for timber, which could be bought in the village for a reasonable price and sold in Arusha at
a higher price. This would benefit both local farmers by giving them access to larger
markets for their profits, and would also benefit local entrepreneurs because they will
obtain a profit from the resale of the timber. However, the commoditization of tree
products and improved access to markets for tree products is not without risk. Markets
can be unstable and if villagers invest in growing tree products for sale in larger markets this could leave them vulnerable to market fluctuations. Furthermore, in an effort to
make money from tree products, villagers may increase the rates of harvesting from the
forest thus having a negative effect on the forest. Another important thing to note is that the road between Arusha and Barjomot Village is mostly unpaved and poorly maintained.
However, the road is being paved and this could have a significant influence by making
markets more accessible, which could have both negative and/or positive effects on tree
planting, food security, and the forest reserve.
The above recommendations may serve as a starting point for a future
agroforestry project in Baijomot Village, whether the project is initiated at the local level
or by an outside organization. They serve as a call to action for the utilization of
agroforestry for improving livelihoods and aiding forest conservation. Forest
118 conservation is important in Barjomot Village, where villagers largely rely on agro pastoral activities to meet livelihood needs, and these two things make agroforestry a good fit to address these issues.
Broader Implications
This study has helped contribute to the knowledge gaps identified in the introduction chapter, specifically by providing information and research about Hanang
District and the Mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve and how agroforestry outside protected areas could provide tree products to local communities and thus reduce pressure on protected areas for providing these products. Some studies have examined agroforestry outside protected areas but have mainly focused on how agroforestry outside of protected areas can create biological corridors (Laurance, S.G.W. 2004), forest microclimate buffers (Laurance, W.F. and Vasconcelos H.L. 2004), and provide an intensified land use- strategy that could help prevent the clearing of additional forest
(Schroth et al. 2004). However, Murniati, Garrity, and Gintings (2001) focused on a similar topic as the current study. They found that households with a more diversified farming system overall extracted the least amount of tree products from the forest. They also found that the key factors propelling households to extract tree products were low farm income, lower amounts of tree products sources on the farm, and lack of alternative livelihood options. My study supports these conclusions because I found that more impoverished households may be less likely to plant trees, and that households that have
119 trees and could collect from their trees may be less likely to harvest tree products in the
forest.
Being able to scale up- the results of this study is important and will help guide
future research and agroforestry projects. Broader implications include the following:
lumber and firewood are significant tree products, agroforestry projects should be
multifaceted and not ‘one size fits all,’ agroforestry can contribute to forest conservation,
and agroforestry can help improve livelihoods. The theme of lumber/large poles and
firewood being important tree products was prevalent throughout the results and
discussion chapter and I think the importance of these two tree products cannot be
emphasized enough. Lumber/large poles and firewood were the most collected tree
products from HNFR, the most common reason for why households planted trees, the
main desired benefits of agroforestry, and the major benefits households’ currently
practicing agroforestry received from their trees. This is logical because these tree
products help meet two basic conditions for human existence: food (firewood for
cooking) and shelter (construction materials). While different rural communities around the world may have varying needs for these two tree products, they are most likely
crucial for villages and communities similar to Baijomot Village. This is important for
further research because it could help inform researchers about the potential significance
of lumber/large poles and firewood at their study sites. For agroforestry organizations
and projects this finding may help inform them about the desired benefits of agroforestry,
and therefore influence agroforestry tree species selection.
One of the objectives of this study was to explore socio economic- factors in
Barjomot Village and how they influence tree product collection, tree planting, and
120 agroforestry. What was revealed here is that agroforestry prevalence and practices, and tree product collection, varied significantly based on wealth and household location. This illustrates what several authors have previously (for example, Agrawal and Gibson 1999) commented that communities are not homogeneous but instead heterogeneous with respect to many factors including wealth, religion, class, power, and behavior. The broader implication of this for agroforestry projects and organizations is the importance of avoiding a ‘one size fits alT approach to projects even at the small village scale. Even within a small community the needs and challenges of agroforestry may vary, for example households in Songa Mbele- cited rocky soils and drought as barriers to tree planting, while this was not mentioned in other sub villages.-
Another broader implication of this study is that it serves to illustrate that there may be a positive correlation between agroforestry and forest conservation. Household interviewees stated that if they had trees on their land they would prefer to not collect tree products in HNFR, thus potentially reducing forest degradation. This supports the hypothesis of Schroth et al. (2004) that agroforestry can help reduce pressure to deforest additional land or to help people cope with limited availability of forest land and resources. Schroth et al. do warn that this could lead to forest encroachment but the threat of farmers encroaching into HNFR in order to expand profitable agroforestry practices is slim due to the highly visible and defined boundary of the forest, and the sporadic but important presence of forest guards. It would be difficult for a farmer to expand their practices into the HNFR without being noticed and caught. Additionally, McGinty,
Swisher and Alavalapati (2008) state that promoting agroforestry in communities
121 bordering protected areas has become increasingly recognized as an essential aspect of biodiversity conservation and the current study may help support this assumption.
Lastly, agroforestry may potentially help improve livelihoods. Firewood obtained
from agroforestry on household lands may reduce the labor required to collect firewood
as opposed to hiking up to HNFR to collect firewood. In fact the nearness of trees on
household plots was a commonly cited reason for why households would prefer to collect
on their own lands as opposed to HNFR. Firewood on household plots also increases the
stability of firewood availability. Additionally, countless households wanted fruit trees to
provide nutritious food for their family. Many households in Baijomot Village planted
and want to plant trees to obtain lumber for sale. This would help increase household
income and income security because trees are relatively more resistant to seasonal and yearly fluctuations in rain than annual crops. Agroforestry for subsistence and for
income generation are both important in improving local livelihoods. Agroforestry for
poverty reduction may be important for a potential future agroforestry project in
Barjomot Village, and Tanzania on a larger scale, where the per capita GDP is only 800
USD and most citizens are heavily natural resource dependent.
122 REFERENCES
Adams, W.M. Aveling, R. Brockinton, C. Dickson, B. Elliott, J. Hutton, J. Roe, D. Vira, B. and W. Wolmer. 2004. Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of Poverty. Science 306: pp. 1146- 1150.
Agrawal, A. and C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of Community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27: pp. 629- 649.
Agroforestry Research and Development in Tanzania: An overview. Tanzania Agroforestry Research and Dissemination Team, Shinyanga/Tabora, September
2000 .
Akycampong E., Hitimana, E., Torquebiaus, E., and P.C. Munyemana. 1999. Multistrata Agroforestry with beans, bananas and Grevillea robusta in the highlands of Burundi. Experimental Agriculture pp. 357- 369.
Ayuk, E.T. 1997. Adoption of Agroforestry Technology: The Case of Live Hedges in the Central Plateau Of Burkina Faso. Agricultural Systems 54(2): pp. 189-206.
Belsky, Jill M. 1993. Household Food Security, Farm trees, and Agroforestry: A Comparative Study in Indonesia and the Philippines. Human Organization 52(2): 130- 141.
Bewket, Woldeamlak. 2005. Biofuel Consumption, Household Level Tree Planting and It’s Implications For Environmental Management in the Northern Highlands of Ethiopia. East Africa Social Science Research Review 21 (1): pp. 20- 38.
Booth, T.H. and T. Jovanovic. 2002. Identifying climatically suitable areas for growing particular trees in Africa: An example using Grevillea robusta. Agroforestry Systems 54: pp. 41- 49.
Budowski, G. and R.O. Russo. 1993. Live Fence Posts in Costa Rica: A Compilation of the Farmer’s Beliefs and Technologies. Journal o f Sustainable Agriculture 3(2): pp. 65 - 87.
Chamshama, S.A.O., Mugasha, A.G., Klovstad, A., Haveraaen, O., and S.M.S. Maliondo. 1998. Growth and yield of maize alley cropped with Leucaena leucocephala and Faidherbia albida in Morogoro, Tanzania. Agroforestry Systems A0\ pp. 215- 225.
Chibwana, C. 2005. The possible role of women in Agroforestry Development Activities. Agroforestry Research and Development in Malawi: Proceedings of the First National Agroforestry Symposium: pp. 108 - 114.
123 Conte, C.A. 1999. The forest becomes desert: forest use and environmental change in Tanzania’s West Usambara Mountains. Land Degradation and Development 10: pp. 291- 309.
Dahlquist, R., Whelan, M., Winowiecki, L., Polidoro, B., Candela, S., Harvey, C.A., Wulfhorst, J. Mcdaniel, P., andN. Bosque Perez.- 2007. Incorporating livelihoods in biodiversity conservation: a case study of Cacao agroforestry systems in Talamanca, Costa Rica. Biodiversity Conservation 16: pp. 2311 - 2333.
FAO. 2005. Global forest resources assessment (GFRAj. Tanzania Country Report.
Felker, P. 1978. State of the Art: Acacia albida as a Complementary Permanent Intercrop with Annual Crops. Report by the University of California, Riverside and the United States Agency for International Development, Washington.
Forestry and Beekeeping division (FBD). 1991. Hanang Catchement Forest Reserve. United Republic of Tanzania (URF), Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT). The Catchment Forestry Project. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Franzel, S. and S.J. Scherr, eds. 2002. Trees on the Farm: Assessing the Potential of Agroforestrv practices in Africa. UK: CABI Publishing.
Garrity, D.A., Okono, M., Grayson and S. Parrott, eds. 2006. World Agroforestrv into The Future. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre. 221 pages.
Gascon, C., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Sechrest, W., Billmark, K.A., and J. Sanderson. Chapter 1: Biodiversity Conservation in Deforested and Fragmented Tropical Landscapes: An Overview. In: Schroth, G., de Fonseca, G.A.B., Harvey, C.A. Gascon, C., Vasconcelos, H.L. and A.N. Izac, eds. 2004. Agroforestrv and Biodiversitv Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. USA: Island Press, 523 pages.
German, L. Charamila, S. and T. Tolera. 2006. Managing Trade Offs- in Agroforestry: From Conflict To Collaboration in Natural Resource Management. African Highlands Initiative Working Paper #10.
Greenway, P.J. 1955. Ecological Observations on an Extinct East African Volcano. The Journal of Ecology 43(2): pp. 544- 563.
Hanang District Government. 2003. Sheria ndogo za kulinda eneo la msitu was hifadhi Kijiji Cha Baijomot kwenye msitu was hifadhi ya taifa mlima hanang.
Hansen, J.D., Luckert, M.K., Minae, S., and F. Place. 2005. Tree planting under customary tenure Systems in Malawi: Impacts of marriage and inheritance patterns. Agricultural Systems 84: pp. 9 9- 1 1 8 .
124 Harvey, C.A., Villanueva, C., Villacis, J. Chacon, M., Munoz, D., Lopez, M., Ibrahim, M., Gomez, R., Taylor, R., Martinez, J., Navas, A., Saenz, J., Sanchez, D., Medina, A.,Vilchez, S., Hernandez, B., Perez, A.,Ruiz, F., Lopez, F., Lang, I.,and F.L. Sinclair. 2005. Contribution of live fences to the ecological integrity of agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 111: pp. 200- 230.
Harwood, C.E. and T.H. Booth. 1992. Status of Grevillea robusta in forestry and agroforestry. In: Harwood, C.E. (ed.), Grevillea robusta in Agroforestry and Forestry. Proceedings of An International Workshop. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, pp. 9-16.
Holmes, John. 1995. Natural Forest Handbook for Tanzania: Forest Policy. Planning and Utilization. Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania. 360 pages.
ICRAF. 2006. Agroforestry for Improved Livelihoods and Natural Resources Conservation: an Agroforestry Policy Brief. African Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry and Natural Resources Education.
Isaac, M.E., Erickson, B.H., Quashie- Sam, S.J., and V.R. Timmer. 2007. Transfer of Knowledge on Agroforestry Management Practices: the Structure of Farmer Advice Networks. Ecology and Society 12 (2): pp. 32 - 46.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). 2006. The study on the groundwater resources development and management in the internal drainage basin in the United Republic of Tanzania. Interim report. International Drainage Basin Water Office Ministry of Water. Dar es Salaam.
Kajembe, G.C., Julius, F., Nduwamungu, J., Mtakwa P.W., and D.A. Nyange. 2005. Impact of Indigenous Based Interventions on Land Conservation: A Case Study of a Soil Conservation and Agroforestry Project, Arumeru District, Tanzania. Land Degradation and Development 16: 311- 325.
Kimaro, A.A., Timmer, V.R., Chamshama, S.A.O., Ngaga, Y.N., and D.A. Kimaro. 2009. Competition Between maize and pigeon pea in semi arid- Tanzania: Effect on yields and nutrition of crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 134: pp. 115- 125.
Kwesiga, F. Akinnifesi, F.K., Mafongoya, P.L., McDermott, M.H. and Agumya, A. 2003. Agroforestry research and development in southern Africa during the 1990s: Review and challenges ahead. Agroforestry Systems 59: pp. 173 - 186.
Laurance, S.G.W. 2004. Chapter 3: Landscape connectivity and biological corridors. In: Schroth, G., de Fonseca, G.A.B., Harvey, C.A. Gascon, C., Vasconcelos,
125 H.L. and A.N. Izac, eds. 2004. Agroforestrv and Biodiversitv Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. USA: Island Press, pp. 523.
Laurance, W.F. and Vasconcelos. H.L. 2004. Chapter 2: Ecological Effects o f the Habitat Fragmentation in the Tropics. In: Schroth, G., de Fonseca, G.A.B., Harvey, C.A. Gascon, C., Vasconcelos, H.L. and A.N. Izac, eds. 2004. Agroforestrv and Biodiversitv Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. USA: Island Press, pp. 523.
Leakey, R.R.B., Tchoundjeu, Z., Shreckenberg, K., Shackleton, S.E., and C.M. Shackleton. 2005. Agroforestry Tree Products (AFTPs): Targeting Poverty Reduction and Enhanced Livelihoods. International Journal of Agricultural sustainability 3(1).
Lott, I.E., Ong, C.K. and C.R. Black. 2009. Understory microclimate and crop performance in a Grevillea robusta-hdL^Qd agroforestry system in semi-arid Kenya. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology IA9\ pp. 1140- 1151.
Malaika, Baba. 2002. The Friendlv Swahili- English Dictionary. Kase Stores LTD, Arusha, Tanzania.
Marschke, M. J., and F. Berkes. 2006. Exploring Strategies that Build Livelihood Resilience: a Case Study from Cambodia. Ecology and Society 11 (1): pp. 42- 58.
Mburu, F., Dumarcay, S., Huber, F., Petrissans, M. and P. Gerardin. 2007. Evaluation of thermally modified Grevillea robusta heartwood as an alternative to shortage of wood resource in Kenya:Characterisation of physicochemical properties and improvement of bio -resistance. Bioresource Technology 98: Pp. 3478 - 3486.
McGinty, M.M., Swisher, M.E., and J. Alavalapati. 2008. Agroforestry adoption and maintenance: self -efficacy, attitudes and socio -economic factors. Agroforestry Systems 15{\): pp. 99- 108.
McNeely, J.A. 1988. Economics and Biological Diversity: Developing and Using Economic Incentives to Conserve Biological Resources. International Union for Conservation Of Nature and Natural Resources. Gland, Switzerland.
Mercer, D.E. 2004. Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: A review. Agroforestry Systems 2(44): pp. 311- 328.
Meshack, C.K., Ahdikari, B., Doggart, N., and J.C. Lovett. 2006. Transaction costs of Community- based forest management: empirical evidence from Tanzania. Africa Journal of Ecology 44: pp. 468- 477.
Mohamed, S. A. 1989. Problems of agricultural production stability and fuel wood supply in Rural Tanzania: can agroforestry help? Institute of Resources,
126 University of Dar Es Salaam.
Monela, G.C. 2000. Country case study on cross sectoral- linkages in miombo forest development: the study of the influences of external policies on miombo forest development in the United Republic of Tanzania. FAO Forestry and Policy Division.
Montambault, Jenson and Janaki Alvalapati. 2005. Socioeconomic research in Agroforestry: A Decade in Review. Agroforestry Systems 65: 151-161.
Muchiri, M.N., Pukkala, T. and J. Miina. 2002a. Modeling trees’ effect on maize in the Grevillea robusta +maize system in Central Kenya.Agroforestry Systems 55: pp. 113 - 123.
Muchiri, M., Pukkala, T. and J. Miina. 2002b. Optimizing the management of maize - Grevillea robusta Fields in Kenya. Agroforestry Systems 56: p. 13 - 25.
Murniati, D.P., Garrity, and A.N. Gintings. 2001. The contribution of agroforestry systems to reducing farmers’ dependence on the resources of adjacent national parks: a case study from Sumatra, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 52: pp 171- 184.
Naidoo, R. 2004. Species richness and community composition of songbirds in a Tropical forestry-agricultural landscape. Animal Conservation 7: pp. 93 - 105.
Nair, P.K.R. 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestrv. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Naughton- Treves, L. Holland, M.B., and K. Brandon. 2005. The Role of Protected Areas in Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining Local Livelihoods. Annual Review on Environmental Resources 30: pp. 219- 252
Nelson, V. and T. Stathers. 2009. Resilience, power, culture, and climate: a case study from semi- arid Tanzania, and new research directions. Gender and Development 17: pp. 8 1 9- 4 .
Neumann, W. Lawrence. 2000. The meanings of methodology. In: Social Research Methods:Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 63- 88.
Pearce D. and S. Mourato. 2004. Chapter 4: The Economic Valuation of Agroforestry’s Environmental Services. In: Schroth, G., de Fonseca, G.A.B., Harvey, C.A. Gascon, C., Vasconcelos, H.L. and A.N. Izac, eds. 2004. Agroforestrv and Biodiversitv Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. USA: Island Press, pp. 523.
Peterson, Erik. 2008. Forest Resources and Livelihoods: Evaluation local forest
127 management in Baijomot Village, Tanzania. Masters Thesis. University of Washington.
Petersen, L. and A. Sandhovel. 2001. Forestry policy reform and the role of incentives in Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics pp.2\ 39-55.
Phiri, D., Franzel, S., Mafongoya, P., Jere, I, Katanga, R., and S. Phiri. 2004. Who is using the new technology? The associated of wealth status and gender with the planting of improved tree Fallows in Eastern Province, Zambia. Agricultural Systems 79: pp. 131 - 144.
Raju, K.R.T. 1992. Silver Oak {Grevillea robusta) a multipurpose tree for arid and semi- arid Regions. In: Harwood C.E. (eds), Grevillea robusta in Agroforestry and Forestry. Proceedings of an International Workshop. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, pp. 55 - 58.
Ramsey, F. and D.W. Schafer. 2002. The statistical sleuth: a course in methods of data analvsis. USA: Duxbury, Thomson Learning, Inc.
Reyes, T., Quiroz, R., Luukkanen, O., and F. de Mendiburu. 2009. Spice crops agroforestry systems in the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania: growth analysis. Agroforestry Systems 16\ pp. 513- 523.
Rice, R. 2008. Agricultural intensification within agroforestry: The case of coffee and wood products. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 128: pp. 212 - 218.
Rocheleau, D., and D. Edmunds. 1997. Women, Men and Trees: Gender, Power and Property in Forest and Agrarian Landscapes. World Development 25(8): pp. 1351- 1371.
Rocheleau, D., Weber, F., and A. Field Juma.- 1988. Agroforestrv in Drvland Africa. International Council for Research in Agroforestry.
Scott, J. 1998. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University. New Haven, Conneticut.
Schlager E., and E. Ostrom. 1992. Property rights regime and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land Economics 68(3): pp. 249 - 262.
Schroeder, R.A. 1997. “Re- claiming” Land in The Gambia: Gendered Property Rights and Environmental Intervention. Annals of the Association o f American Geographers 87(3): pp. 487 -508.
Schroth, G., de Fonseca, G.A.B., Harvey, C.A., Gascon, C., Vasconcelos, H.L. and A. N. Izac,. eds. 2004 Agroforestrv and Biodiversitv Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. USA: Island Press, pp.523.
128 Shackleton, C.M., Paumgarten, F., and M.L. Cocks. 2008. Household attributes promote diversity of tree Holdings in rural areas, South Africa. Agroforestry Systems 72: 221- 230.
Shackleton, C.M. and S.H. Shackelton. 2006. Household wealth status and natural resource use in the Kat River Valley, South Africa. Ecological Economics 57: 306- 317.
Sinclair, F.L. 1999. A general classification of agroforestry practice. Agroforestrv Systems 46: 161- 180.
Skutsch, Margaret M. 1983. Why people don’t plant trees: The Socioeconomic Impacts Of Existing Woodfuel Programs: Village Case Studies, Tanzania. Discussion paper D- 73p, Energy in Developing Countries Series, Center for Energy Policy Research.
Snyder, K. 2005. The Iraqw of Tanzania: Negotiating Rural Development. USA: Westview Press, 196 pp.
Stocking, M. and S. Perkin. 1992. Conservation -with-Development: An Application of the Concept in the Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Transactions o f the Institue o f British Geographers, new series 17 (3): pp 337 349.-
Sumner, J. 2005. Value wars in the new periphery: Sustainability, rural communities and agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 303- 312.
Takaoka, Sadao. 2008. Long term- growth performance of CorJ/a and Grevillea robusta trees in The Mount Kenya region. Agroforestry Systems 72: 169-172.
Toner, A. 2003. Exploring sustainable Livelihoods Approaches in Relation to Two Interventions in Tanzania. Journal o f International Development 15: pp. I l l - 781.
United States Department of State. 2007. Background Note: Tanzania. Retrieved October 13, 2007 from US Department of State Web site: http://www.state.gOv/r/pa/ei/bgn/2843.htm
Westman, P. 1990. Trees and Shrubs of Babati District, Tanzania. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences International Rural Development Centre. Working paper 137. Uppsala, Sweden.
Wily, L. 1999. Moving Forward in African Community Forestry: Trading Power, Not Use Rights. Society and Natural Resources 12: pp. 49- 61.
129 Winterbottom, R. and P.T. Hazlewod. 1987. Agroforestry and Sustainable Development: Making the Connection. Ambio 16 (2/3): pp. 100-110.
World Agroforestry Center. 2009. Agroforestry Practiced on Nearly Half World’s Farms. World Watch 22 (6): pp. 9.
130 A PPEN D IX A
Focus Group luterview
Group of women or men? How many participants: Ages of participants:
Questions about tree product use
1. Write a list of all tree products used or sold that come from the Hanang National Forest Reserve. (This activity will be done entirely by the villagers with minimal guidance from the researcher) • Put an ‘H’ next to everything that is only available in the Hanang National Forest Reserve and not available outside the reserve. • Put an ‘ S’ next to everything that is only available in the Hanang National Forest Reserve that has become scarce compared to in the past. • Put a ‘W’ next to everything collected by woman, and put a ‘M’ next to everything collected by men. • Put a ‘U’ next to everything that is collected to sell. Now right the price for everything that is sold. • Put an ‘F’ next to everything that is collected on the farm or at home also.
2. Make a list of the 5 most commonly collected tree products from the Hanang National Forest Reserve. (This activity will also be done by the villagers)
3. These days is there a decrease or an increase in trees inside the mt. Hanang National Forest Reserve? Explain why.
Questions about Agroforestry and Tree Planting
1. Do you plant trees on your farm? For what reason? What trees?
2. Do you plant trees near your home? For what reasons? What trees?
3. In your opinion, what percentage of people in Baij omot plant trees?
4. What prevents villagers from planting trees near their homes or on their farms?
5. What is the meaning of agroforestry?
131 6. If you could get tree products near your home or on your farm will you continue to collect tree products from the forest?
132 A PPE N D IX B
Household InterviewsSurvey partially adapted from Kajembe, 1994
1. Respondent demographic information Name: Sub- village: Personal Info: Description of area: Age: Education: Tribe: Religion: Marital Status: Work: Do you hold a government position?: Do you hold a church position?: Have you ever participated in a development project?:
House lold members ages <18 18 -55 55+ Male Female
3. Household wealth Do you have any other business or work besides agriculture or livestock? What business?
Agricultural Information: How many acres of land do you have? How many are farmed? How many are not farmed?
Do you use hired labor for any farming work? What types of work? How much do you pay a year for hired labor?
Househo d Crops Crops Grown for food Grown for sale Not farmed Com Beans Pumpkins Sunflowers Pigeon Peas Wheat
133 Other
Do the household crops provide enough food for the household or do you need to buy food too?
Honsehold Livestock How many Type of Livestock traditional breed modern breed cows goats sheep donkeys chicken pigs others
House information:
Is the house roof constructed of tin roofing or grass?
How many houses are there in the household compound?
Do you cook with firewood or charcoal?
Do you have a motorcycle, bicycle or car?
6. Questions about Tree Products
What things do you collect from inside the Hanang National Forest Reserve?
What things do you sell or buy that come from inside the Hanang National Forest Reserve?
Answers in Table
Products Who collects? Who sells? Who buys? Uses? Any thing When? What price? What price? else?
134 Are you able to collect tree products on your farm or at your home? Why or why not? What tree products and from what tree species?
• If they say they do not collect because there are no trees I will ask the following question. If you had trees on your farm or at home would you collect tree products their instead of the forest?
In the future, would you prefer to collect tree products from the forest or from your farm and home plots? Why or why not?
5. Questions about land tenure and decision making
How did you acquire your household plot and farm land? What year?
On the farm, who decides what crops will be planted?
Are you able to divide the farm between members of the household?
Do you have certainty that your farm and house plots will be yours indefinitely? Why?
135 Do you have concerns that your plots will be taken by the government or other people? Why or why not?
6. Questions about Agroforestrv and Tree Planting
Have you planted trees?
• If they answer ‘no’ continue with these questions:
Why have you not planted trees?
What is preventing you from planting trees?
• If they answer ‘yes’ continue with these questions:
What species/ types of trees do you plant?
Why do you plant trees?
What benefits do you receive from your trees?
Where did you learn how to grow and plant trees?
What is the meaning of the term agroforestry [kilimo mseto is the kiswahili term and translates to mixed agriculture]?
The definition of agroforestry was read for the interviewee: Agroforestry is one method of natural resource conservation that entails the planting of trees on farms and in agricultural landscapes for the purpose of increasing economic, social, and environmental benefits.
Do you want education about agroforestry? Why or why not?
If the villagers of Barjomot decide to start agroforestry projects would you join in on the project? Why or why not?
136 If you start an agroforestry project what trees would you want to plant and what benefits would you want to receive? Why?
If you had an agroforestry project on your land would you continue to go to the Hanang National Forest Reserve to collect tree products, would you collect from your agroforestry project, or would you collect from both the agroforestry project and the forest? Why?
Farm and Home Tour Agroforestry Observations and Comments
137 A PPEN D IX C
16 Major Agroforestry Practices (Adopted from Rocheleau, Weber, and Field Juma- 1988) Practice Major Description Benefits/ Objectives Constraints Category 1. Dispersed Trees Agroforestry Trees, spaced Increase crop production Pressme from grazing on Cropland (76) on Cropland systematically or Extend the time that a animals randomly, that are particularly field can be cropped Drought grown on farmland Increase the total yield of mix Trees may compete while crops are products with crops for grown in the Diversity the range of products resources nnderstory Produce a particularly valuable product in a secure site Obtain tree products 2. Contour Agroforestry Living barriers of Control storm nm off- Takes up space from Vegetation Strips on Cropland grasses, lines of Control soil erosion cropland stones, sticks, trees, One of the most direct, cost - Trees may compete (84) shrabs, and vines effective and ecologically sound with crops for are placed across erosion control interventions resources hillsides Leaf litter may add to organic material to adjacent croplands Obtain tree products 3. Alley Cropping Agroforestry Involves managing Nitrogen fixing plans to improve Least proven practice (93) on Cropland rows of woody the fertility of the soil of all agroforestry for plants with aimnal Leaves and twigs used as mulch dry land Africa crops planted in Increase or maintain crop yields Trees may compete alleys in between. Tree products with crops for soil, Designed as an Helps prevent soil erosion nutrients, soil alternative to moisture, and light shifting cultivation and is used where people want to increase crop production but face soil fertility problems 4. Trees in Home Agroforestry Home gardens Increase productivity because None Gardens(104) on Cropland consist of a diverse they are labor intensive mixtures of Located close to the home so vegetables, fruits, they can be combined with home medicinal plants, and child care responsibilities, and often fodder particularly for women grasses, shrabs, or Harvest food for home use or trees in small, sale intensively Educating children about cultivated plots in or agroforestry around home Provide setting for compounds. experimentation with new species and techniques Tree products Potential benefits are as varied as the garden
138 5. Improved Agroforestry Woody species Soil emichment Usually requires Fallows (114) on Cropland replace crop plants Produce useful tree products with protection from on fallow fields minimum labor browsing and grazing allowing farmland Protect soil from erosion animals soil to rest and Eliminate weeds, pests, and recover. Woody diseases specific to the cropping species are chosen system that help improve Increase organic matter content the soil. of the soil Improve soil stmctnre (aeration, water holding capacity, and tilth) Tree products
6. Trees, Shrubs Agroforestry Trees, shmbs and Small earthwork stmctnres Since stmctnres and and Grasses on for stmctnral grasses can be nsed intercept/slow mn off- water trees are fairly conservation with several types Preserves water permanent land access Small Earthwork measnres of small earthwork Earthwork stmctnres cheaper and and tenure must be Structure (123) stmctmes, snch as easier to maintain than terraces considered microcatchments, Tree products Diversion ditches contom ridges, Increase water availability on constmcted on small contom furrows, cropland holder farms have iirfdtration ditches sometimes or barriers placed concentrated mn off- along a contom to water leading to sever stabilize these gullying downstream stmctmes and/or Lost cropland make them more productive 7. Trees and Agroforestry The practice of Soil Conservation Not feasible on steep Shrubs on Terraces for stmctnral combining Imge, Stabilize slopes slopes conservation permanent terraces Provide level meas for crops Hard work to constmct (133) measnres with woody plants Improves soil moistme terraces and armnal crops. conditions Takes time for trees to Terrace describes Windbreaks establish any soil Tree products Trees take up crop conservation Trees stabilize terraces space measme on slopes Broad terraces allow farmers to to change the practice methods of tillage snch natmal source of as animal traction mnoff. Can increase crop yields 8. Protection and Agroforestry Permanent Decrease water v3elocity along Lack of iirformation Stabilization of for stmctnral vegetation, channel edges about watershed conservation particularly trees Protects exposed soil characteristics can lead Waterways and measnres and shmbs, can play Tree products to the building of Gullies (141) a major role in Through their root systems trees inadequate stmctnres stabilizing artificial and shmbs hold the soil and Plants need protection waterways and rocks lining the chaimels from people and gullies, as well as Slower moving water has more animals until they are natmal stream time to seep into the soil well established banks Can be labor intensive
9. Agroforestry Water is held in Small and inexpensive Microcatchments for stmctnral small stmctnres on Can be nsed virtually anywhere conservation planting sites and Can provide water for young and Water measmes allowed to infiltrate trees Management (151) slowly in to the soil. Tree products
139 Can fit into many Can also promote growth of food sitnations and meet crops and fodder grasses many different Enconrages plant growth in needs. A means of places otherwise inhospitable to collecting and agroforestry gniding water where Enconrage natnral revegation or it needs to go snpporting planting efforts on degraded land 10. Living Fences Agroforestry Trees or shrabs Demarcate areas Poor species choice (163) for in planted close Control livestock may interfere with between together may Tree Prodncts crop production (shade places demarcate areas or Easy to establish from cnttings and/or root help control grazing Provide protection from enemies competition) animals and harmful animals improper pruning can Once established it involves lead to tree death minimal maintenance May illegitimate Windbreaks bonndaries or may Fodder for livestock lead to defacto rales of land use and access May lead to the privatization of land 11. Trees and Agroforestry Planting along Not labor intensive Owners need to agree Shrubs on for in borderlines and Tree prodncts provided from on bonndary areas between bonndaries adds otherwise ‘vacant’ areas Must be compatible Borderlines and places mnlti- pnrpose trees, May add organic matter or with adjacent land use Boundaries (173) shrabs, and grasses nntrients to the soil Seedlings need to be to any space Help avoid soil erosion protected from dividing properties Replace prodncts previously livestock orlandnses. The gathered from woodland further bonndary site, by from home, thus reducing labor definition, implies a special sitnation with respect to land and tree tennre. 12. Windbreaks Agroforestry Strips of trees Reduce wind speed and wind May be labor intensive (180) for in and/or shrabs damage to crops, homes, or other Takes land out of crop between planted to protect things production places fields, homes, Reduce soil erosion May compete with canals, or other Improve microclimate for crops for water, lights areas from wind and growing crops and nntrients blowing soil or Shelter people and livestock from Unwillingness to sand. Redncesthe blowing sand or soil cooperate from speed of the wind Decreased water evaporation neighbors and often involves from soil and plants Agreements by mnltistory strips of Tree prodncts neighbors are needs trees planted in one Mulch Takes time for trees to or more rows. develop and grow Seedling protection from livestock needed 13. Trees and Agroforestry Agroforestry can re Prevent stream bank erosion Flooding can damage Shrubs Along for in establish woody Product subsistence and plants between vegetation and commercial crops Must be compatible Waterways and places grasses on the banks Shade with local use of a Floodplains (191) of streams, lakes, or Windbreaks water resource seasonally flooded Lower the water surface temp Browsing, trampling ponds and swamps thus reducing evaporation and frequent cutting of
140 were natural Trees may contribute directly to trees because they are vegetation has been production or to enviromnental usually in public areas removed or management and protection Exotic and invasive degraded. Helps Filter out undesirable substances species may consume protect fragile land from mnoff before they reach the large amounts of water along waterways main chaimel and make it more Tree prodncts productive ______14. Trees and Agroforestry The planting of Shade Ownership and tree Shrubs Along for in multipurpose trees Reduce dust on adjacent land rights despntes between and shmbs along Tree prodncts in areas were Poorly plaimed Roads and Paths places roads and paths access to trees is limited drainage can result in (197) (particularly for landless, poor erosion and gully people) formation from the Help prevent roadside erosion concentration of mn Contribute to safety on mountain off roads Must be compatible Ideal demonstration site for new with adjacent land use agroforestry species Can obstmct roadway visibility Seedlings must be protected from trampling by livestock, as well as people
15. Trees and Agroforestry Trees, shmbs, vines, Shade Some maintenance and Shrubs Around for in grasses, and other Easy Access for watering and water is usually between plants around protection near home compound required Houses and in places houses and home Aesthetic values Seedlings need to be Public Places (205) compounds, May serve as gathering/ meeting protected from animals schools, market places People may steal trees places, and other Combat general deforestation public areas Introduce new agroforestry species and/ or management practices Tree prodncts ______16. Agroforestry in Agroforestry The production of Helps meet wood and fodder Seedlings require Pastures and in pastmes woody plants demands throughout the year protection from and combined with Help maintain stability and livestock Rangelands (213) rangelands pasture or fertility of grazing lands Disputes between land rangeland, may be Reverse trends toward land and tree access and referred to as a degradation rights sylvopastoral Shade Water and soil system. Tree prodncts conservation stmctnres Fodder may be requires to Usually little/ no negative effects establish new on pasture vegetation Nitrogen fixing trees ______
141 A PPEN D IX D
Table 4 . Household crops. This table also includes if the crop is grown for food, sale, or both. Household Crops Number of Interviewees Crop Food Sale Food+Sale Not farmed Total Com 25 0 15 0 40 Beans 8 2 30 0 40 Pumpkins 40 0 0 0 40 Sunflowers 8 7 10 15 40 Pigeon Peas (Cajunus Cajun) 4 4 6 26 40 Wheat 2 13 1 24 40 Vegetable Garden 1 0 1 38 40 Chick Peas 0 2 0 38 40 Coffee 0 1 0 39 40 Tobacco 0 2 0 38 40 Finger Millet 2 0 0 38 40 Bullmsh Millet 0 1 0 39 40 Bananas 1 0 0 39 40 Sorghum 2 2 0 36 40 Potatos 0 0 1 39 40
142 Figure 6. Household livestock. This table includes the number of animals an average household would raise, as well as the maximum and minimum numbers raised by an individual household. ______
------Housenokl Livcstoek — 40 y 32 30 30 1 I 20 I 1 1 10 I Average 10 . J 3 . i 4 s j I Max ^ 0.03*- 0 0-7|J3 0 . ^ 3 0.7^ n iL n I Min 0 m ■radltiorM adern Bre'IriidltlorM adern Bre 3d ■raditlorM adern Bre 3d Breed Breed Breed
Cows Goats Sheep Donkey Chicken Pigs Ducks
10 9 01 8 I 7 > I Collected 01 6 5 I Sell 01 I Buy E I Collect +Sell d I I 1 I Collect + Buy llll.. I. I Collect+ Sell + Buy o \ s5’ cb
Figure 9. The number of households interviewed who utilized certain tree products from HNFR. This also illustrates if they collect, buy, or sell the products.
143 A PPE N D IX E
All statistical crosstabs that were not significant.
Crosstabs looking at tree planting at home and on the farm Religion and farm/home planting Education and farm/home planting Development position held and farm/home planting Non- agropastoral business and farm/home planting Acres planted and farm/home planting Total acres and farm/home planting Crops enough to feed family and farm/home planting Transport and farm/home planting Age and farm/home planting Firewood collection in HNFR and home planting Tree product collection at home and home planting Tree products collected on farm and home planting Preference for future Tree product collecting and farm/home planting Acquired house plot and farm/home planting Acquired farm plot and farm/home planting Decision maker on the farm and farm/home planting Concerns about land being taken and farm/home planting Tree product collection in the future if you have agroforestry and farm/home planting Number of household members and farm/home planting Large pole collection in HNFR and farm/home planting Wealth index and farm/home planting
Crosstabs for preferred site for tree product (TP) collection Prefer to collect TP Where and concerns about land being taken Prefer to collect TP where and certainty land tenure Prefer to collect TP where and sub village- Prefer to collect TP where and religion Prefer to collect TP where and government position Prefer to collect TP where and acres total Prefer to collect TP where and TP collected on farm Prefer to collect TP where and TP collected at home Prefer to collect TP where and home planting Prefer to collect TP where and farm planting Prefer to collect TP where and wealth
144 Crosstabs for preferred site for tree product (TP) collection if you have agroforestry (AF) Prefer to collect TP where if you haveAF and sub village- Prefer to collect TP where if you haveAF and total acres Prefer to collect TP where if you haveAF and acres farmed Prefer to collect TP where if you haveAF and Wealth Prefer to collect TP where if you haveAF and number of household members Prefer to collect TP where if you haveAF and certainty land tenure Prefer to collect TP where if you haveAF and concerns about land being taken Prefer to collect TP where if you haveAF and home planting Prefer to collect TP where if you haveAF and farm planting Prefer to collect TP where if you haveAF and gender
Crosstabs for firewood collection from HNFR Firewood collection in HNFR and development position Firewood collection in HNFR and total acres Firewood collection in HNFR and use of hired labor Firewood collection in HNFR and tree products collected at home Firewood collection in HNFR and tree products collected on farm Firewood collection in HNFR and certainty about land tenure Firewood collection in HNFR and concerns about land being taken Firewood collection in HNFR and home planting Firewood collection in HNFR and wealth Firewood collection in HNFR and total number of household members Firewood collection in HNFR and religion Firewood collection in HNFR and education
Crosstabs for large pole collection in HNFR Not Significant: ■ Large pole collection in HNFR and ■ Large pole collection in HNFR and ■ Large pole collection in HNFR and ■ Large pole collection in HNFR and ■ Large pole collection in HNFR and ■ Large pole collection in HNFR and ■ Large pole collection in HNFR and ■ Large pole collection in HNFR and ■ Large pole collection in HNFR and ■ Large pole collection in HNFR and ■ Large pole collection in HNFR and ■ Large pole collection in HNFR and ■ Large pole collection in HNFR and have AF
145 Large pole collection in HNFR and wealth Large pole collection in HNFR and total number of household members
146