Community Perspectives on Fuelwood Resources: Enrichment and Extraction Along the Eastern Slopes of Mt

ABSTRACT

COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES ON FUELWOOD RESOURCES: ENRICHMENT AND EXTRACTION ALONG THE EASTERN SLOPES OF MT. KENYA

by Sammy Muriithi Kaburi

Communities living near protected forests rely on these areas to supply fuelwood among other extractive resources. This research was conducted in Kiang‟ondu sub-location within the eastern buffer zone of Mount Kenya Forest Reserve and addressed two research questions. 1) What is the diversity of fuelwood resources that communities extract from the forest reserve and enrich in their home areas? 2) What are the perceptions of communities about the opportunities for a sustainable fuelwood supply? Mixed participatory exercises revealed 32 fuelwood plants, native and non-native, which are acquired from the forest reserve or from people‟s homes and farmlands. These plants differ by their other material uses, attributes as a fuelwood, and ease of propagation. Use practices and perceptions vary with distance from the reserve but people are not fuelwood limited. Adaptive resource management can build from a local understanding of fuelwood that enhances conservation practices toward a sustainable supply.

COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES ON FUELWOOD RESOURCES: ENRICHMENT AND EXTRACTION ALONG THE EASTERN SLOPES OF MT. KENYA

A Thesis

Submitted to the

Faculty of Miami University

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Arts

Department of Geography

Sammy Muriithi Kaburi

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

2010

Advisor______(Dr. Kimberly E. Medley)

Reader______(Dr. Ian Ernest Agyeman Yeboah)

Reader______(Dr. Roxanne T. Ornelas)

Table of Contents List of Tables ...... iii List of Figures ...... iv List of Acronyms ...... v

Chapter One INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Statement of Research Purpose and Questions ...... 3 Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 5 Cultural-Political Ecology of Resources Relations...... 5 Fuelwood and Human Livelihoods in African Communities ...... 6 Participatory Research Methods to gain Community Viewpoints ...... 7 Chapter Three THE STUDY AREA...... 10 Chapter Four DATA AND METHODS ...... 13 Diversity of Fuelwood Resources ...... 13 Opportunity for a Sustainable Fuelwood Supply ...... 14 Chapter Five RESULTS ...... 16 Gaining a Sense of Place...... 16 Diversity of Fuelwood Resources ...... 17 Opportunities for a Sustainable Fuelwood Supply ...... 24 Chapter Six DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION...... 35 Diversity in Management of Fuelwood Resources ...... 35 Complex Landscapes ...... 36 Opportunities for Sustainable Fuelwood Supply ...... 37 How Participatory? ...... 38

Conclusion ...... 40 References ...... 41 Appendices Appendix I: List of the of the fuelwood plants in local (Chuka) names as derived from Meru and Kikuyu languages...... 46 Appendix II: Fuelwood attributes and other material uses of woody plants confirmed as fuelwood in Kiang‟ondu sub-location ...... 48

iii

List of Tables

Table 1: List of fuelwood trees species confirmed during the field study. Plant vouchers were deposited at the East African Herbarium (EA) and the herbarium at Miami University (MU) ...... 18

Table 2: The top ten most preferred fuelwood plants that were recorded and described in Kiang‟ondu sub-location ...... 26

Table 3: Community perceptions on which institutions influence opportunities for fuelwood sustainability and how they influence the availability and their access to fuelwood in Kiang‟ondu sub-location...... 30

Table 4: Compiled daily activities chart prepared by participants from Kariako locality. ... 31

List of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptual framework that guided the investigation of livelihood strategies and local perspectives in relation to fuelwood resources in two communities that live in the southeastern buffer of Mt. Kenya‟s forest...... 4

Figure 2: Location of the study area, shown with a star, in the Kiang‟ondu sub-location of the Nthi administrative district...... 10

Figure 3: Elder‟s map of the study area in Kiang‟ondu sub-location...... 16

Figure 4: Resource map constructed by seven elderly women from different localities in Kiang‟ondu sub-location for the 1960s...... 22

Figure 5: Resource map constructed by seven elderly men, showing how fuelwood resources were distributed in the past (1960s)...... 23

Figure 6: Resource map constructed by six women and a list of fuelwood resources at the present situation...... 24

Figure 7: A group session at the Kiang‟ondu market center where residents constructed a seasonal calendar using different symbols to show various activities that are carried out in a year. One of the participants is seen explaining what the symbols represent ...... 29

Figure 8: Photos and captions that show some of the opportunities for a sustainable supply of fuelwood resources in Kiang‟ondu sub-location...... 33

List of Acronyms

ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agro-Forestry KARI Kenya Agriculture Research Institute EA East Africa Herbarium MU Miami University Willard Sherman Turrell Herbarium NDP National Development Plan DDP District Development Plan IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature GOK Government of Kenya KWS Kenya Wildlife Society KFWG Kenya Forestry Working Group FAO Food and Agricultural Organization FAN Forest Action Network GBM Green Belt Movement FOEI Friends of the Earth International MKEP Mt. Kenya Environmental Program

Chapter one INTRODUCTION Management of natural resources is a critical issue from both local and global scales of analyses (Dangol 2005; Homewood 2005). Extra local socio-economic-political forces and local cultural attributes complicate studies of resource utilization and management (Rocheleau 2007; Krupnik and Vakntin 2000), especially when community management and consumption strategies are restricted by policies across environmentally complex landscapes (Pare et al 2009; Rocheleau 2007; Robbins 2004; Rocheleau and Edmunds 1997). Human activities are often associated with environmental degradation and with the loss of biodiversity (Campbell 2010; Kassam 2009; Matiru 2002). Increased population is regarded as the major factor leading to land degradation because more resources have to be mobilized to meet population demands. In contrast to this „Neo-Malthusian model‟, however, cultural-political ecologists present a number of compelling case studies, demonstrating that population growth does not invariably lead to environmental degradation (Peets and Watts 1996). When accompanied by resource diversification, population growth can be an important factor behind sound environmental management and conservation strategies (Homewood 2005). This research is based on this cultural-political ecology viewpoint as it looked at community efforts to sustain an important natural resource, fuelwood, for local livelihoods in the montane forests of Mt. Kenya (cf. Rocheleau 2007; Pare et al 2009; Dangol 2005; Kajember et al 2003). Forests, water, and soil resources are among the most crucial natural resources that affect many local communities (Adams and Hutton 2007). African countries‟ natural environmental conditions have been deteriorating at a high rate (Burgess et al. 2004), especially with colonization and later the move toward the privatization of land (Adams and Hutton 2007; Kajember et al 2003; Homewood 2005). In Kenya, like in many other African countries, the 1980s are referred to as „a lost development decade‟ characterized by unsustainable development, accelerating deforestation and desertification, degradation of soils, depletion of wildlife, reduction of biodiversity, and escalation of industrial pollution (Farwig et al 2005; DDP 2002; KWS 1999). Forests in Kenya, which are mostly restricted to montane areas, declined because of conversion to agriculture land, excessive use of fuelwood, charcoal production, overgrazing, collection of fodder, and commercial timber production among other construction materials (Wass 1995; Matiru 2002; GOK 2004; Gichuki 1999; Bess 1989).

Much has been documented about how forest resources are being depleted by humans through various forms of extraction (e.g. cutting trees, pruning branches, collection of edible and medicinal plant parts, hunting; Pare et al 2009; Mbuvi and Boon 2008; Homewood 2005). Local resource extraction occurs as a livelihood strategy in response to communities‟ needs, and to a large extent, the availability of those resources (Pare et al 2009; Martin et al 1999). In contrast, this research also considers how local communities enrich forest resources across a montane landscape (Farwig et al 2005). To secure resources for future generations, international and national development priorities are shifting toward the restoration of highly modified or degraded landscapes to ensure resource sustainability (Campbell, 2010; Pare et al 2009; Adams and Hutton, 2007). Resource enrichment is achieved through the conservation of naturally established resources (Mbuvi and Boon, 2008; Farwig et al 2005), and the propagation and establishment of desired tree species (Maathai 2006). Professional foresters together with agriculturalists as early as the 1940s in many tropical countries began recommending that trees should be planted along the contour to reduce erosion, to provide scarce products, to conserve the soil, and to return organic matter and nutrients to the soil (FAO 1996; ICRAF 1993; Hoskins 1982). In Kenya, the Forest Department through the Community Forest Services program works with communities living next to forests by encouraging them to participate in forest resources management and conservation (Fan 2005; DDP 2002; KFWG 2005; IUCN 2002; Geller et al 2007). The Green Belt Movement (GBM), formed in 1977 is a nongovernmental organization that received international recognition for how it manages to bring local women groups together to restore “lost nature” by planting trees mostly in their homes and farms (Maathai 2006). For efficient and potentially sustainable resource utilization, it is fundamental to understand local complexity in the activities, roles, and needs of community members (Campbell 2010; Pare et al 2009; Rocheleau et al 1995). Resource managers need to validate local knowledge, promote community participation in conservation, and gain a better understanding of their struggles and their opportunities for resource access and control (Pare et al 2009; Medley and Kalibo 2005; Kajember et al 2003). Such an understanding can be cultivated by using participatory methodologies that engage community members in the research process and gain a gender-sensitive understanding of resource use (Mbuvi and Boon 2008; Dangol 2005; Kajember et al 2003). The community jointly explores different local perspectives and how they influence

2 their relationships with resources (Kassam 2009; Pare et al 2009; Maiter et al 2008; Martin et al 1999).

Statement of Research Purpose and Questions The purpose of this research project is to gain a better understanding of extraction and more importantly enrichment processes that contribute to the fuelwood needs of local communities living in a montane forest buffer on Mt. Kenya (Figure 1). This research, centered in cultural-political ecology (cf. Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1995; Rocheleau et al 1996), employed a participatory learning approach (Malhotraa and Neudoer 2004; Webber and Ison 1995) to investigate local activities and perceptions related to the use and conservation of fuelwood by communities living near the protected Mt. Kenya Forest Reserve. I focused on two research questions that investigated the use and conservation of fuelwood resources by people of Chuka ethnicity who live outside the protected forest zone on eastern slopes (Figure 1). 1. What is the diversity of fuelwood resources that communities extract from the forest reserve and conserve or plant in their home areas? This question investigated the diversity of woody plants used for fuel and where people go to get these resources. Additionally, I especially focused on whether the communities in the buffer zone are enriching their fuelwood supply and how these practices vary among villages at different distances from the protected forests. Research for this question compiled a record of what tree species are used for fuel, where community residents go to acquire these resources, and how fuelwood is managed for sustainability.

2. What are the perceptions of the opportunities for ensuring a sustainable supply of fuelwood? This question investigated what are the preferred fuelwood tree species and gained local perceptions on the opportunities for a sustainable supply of these tree species. The question explored how community perceptions are influenced by extra local policies and/or local management practices.

The hypotheses that guided the research analyses are:

a. The people are not fuelwood limited; they use a diversity of sources and see opportunities for sustaining fuelwood resources; b. Fuelwood is a community resource that needs to be sensitive to the views of women and men; and c. Community fuelwood use practices and perceptions vary with the distance from the forest and rely greatly on local knowledges regarding fuelwood diversity.

Engaging the communities in a participatory research process in this study of local fuelwood resources enhanced the application of research findings to conservation efforts (Pare et al 2009; Malhotraa and Neudoer 2004; Kassam 2003). Understanding the diversity of fuelwood resources and the related opportunities to attain sustainability offers practical fuelwood alternatives. The study supported an experiential learning process where participants interpret local landscapes, assess the status of fuelwood resources, and enable the application of an adaptive resource management approach (Maiter et al 2008; Hosier 1985).

Chapter two LITERATURE REVIEW This literature review provides a research context to my study of community perspectives on fuelwood resources, and how they enrich and extract these resources along the eastern slopes of Mt. Kenya forest reserve. First, I provide a detailed analysis of how cultural-political ecology provides a discourse to better understand complex human-nature relationships, and especially the utilization of local resources. Secondly, I focus on relations between fuelwood resources and human livelihoods in local communities. What factors influence the availability of fuelwood resources? Who are responsible for obtaining these resources? How do communities ensure sustainability? Finally, I highlight the contributions of participatory research methods in gaining community viewpoints on fuelwood resources and techniques that encourage participation and information sharing.

Cultural-Political Ecology of Resource Relations Cultural-political ecology captures the interconnections requiring human-environment research approaches in geography and other related fields of inquiry (Zimmerer and Bassett 2003; Krupnik and Vakhtin 2000; Butzer 1989). As integrated inquiry, cultural-political ecology investigates the complexity that arises from historical, cultural, and scale-related processes as they influence human resource relations (Pare et al 2009; Zimmerer and Bassett 2003; Walker 2003). Cultural ecology provides insight to human-environmental concerns like environmental degradation, conservation planning, indigenous knowledge, political influences on resources management, biodiversity, and the multiple ways that various communities manage natural resources, shape landscapes, and struggle over resource access and control (Campbell 2010; Farwig et al 2005; Kassam, 2003; Agrawal and Gibson 2001; Peet and Watts 1996). Human resource studies stimulated significant debates and discussion within geography over field methods, roles of science and representation, scale, and subject matter (Zimmerer 1994). One important outcome of these debates was a shift in focus from the local to the extra-local as an influence on resource relations, and accordingly a shift from cultural to political ecology. Political ecology is a diverse field, which examines nature and society interactions by building on Blaikie‟s emphasis on multi-scale political economic processes affecting local resource use patterns (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987; Bryant and Bailey 1997; Zimmerer 1994).

Cultural-political ecology research seeks to document the way individuals cope with change, how households are organized for survival, and how groups unite for collective action (Kassam 2009; Paulson and Escobar 2005; Peet and Watts 1996). Attention needs to be given to traditional ways, documenting local knowledge and different understandings of ecological processes (Kajember et al 2003; Pokorny et al 2005; Krupnik and Vakntin, 2000). The reactive and progressive characteristics of cultural-political ecology expose its discourse to criticisms. Some researchers particularly critique how political ecologists seem to know the answer before the research is conducted instead of pursuing more progressively the ecology of individual (or situated) environmental events (Vayda and Walters 1999). Such criticisms advocate explaining events inductively in an expanding set of causes, effects, and contextual contingencies. Cultural-political ecology conditions are plainly multifaceted in nature, encouraging multiple methods and analyses to interpret socio-environmental changes and the challenges they represent (Pijanowski et al 2009; Adams and Hutton 2007; Zimmerer 1994).

Fuelwood and Human Livelihoods in African Communities Development mediators are clear that most African regions depend on fuelwood for their energy needs, and that deforestation rates have outstripped reforestation (Braidotti et al 1994). This leads to shortages and limited access to fuelwood resources by communities (Chen et al 2010; Ketlogetswe and Mothudi 2009; Warner 2000; O‟Keefe and Ambio 1985). Impacts on fuelwood resources are attributed to a series of spatial, institutional, social, and ecological factors that influence species preferences, patterns of harvesting, and end-use (Mogaka et al 2001; Wass, 1995). Communities rely on fuelwood, and both women and men are predicated to have different roles and adaptations to a future trend of diminishing resources for wood energy (Paulson 2005; Chen et al 2000; FAO 1996; O‟Keefe and Ambio 1985; Agrawal and Arnod, 1982). Community members gather wood and other biomass for fuelwood energy wherever they can (Homewood 2005; Warner 2002; Kituyi 2001; FAO, 1989). Both women and men have the primary responsibility for meeting the family‟s basic fuelwood needs (Colfer 2005; Lauscher and Khaleque 1987; Agrawal and Arnod 1982). In most cases, members of the community who are left in the rural areas have valuable local knowledges about the characteristics of various fuelwood trees species‟ energy quality (Maundu and Tengnas 2005; Wass 1995; Hoskins 1982).

Local community residents are often the initiators of wood stock establishments around the community and in their farms and homes (Maathai 2006; Mogaka et al 2001). Studies also show distinct differences between women and men in their relations with fuelwood (Mackenzie 2005; Sachs 1996; Shiva 1988). For example, where both women and men collect the fuelwood, commonly women collect from nearby sources while men go to sources far from homes (Dangol 2005; Rocheleau and Edmunds 1997; Leuscher and Khaleque 1987). When taking care of the trees planted, men plant and tender trees away from the homes, while women plant areas nearby, though eventually, cultivation and tendering of trees is generally a family‟s responsibility (Maathai 2006; Leuscher and Khaleque 1987). In rural communities, property ownership determines access to and control over fuelwood resources (Rocheleau and Edmunds 1997; Meinzen et al 1997; Bondi and Mugabe 1996; FAO 1989). Community groups promoting forest conservation are mostly open to both men and women (FAO 1989). Interestingly, men‟s participation diminishes with time while that of women increases (Maathai 2006). Fuelwood resource conservation also depends on people‟s perception on the economic importance of these resources, influencing their preferences to certain tree species (Agrawal and Gibson 2001; Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1995). The expected range of benefits gained from fuelwood trees are related to their other uses for timber, poles, fodder, fuelwood or ornament (Maundu and Tengnas 2005; Chavangi 1984; Wood et al 1983; Hoskins 1982), and accordingly dictates who within the household or community shows interest in planting and managing tree resources for production in existing forests and woodlots (Maiter et al 2008; Maathai 2006; Mogaka et al 2001).

Participatory Research Methods to Gain Community Viewpoints Community participation as a research approach was first developed in the social sciences and used primarily as a descriptive tool to document local knowledge (Campbell 2002; Chambers 1994). Participatory research allows an issue or theory to be tested with full engagement of the people being studied and shortens the distance between the researcher and the community (Pare et al 2009; Breitbart 2007; Pokorny et al 2005; Malhotraa and Neudoer 2004). Engaging people is a fundamental goal in participatory methods because it will enable them to re-center their role from being passive actors to becoming self-motivated individuals who can critically address development issues on their own (Maiter et al 2008; Irvin and Stansbury 2004;

Tuxill and Nabhan 2001). The researcher only plays the role of facilitator, encouraging cooperation between people and the research activity (Cameron 2000; Webber and Ison, 1995). The success of participatory processes relies on local people and builds from local knowledge (Arnod et al 2006; Krupnik and Vakhtin 2000). Visualization is an important tool in participatory research (Kearns, 2000; McCracken and Narayan 1997). For example, resource maps and transect walk diagrams compiled by focus groups can generate discussion and a great degree of interaction among the members of a community (Medley and Kalibo 2005). Community participants own the process and gain confidence in the value of their local knowledge (Pare et al 2009; Krupnik and Vakhtin 2000). Those who feel disadvantaged will be encouraged to interact (Dangol 2005), thereby supporting collective viewpoints (Kassam 2009). Because emphasis is placed on the use of local knowledge (Krupnik and Vakntin 2000), participants often use materials that are familiar to them, including stones, seeds and leaves of trees, and small pieces of sticks to symbolize different features of the landscape. Participants‟ observation is not only seeing, but also hearing (Laurier 2007). The researcher moves around when focus groups are drawing their resource maps or along the transect walk, observing and listening to their discussions in order to gain their views (Pokorny et al 2005; Campbell 2002). Discussions during a participatory research exercise are very important since they give a wider view of people‟s opinions that may not be captured in the output (Dangol 2005; Irvin and Stansbury 2004; Chambers 1994). Participatory exercises allow flexibility for conversations and reflection on the place and resources under discussion (Lengkeek et al 2005; Cameron 2000; McCracken and Narayan 1997). Perspectives can also be evaluated by open-ended questions in semi-structured interviews (Dunn 2000). Semi-structured interviews provide a one-to-one discussion opportunity, increasing the chance for the researcher to deepen their understanding of the research and its context (Pokorny et al 2005). Participants may be engaged in a conversation, sometimes while participating in another exercise, which is guided by a checklist of questions (Tuxill and Nabhan, 2001). This checklist does not necessarily follow any prescribed order, increasing its flexibility (Dunn 2000), but at the same time the questions that are asked should be planned in order to maintain consistency among groups on what is discussed (Longhurst 2007). When interviews involve a group, discussion is usually relaxed, comfortable, and enjoyable as participants share their ideas (Pokorny et al 2005; Cameron, 2000).

Another participatory approach utilizes ranking exercises, which can be used to gain local perspectives on relative values or importance. Preferences can be assigned by use of a ranking matrix (McCracken and Narayan 1997) that compares and sorts out variables. For example a ranking matrix can be used to compare the relative value of different plants for a given resource (Pare et al 2009; Martin et al 1999).

Chapter three THE STUDY AREA

Mount Kenya is located in the central region of Kenya, approximately 180 km north of Nairobi (Figure 2, adapted from Ndegwa 2005). Agriculture is the main economic activity in its surrounding districts (Geller et al 2007), with crops such as sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas), maize (Zea mays), beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), and potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) grown at the subsistence level. Coffee (Coffea arabica), tea (Camellia sinesis) and other horticultural crops such as cabbages, onions, tomatoes, and French beans are grown commercially. Mt Kenya is one of the most important water catchment areas in the country (Gichuki 1999; Ojany 1993). There are numerous streams originating from the mountain that are a main source of water for domestic livestock and agriculture uses downstream. The bedrock of Mt. Kenya is of recent volcanic origin (Speck 1986; Ojany and Ogendo 1973). Elevation ranges from 1700 -5200 meters above sea level.

The Mt. Kenya area is characterized by bimodal rainfall, with long rains occurring from March to June, and short rains occurring from October to November. Rainfall varies between 900 to 2300 millimeters (GOK 2004). The eastern slopes of the mountain are the wettest while the highest altitudes and the northwestern low lying areas are characteristically drier. The average temperature at the base of the mountain is 20°C (Ojany and Ogendo 1973). Vegetation zones on Mt. Kenya are strongly influenced by elevation and rainfall. The montane forests are broad-leaf evergreen and characterized by a diverse tree species composition (Niemela and Pellikka 2004; Bussmann 1996; Ojany 1993). Mt. Kenya forests are of important ecological significance for biological diversity and water catchment areas, and offer a variety of goods and services such as timber, fuelwood, medicinal plants and fodder that have significant cultural value to the local communities (Wass 1995; KFWG 2005). A five-kilometer forest buffer zone around Mt. Kenya was designated before independence to provide socio-economic and cultural opportunities to local communities (Figure 2). During the struggle for independence, the forest buffer zone along the eastern slopes of Mt. Kenya was significantly used by colonial administration to separate the hiding areas (i.e. forest) and the residential areas (i.e. villages; Kiriungi, 2009; personal interview with a local elder). After independence, communities settled permanently within this zone. The study area, the Kiang‟ondu sub-location, is in Nithi Administrative District on the eastern slopes of Mt. Kenya (Figure 2). The study was conducted just outside of the protected forest reserve in the lower montane forest. Human settlements in the five kilometer buffer zone outside of the reserve have a much decreased forest cover, creating a clear boundary between the rural agricultural landscape and closed forest (Ndegwa 2005). The Chuka ethnic group dominates this area and they live in association with the Mt. Kenya Forest Reserve. The Chuka, Meru, Embu and Kikuyu ethnic groups became mixed under the forced settlement programs before independence, and since then the Chuka people have been living in the buffer zone and using the forest resources in the Kiang‟ondu sub-location. Land allocations after independence further influenced resource use patterns in the buffer zone, restricting their access to and control over fuelwood resources (personal interview with the elders, 2009). The study conducted in the Kiang‟ondu sub-location focused on two localities. Kariako locality is near the forest reserve at along the inner buffer while Mukungugu locality is about 5 kilometers further south of the forest

11 reserve along the outer buffer. Kiang‟ondu market center is strategically located in between these two localities and provided a meeting location for members from both localities.

Chapter four DATA AND METHODS This research, centered in cultural-political ecology, aims to gain a better understanding of extraction and enrichment processes that contribute to fuelwood needs in the buffer zone around Mt. Kenya. The research protocol fulfilled the requirements of informed consent and was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Miami University. Before the study began, I gained clearance from Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology in Kenya to conduct my research registered as NCST/5/002/R/516/4. Swahili, the national language in Kenya, was used to communicate, and occasionally conversations were translated from Swahili to Chuka, the local language. During a preliminary visit before I began research in the study communities, Kariako and Mukungugu, I identified two local research assistants: Mr. Machiga, a local community mobilizer; and Mr. Kiriungi, a respected elder. We first took a familiarization tour from which the elder sketched a map that generally represented the Kiang‟ondu sub-location. While the study focused on two localities, Kariako and Mukungugu, the viewpoints of the other residents were also gathered as we were walking across the sub-location. Also, Kiang‟ondu market centre, centrally located, was the most convenient place for holding meetings, enabling people from other locations to come and participate in our discussion.

Diversity of Fuelwood Resources A first important objective for the field research was to acquire a view of the diversity of local fuelwood resources used by local residents. Together, we compiled a cumulative list of fuelwood trees during the semi-structured household interviews, the transect walks, and the participatory mapping sessions. We walked together with local participants across the landscape where they reside, giving an opportunity to see the abundance of fuelwood resources. On some afternoons, I participated with community members in obtaining fuelwood, thereby learning more about which plants were used and from where. The study compares findings collected in Kariako and Mukungugu where I spent approximately three and two weeks, respectively. Informal conversations with focal groups and household members provided information about the diversity of the fuelwood resources (Longhurst, 2007). I worked with Kariako and

Mukungugu residents, using a checklist of questions to initiate and guide discussion during the research process. I took photographs and recorded field descriptions of the major fuelwood resource sites. During the field research, I collected specimens of fuelwood plants and confirmed identifications of all vouchers reference number NMK/BOT/CTX/1/4 at the East African Herbarium (EA) and copies were carried to the Miami University Herbarium (MU). Resource maps were constructed by the focus groups at the market center in Kiang‟ondu sub-location in order to show the diversity of fuelwood resources. The local leaders identified, selected, and invited people from all the villages to attend the meeting, thus representing their localities as research participants. The first meeting was deliberately planned to coincide with the regularly held sub-locations‟ meeting, where more people besides the local leaders were invited, giving a better representation. Three focus groups were formed and they constructed three resource maps: two maps of the past situation, one by seven men and the other by six elderly women; and a third map of the present situation by seven relatively younger women. Many adult males migrate to work in other areas; hence fewer men were available for the participatory exercises. The maps focused on the diversity of fuelwood resources and the locations of fuelwood access sites in relation to where people reside. There was a discussion after the maps were completed, and I took notes as people highlighted main features on the maps. Some of the guiding questions that were used to gather information on the fuelwood use during the mapping sessions, the participant observations, the transect walks, and the semi-structured interviews included: Where do you obtain fuelwood for your use? What are the major trees growing on your home and farm that can be used for fuelwood? Do you recognize this tree? Where do you plant trees? Group sessions with the focus groups were scheduled towards the middle of the research, after the survey of diversity and before completing the household semi-structured interviews.

Opportunities for a Sustainable Fuelwood Supply The study also employed participatory exercises and semi-structured interviews in order to gain an understanding and compile narratives on the opportunities for a sustainable supply of fuelwood. These exercises and conversations elaborated on the roles and responsibilities related to the management of fuelwood resources. I compiled perceptions for residents in the Kiang‟ondu sub-location by comparing views for the two localities, Kariako and Mukungugu. First, a second meeting day was scheduled at the Kiang‟ondu market center, inviting residents

14 from Kariako locality and Mukungugu locality who had participated in the transect walks and households surveys. Participants in the mapping exercise were also encouraged to attend this meeting and other residents in the sub-location volunteered, providing local views for the Kiang‟ondu sub-location. Fuelwood tree preferences by community members in Kiang‟ondu sub-location were compiled by constructing ranking matrices and facilitating consensus discussions about the other uses and attributes of those trees that were confirmed during the semi-structured household interviews, the transect walks, and the participatory mapping sessions. The participants were asked to describe other material uses, rendered environmental services, and their attributes as a fuelwood. From this list, the residents selected ten trees as most important by associating fuelwood trees with their respective uses and attributes. For this exercise, a pair-wise ranking matrix was constructed and the residents were asked to compare the 10 trees in pairs by asking: which tree between these two trees is preferred more as a fuelwood resource? Community perceptions on opportunities in management practices for the fuelwood tree species were further collected during the discussion of a seasonal calendar constructed by thirteen people, both men and women, from different localities. They were asked to show the amount of time and the period of the year residents devote toward fuelwood management practices. In the same meeting, participants described the major local institutions that mostly influenced their management of fuelwood resources. For the localities, daily activities charts were drawn and collective analysis emphasized the amount of time people spend in a typical day carrying out fuelwood related activities. The charts were brought into the market meeting by small groups of five people from Kariako locality and six people from Mukungugu locality. Later, at the household level, family members were asked to show their fuelwood resource sites and share their practices by taking photos that illustrate the ways they use and manage fuelwood.

Chapter five RESULTS Gaining a Sense of Place

The field map constructed by the village elder at Kiang‟ondu sub-location shows a complex social-political structure in study region (Figure 3). Kiang‟ondu sub-location is bounded by the Tungu River to the east, the Naka River to the west, the Chuka University road to the south, and the boundary with the Mt. Kenya Forest reserve to the north. One government appointed Sub-chief administers the region. The land is approximately 25 km² and is first divided politically into sub-units, which correspond to the distribution of settlements as confined by the rugged mountain topography (DDP 2002). These sub-units are then divided into localities by physical features such as local access roads, streams, and places of community gathering like churches, schools, tea and coffee buying centers, and the market (Figure 3).

A locality is a group of households dwelling in one area and overseen by one village elder selected by residents. The main role of the village elder is to ensure effective communication between the sub-chief and the localities they represent. Localities, therefore working through their village elders, can be very influential toward implementing new ideas in the sub-locations. The field map identifies the geographic position of the two localities that were compared for this study of fuelwood resources, Kariako near the Mt. Kenya forest reserve and Mukungugu about five kilometers to the south, and also shows the market center that served as the central meeting location for group discussions on fuelwood resources (Figure 3).

Diversity of Fuelwood Resources Working with field assistants, I conducted five trips to fuelwood collection sites: one to Mt. Kenya forest reserve with residents from Kariako; and two transect walks across homes and farmland at each locality. During these surveys, 32 fuelwood species were identified and collected in 30 genera and 17 families (Table 1). Most common plant families included Leguminosae (5 spp), Euphorbiaceae (4 spp), Myrtaceae (3 spp), and all other plant families had one or two tree species. Four species were shrubs, including Cajanus cajan, Calliandra calothyrsus, Camellia sinesis, and Lantana camara and the rest of the 30 species were trees. Eleven species (in 8 families and 10 genera) were non-native and 23 plants were native to the locality. Three non-native species, namely Acacia mearnsii, Grevillea robusta, and Lantana camara were reported growing naturally on the farmland and forest reserve and five native species Albizia gummifera, Cajanus cajan, Markhamia lutea, Prunus africana, and Vitex keniensis were reported planted on the farmland. According to the focus group participants, four tree species are only found in the forest reserve, including Landolphia buchananii, Bersama abyssinica, Rothmannia urcelliformis, and Syzyguim guineense. A majority (67%) of the tree species, were reported planted around people‟s farmland and homes, including especially Acacia mearnsii, Coffea arabica, Grevillea robusta, Macadamia integrifolia, Mangifera indica, and Persea americana. These trees growing on farmland and around the homes were favored because they provided other key resources in addition to being a source of fuel.

Table 1: List of fuelwood trees species confirmed during the field study. Plant vouchers (in brackets) were deposited at the East African herbarium (EA) and the herbarium at Miami University (MU). Non-native tree species are shown with an asterisk while native tree species reported growing in Mt. Kenya Forest Reserve are shown with two asterisks.

Botanical name and voucher (Kaburi Local name Kariako Mukungugu SM & Kimeu JM) Plant Family (Chuka) Occurrences Occurrences

*Acacia mearnsii De Wild. [41] Leguminosae Muthanduku planted Albizia gummifera (J.F.Gmel.) natural, C.A.Sm. [34] Leguminosae Mukorwe planted Argomuellera macrophylla Pax [no voucher] Euphorbiaceae Muthatha natural

**Bersama abyssinica Fresen. [29] Melianthaceae Mtong'omwe

Bridelia micrantha (Hochst.) Baill. [8] Euphorbiaceae Mukwego natural

Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. [6] Leguminosae Mucugu planted

*Calliandra calothyrsus Meissn. [23] Leguminosae -- planted

*Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze [40] Theaceae Mucani planted planted

*Coffea arabica L. [63] Rubiaceae Muhua planted planted

Cordia africana Lam. [7] Boraginaceae Muringa natural natural

Croton macrostachyus Delile [18] Euphorbiaceae Muntuntu natural natural

Croton megalocarpus Hutch. [4] Euphorbiaceae Muciri planted planted

Ehretia cymosa Thonn. [24] Boraginaceae Murembu natural Eriobotrya javanica (Thunb) Lindl. planted [16] Rosaceae Munoa natural *Eucalyptus grandis Hill ex Maiden [31] Myrtaceae Munyua mai planted planted

*Eucalyptus saligna Sm. [32] Myrtaceae Munyua mai planted planted planted planted *Grevillea robusta R.Br. [17] Proteaceae Mikima natural natural **Landolphia buchananii (Hallier f.) Stapf [46] Apocynaceae Munakamwe natural, *Lantana camara L. [10] Verbenaceae Mucimoro planted

*Macadamia integrifolia Maiden & Betche [15] Proteaceae Mukandamia planted

*Mangifera indica L. [21] Anacardiaceae Mwembe planted planted Markhamia lutea (Benth.) K.Schum. natural natural, [44] Bignoniaceae Muu planted planted

Myrianthus holstii Engl. [37] Cecropiaceae Mucuca natural

*Persea americana Mill. [14] Lauraceae Mukondobia planted planted Prunus africana (Hook.f.) Kalkman natural, [36] Rosaceae Muiria planted

Rauvolfia caffra Sond. [27] Apocynaceae Muthura natural **Rothmannia urcelliformis (Hiern) Robyns [43] Rubiaceae Mukombokombo Senna didymobotrya (Fresen.) Irwin & Barneby [62] Leguminosae Mweno natural natural **Syzygium guineense (Willd.) DC. [38] Myrtaceae Muriru Trimeria grandifolia (Hochst. ) Warb. natural, [45] Flacourtiaceae Muvyevi planted Vernonia galamensis (Cass.) Less. [50] Compositae Mucobo natural natural natural, Vitex keniensis Turrill [3] Verbenaceae Muburu planted

Kariako and Mukungugu localities had almost the same number of tree species on their properties that were used for fuelwood, 19 and 22 species respectively, but they did differ in their composition (Table 1). Out 21 native tree species; 12 and 9 trees were reported on Kariako and Mukungugu properties, respectively; 6 trees, including Cordia africana, Croton macrostachyus, Croton megalocarpus, Markhamia lutea, Senna didymobotrya, and Vernonia galamensis in both localities; 6 species unique to Kariako, and 3 species unique to Mukungugu. Out of 11 non- native tree species, 6 were found in both Kariako and Mukungugu localities, and 4 trees, including Acacia mearnsii, Calliandra calothyrsus, Lantana camara, and Macadamia integrifolia were only reported in Mukungugu locality. Participants in Kariako said that because of their proximity to the Mt. Kenya Forest Reserve they mostly rely on the forest to meet their fuelwood needs. Therefore, they cut fewer trees from their farmland specifically for fuelwood purposes. Additionally, Kariako residents recognized that people conserve native trees on their managed land after these trees are naturally established. On the other hand, Mukungugu residents said that they cut trees on their farmland to

19 meet their fuelwood needs. This was noted to reduce the variety of tree species in their area. Additionally, Mukungugu residents said that the soil types and the micro-climate in their locality is slightly different from Kariako, thus some of the native trees like Albizia gummifera and Prunus africana are not easily restored. They said that since non-native tree species have several purposes especially for fodder, timber, construction materials, fruits, and other income they tend to plant more in their homes and farmlands. Notably, these tree species grow and mature faster than most native trees, becoming a quick source of fuelwood. They especially reported on Grevillea robusta, which was observed as the most common tree at every household. Occurrences of the 32 fuelwood species in the two localities were described by whether trees were planted or grew naturally (Table 1). At Kariako, 12 tree species were planted, including native Croton megalocarpus and Eriobotrya javanica, and non-native Macadamia integrifolia and 12 occurred naturally. At Mukungugu, only 10 tree species naturally occurred on the farmland, including native Senna didymobotrya, Croton macrostachyus, and Bridelia micrantha but 16 species were planted. Some participants said that in Mukungugu residents hold larger farm sizes, providing more space for a variety of trees to be planted either as woodlots or intercropped with other crops. The demand for fuelwood materials in Mukungugu is high since they cannot easily acquire fuelwood from the forest reserve, encouraging them to diversify the tree species that they grow in their farmland and homes. In one case during a household interview, a participant said that he would replace a naturally slow growing tree species like Albizia gummifera with a faster maturing tree, including Grevillea robusta, Eucalyptus grandis and Eucalyptus saligna, in order to maximize opportunities for meeting fuelwood needs. Eucalyptus grandis and Eucalyptus saligna were found growing on people‟s farmland mostly as woodlots. The participants said that when intercropped, Eucalyptus grandis and Eucalyptus saligna dehydrate the soils by taking a lot of water from the top soil. Locally this tree is called Munyua mai (drinking water), which explained why people mostly left Eucalyptus trees to grow along the rivers and streams, or planted them in isolated plots (i.e. woodlots) on their farmlands. All the 32 tree species identified had local (Chuka) names except, Calliandra calothyrsus, which is a fodder shrub tree promoted by Kenya Agriculture Research Institute (KARI) in this area. Most of these names were derived from Kikuyu and Meru languages since Chuka language is a combination of the two (personal interview with elders 2009; see Appendix I). According to their discussion, planted trees were those that people actively work to ensure

20 their survival. They said that in essence, planting is a process that involves several stages: obtaining seeds; germinating them in a tree nursery; caring for the young seedlings; transplanting them to their farmlands and the forest reserve; and nurturing seedlings until they grow big. Mostly non-native trees of high economic value like Grevillea robusta, Camellia sinensis, Coffea arabica, and Eucalyptus species fall under this category. Those trees that germinate on their own and keep growing without their attention were referred to as “natural” trees. Some trees, including Acacia mearnsii, Grevillea robusta, Lantana camara, and Markhamia lutea were indicated in both categories as planted and natural. For instance Lantana camara and Grevillea robusta are planted along the road and farmland boundaries, and also due to their easy seed dispersal and quick germination these trees are naturally established especially along the edges of the forest reserve and on farmland. In Mukungugu locality, residents said that they are encouraged to plant trees for fuelwood resources while residents in Kariako locality conserve naturally established trees not necessarily for fuelwood but for their other material uses and environmental services. Residents explained the distribution and diversity of fuelwood resources for the two communities, and how resources differed over time, during the resource mapping session and on the maps they constructed. The maps showed their settlement in the study area and illustrated how resources were distributed in the past and at present in their localities. They represented Kariako and Mukungugu within broader Kiang‟ondu sub-location rather than focusing on their localities. Three local resource maps were constructed during a mapping session held at the market center. Two maps represented women and men‟s views in early 1960s (Figures 4 and 5) while a third map represented women‟s views on the present situation (Figure 6). From the women‟s past situation map constructed for around 1960s, they focused on the fuelwood resources that were available (Figure 4). Houses in the one settlement shown were built traditionally as round, mud and thatched huts. Women said that in the past, there were very few settlements and thus people lived as if they were in the middle of the forest. They labeled 14 fuelwood tree species growing on their farmlands and around the homes (see Table 1 for the list of local and scientific names). On their map, they labeled 14 native tree species by local names and one non-native. Infrastructure was simple; few roads linked the settlements and local resources like the wells (Kithima) and streams. Women, being the ones responsible for water

21 collection, highlighted that wells were a common place for people to meet as they collected water.

Seven elderly men who formed one focus group drew the men‟s past resources map, also for the 1960s (Figure 5). The map shows a broader area that includes two common areas of residence, Kirwire and Mukungugu villages. Men said that before independence in the mid 1960s, land was still communally owned and people stayed together in the villages. The men, however, illustrated more detailed infrastructures on their map, and the map included major roads (Chuka-Forest, Mukungugu, and Kariako), rivers and streams (Tungu, Thamia, and Kaginyo), and the bridge where these roads and streams seem to converge (see also Figure 2). The men‟s map shows the distribution of coffee and six native fuelwood trees grown in farmlands (Figure 5). According to the men, in the past there were plenty of fuelwood resources. They also mapped two wells, Kamuratha and Giamithega, and men participants said that these wells were used as landmarks, thus people could give references to other local places. A wetland that was highlighted by the presence of arrowroots was said to be a major catchment area, the

22 source of Kaiginyo stream, and also one of the lowest points in elevation near Kariako. Much of the land they mapped in the 1960s was unsettled by people. Men said that Kirwire road and the area around Kiang‟ondu primary school marked the end of forest reserve land and the resources beyond there were not recognized as part of what people could control.

A resource map of the present situation drawn by six younger women can be compared with that of the past situation (Figure 6). Here more homesteads were shown spread out across the area and houses were built in a more modern way. The road network (Mukungugu, Kariako and Forest roads) and the location of the market center highlighted the infrastructural development and also a broader view of their home area.

Women admitted that these developments and especially changes in land ownership influenced the current distribution of fuelwood resources; some trees were cut while others were introduced in the study area. For the present map, they provided a list of 31 trees species that are grown either in the forest reserve, or around people‟s homes and farmland including native and many more non-native trees. These non-native trees were introduced to this area in different ways and at different times. For instance, coffee was brought during the colonial administration for export, Mikima (Grevillea robusta) was promoted by Kenya Agriculture Research Institute (KARI) as an agro-forestry tree, and others trees like Mukondobia (Persea americana) and Mukadamia (Macadamia integrifolia) were planted as cash crops. In relation to the past maps, this resource map of the present situation clearly shows that Kariako area, starting from the Mutube market towards the forest reserve boundary was now inhabited. Notably, the introduction of banana, coffee and tea farming reduced the number of trees since people were not allowed to intercrop. According to women, these practices reduced native fuelwood resources in the study area. Consequently, they promoted more fast growing and early maturing non-native trees in order to guarantee a sustained provision of fuelwood.

Opportunities for a Sustainable Fuelwood Supply At the market center, 36 residents (25 women, 11 men) from Kiang‟ondu sub-location

24 participated in the ranking of the fuelwood trees. The study participants and local research assistants provided additional information on the fuelwood plants later confirmed during transect walks and households interviews ((Appendix II). They first described other material uses and the environmental services of the fuelwood species: 32 listed fuelwood tree species were reported to have multiple uses and a total of 25 material uses were described during the field exercise in addition to their use as fuelwood. Material uses included construction materials (timber, posts, roofing, and poles), tools handles, beehives and bee forage, utensils, edible parts (fruits, leaves, and seeds), beverages and flavoring, medicines, fodder, ropes, weaving materials, dye, repellent, and cosmetics. Environmental services included live fences, wind breaks, soil improvement, mulch, nitrogen fixation, river bank conservation, and some aesthetic / symbolic roles (ornamental, shade, boundary marking, ceremonial). These other uses influenced people‟s enrichment efforts of fuelwood tree species either by conserving trees when naturally established or by planting them on their homes and farmlands. Participants described fruit trees (Macadamia integrifolia, Mangifera indica and Persea americana), cash crops (Coffea arabica and Camellia sinensis), trees for construction materials (Eucalyptus species, Grevillea robusta and Cupressus lusitanica) and fodder trees (Argomuellera macrophylla and Grevillea robusta) as fuel sources. For example, Grevillea robusta (a non-native) had 11 other material uses, Albizia gummifera (a native) had 10 other uses, and Cordia africana, Ehretia cymosa, and Vitex keniensis (all native), and Macadamia integrifolia (non-native) were recorded with nine other uses each. The non- native Lantana camara shrub was found growing wild along farmland edges in Mukungugu locality and residents said that they also plant it along the roads as a live fence because it is resistant to dry conditions. They said that branches of shrubs, including Bridelia micrantha, Calliandra calothyrsus, and Lantana camara are commonly fed to goats and later used as fuelwood materials. Likewise, Argomuellera macrophylla was a most common tree in Mukungugu, primarily used as fodder and thereafter utilized as a fuelwood resource. They also described the environmental services these trees provide, such as enhancing soil conservation when intercropped (Calliandra calothyrsus, Psidium guajava, Camellia sinensis, Cordia africana and Ehretia cymosa), trees planted as a live fence or to mark boundaries (Vitex keniensis, Cupressus lisitancia, and Lantana camara), and other services (shade, mulching, rainfall, air purification, ornament, soil fertility and conservation, and as a land mark). The participants also described their attributes as a fuel (more heat and light, whitish ash,

25 less smoke, dries quickly and burns slowly) and their in-field management as a fuelwood resource (propagation methods, seedling availability, germination, whether seedlings can be easily transplanted, and whether the tree sprouts easily after pruning; Appendix II). Direct planting of seeds on the sites (Croton megalocarpus) was reported to be less work than when seedlings are first raised in a seedbed, and later transplanted (e.g., Cordia africana, Eucalyptus species and Ehretia cymosa). Residents managing big farms said that they utilized naturally established trees species like Croton macrostachyus, Grevillea robusta and Bridelia micrantha because they do not require extra attention. Argomuellera macrophylla and Grevillea robusta are examples of trees that sprout quickly once pruned, thus are reported to be preferred since they can ensure a sustained supply of fuelwood materials. By a show of hands, participants then selected the ten most preferred fuelwood trees, according to their other material uses and rendered services, and their attributes as a fuelwood and management as a fuelwood resource (Table 2). Out of the ten trees, two were non-native and eight were native species. These fuelwood resources were then compared in a pair-wise ranking matrix. Eucalyptus grandis (a non-native) was ranked as the most valuable fuelwood (Table 2). The tree was reported with one negative fuelwood attribute, producing brownish ash after combustion and eight other uses/services were recorded. Syzygium guineense, one of the four trees that were reported growing only in the forest was recorded as the second most valuable fuelwood tree; the tree has five other recorded uses/services, produces more heat and light, has whitish ash and less smoke, and the tree can be propagated by transplanting wild seedlings. Argomuellera macrophylla was ranked tenth on the list with only four other uses/services and fewer positive attributes as a fuelwood resource.

Table 2: The top ten most preferred fuelwood plants that were recorded and described in Kiang‟ondu sub-location.

Fuelwood attributes and in-field Chuka Material uses and Botanical names management as a fuelwood names environmental services resource more heat and light, less smoke, bee forage, timber, dries quickly, burns slowly, 1. Eucalyptus Munyua construction, medicine, seedlings available, germinates grandis Hill ex mai windbreak, poles, tool easily, wildings available, Maiden * handles, cosmetics establishes naturally, sprouts quickly

more heat and light, whitish ash, 2. Syzygium bee forage, bee hives, less smoke, burns slowly, seedlings guineense (Willd.) Muriru furniture, construction, available, germinates easily, DC. medicine, charcoal wildings available timber, furniture, , 3. Prunus africana construction, medicine, more heat and light, whitish ash, Muiria (Hook.f.) Kalkman charcoal, shade, posts, tools, burns slowly, wildlings available ceremonies fodder, construction, mulch, less smoke, dries quickly, seedlings 4. Grevillea robusta windbreak, life fence, posts, available, germinates easily, Mukima R.Br. * ornamental, soil fertility and wildings available, establishes conservation, timber, furniture naturally, sprouts quickly bee forage, bee hives, more heat and light, burns slowly, ornamental, soil conservation, 5. Ehretia cymosa Murembu seedlings available, germinates timber, furniture, construction, Thonn. /Mukui easily, wildings available, medicine, boundary marking, establishes naturally charcoal, ceremonies more heat, whitish ash, less smoke, 6. Bridelia fodder, construction, poles, burns slowly, wildlings available, micrantha (Hochst.) Mukwego posts, charcoal establishes naturally, sprouts Baill. quickly bee forage, bee hives, more heat, burns slowly, seedlings ornamental, soil conservation, 7. Cordia africana available, germinates easily, Muringa timber, furniture, shade, Lam. wildlings available, establishes construction, boundary naturally marking, ceremonies 8. Croton bee forage, fodder, soil dries quickly, seedlings available, macrostachyus Mutuntu conservation, shade, germinates easily, wildlings Delile medicine available, establishes naturally more heat, whitish ash, dries 9. Croton bee forage, soil conservation, quickly, burns slowly, seedlings megalocarpus Muciri medicine, shade, wind break, available, germinates easily, Hutch. life fence, charcoal wildlings available, establishes naturally, sprouts quickly more light, less smoke, dries 10. Argomulera fodder, bee forage, bee hives, Muthatha quickly, seedlings available, sprouts macrophylla shade quickly

Participants were asked to construct a seasonal calendar in order to better understand how the activities related to fuelwood resources change over the period of one year (Figure 7). A focus group of 13 people (8 women and 5 men) from several localities in Kiang‟ondu sub- location was formed. Participants agreed on the symbols to represent seasonal activities, which included land preparation, planting of food crops and trees, harvesting of crops, pruning (trees, coffee and tea), collecting or buying fuelwood, and storing fuelwood. Participants easily reached consensus during their construction of the calendar. They suggested that seasonal activities are similar for residents within the Kiang‟ondu sub-location. Residents reported that they carry out farming activities as their main occupation, producing goods for their subsistence and commercial use. They reported that most farming activities were done in relation to the two wet

27 seasons, including tilling land (February, August), planting (March, October), taking care of the crops (April, December) and harvesting (January, April, June and November. They planted trees during both the long (March) and short (October) rains preceded by their work in the seed bed nurseries, but pruning (January, July, August), collecting (February, March, April, June and October), buying (February, March, April, June and October), and storing (March, October) fuelwood varied over the year. Conveniently, management of fuelwood resource is integrated into other farming practices. For example, digging holes for planting trees was done when residents prepare land for planting other crops, pruned materials are spread on the farm to dry quickly, fuelwood plants were managed to provide shade for planted crops like potatoes before the rains and later mulch when leaves drop, and dried woody plant materials are removed from the farm during weeding and taken as people go home from their farms. Pruning ensures sunlight reaches other crops growing under trees, and was reported as a major way of obtaining fuelwood at the household level. Residents noted that they do not cut down trees for fuelwood since pruning ensures a supply of fuelwood in every season. Collecting fuelwood is more common five months of the year, when it is done in combination of other in-field management practices that include planting, harvesting, and weeding. Fuelwood sites and farming sites are almost always near by. Residents said that a lot of time was saved since no extra efforts were required to get fuelwood when they were busy on the farms. Those people living further from forest that do not have enough fuelwood trees in their farms said they supplement their supply by buying fuelwood. People said they bought fuelwood when the distance to fuelwood sources was long and their purchasing power was sufficient. They reported that buying is usually done before the onset of the two rains since those who sell keep accumulating their stock during the dry season. Fuelwood was either collected and / or bought at the end of each dry season to ensure a supply for the following wet season.

Figure 7: A group session at the Kiang’ondu market center where residents constructed a seasonal calendar using different symbols to show various activities that are carried out in a year. One of the participants is seen explaining what the symbols represented.

A discussion was held among participants at the market centre in order to understand their views on the influential contributions of local institutions in ensuring the sustainable management of fuelwood resources. Participants mentioned and described the contributions of nine institutions (Table 3), and they emphasized the role of farmers and community members as stakeholders in ensuring a sustainable fuelwood supply. The Forest Department was seen to play a major role in extraction and enrichment practices, while the Provincial Administration (e.g. police department), which was involved in extraction practices was thought to play the least important role. The Forestry Department provides tree nursery sites for the community, technical expertise on how to grow seedlings, transportation to the planting sites, and monitoring and after- care of planted tree seedlings. Both the Forestry Department and Local Council issues permits for the extraction and use of fuelwood resources for both domestic and commercial use in Mt Kenya forests. Schools, churches, coffee factories and the local council sometimes provide land

29 for tree plantings that are then tendered by community members and farmers. The Agricultural Department and Mt. Kenya Environmental Program (MKEP) supported enrichment by advising farmers and providing tree seedlings, respectively. Additionally, community members and farmers were identified as stakeholders in the local management of fuelwood resources. They play a fundamental role in coordinating and linking the nine local institutions.

Local institutions Extraction Enrichment practices practices Forestry Department ● ● Agricultural Department - ● Mt. Kenya Environmental Program (MKEP) - ● Local Council ● ● Schools ● ● Churches ● ● Coffee factories - ● Tea factories ● ●

Provincial Administration ● -

Eleven participants from Kariako and Mukungugu discussed daily activity charts during the second participatory meeting in the market center. On a sheet of flip chart paper, members of each community compiled together, chronologically, their typical day (Table 4 for Kariako location). Their daily activities included preparing fire, preparing meals, and obtaining fuelwood as directly associated with the use of fuelwood resources. They reported that collecting fodder was indirectly related to the extraction of fuelwood resources in two ways. First, in Kariako, fuelwood is collected together with fodder, especially in cases when they get fodder from the forest reserve. Second, in Mukungugu some fodder comes from plants like Lantana camara and Argomuellera macrophylla that are eventually used as fuelwood material after they are fed to livestock.

Table 4: Compiled daily activities chart prepared by participants from Kariako locality.

DAILY ACTIVITY CHART KARIAKO LOCALITY

MEN TIME WOMEN

Sleeping 5:00 am Wakes up to light fire Warms water for milking Men wake up 5:30 am Milking and weighing milk Takes milk to buying centre Given water for bathing 6:00 am Preparing children to go to school Served with tea for breakfast 7:00 am Cleaning the compound Attends livestock – feeding Picking tea leaves 8:00 am Preparing lunch Ten O’clock tea break 10:00 am Ten O’clock tea break Picking tea leaves 11:00 am Picking tea leaves Lunch time 12:00 Cooking lunch Lunch break and giving livestock water Taking tea to the buying centre 1:00 pm Attends livestock – milking and 2:00 pm Milking time feeding 3:00 pm Taking milk to the buying centre Looking for fire wood 4:00 pm Preparing supper Bath and leaves home to relax 5:00 pm Warming water for bathing outside with other men 6:00 pm Children help after school; fetching water, feeding goats and collecting fire wood 7:00 pm Cleaning compound, laundry, and dish washing Eating together with children before they study Arrive back home – go around the 9:00 pm Sends children to bed compound – livestock Setting the dinner table and serving dinner to the Taking dinner and 10:00 pm husband Going to sleep Preparing for the following day activities 11:00 pm Going to sleep

In both localities, women were reported to be more involved in fuelwood related activities, including preparing fire, warming water, cooking food, and obtaining fuelwood, while men were involved in collecting fodder. Children also collect fuelwood, and help with the planting and tendering of fuelwood trees planted in their homes and farmlands, especially in the evening when they get back home after school.

The photo illustrates in-field management practices (i.e. intercropping and pruning). Grevillea robusta tree, shown in this photo, reported was among the most preferred fuelwood tree and has many other material uses and good attributes. Participants said that pruning is usually done before the onset of the rainy season to open up farmland for food crops, and also to ensure enough fuelwood is available for the following wet season.

Mukungugu residents describe a close relationship between other material uses (e.g., fodder) and fuelwood. Fodder from some fuelwood species like Lantana camara and Argomuellera macrophylla were used as fuelwood after being fed to livestock. The stems seen in the front part of the photo are from an Argomuellera macrophylla tree that was found growing in the farmlands.

In this photo, a farmer from Kariako locality shows a young naturally established Grevillea robusta tree that was left to continue growing. Beside the seedling is a stump of an old tree that was used as fuelwood. Natural establishment of fuelwood trees was reported as a common way fuelwood trees are propagated in both localities. Size of the farm and the species of trees dictate the appropriate way of enrichment on people’s farmlands.

The woman in this photo, standing in her farmland, points to the direction of the forest reserve. Residents in Kariako locality who live near the forest reserve reported to rely on it for their fuelwood needs. Nevertheless, they still conserve trees in their homes and farmlands mainly for other materials uses.

This man is transporting fuelwood from the forest reserve on a bicycle. Good infrastructures (e.g. road network) were reported to encourage men to participate in fuelwood acquisition (and sometimes sales). The use of transportation modes such as wheelbarrows, bicycles and cars also promoted the commercialization of fuelwood.

Figure 8: Photos and captions that show some of the opportunities for a sustainable supply of fuelwood resources in Kiang’ondu sub-location.

Four transect walks were conducted on different dates, starting in Kariako locality and later in Mukungugu. A total of 10 people (6 women and 4 men) participated in Kariako locality, and 8 people (3 women and 5 men) participated in Mukungugu locality. These walks across the landscape where people reside and household interviews gave participants an opportunity to show how their farmlands are managed for fuelwood resources. Participants described and photographed just some of the opportunities for sustaining fuelwood resources and how all members of the community, women, men and children, participated in different ways (Figure 8). Those residents who manage steep slopes on their farmland planted more trees since the land

33 cannot be used to grow other crops efficiently. They said that this was also a good practice to curb soil erosion during the rainy season. Men reported their greater involvement with fuelwood resources as the distance to the sites increased, and as the activity requires more manual work. Infrastructure improvement was also noted to create convenience, encouraging the men to become more involved (Figure 8). They use diverse modes of transport such as wheelbarrows, bicycles and cars to obtain fuelwood materials from more distant locations.

Chapter six DISCUSSION OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS The purpose of this research was to gain a better understanding of extraction and more importantly enrichment practices that contribute to the fuelwood needs of local communities who live near Mt. Kenya Forest Reserve. Following a participatory learning approach, Chuka communities in Kiang‟ondu sub-location were asked to jointly investigate their local activities and perceptions on the use and conservation of fuelwood resources. The first research question examined the diversity of fuelwood resources extracted, conserved and planted by the communities, and the second question examined local views on the opportunities for ensuring a sustainable supply of fuelwood resources. In this discussion, I highlight how overall diversity is supported through extraction and enrichment practices, complexity in landscape as it is affected by and influences the distribution of fuelwood resources, the perceived opportunities for fuelwood sustainability, and how mixed participatory methods contribute toward the construction of a sense of a place in community-focused research.

Diversity in the Management of Fuelwood Resources Similar to other ethnobotanical surveys (e.g. Medley et al 2007 at Mount Kasigau, Kenya), participants in Kiang‟ondu sub-location named a high diversity of fuelwood trees by their fuelwood attributes, and knew these trees by their fuelwood attributes and other material and non-material uses. Lengkeek et al (2005) effectively engaged communities to report on the high diversity of trees in an agro-forestry ecosystem study at Meru in Kenya. These „human- modified systems‟ not only maintain a high diversity of trees but also many reasons for why these trees are present. How fuelwood trees are valued and managed depend more on their other material and non-material uses. Maundu and Tengnas, (2005) in the Useful Tree and Shrubs for Kenya describe trees by their common names, ecological zones where they usually grow, their uses and how they are propagated; most of the trees identified in Kiang‟ondu sub-location are among those described. Both native and non-native trees contribute greatly to the diversity of fuelwood resources in the Kiang‟ondu sub-location. For communities living close to the forest reserve, like Kariako, there is a higher use of native trees, including Cordia africana, Croton macrostachyus, Ehretia

35 cymosa, Myrianthus holstii, and Rauvolfia caffra. These tree species may be vulnerable to overuse, as noted in a study of biodiversity in Ramogi Hill in Kenya (Bagine 1998), but their use values also encourage community involvement in conservation efforts like at Mount Kasigau (Medley and Kalibo 2007). For communities living further, like Mukungugu, the use and planting of non-natives trees, including Acacia mearnsii, Eucalyptus grandis and Grevillea robusta increase as a way of meeting fuelwood needs, similar to Warner (2000) who reports on how households respond to scarcity of fuelwood in Western Kenya. Chuka communities enrich species in their farmlands through conservation and / or planting trees either for fuelwood purposes or for other material and non-material uses. These practices can and do contribute to diversity patterns as observed by Lengkeek et al (2005) in the study of tree density around Meru in Kenya. For example, non-native fruit trees, including Macadamia integrifolia, Mangifera indica and Persea americana, and non-native Grevillea robusta are widely distributed in the Kiang‟ondu sub-location because they are fast maturing, provide cash incomes to households, and are viable and valued sources of fuelwood. Individual choices on what species to extract, which species establish and are conserved, and which species to plant help to explain why tree species composition vary greatly from one locality to another.

Complex Landscapes The communities in the study area through extraction and enrichment practices, therefore, are constantly modifying diversity patterns across the natural landscape (see Tuxill and Nabhan 2001 for plant management), and accordingly constructing the cultural landscape (Sauer 1925). In fuelwood resource management practices, issues of where, when, how and who become important in understanding the diversity patterns and perceptions of resource sustainability. Rocheleau and Edmunds (1997) in their discussion of gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes show how men and women‟s roles differ in tree management practices. Similarly, gender roles related to fuelwood extraction and enrichment in the Kiang‟ondu sub-location are also influenced by many factors including geographic distribution patterns and other work activities in a given season or time. All community members are involved in obtaining or planting fuelwood. Communities in Andes, when discussing their organization of labor and space admit, “everyone is involved in everything” (Paulson 2005, 180). Rocheleau and Edmunds (1997), in the two case examples of nested and overlapping land-tenure

36 in Kenya (Siaya and Machakos Districts), illustrate that resource access and control can be gendered. In Kiang‟ondu sub-location, men are more involved when the distance increases, the infrastructure improves, and when extra-manual work is appropriated. Women reported their engagement when fuelwood management practices are associated with other farming activities like planting, weeding, and harvesting food crops. Sachs (1996), when looking at rural women, agriculture and environment discusses the direct roles of women in farmland management, which is noted to increase their roles in rural livelihood security and FAO (1989) maintains a strong focus on women when managing fuelwood resources. The findings from this study complicate these generalities with the conclusion that the roles of women and men in fuelwood depend on location, resources, and seasonal changes in work activities. As seen in Kariako locality (near Mt. Kenya Forest Reserve) and Mukungugu locality (approximately five kilometers from the boundary within the forest buffer zone), how people influence local resources is related to and to some extent dictated by location, emphasizing the importance of scale in resource analyses (Zimmerer and Bassett 2003) and the role of place (Zimmerer 2007). Mt. Kenya Forest Reserve, the protected landscape, influences access to an important source of fuelwood and validates their role in resource management decisions in the buffer zone (cf. Tuxill and Nabhan 2001 for protected area management). As the distance from the forest reserve increases, communities consider planting trees on their farmlands for fuelwood purposes. This conscious effort in promoting conservation improves communities‟ livelihoods (Homewood 2005). Maathai (2006, 136) refers to community members as “foresters without diplomas” and emphasizes how they illustrate people‟s adaptive resource behaviors to the conditions provided to them (see also Warner 2000; Leuscher and Khaleque 1987). In Kiang‟ondu sub-location, Mt. Kenya Forest Reserve and people‟s farmlands are integrated places for obtaining and planting a variety of fuelwood trees.

Opportunities for a Sustainable Fuelwood Supply The community members who participated in the study did not report a shortage of fuelwood; from their perspective, they are not fuelwood limited. Kariako residents, living near the forest reserve, report they have easy access to fuelwood and have the option of extracting or enriching their fuelwood supply (see GOK 2002 for the Kakamega District Development plan; FAO 1996 for forest resources assessment). Communities living further from the forest reserve

37 have easy access to fast growing trees seedlings for planting, they nurture the naturally established trees in their farmlands, or they purchase fuelwood from community members who live closer to the forest. Maathai (2006) describes similar experiences with local community groups working with the Green Belt Movement and employs an understanding of those diverse approaches toward local reforestation initiatives. Fuelwood attributes (the amount of heat and light produced, the density of the wood and how they combust) and in-field management practices (seedlings availability, sprouting quickly and naturally established) validate local understanding in ways that can directly boost local conservation activities. Management of fuelwood in the Kiang‟ondu sub-location is supported by local institutions that local participants can both name and describe. Kajember et al (2003) also discusses the roles of local institutions in the management of forest resources in East Usambara region in Tanzania. Political ecologists, while critiquing extra-local influences, also recognize the collaboration of local institutions and local stakeholders for collective action, for example Paulson and Escobar (2005), who support the “emergence of collective ethnic identities in Colombian Pacific Forest.” Wass (1995) in the IUCN report on Kenya‟s forests emphasizes the importance of collaborating with indigenous people to promote management and conservation of indigenous forests. This collaborative effort potentially creates a community-based fuelwood management strategy that better ensures a continuous supply of local resources. Dangol (2005) shows how participation can enhance decision-making processes about the use of local resources in Nepal. Community awareness that fuelwood is their main source of fuel energy like what Leuscher and Khaleque (1987) noted in home-based agro-forestry in Bangladesh, encourages people to be more responsible in ensuring sustainable extraction, and more enthusiastic about enriching fuelwood resources (Warner 2000; Rocheleau and Edmunds 1997). Local institutions like the Forestry and Agricultural Departments, Environmental Programs, local council, coffee and tea factories, and schools and churches in Kiang‟ondu sub-location support local fuelwood sustainability by facilitating activities such as pruning intercropped coffee trees on the farmlands and monitoring the collection of fuelwood from the forest reserve.

How Participatory? Participatory learning as a research approach can promote community involvement and support collaboration in resource assessment and management (see Campbell 2002; McCracken

38 and Narayan 1997). A most important goal is to shift local respondents from passive participants to collaborators in the research process and ultimately in the designation of a management strategy (see Tuxill and Nabhan 2001 in People, Plants and Protected Areas). The study employed many different participatory exercises similar to community-based participatory research explained by Maiter et al (2008) in their community mental health study in Canada and Pare et al 2009 in a study on “consumptive values and local perception of dry forest decline”. I used resource maps, also used by Rocheleau and Edmunds (1997) to understand gendered resources, transect walks, participant‟s observation (Hay 2000), ranking matrices, seasonal calendar, daily activities charts and semi-structured interviews (Hay 2000). A diversity of tools, as seen in Key Methods in Geography (Breitbart 2007; Laurier 2007; Longhurst 2007) contributes to a diversity of learning. Participatory learning approaches are important in forest resource research and particularly for community-focused resource management. For example, Agrawal (2001) used diverse participatory research tools to understand community forestry for South Asia, and also Dangol (2005) demonstrates its contributions to adaptive management in Southeast Asia. Mixed methods also triangulate among findings, helping validate the research approach and its outcomes (Olsen 2004), and adding depth to the learning process (Medley and Kalibo 2005). By engaging communities in the Kiang‟ondu sub-location through focus groups (sensu Cameron in Hay 2000) and household interviews, Chuka communities also learned about their diversity of fuelwood resources and their opportunities for a sustainable supply (cf. Campbell, 2002; McCracken and Narayan, 1997; Chambers, 1994). The mixed use of participatory research tools (see also Pare et al 2009; Slocum et al 1998) provided insight on the diversity of fuelwood resources and on the diversity of management strategies employed to ensure those resources. Fuelwood management is not simply extracting trees from protected forests or only collecting fuelwood from their farms. Fuelwood management involves many skills such as woody-plant propagation (e.g. raising seedlings and transplanting; e.g. Hoskins 1982), gender-specific fuelwood tasks (e.g. pruning of trees; Agrawal and Gibson 2001), and the involvement of local institutions and other stakeholders (e.g. reforestation and agro-forestry programs; Kajember et al 2003; Homewood 2005; Maathai 2006). Engaging local community members during the research process, shows how local knowledge and ecological analyses can be integrated to learn about „diversity‟ and „opportunities‟ viewed critical in any local management plan (Hoskins 1982).

Conclusion Communities in the Kiang‟ondu sub-location recognize that they have diverse fuelwood resources and diverse strategies to maintain a sustainable supply of fuelwood resources. They rely on both local and extra-local knowledge to better understand fuelwood diversity, extraction and enrichment practices, and how to best conserve fuelwood resources for a sustainable supply. All members of the community are sensitive to fuelwood resource issues and are involved in the management of fuelwood. Together, they contribute to a diversity of strategies across a complex and integrated landscape in the buffer zone around Mt. Kenya.

References

Adams WM, Hutton J. 2007. People, parks and poverty: Political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and Society 5(2):147-183. Albertson A. 1998. Northern Botswana Veterinary Fences: Critical Ecological Impacts. Maun: Okavango People‟s Wildlife Trust. Web-published at: http://folk.ntnu.no/skjetnep/owls/fences/index.html. Arnod JE, Kohlin G, Persson R. 2006. Wood fuels, livelihoods, and policy interventions: Changing perspectives. World Development 34(3):596-611. Agrawal B. 2001. Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: An analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development 29(10):1623-1648. Agrawal A, Arnod A. 1982. Introducing New Technologies: Try Asking the Women First. Report No 53. Centre for Science and Environment: New Delhi. Agrawal A, Gibson CC. 2001. Communities and the Environment: Ethnicity, Gender, and the State in Community-Based Conservation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Barrow E, Gichohi H, Infiled M. 2000. Rhetoric or Reality? A Review of Community Conservation Policy and Practice in East Africa. London: IUCN. Bagine RK. 1998. Biodiversity in Ramogi Hill, and its evolutionary significance. Africa Journal of Ecology 36:251-263. Blaikie P, Brookfield H. 1987. Land Degradation and Society. London: Methuen. Bess M. 1989. Kenya Charcoal Survey. Final Report and Annexes. The long range planning unit, Ministry of Planning and National Development: Nairobi. Bondi DO, Mugabe J. 1996. Land tenure systems and natural resources management. In: Juma, C,Ojwang, editors. In Land We Trust: Environment Private Property and Constitutional Change. Initiative publishers: Nairobi, pp. 85-116. Braidotti R, Charkiewicz E, Hausler S, Wieringa S. 1994. Women, the Environment and Sustainable Development: Towards a Theoretical Synthesis. Guildford, UK: Zed Books. Breitbart MM. 2007. Participatory research methods. In: Clifford NJ, Valentine G editors. Key Methods in Geography. London: SAGE Publication, pp. 161-178. Bryant RL, Bailey H. 1997. Third World Political Ecology. New York: Rout ledge. Burgess N, Hales JD, Underwood E, Dinerstein E, Olson D, Itoua I, Schipper J, Ricketts T, Newman, K. 2004. Terestrial Ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: A Conservation Assessment. Washington: Island Press. Bussmann R. 1996. Destruction and management of Mount Kenya‟s forests. Ambio 25:315-317. Byron N, Arnold M. 1999. What futures for the people of the tropical forests. World Development 27(5):789-805. Cameron J. 2000. Focussing on the focus group. In: Hay I, editor. Qualitative Research Methodologies in Human Geography. Victoria: Oxford University Press, pp 83-102. Campbell B. 2005. Changing protection policies and ethnographies of environmental engagement. Conservation and Society 3(2):280-322. Campbell J. 2002. A critical appraisal of participatory methods in development research. International Journal of Social Research and Methodology 5(1):19-29. Chambers R. 1994. The origins and practices of participatory rural appraisal. World Development 22(7):953-969.

Chavangi N. 1984. Cultural Aspects of Fuelwood Procurement in Kakamega District. Working Paper No 4. Nairobi: KFWP/Beijer Institute. Chen Y, Yang G, Sandra S, Yongzhong Y. 2010. Household biogas use in rural China: A study of opportunities and constraints. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14:545-549. Clifford NJ, Valentine G (editors). 2007. Key Methods in Geography. London: SAGE Publication. Dangol S. 2005. Participation and Decision-making in Nepal. In: Colfer CJ, editor. The Equitable Forest: Diversity, Community, and Resource Management. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, pp 54-69. DDP [District Development Plan]. 2002. Effective Management for Sustainable Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction. District focus for rural development strategy-2002-2008, Meru South, Kenya. Dunn K. 2000. Interviewing. In: Hay I, editor. Qualitative Research Methodologies in Human Geography. Victoria: Oxford University Press, pp 50-81. FAO [Food and Agricultural Organization]. 1996. Forest Resources Assessment 1990-Survery of Tropical Forest Covers and Study of Change Process. United Nation‟s Food and Agricultural Organization. Forestry Paper No 130: Rome. FAO [Food and Agricultural Organization]. 1989. Women’s Role in Forest Resource Management. Regional Wood Energy Development Program in Asia. Bangkok: FAO. Farwig N, Bohning GK, Bleher B. 2006. Enhanced seed dispersal of Prunus africana in fragmented and disturbed forests? Plant Animal Interaction 147:238-252. FOEI [Friends of the Earth International]. 2005. Poverty. Friends of the Earth International 108: Amsterdam. Web-published at: http://www.foei.org. Geist HJ, Lambin EF. 2002. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 52(2):143–150. Geller S, McConnel R, Wanyiri J. 2007. Linking National Forest Programs and Poverty Reduction Strategies, Kenya. Forest Department November 2007 report. Gichuki F. 1999. Threats and opportunities for mountain area development in Kenya. Ambio 28(5):430-435. GOK [Government of Kenya]. 2004. Government of Kenya, ministry of environment and natural resources. http://www.environment.go.ke/ GOK [Government of Kenya]. 2002. Kakamega District Development Dlan, 2002-2008. Nairobi, Kenya. Homewood K. 2005. Rural resources and local livelihoods in Africa. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hosier R. 1985. Energy use in rural Kenya: Household demand and rural transformation. The Beijer Institute and the Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. Hoskins M. 1982. Observations on Indigenous and Modern Agro- forestry Activities in West Africa. Paper presented on Problems of Agro-forestry: University of Freiburg. Irvin RA, Stansbury J. 2004. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Administrative Review 64(1):55-65 Kassam AK. 2009. View change through the prism of indigenous human ecology: Findings from the Afghan and Tajik Pamirs. Human Ecology 37:677-690. Kajember GG, Luoga EJ, Kijazi MS, Madipopo CS. 2003. The role of traditional institutions in the conservation of forest resources in East Usambara, Tanzania. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 10:101-107.

Kearns R. 2000. Being there: Research through Observing. In: Hay I, editor. Qualitative Research Methodologies in Human Geography. Victoria: Oxford University Press, pp 103- 121. KFWG [Kenya Forest Working Group]. 2005. Kenya Forest Working Group. http://www.kenyaforests.org/. Last edited March 2004. KWS [Kenya Wildlife Services]. 1999. Kenya Wildlife Service’s Aerial Survey of the Destruction of Mt Kenya, Imenti, and Ngare Ndare Forest Reserves. A report by Kenya Wildlife Service. KWS [Kenya Wildlife Services]. 2005. Kenya Wildlife Service‟s website http://www.kws.org/ Ketlogetswe C, Mothudi TH. 2009. Solar home systems in Botswana: Opportunities and constraints. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13:1675-1678. Kituyi E, Marufu L,Wandiga S, Jumba I, Andreae M, Helas G. 2001. Biofuel availability and domestic use patterns in Kenya. Biomass and Bioenergy 20:71–82. Krupnik I, Vakntin N. 2000. Indigenous knowledge in modern culture: Siderian Yupik ecological legacy in transition. Arctic Anthropology 34(1):236-252. Laurier E. 2007. Participant Observation. In: Clifford NJ, Valentine G editors. Key Methods in Geography. London: SAGE Publication, pp 133-148. Lengkee AG, Kindt R, Maesen LJG, Simons AJ, Oijen DCC. 2005. Tree density and germplasm source in agroforestry in Meru, Mount Kenya. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 52:709-721. Leuscher WA, Khaleque K. 1987. Homestead agro-forestry in Bangladesh. Agro-forestry Systems 5:139-151. Longhurst R. 2007. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In: Clifford NJ, Valentine G editors. Key Methods in Geography. London: SAGE Publication, pp 117-131. Mackenzie A. 2005. Land tenure and biodiversity: An exploration in the political ecology of Murang‟a District, Kenya. In: Paulson S, Gezon LL, editors. Political Ecology across Spaces, Scales, and Social Groups, London: Rutgers, pp 94 -112. Maiter S, Simich L, Jacobson N, Wise J. 2008. Reciprocity: An ethic community-based participatory action research. Action Research 6(3):305-325. Malhotraa P, Neudoer CR. 2004. A participatory process for designing cooking energy with women. Biomass and Bio-energy (26):147-169. Martin, GJ, Hoare, AL, Leakey R. 1999. Cultivating the forest: development of agroforestry systems. People and Plants Handbook. Issue No 5, Paris: UNESCO. Matiru V. 2002. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Forest Landscape Restoration Country Report, Kenya: IUCN. Maundu P, Tengnas B. 2005. Useful Trees and Shrubs of Kenya. Technical Handbook No. 35. World Agro-forestry Center - Eastern and Central Africa Regional Program: Nairobi. McCracken JR, Narayan D. 1997. Participatory Rural Appraisal Module III. Participatory Tools and Techniques: A Resources Kit for Participation and Social Assessment: World Bank. Mbuvi D, Boon E. 2008. The livelihood potential of non-wood forest products: The case of Mbooni Division in Makueni District, Kenya. Environment Development Sustainability: 1- 15. Medley KE, Kalibo HW, with Mwandoe Z, Mwamodo M, Zungi J, Mwatate D, Njege N, Muasya J, Gachathi FN, Mungai G, Mwachala G. 2007. Ethnobotanical survey of „wild‟ woody plant resources at Mount Kasigau, Kenya. Journal of East African Natural Historyu 96(2):149-186.

Medley KE, Kalibo HW. 2007. Global localism: Recentering the research agenda for biodiversity conservation. Natural Research Forum 31:151-161. Medley KE, Kalibo HW. 2005. An ecological framework for participatory ethnobotanical research at Mt. Kasigau, Kenya. Field Methods 17(2):302-314. Meinzen-Dick RS, Brown LR, Feldstein HS, Quisumbing AR. 1997. Gender, property rights and natural resources. World Development, 25(8):303-1315. Mogaka H, Simons G, Turpie J, Emerton L, Karanja F. 2001. Economic Aspects of Community Involvement in Sustainable Forest Management in Eastern and Southern Africa. IUCN Policy Brief. Ndegwa LM. 2005. Monitoring the Status of Mt. Kenya Forest using Multitemporal Landsat Data. MA thesis. Miami University, Oxford OH. Niemela T, Pellikka P. 2004. Zonation and characteristics of the vegetation on Mt. Kenya. In: Pellikka P. Ylhaisi J, Clark B, editors. Taita Hills and Kenya-Seminar, Reports and Journal of a Field Excursion to Kenya. Expedition reports of the Department of Geography, University of Helsinki 40:14-20. Helsinki. Olsen W. 2004. Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. Development in Sociology: 1-30. Ojany F. 1993. Mount Kenya and its environs: A review of the interaction between people and mountains in an equatorial setting. Mountain Research and Development 13:305-309. Ojany F, Ogendo R. 1973. A Study in Physical and Human Geography. Longman: Kenya. O'Keefe P, Ambio P. 1985. Fuelwood in Kenya, crisis and opportunity. Energy in Developing Countries 14(4/5): 220-224. Paulson, S. 2007. Gendered practices and landscapes in the Andes: The shape of asymmetrical exchanges, In: Paulson S, Gezon LL, editors. Political Ecology across Spaces, Scales, and Social Groups, London: Rutgers, pp 174-195. Paulson S. Escobar A. 2007. The emergence of collective ethic identities and alternative political ecologies in the Colombian Pacific Rainforest, In: Paulson S, Gezon LL, editors. Political Ecology across Spaces, Scales, and Social Groups, London: Rutgers, pp 257-277. Pare S, Savadogo P, Tigabu M, Ouadha JM, Oden PC. 2009. Consumptive values and local perception of dry forest decline in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Environment Development Sustainability: 1-16. Peet R, Watts M (editors). 1996. An Age of Market Triumphalism. Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. Second Edition. London: Routledge. Pijanowski BC, Iverson LR, Drew CA, Bulley HNN, Rhemtulla JM, Wimberly MC, Bartsch A, Peng J. 2009. Addressing the interplay of poverty and the ecology of landscape: A grand challenge topic for landscape ecologists? Landscape Ecology 11:1-12. Pokorny B. Cayres, G, Nunes W. 2005. Improving collaboration between outsiders and communities in the Amazon. In: Colfer CJ, editors. The Equitable Forest: Diversity, Community, and Resource Management. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, pp 229- 241. Ramadhani T, Otsyina R, Franzel S. 2002. Improving household incomes and reducing deforestation using rotational woodlots in Tabora District, Tanzania. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 89:229–239. Razakamarina N, Ford R, Sodikoff GM, Wood S, Toto E, Laris P. 1996. Negotiating Conservation: Reflections on Linking Conservation and Development in Madagascar. Case study on interim thoughts on collaborative approaches to sustainable livelihoods and

resources conservation around the Andasibe / Mantadia protected areas, Madagascar. Andasibe: Madagascar. Robbins P. 2004. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction to Geography. London: Blackwell. Rocheleau DE. 2007. Political ecology in the key of policy: From chains of explanation to webs of relation. Geoforum 39:716-727. Rocheleau DE, Edmunds D. 1997. Women, men and trees: Gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes. World Development 25(8):1351-1371. Rocheleau DE, Thomas SB, Wangari E (editors). 1996. Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences. London: Routledge. Sauer CO. 1925. The Morphology of Landscape. University of California Publications in Geography 2(2):19-54 Sachs CE. 1996. Gendered fields: Rural women, agriculture, and environment. Oxford, UK: Westview Press. Shiva V. 1988. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development. London: Zed Books Ltd. Slocum R, Wichart L, Rocheleau D, Thomas-Slayter B. 1998. Power, Process and Participation: Tools for Change. London: Intermediate Technology Development Group Publishing. Speck H. 1986. Soils of Mt. Kenya area: Their formation, ecological and agricultural significance (with soil maps). In: Winiger, M. editor. Mount Kenya Area. Contributions to Ecology and Socio-economy. Geographica Bernensia. African Studies Series 1:47-72. Thomas-Slayter B, Rocheleau D (editors). 1995. Gender, Environment, and Development in Kenya: A Grassroots Perspective. London: Lynne Rienner Publisher. Tuxill J, Nabhan GP. 2001. People, Plants and Protected Areas: A Guide to In Situ Management. London: Earthscan Publications. Vanderpost C. 2006. Pathways of human sprawl in wilderness buffer zones. Population Environment 27:285–306. Vayda AP, Walters BB. 1999. Against political ecology. Human Ecology 27(1):167-180. Walker PA. 2003. Reconsidering „regional‟ political ecologies: Toward a political ecology of the rural American West. Progress in Human Geography 27(1):7-24. Maathai W. 2006. Unbowed: A Memoir. New York: Random House. Warner K. 2000. Rural households‟ response to fuelwood scarcity around Western Kenya Kakamega. Forestry and SustainableLlivelihoods 51:3-12. Wass P. 1995. Kenya’s Indigenous Forests: Status, Management and Conservation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN- The World Conservation Union and Oversees Development Administration (UK). Webber L, Ison RL. 1995. Participatory rural appraisal design: Conceptual and process issues. Agricultural Systems 47(1):107-131. Zimmerer KS. 2007. Cultural ecology (and political ecology) in the „environmental borderlands‟: Exploring the expanded connectivities within geography. Progress in Human Geography 31(2):227-244. Zimmerer K, Bassett T. 2003. Political Ecology, an Integrative Approach to Geography and Environment-Development Studies. London: The Guilford Press. Zimmerer KS. 1994. Human geography and the new ecology: The prospect and promise of integration. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84(1):108-125.

Appendix I: List of the of the fuelwood plants in local (Chuka) names as derived from Meru and Kikuyu languages. Non-natives to the region are identified with asterisk. genus family CHUKA MERU KIKUYU *Acacia mearnsii De Wild. Leguminosae MUTHANDUKU MUTHANDUKU MUTHANDUKU Albizia gummifera (J.F.Gmel.) C.A.Sm. Leguminosae MUKORWE MUKURUWE MUKURUE Argomuellera macrophylla Pax Euphorbiaceae MUTHATHA MUTHATHA MUTHATHA Bersama abyssinica Fresen. Melianthaceae MTONG'OMWE MUTHANDATHANDE MUTHANDI Bridelia micrantha (Hochst.) Baill. Euphorbiaceae MUKWEGO MUKWEGWE MUKOIGO Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. Leguminosae MUCUGU NCHUGU NJUGU *Calliandra calothyrsus Meissn. Leguminosae *Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze Theaceae MUCANI MUCANI MUCHANI *Coffea arabica L. Rubiaceae MUHUA MUHUA MUHUA Cordia africana Lam. Boraginaceae MURINGA MURINGA MURINGA Croton macrostachyus Delile Euphorbiaceae MUTUNTU MUTUNTU MUTUNDU Croton megalocarpus Hutch. Euphorbiaceae MUCHIRI MUKINDURI MUKINDURI Ehretia cymosa Thonn. Boraginaceae MUREMBU MUREMBU MUREMBU Eriobotrya javanica (Thunb) Lindl. Rosaceae MUNOA MUBURUTI MUHARU *Eucalyptus grandis Hill ex Maiden Myrtaceae MUNYUA MAI MUBAU MUBAU *Eucalyptus saligna Sm. Myrtaceae MUNYUA MAI MUBAU MURINGAMU *Grevillea robusta R.Br. Proteaceae MUKIMA MUBARITI MUKIMA Landolphia buchananii (Hallier f.) Stapf Apocynaceae MUNAKAMWE MUUNGU MUGU *Lantana camara L. Verbenaceae MUCHIMORO MUCHIMORO MUCHIMORO

*Macadamia integrifolia Maiden & Betche Proteaceae MUKANDAMIA MUKANDAMIA MUKANDAMIA *Mangifera indica L. Anacardiaceae MWEMBE MWIEMBE MUEMBE Markhamia lutea (Benth.) K.Schum. Bignoniaceae MUHUHU MUNG'UANI MUU Myrianthus holstii Engl. Cecropiaceae MUCUCA MUTUJA MUTUYA *Persea americana Mill. Lauraceae MUKONDOBIA MUKONDOBIA MUKOROBIA Prunus africana (Hook.f.) Kalkman Rosaceae MUIRIA MWERIA MUIRI Rauvolfia caffra Sond. Apocynaceae MUTHIRA MUTUU MWERERE Rothmannia urcelliformis (Hiern) Robyns Rubiaceae MUKOMBOKOMBO MUKOMERE MUKOMBOKOMBO Senna didymobotrya (Fresen.) Irwin & Barneby Leguminosae MWENO MWINU MWINU Syzygium guineense (Willd.) DC. Myrtaceae MURIRU MURIRU MUKOE Trimeria grandifolia (Hochst. ) Warb. Flacourtiaceae MUVYEVI MUETHU MUHETHU Vernonia galamensis (Cass.) Less. Compositae MUCOBO MULAMBU MUGIO Vitex keniensis Turrill Verbenaceae MUBURU MUURU MUHURU

APPENDIX II: Fuelwood attributes and other uses of trees confirmed as fuelwood in Kiang'ondu sub- location. Non-native species to the region are identified with asterisk.

Other Material uses and Names of the trees Fuelwood Attributes Environmental Services local (Chuka) genus Muthanduku *Acacia mearnsii hard woody plant, more heat, poles, tools handles, medicine, De Wild. burns slowly, hard to break, fast bee forage, ornamental, growing, quality charcoal, white windbreak, dye ash Mukorwe Albizia gummifera soft woody tree, burns slowly, timber, construction, fodder, (J.F.Gmel.) more smoke, less heat, dries shade, nitrogen fixation C.A.Sm. slowly, bad charcoal, grey ash, sprouts easily Muthatha Argomuellera soft woody tree, burns quickly, fodder, bee forage, macrophylla less smoke, less heat, more ornamental, soil conservation, light, dries faster, poor charcoal, windbreak, tool handles white ash, sprouts easily Mtong'omwe Bersama soft woody tree, light wood, timber, construction, bee hives, abyssinica Fresen. evergreen, more heat, more carving, medicine, bee forage, smoke, good charcoal, grey ash shade, ornamental, mulch, dye Mukwego Bridelia hard woody tree, evergreen, timber, construction, poles, micrantha quality charcoal, more heat and tool handles, carving, edible (Hochst.) Baill. light, grows slowly, less smoke, fruits, medicine, fodder, bee white ash, dries slowly, sprout forage, shade, mulch, river easily banks, dye Mucugu Cajanus cajan (L.) soft shrub, burns quickly, less edible fruits, medicine, fodder, Millsp. heat, more light, less smoke, shade, ornamental, mulch, dries quickly, light wood, breaks fibre, roofing, gum, dye, live easily fence, ceremonial *Calliandra shrub, soft wood, burns quickly, fodder, bee forage, calothyrsus more light, less heat, fast ornamental, nitrogen fixation, Meissn. growing, easily broken, soil conservation evergreen, dries quickly Mucani *Camellia sinensis shrub, burns quickly, more light, cash crop, mulch, beverage (L.) Kuntze grows fast, evergreen, less smoke, sprouts easily, grey ash, light Muhua *Coffea arabica L. more heat, good charcoal, hard cash crop, construction, to break, grows fast, dries beverage, bee forage, mulch, quickly, more smoke, sprouts soil conservation, windbreak easily, white ash Muringa Cordia africana hard woody tree, sheds leaves, timber, bee hives, carving, Lam. less heat, more smoke, breaks edible fruits, medicine, fodder, easily, dries slowly, grey ash, bee forage, shade, ornamental, sprouts easily mulch, soil conservation, weaving fibre, gum, boundary mark

Mutuntu Croton soft woody tree, burns slowly, timber, construction, poles, macrostachyus less heat and light, grows fast, tool handles, medicine, fodder, Delile more smoke, dries slowly, grey bee forage, mulch, soil ash, light wood conservation, ceremonial Muciri Croton hard woody tree, quality timber, construction, poles, megalocarpus charcoal, dries slowly, more medicine, bee forage, shade, Hutch. smoke, burns slowly, more heat, ornamental, mulch, live fence, less light, sprouts easily boundary marking Murembu Ehretia cymosa soft woody tree, less heat, more poles, tool handles, medicine, Thonn. smoke, easily broken, dries bee forage, ornamental slowly, light wood, evergreen, grey ash Munoa Eriobotrya hard woody tree, good charcoal, poles, carving, edible fruits, javanica (Thunb) more heat and light, dries syrup, bee forage, shade, Lindl. slowly, evergreen, grows fast, ornamental, mulch, windbreak white ash, sprouts easily, hard to break Munyua mai *Eucalyptus hard woody tree, burns quickly, timber, construction, poles, grandis Hill ex fast growing, more heat and medicine, bee forage, Maiden light, evergreen, less smoke, windbreak, cosmetic dries quickly, sprouts easily, brownish ash, light Munyua mai *Eucalyptus hard woody tree, burns quickly, timber, construction, poles, saligna Sm. fast growing, more heat and medicine, bee forage, shade, light, evergreen, less smoke, windbreak dries quickly, sprouts easily, brownish ash, light wood Mukima *Grevillea soft woody plant, burns slowly, timber, construction, poles, robusta R.Br. less heat and light, dries slowly, fodder, bee forage, shade, more smoke, poor charcoal, ornamental, mulch, soil grey ash conservation, windbreak Munakamwe Landolphia burns quickly, shrub, more heat, edible fruits, medicine, fodder, buchananii soft stems, light, grows slowly, fibre, roofing, gum (Hallier f.) Stapf evergreen, less smoke, dries slowly, white ash Micimoro Lantana camara hard shrub, evergreen, more walking sticks, fodder, live L. heat and light, dries quickly, less fence, ornamental, bee forage smoke, white ash, sprouts easily, hard to break Mukandamia *Macadamia hard woody tree, good charcoal, timber, construction, edible integrifolia more heat and light, dries fruits, bee forage, shade, Maiden & Betche quickly, evergreen, grows ornamental, windbreak, slowly, grey ash, more smoke, cosmetic hard to break

Mwembe *Mangifera indica soft woody tree, burns slowly, timber, construction, carvings, L. more heat, fast growing, more edible fruits, fodder, bee smoke, dries slowly, sprouts forage, shade, ornamental, easily, grey ash, evergreen mulch, soil conservation, windbreak, medicine Muu Markhamia lutea soft woody tree, burns slowly, timber, construction, poles, (Benth.) K.Schum. more heat, fast growing, more tool handles, carvings, light, less smoke, dries quickly, medicine, bee forage, shade, sprouts easily, white ash ornamental, mulch, soil conservation, windbreak, ceremonial, boundary marking

Mucuca Myrianthus holstii more heat, hard to break, grows carvings, edible fruits, fodder, Engl. slowly, dries slowly, more shade, mulch, soil conservation smoke, white ash, heavy

Mukondobia *Persea soft woody tree, evergreen, timber, construction, edible americana Mill. burns slowly, more smoke, dries fruits, bee forage, shade, slowly, sprouts easily, breaks cosmetic easily, less heat and light, poor charcoal, grey ash

Muiria Prunus africana hard woody tree, burns slowly, timber, construction, poles, (Hook.f.) Kalkman more heat and light, hard to carvings, medicine, bee forage, break, grows slowly, more shade, ornamental, mulch, smoke, dries slowly, quality windbreak charcoal, white ash

Muthura Rauvolfia caffra soft woody tree, burns quickly, timber, construction, beehives, Sond. dries slowly, grows slowly, more carvings, medicine, bee forage, smoke, good charcoal, white shade, ornamental ash, light wood

Mukombokombo Rothmannia hard woody tree, burns slowly, timber, construction, poles, urcelliformis more heat, good charcoal, tool handles, medicine, bee (Hiern) Robyns grows slowly, evergreen, less forage, shade, ornamental, smoke, dries slowly, white ash, mulch, soil conservation, hard to break, heavy windbreak, ceremonial, boundary marking

Mweno Senna shrub, more heat, hard to break, timber, construction, poles, didymobotrya fast growing, evergreen, more medicine, bee forage, shade, (Fresen.) Irwin & smoke, white ash, dries quickly, ornamental, mulch, soil Barneby sprouts easily conservation, windbreak, dye

Muriru Syzygium hard woody tree, burns slowly, timber, construction, poles, guineense (Willd.) more heat, grows slowly, tool handles, edible fruits, DC. evergreen, less smoke, dries medicine, bee forage, dye slowly, white ash, hard to break

Muvyevi Trimeria fast growing, soft woody tree, poles, medicine, fodder, bee grandifolia ( more smoke, burns quickly, less forage, shade, ornamental, Hochst. ) Warb. heat; dries quickly, poor mulch, soil conservation, dye, charcoal, grey ash, light wood insecticide

Mucobo Vernonia shrub, burns fast, evergreen, edible leaves, medicinal, galamensis dries quickly, grey ash, easy to ornamental, live fence, tooth (Cass.) Less. break brush

Muburu Vitex keniensis soft woody tree, burns slowly, timber, construction, poles, Turrill generates more heat, hard to edible fruits, shade, break, dries slowly, produces a ornamental, windbreak lot of smoke, sprouts easily, burns to grey ash