The Effects of Utilization of Tree Products on Conservation of Kaya Mudzimuvya Forest in Kilifi County, Kenya

THE EFFECTS OF UTILIZATION OF TREE PRODUCTS ON CONSERVATION OF KAYA MUDZIMUVYA FOREST IN KILIFI COUNTY, KENYA

Christine Adongo (BSc Environmental Studies, Science) N50/10117/08

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Master of Environmental Science in the School of Environmental Studies of Kenyatta University

Date of submission …… MAY 2014 ………

DECLARATION

This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other University.

Candidate signature:………………………………… Date: …………………………

Prof. S.G Njuguna

Signature: ………………………………………… Date …………………… …………… Department of Environmental Sciences

DR. P.T Obade

Signature: …………………………………………Date:………. ………………………… Department of Environmental Sciences

ii DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my son Kimi. Thank you for your strength, patience and enduring long hours, sometimes weeks without me.

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My gratitude goes to all those who helped shape and support this research in one-way or another. The department of Environmental Science was of great help and service throughout this period. I particularly appreciate the support, guidance and commitment of my two supervisors: Prof Stephen S.G Njuguna and Dr Paul Thomas Obade, without whom, I would not have completed this study. Staff of the National Museums of Kenya both in Mombasa and Rabai was always of great assistance to me in the field and in accessing information from their database. I also recognize Marie Pierre Ballarin (IRD) for the opportunity to be part of the CORUS project My appreciation also goes to the inhabitants of my study areas in Rabai, who were always ready to help me learn their ways of life and also shared their time with me. I am indepted to Mr Mukoba who welcomed me into his family and supported me during the entire duration of my field work. I would not have collected any data without the help of my guide and translater Mr Tsungula, from whom I acquired remendous knowledge on local medicinal plants and practices. Daniel Garero, thank you for letting me in on those undisclosed rituals. To all my family and friends, thank you for your support and patience. Sylvain I will always remember you for the great sacrifice.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………….vi LIST OF FIGURES …………………..………………………………………………………………………………………vii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACCRONYMS ………………………………………………………………………………vii ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..ix

CHAPTER ONE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....1 Introduction 1.1 Background to the Study…………………………………………………………………………………………….1 1.2 Problem Statement…………………………………………………………………………………………………….3 1.3 Research Questions…………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 1.4 Objectives……………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………5 1.5 Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 1.6 Justification……………………………………………………..………………………………………………………...6 1.7 Significance……………………………………………………………………………………………………….………..6 1.8 Assumptions and Limitations………………………………………………………………………………………7 1.9 Scope of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 1.9.1 Definition of terms….…………………………………………………………………………………………….8

CHAPTER TWO…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….10 Literature review………..………..……………………………………………………………………………………...10

CHAPTER THREE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23 Research Methodology……....………………..……………………………………………………………………….23 3.1 Study area………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………..23 3.3 Conceptual framework……………………………………………………………………………………………….27 3.2 Research design……………………………..…………………………………………………………………………..28 3.3 Population and Sample size…………………………………………………………………………..……………28 3.4 Data collection……………………………………………………………………………………………………………29 3.5 Data analysis and Presentation….…………………………………………………..…………………………..31

CHAPTER FOUR……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….33 Data Analysis Presentation and Interpretation………...…………………………………………………….33 4.1 Response rates and respondents characteristics…………………………………………………………33

CHAPTER FIVE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….60 Summary of findings, Conclusions and Reccomendations………….………..………………………….60 5.2 Summary of findings……………………………………………………………………………………………………..63 5.3 Discussion of findings…………………………………………………………………………………………………….67 5.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..82 5.5 Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..84 5.6 Reference list ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..87 APPENDIX: Household questionnaire………………………………………………………95

v LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Characteristics of Eastern Africa hotspots Table 3.1: List of Villages sampled during the household survey for this study and corresponding sample sizes/frequency calculated based on the total number of households per village. Table 4.1 List of Villages in Rabai Location from where the respondents were drawn with corresponding total number of households/village Table 4.2: indicates the income generating activities that the respondents are involved Table 4.3: Respondents’ Duration of stay within the Rabai location Table 4.4: Type of housing owned by the respondents, showing makuti as the dominant type.

Table 4.5: Results of interviews of indigenous knowledge of Species of medicinal significance extracted from Kaya Mudzimuvya with corresponding use. Table 4.6: shows weekly, monthly and yearly estimates of the average quantity of wood fuel collected from Kaya Mudzimuvya, that collected from on-farm and quantity of wood fuel purchased locally per households Table 4.7: Shows some of the preferred species for different uses and specifically targeted species for the same uses by households. Table 4.8: Table showing the percentage changes in the forest cover for Kaya Mudzimuvya between 1990 and 2011 Table 4.9: Table showing percentage changes in land cover/land use in the study area between 1990 and 2011 Table 4.10: Table showing changes in NDVI In Kaya Mudzimuvya between 1995 and 2011

vi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Estimates of forest fragmentation. Figure 3.1: Location of study site (Kaya Mudzimuvya) and neigbouring Mwache forest within the Kaloleni division. Figure 3.2: Dorminant livelihood sustenance activities within the study County : Kaloleni division in which Kaya Mudzimuvya is situated engages mostly in formal employment, casual labour and bussiness. Figure 3.3: socio-economic and biophysical factors in society-environment links in rural areas. Figure 3.4: Summary of GIS process followed from acquisition of images to analysis.

Figure 4.1: Gender representation of the respondents Figure 4.2: Age composition of the respondents involved during this survey. Figure 4.3: The highest level of formal education attained by the respondents Figure 4.4: Variation in sampled household sizes in Rabai location. Figure 4.5. Indicating households’ tree products demand from Kaya Mudzimuvya, showing that wood fuel is on highest demand in comparison to poles and medicine. Figure 4.6: Households’ sources of wood fuel giving an indication that most wood-fuel for domestic use is collected directly from the Kaya forest.

Figure 4.7: shows the responses received from the respondents regarding the level of importance of the Kaya forest to them.

Figure 4.8: Respondents’ reasons for their perceptions of the Kaya to justify results of Figure Figure 4.9: Gender Vis a Vis perception on importance of the Kaya forest. Figure 4.10: Shows the Status of Kaya Mudzimuvya according to respondents Figure 4.11: Level of education vis a vis selective cutting of tress species for specific uses Figure 4.12: Graph showing the trend in the forest cover for Kaya Mudzimuvya between 1990 and 2011 Figure 4.13: Graph showing changes in land cover/land use in the study area between 1990 and 2011 Figure 4.14: Maps showing changes in land cover and land use in the study area between 1990 and 2011 Figure 4.15: Graph showing changes in NDVI in Kaya Mudzimuvya forest between 1995 and 2011 Figure 4.16: Map of NDVI changes in Kaya Mudzimuvya forest (1995) Figure 4.17: Map of NDVI changes in Kaya Mudzimuvya forest (2011)

vii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACCRONYMS

CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity. UNESCO: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural organization. FAO: Food and Agriculture organization. WWF:World Wildlife fund for Nature. IUCN: International Union for Conservation. CEPF: Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. NMK: National Museums of Kenya. GIS: Geographical Information Systems. UNEP: United Nations Environment Program. ICCROM: International Centre for the study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property. ROI: Region Of Interest.

MadCat: Mapping Device-Change Analysis tool. FAO LCCs: Land Cover Classification System legend. SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Scientists.

NDVI: Normalized Difference vegetation index. COM: Community ownership and management.

KNBS: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. CMC: Church Missionary Society. ACK: Anglican Church of Kenya. NEMA: National Environment Management Authority. CFCU: Coastal Forests Conservation Unit.

viii

ABSTRACT

Kaya Mudzimuvya is one of the Mijikenda sacred forests along the Kenya Coast, whose sanctity has, to some extent contributed to its conservation. However, due to gradual detachment from the Kaya culture and attempts to sustain livelihoods, these forests have continually undergone degradation. Consequently, this has tremendously reduced the forest cover thus resulting in the loss of biodiversity. This study sought to establish the relationship between the social, cultural and economic situation of the dependant community Vis a Vis the tree products utilization trends of this unique forest. This study also attempted to link these utilization trends with the current status of Kaya Mudzimuvya and to determine the land use and cover changes happening in this forest over the past two decades. Data collection methodology included: ground truthing (surface observation, taking geographical coordinates and field survey), interview schedules, questionnaires, GIS and remote sensing. Landsat TM images were acquired for the periods 1990, 1995, 2003 and 2011 for land use, land-cover and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) analysis. Both inferential (correlation, Chi square) and differential statistics were used during data analysis after which results of the analysis was presented as appropriate in tables, graphs, frequency polygons and in descriptive format. Findings of this study demonstrated interrelationship between the natural, social, cultural and political systems, and how weakening cultural systems coupled with accommodation of other “alien” cultures and spiritual (Christianity and Islam) values, economic instability as well as environmental changes have affected Kaya Mudzimuvya forest. Age (Chi-value= .712, Phi and Cramer’s strength of association test = .807), religious belief and duration of stay in the locality were found to influence respondents’ attachment to the Kaya forest the most. Household size (Chi square value of .683 and Phi and Cramer’s V of .685) determined the quantity of wood-fuel products harvested, while Chi square value of .683 and Phi and Cramer’s V of .685 indicated a strong positively significant association between income and energy sources diversity of the households. GIS analysis indicated reduction in the size of the Kaya (-66.5%), decrease in cropland (-29.43) and river-bed (-8.52), and increase in human settlement and bare land (441.57%). Despite diminishing floral diversity in Kaya Mudzimuvya, this study identified thirty three medicinal flora species harvested and utilized by the residents to remedy a variety of ailments both physical and spiritual/supernatural. The greatest challenge observed in the management and sustainability of Kaya Mudzimuvya, was implementation of management opportunities that not only uphold cultural values and maintain ecological functions of the forest but also minimizes restrictions of the local populace from resources, while at the same time providing alternative options that reduce over-dependence on the natural resources within the Kaya in order to ease pressure on the already vulnerable sacred forest. This study concluded that although Kaya Mudzimuvya is an important conservation site that is also endowed with cultural significance, it has been, and is continually being degraded as a result of unsustainable products extraction from it. This was attributed to several factors including increasing population and other socio-economic factors, which were found to influence the resource use trends and ultimately the forest itself. These factors included: Gender, age, Household size and income. This study has provided both stakeholder including community recommendations as well as gaps for further research. These recommendations include community involvement in conservation by stakeholders, support for non-wood products utilization initiatives, focus on rural poverty reduction by the County government, education and awareness creation.

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to study

The Kenya Kaya forests consist of eleven separate forest sites spread over about 200 km along the coast, and belong to the Mijikenda community. These Bantu speakers occupy the Kenya coast and hinterland, in the four contiguous administrative Counties of Kilifi, Mombasa and

Kwale. They consist of nine sub-groups namely, the: Giriama, Chonyi, Kauma, Kambe, Ribe,

Jibana, Rabai, Digo and Duruma, who share common dialects and very similar culture. Origin of the Mijikenda is subject to considerable debate. Based on the work of Spear (1978), oral narratives collected in the 1970s, is of migration from a Northern homeland (Singwaya or

Shungwaya) said to have been located somewhere to the North of the modern Kenya – Somalia border. Spear’s informants told of how their ancestors left their original settlements and migrated southwards due to threats from the neighbouring Galla people, drought and famine. They established settlements called kaya (makaya plural) on hilltops and inside thick forests. Each

Kaya had entrances that were heavily guarded and were further protected by buried charms with the power to exert negative forces on transgressors (Githito, 1998). Helm (2002) suggested two alternative scenarios, neither of which includes the idea of an en masse migration of the

Mijikenda from Shungwaya in the 16th century AD. Besides, recent archaeological findings

(Kiriama, 2010) provide evidence of Kaya occupation earlier than the documented 16th century.

Whether it is the Mijikenda or a different group that occupied these Makaya during this period earlier than the documented 16th century is still indeterminate.

Kaya forest patches are small in size, ranging from 10 ha to 400 ha, and are what remains of a much more extensive forest, which was mostly conserved by cultural norms. Depending on the forest type that previously dominated the area, the forests are composed of very tall and thick vegetation with creepers and undergrowth dominated by coastal forest species such as

Trachylobium, Julbernadia, Antiaris, Cynnometra and Bombax (Robertson and Luke, 1993). To date, over 50 Kayas have been identified in the afore-mentioned contiguous counties. Most Kaya forests tend to be located at strategic sites on hilltops for security reasons, however, few are found in river valleys and others on flat land. These Kayas, said to have been abandoned by the

1940s (Spear, 1978), are now regarded as the abodes of ancestors and are revered as sacred sites and, as such, are maintained by councils of elders. According to UNESCO (2008), Most of these

Kaya sites (1538 ha), including Kaya Mudzimuvya, which is the study area for this research, are now inscribed as world heritage sites.

The vegetation types of the Kayas vary from one place to another, depending on the type of forest or woodland that originally dominated the area (Robertson and Luke, 1993). The latest estimates show that Kayas constitute about 5% of the remaining coastal closed forest cover of

Kenya, estimated to be about 67000 ha, yet when an assessment was done for plant biodiversity values, 7 out of the 20 sites with the highest conservation status were Kaya forests (Githito,

2001). Human dispersion and migration, as well as population growth have led to forest clearing mainly for settlement and agriculture. For example, with the gradual abandonment of the central

Kaya settlements over the last two centuries, it is believed that the Mijikenda cleared much of the primary forest in the areas surrounding the Kayas where they live (Mutoro, 1994). The result is

2 that the forest areas containing the Kayas have become more and more isolated as connection with each other has been lost.

1.2 Problem Statement

Biodiversity loss is listed as one of the major environmental concerns in the world today

Convention on Biological Diversity, (2002). Several studies: WWF (2006), CBD (2002), Githito

(2009), Attribute biodiversity loss to climate change and invasive species, and in recent times accentuated by unsustainable anthropogenic activities as described by Olukoye (2005), which cause alteration and disruption of the complex interactions that typify the original ecosystems thus reducing their complexity. As the human population increases, attempts to sustain livelihoods most often culminate into overutilization of natural resources, thus contributing to deforestation and depletion of the biodiversity that is already under pressure.

Many forests in the world, especially those in African countries, Kenya included, have undergone tremendous degradation, a factor Forest and Agriculture Organization attributes to: rapid population increase, increased poverty and consequently, unsustainable anthropogenic practices such as: indiscriminate logging, agricultural expansion, charcoal manufacture and settlement creation. In Kenya, for example, the once expansive water tower of Mau forest, a catchment for many rivers, has been reduced to patches of forestland due to degradation. While

Marsabit forest, most often referred to as the island within a desert because of its importance as a catchment for the lowlands, continues to face degradation due to a confluence of factors. It is noteworthy that as acres of indigenous forestland is lost; inevitably, that indigenous biodiversity forever dies with it, unless something is done to reverse the situation. Kenya’s coastal forests have not been spared either. WWF (2006) documents that the coastal forest biodiversity is under

3 immense pressure and that degradation and depletion is due to: unsustainable logging, expanding agriculture, charcoal manufacture, unplanned settlements, destructive mining practices and selective species exploitation, for example, Dalbergia melanoxylon that is preferred for curving.

While many forests in Kenya have undergone tremendous degradation, Kaya forests on the other hand, have been one of the best-conserved forests in Kenya, owing to their sacredness and significance to the Mijikenda community (Githito, 1998). Adongo (2007), revealed that in recent times, however, this has changed as a result of global changes including climate change, changing livelihoods and lifestyles, modernization, modification of culture as well as need to provide for basic needs. It is interesting that the same people who initially conserved these forests, today show apathy towards their conservation and are indifferent towards sustainable utilization of this bio-cultural resource. Land surrounding the forested Kaya is heavily settled and farmed with crops like: maize, cassava, legumes, coconuts and cashew nuts but in the drier and flatter area, settlement is sparser and the dominant activity is livestock rearing with patchy agriculture. “Because of land use pressures in the more productive agricultural areas, the gardens are farmed right up to where the Kaya begins” (Kibet, 2002). According to Nyamweru et al (2007), the decrease in economic power of the Arabai, coupled with population increase, has led to increased pressure on all natural resources, including the communally owned Kaya forests. At the same time, the indigenous institutions responsible for controlling access to the forest resources have been weakened by the impacts of colonial rule, Islam, Christianity and most recently the policies of the independent Kenyan nation state. The fact remains that today almost 50% of the original area of the Rabai Kaya forests has been cleared and people continue to extract forest products from them on an unsustainable level (Nyamweru, 2003).

Several studies by Mutoro (1994), Busolo (2008), Kiriama (2009), have been conducted within these Kayas, most of which are archaeological investigations. The existing studies on the biodiversity of this forest are limited to preliminary surveys that attempt to identify dominant floral species within the Kaya forests, but neither establishes the status of the biodiversity nor resource use trends. Most recently, Kibet (2002) sought to determine tree regeneration capacities in Kaya Mudzimuvya and accedes that some form of utilization occurs at the periphery of this sacred site. Investigation of forest products utilization trends and the trend of forest, land use, land cover changes/degradation patterns were not, however, within the scope of this study by

Kibet (2002) study.

The purpose of this study, therefore, was to investigate the impacts of tree products utilization trends on conservation of the Kaya Mudzimuvya forest.

1.3 Research Questions

1. Which tree species of Kaya Mudzimuvya have medicinal significance?

2. Which are the tree products extracted from Kaya Mudzimuvya and how are they utilized?

3. What is the relationship between the social and economic situation of the population and

tree products utilization trends of Kaya Mudzimuvya forest?

4. How has the forest cover of Kaya Mudzimuvya changed over the past two decades?

1.4 Objectives

1. To identify trees of medicinal significance in Kaya Mudzimuvya.

2. To determine the kind of tree products extracted and utilized from Kaya Mudzimuvya.

3. To investigate the relationship between socio-economic situation of the population and

tree products utilization trends at Kaya Mudzimuvya.

4. To utilize remote sensing and GIS to determine the changes in forest cover over the past

two decades.

1.5 Hypothesis

There is a positive relationship between the social and economic situation of the inhabitant population and tree products utilization trends. This consequently affects the status of Kaya

Muzdimuvya forest and the biodiversity in it.

1.6 Justification

Kaya Mudzimuvya is currently listed as a world heritage (2008) site alongside other Kayas of the

Kenya coast. Kaya Mudzimuvya is unique because of its multifacetedness: it is a protected area, making it a key conservation area which is endowed with both cultural and natural heritage qualities and at the same time it is also a natural resource to the communities that depend on.

Nonetheless, little has been documented on its indigenous biodiversity, intellectual property/indigenous knowledge, utilization trends and its impacts on these resources. This study, therefore, sought to provide baseline as well as additional information on the status of the forest insofar as resource use trends is concerned, significance to the community and establish the relationship between the community and this sacred grove.

1.7 Significance

This study will not only generate data to augment those of past research, but will contribute baseline data important in designing appropriate conservation and sustainable management plans

6 for this world heritage site, monitoring and evaluation for adaptive management and the successful implementation of ecosystem management.

This study will also help the local community realize the impacts of their activities on biodiversity and conservation of the Kaya, which in essence, is their cultural and natural heritage. It may be an eye opener for the need to start reversing any degrading activities in the forest through identification and implementation of non-degrading economic activities within the forest.

Present and future scholars will benefit from this study by obtaining significant baseline/secondary data for their studies. Again, this study will form a base for further research as recommended in chapter five.

1.8 Assumptions and Limitations

This study assumed that the current status/forest cover of Kaya Mudzimuvya has been shaped by the impacts of the utilization trends of the local community dependent upon it.

It was also assumed that the level of extraction of each tree products from the forest differs as a result of varying demands for those specific products.

Limitations

The limitation of this study is that it investigates the effects of tree products utilization on floral diversity and conservation and does not explicitly consider faunal diversity.

1.9 Scope of the Study

The geographical scope of this study is Rabai location. Ground truthing to collect way points and

GPS coordinates for land cover GIS analysis will be collected within the boundaries of Kaya

Mudzimuvya, while the socio-economic survey will be conducted within the administrative boundaries of Rabai location.

Definition of terms

Kaya: The word “Kaya” literally means homestead. Kayas were strategically located inside thick forests and hilltops for security against other tribes. The forests in which these settlements were established are called kaya forests. Kayas although abandoned by 1940, are revered as abodes for ancestors and sacred sites.

Tree products: Any product that is extracted directly from a tree itself.

Biodiversity: The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy defines it as ‘the variety of all forms of life, from genes to species, through to the broad scale of ecosystems’

Heritage: refers to something inherited from the past. It has several senses including: natural heritage (fauna, flora, geology, landscapes, landforms and other natural resources); cultural heritage (physical/tangible artifacts, intangible attributes: cultural practices, ceremonies).

NDVI (Normalized difference vegetation Index): a graphical indicator that can be used to analyze remote sensing measurements (USGS).

Protected area: The IUCN defines protected area as “an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated

8 cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means." Strict nature reserves, wilderness areas, national parks, and management areas are all included in this definition.

UNESCO world heritage site: A place that is listed by UNESCO as having special cultural or physical significance. These places could be forests, mountain, lake, island, monuments, building, city or town.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Access to environmental resources and resource use.

Brockington and Homewood (1999), attest that the challenge of environmental history is to explain how and why the environments have changed. Blaikie, (1989) further explains this in four premises: a) That African agriculture can be understood in terms of a series of technical operations with a variety of biological, social, political, and ecological processes acting upon each of them, b) that farming patterns can only be understood in relation to overall patterns of resource control, c) that political, economic and cultural structures are continually changing as they become integrated into national and international systems, d) that functioning of households, regional economies and national and international systems are interdependent. These premises, he says are summarily labeled as interaction/interdisciplinary premise. In light of these premises, therefore, ‘environment and access to resources is interpreted as: a dynamic relationship between patterns of access to resources and the ‘environmental data’ on which the outcomes of patterns of access are played out (Blaikie, 1989). So why are many issues of environment and access to resources clouded with uncertainty? Is it because of unreliable data particularly on environmental change or the inability to identify reliably human agency in environmental change or is it due to contradictory interpretations of the impact of land degradation? Despite all questions and issues surrounding resource use and land degradation, formidable factors remain: land use/ anthropogenic use, resource access, and the co-evolution between the ‘anthropo’-system and ecosystems due to the influence they have on each other.

The communities within which resources occur usually depend upon resources, including biodiversity. In essence, these communities are often seen as ‘owners’ of these resources and are in some cases entrusted with their use, management as well as conservation. It is these same users that are most likely to contribute to degradation of these resources. As described by Blaikie

(1989), several factors will influence resource access and utilization trends, and as afore- mentioned, these factors are interlinked, these include: environmental, social, political, economic and cultural aspects within and sometimes beyond the inhabitant community.

At least 40 per cent of the world’s economy and 80 per cent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources, thus, the richer the diversity of life, the greater the opportunity for medical discoveries, economic development, and adaptive responses to new challenges such as climate change. Biodiversity boosts ecosystem productivity, where each species no matter how small, all have an important role to play. For example, a larger number of plant species means a greater variety of crops, greater species diversity ensures natural sustainability for all life forms and healthy ecosystems can better withstand and recover from a variety of disasters (Anup,

2011).

Biodiversity is described as the variation of life forms within a given ecosystem, biome, or on the entire earth (Daniel et al, 2008). The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy defines it as ‘the variety of all forms of life, from genes to species, through to the broad scale of ecosystems’. A more explicit definition is given by the earth encyclopedia as ‘the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within species,

11 between species, and of ecosystems’. Thus, biodiversity includes genetic variation within species, the variety of species in an area, and the variety of habitat types within a landscape.

A healthy biodiversity provides a number of natural services for mankind such as:

Ecosystem services like: protection of water resources, soils formation and protection, nutrient storage and recycling, pollution breakdown and absorption, contribution to climate stability, maintenance of ecosystems, and recovery from unpredictable events.

Biological resources, such as food, medicinal resources and pharmaceutical drugs, wood products, ornamental plants, breeding stocks, population reservoirs, future resources, diversity in genes, species and ecosystems.

Social benefits, such as research, education and monitoring, recreation and tourism and cultural values.

It is, therefore, obvious that mankind needs biodiversity not only for sustenance but for survival as well.

For example, the diversity of forest foods can both enhance diets, as well as ensure steady supply of food throughout the year (Pimbert and Pretty, 1995). These foods can also be considered a form of insurance against crop failure, pest attack or drought. Many wild foods, fruits, insects and vegetables are also sold and thus provide a source of income to households. Several other products such as wood and non-wood products and those mentioned above support livelihoods not only through direct use but also provide an economic base to households. For instance, more than 90% of populations in Africa are dependent on wood fuel as a source of energy (UNEP,

2005), these are extracted from forests either in form of wood or sold as charcoal after

12 manufacture; this activity has been associated with widespread forest resource degradation in the continent. The Kenya forests including sacred groves along the Coast are not exempted from this situation, many communities live off forests and as a result, these forests are being degraded faster than they can regenerate.

WWF Global (2004) recognizes the global importance of coastal forests due to the high biodiversity levels and endemism found within the small, fragmented and highly threatened patched forests. These forests are habitat to a number of endemic flora and fauna and according to this (WWF) report, these include: 554 plant, five bird, three mammal, 24 reptile, five amphibian, 86 mollusc and 75 butterfly species. Furthermore, the mosaic of habitats within the

Hotspot, including forest, woodland and thicket, contain a greater total number of endemic species: 1750 plant, 11 bird, 11 mammal, 53 reptile, six amphibian and 32 freshwater fish. Of these, there are 333 globally threatened (Red list) species, with 105 species being represented in

Kenya and 307 in Tanzania (IUCN, 2002). Burgess et al, (1998), illustrates that the proportion of endemic species in these forests is consistently high for all species groups. Examples are: millipedes (around 80 percent of those found in the Kayas are endemic), mollusks (68% endemic or 86 species), forest reptiles (51% endemic, 24 species), Vascular plants (37% endemic, 554 species), and birds (10.5% endemic, 9 species). In total, 782 species in eight biological groups are strictly endemic to the coastal forests. The significance of these figures increases when the comparatively small area encompassed by these forests is considered.

Extensive surveys and studies carried out by the National Museums of Kenya in the mid 80’s and

90’s established that more than half of Kenya’s rare plants are found in the coast region, many of these being endemic to the Kayas. Today, according to National Museums of Kenya, (2007),

13 most of the Kaya forested areas has been lost, resulting in endangered and some species extinct from the forest. To date, over 3000 plant taxa have been recorded for the Kayas, 3 of these are possibly new to science and about 7 appear to be new records for Kenya Robertson & Luke,

(1993). This data and others collected over time is consistent with the global profile of the

'Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests' in Eastern Africa as a 'Biodiversity Hotspot' ranked among the top 25 forest sites for conservation worldwide (Githito, 2009). The zone has one of the highest levels of endemism on the African continent for plant and other species including birds, amphibians and invertebrates.

It is no doubt that forest ecosystems are endowed with immense biodiversity that serves not only an ecological role but also sustains livelihoods through the ecosystem, biological and social services that they provide to households. Perhaps it is this critical role of livelihood sustenance that is most influential in determining the fate of forest ecosystems and other systems globally.

2.2 Global and local concerns of resource degradation

Deep concern over the rapid loss of biodiversity has been registered over the recent past. IUCN

(2006) has calculated the percentage of endangered species as 40 percent of all organisms based on the sample of species that have been evaluated through 2006. Of these, 8390 were plants

(IUCN, 2006). It was these concerns that prompted for the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, of the

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), a legally binding global treaty, whose objectives were: the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

The situation of global deforestation and floral diversity loss is illustrated in the figure 2.1 and table 2.1 below. Figure 2.1 shows the remaining forest cover in the continent. Note that only

Europe and Russia, and East Asia indicate a greater forest cover compared to Africa and the rest of the world.

In this figure 2.1, forest area includes primary forests, modified natural forests, semi-natural forests, productive forest plantations and protective forest plantations.

Figure 2.1: Estimates of forest fragmentation. (Source: Global biodiversity outlook, 2006)

Though tiny and fragmented, the forest remnants making up the coastal forests of Eastern Africa are significant in terms of biodiversity value. The coastal forests of Eastern Africa extends along the Eastern edge of Africa, from small patches of Coastal (Riverine) forest in Southern Somalia,

South through Kenya, where it occurs in a relatively narrow strip of about 40km in width, except the Tana river where it extends about 120km inland. The hotspot stretches South into Tanzania and the entire coast of Mozambique, ending at the Limpopo River. The hotspot also includes

Pemba, Mafia, Bazarruto archipelago off Mozambique.

Table 2.1: Characteristics of Eastern Africa hotspots (Source, WWF, 2006)

Hotspot Original Extent (km 2) 291,250 Hotspot Vegetation Remaining (km 2) 29,125 Endemic Plant Species 1,750 Endemic Threatened Birds 2 Endemic Threatened Mammals 6 Endemic Threatened Amphibians 4 Extinct Species† 0 Human Population Density (people/km 2) 52 Area Protected (km 2) 50,889 Area Protected (km 2) in Categories I-IV* 11,343 †Recorded extinctions since 1500. *Categories I-IV afford higher levels of protection.

Table 2.1 above illustrates the characteristics of the Coastal East African forests in terms of biodiversity value. It indicates the Coastal East African forest hotspots extent, the endemic, and threatened species. The human population density here seems to be relatively low. Despite being significant biodiversity hotspot, only 17% of the hotspot original extent is protected. Perhaps this has a bearing to the reduction in vegetation cover, which has declined by approximately 90%.

According to CEPF (2005), of the original 291 250 sq. km of the Coastal Forests of Eastern

Africa Hotspot, only 10 % (29 125 sq. km) of natural vegetation remains. This is distributed across more than 400 forest fragments, most of which are less than 20 sq. km in size. Remaining pristine forest covers a total of 6 259 sq. km with the majority (4 778 sq. km) located in

Mozambique; however, due to past civil strife in Mozambique these coastal forests are poorly known or researched and may reveal a wealth of biodiversity. In Kenya and Tanzania, there are

16 over 150 forest patches covering 1479 sq. km (Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, 2005).

While the highest levels of biodiversity are found in the closed canopy forest, this only makes up

2% of the total area of the Coastal Forest Mosaic (Clarke, 2000; WWF-US, 2003).

Poverty is often indicated as the greatest driver for environmental resources degradation, the poor cannot afford energy alternatives and most often depend on fuel-wood as the major or sometimes the sole source of energy. Bid to ensure food security and housing for themselves often results into encroachment into forest areas. The high population growth rate witnessed in most of these countries does not palliate the situation, instead, overharvesting, overutilization and unsustainable practices have culminated into: widespread deforestation tremendously reducing forest areas, degradation and loss of biodiversity. This has ensured un-sustainability of many resources for posterity and resulted into endangered, rare, threatened or extinct species. As much as all fingers point to unsustainable anthropogenic activities for resource degradation, incongruent policies on resources conservation in most parts of the world also makes implementation strenuous. Again, sometimes the complexity of the interrelationship between the ecosystems, production/economic systems and livelihoods is not fully understood (Hubert et al,

2008), this further constrains conservation efforts.

2.3 Approaches to environmental conservation

Natural scientists who participate in practical measures to solve environmental problems generally take one of two contrasting approaches: the moralist/educational view or the authoritarian view (Jordan and Castellanet, 2002), both approaches, however, can be considered

“top down” that is, a blue print for local situations. It is perhaps for this reason that despite the

17 fact that protected areas (national parks, reserves, ecological sites, sacred sites and groves) have important contribution to the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems, and in some instances has been instrumental in generating employment or revenue to the country, the impacts of local livelihoods and culture in particular have not received adequate attention during project design and implementation. Pimbert and Pretty (1995), suggest that in some instances lack of attention to human needs has resulted to further acts of encroachment as well as sabotage and the unnecessary destruction of natural resources and biodiversity. Marglin and Mishra (1993) criticize the present style of conservation that has neglected the needs and aspirations of local people, their indigenous knowledge and management systems, their institutions and social organizations and the value of them of wild resources. The dominant ideology here is that people are bad for natural resources, thus policies and practice have sought to exclude people and so discourage local participation.

2.4 Culture and Indigenous knowledge

Sacred groves have gained importance only recently because they become increasingly visible amidst the surrounding forest clearings. According to Marglin and Mishra (1993), a sacred grove is preserved by “villagers” not because it provides an antithesis of their productive activities, but because it safeguards their livelihoods and their continued existence. For this reason, local systems of knowledge, management and resource governance are sometimes rooted in religion and belief, as in the case of sacred groves, which are clusters of forest vegetation preserved for religious reasons as in the case of Kaya forests of the Kenya coast. These have for a long time been conserved owing to their cultural significance to the Mijikenda communities. However,

Jordan and Castellanet (2002) cautions that we must avoid, idealizing the indigenous culture and its supposed “harmony with nature”, and that numerous examples show that indigenous peoples

18 are quite able to destroy their natural resources after contact with the market economy, dominating cultures and having access to modern technologies. Besides, anthropologists have not yet found any conclusive link between indigenous religion and management of natural resources (Jordan, 2002). For example, there is no conscious effort to conserve natural resources in Amazonian Indian societies. As a result of their traditional political and subsistence system, which encouraged permanent mobility, they maintained a low pressure on natural resources, however, when these Indians become sedentary and gain access to new technology, they may quickly exploit the local environment (Jordan and Castellanet, 2002).

For centuries communities have utilized resources based on their knowledge of the resources properties. For instance, even before the advent of modern medicine and contemporary healthcare system, people utilized plant species to remedy variety of ailments. In Africa and several parts of the world, people still depend on these medicinal values of biodiversity (plants) to palliate and alleviate suffering caused by diseases for both human and livestock. The immense indigenous knowledge of biodiversity values and medicinal properties has made this possible. However, in the recent past, with the advent of modern health care, contemporary medicine, this knowledge is endangered, especially in African rural areas, where this knowledge rests with the aged or aging population.

2.4 Previous studies of Kenya sacred coastal forests.

The Rabai Kayas have been subject of investigation in the past. First by Mutoro (1987), which was an archaeological investigation that revealed local pottery believed to be of the 10th century as well as imported pottery of the 14th century. This study (Mutoro, 1987) attests that this Kaya,

Mudzimuvya was an established settlement from as early as the 10th century. According to the

Fort Jesus Museum Archaeology Department, only recently, 2009, for the second time since

1987, was a team of archaeologists allowed to excavate inside the Kaya. This is because no aliens were allowed into the Kaya, and any excavations were considered an adulteration to the spirits of the Kaya (Kiriama, 2009).

Kaya Mudzimuvya, alongside other Rabai Kayas are regarded as the most important Kaya sites in terms of conservation (Robertson and Luke, 1993). One critically endangered plant

Combretum tenuipetiolatum and one endangered Bauhinia mombasae as well as six vulnerable plant species have been recorded at the site (CEPF, 2003). Robertson (1986) conducted a preliminary floristic survey at the Kenya coast, with the long-term aim of assisting in the conservation of forests. The floristic survey was split into two: compilation of species in order to identify areas of highest diversity and the compilation of Kaya forests, location, conservation status, assessment of human encroachment and the attitude of local community towards conservation. In this study, the author affirms that very little original research had been done and that most of the data collected were based on already available records. For instance, in Kaya

Mudzimuvya, only 5 flora species were collected during the field survey while the remaining 17 were from site records. Robertson, (1986) also documented that of the 425 flora species identified in the Rabai Kayas 4.7% were rare species. The report further states that there was no statistical data to prove conclusively that the forests were of botanical importance, and suggests for a more professional survey in all the Kayas.

A more comprehensive study of Kenya coastal forests by Robertson and Luke, (1993), had the following objectives. To study the forests and wooded areas of Kenya’s coast, document their status and complete a checklist of plants at the coast. This study documented what was thought to be the first record of Ficus craterostoma for Kenya and the second record of Sterculia

20 tragacanthain the Rabai area, and reported that many forests were found to be richer in species than earlier anticipated. In their methodology, sites were visited twice in a year, during the wet and dry seasons (6 months). It states that ‘at each chosen location, the executants walked throughout the forest recording the species seen and collecting where necessary for up to a maximum of 3 hours, if possible, the walking was repeated until very few new species were being identified/ added to the list’… this study records findings/data from two Rabai kayas only: Bomu and Fimboni. It is also indeterminate whether Kaya Mudzimuvya was surveyed or not and if it were, the flora data is missing. This study did not encompass a socio-economic survey of the

Rabai area, nor attempt to link the status of the forest to the socio-economy, socio-culture of the community.

Work in a different Kaya forest by Adongo (2007) conducted at Kaya Bate, not only identified and documented both the floral and faunal diversity at that site, but also attempted to link culture and ‘traditional’ values with biodiversity utilization and conservation. This study also utilized archaeological data to bring out the element of environmental change and biodiversity loss.

Although interview schedules were used for the collection of socio-economic and socio-cultural data, the study does not, present a defined methodology for the identification and documentation of both flora and fauna at the site. The study identified 48 indigenous flora species of which

21% were categorized as rare and 10% as endangered. It does not say what criteria had been used to determine the status of the said flora. The study also established that 42% of flora documented had medicinal significance, 10% have cultural value while the other 10% are available as food and that two indigenous species had been extirpated from the forest as a result of population pressure and unsustainable anthropogenic activities.

Despite its importance as a conservation area, the most recent botanical study of Kaya

Mudzimuvya titled “The impacts of human disturbances on vegetation regeneration, structure and composition” Kibet (2002), recorded some level of subsistence utilization at the edges of the forest. This botanical study’s main objective was to investigate the regeneration capacity of forest trees species within this sacred forest. Kibet (2002) enumerated a total of 325 woody species in 226 genera of 62 families. The research also indicates that over 20 of them are of conservation concerns since they are rare, vulnerable, endangered or overexploited in a local, national and/or international sense.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Area

Kaya Mudzimuvya is categorized under the Rabai kayas that cover 580 Ha. It is located in Kilifi

County; Kaloleni Division of Rabai location at coordinates S30 59 54’ E390 31 25’. This Kaya lies at an altitude from 30m Asl in the Valley of Kombeni River and approximately 300m Asl at the top of Beyagundo hill (Mudzimwiru). The location has four sacred forests, as well as several sacred groves, these include: Kaya Mudzimwiru, which is said to be the primary Kaya of this community, Kaya Bendeje, and Kaya Chijembeni (currently highly degraded and overgrown with coconut palms and cashew trees). This sacred site belonging to the Arabai people, who

(Spear, 1978) says do not share the Singwaya myth of the other eight Mijikenda communities, was inscribed as a world heritage site in 2008 as bearing testimony to a cultural tradition and for its direct link to a living tradition.

Kaya Mudzimuvya was selected for this study due to its intrinsic values both as a natural and a cultural heritage as well as its status as a world heritage site. It is also intriguing that despite all these values and properties exhibited by this Kaya, it is continually experiencing resource use and management problems that are consequently taking a toll on the resource itself.

3.1.1 Physical and Climatic attributes

Kaya Mudzimuvya lies within the coastal ranges, which falls beyond the foot plateau and has distinct low range of sandstones hill of about 150m to 420m high. Kaloleni Division has a population of 37,670 (Kilifi District Development Plan, 2010).

The Kilifi District Development Plan (2010) indicates that two rain seasons occur in this region:

Long rains start from April to June, with a peak in May, while the short rains fall from October to December, with the two seasons, being more prominent in the south. In the hinterland or rangelands zone, however, rainfall is very unreliable thus the seasonality is barely noticeable.

The rainfall pattern here is influenced by the county's proximity to the Indian Ocean, relatively low altitudes, temperatures and winds. On average, the annual rainfall ranges from 400 mm to

1200 mm in the hinterland and 900 mm to 1100 mm at the Coastal belt, with decreased intensity to the north and hinterland. The County is generally hot and humid all the year round with average relative humidity of 60% along the coastal belt. Annual mean minimum temperatures range between 22.5oC and 24.5oC degrees in the months of April, May and June while the maximum temperatures vary between 26oC and 30oC in the coastal belt. Maximum temperatures in the hinterland range between 30oC and 34oC. The high temperatures result in a relatively high evaporation rate (Kilifi District Development Plan, 2010).

Figure 3.1: Location of study site (Kaya Mudzimuvya) and neigbouring Mwache forest within the Kaloleni division.

Figure 3.2: Dorminant livelihood sustenance activities within the study County : Kaloleni division in which Kaya Mudzimuvya is situated engages mostly in formal employment, casual labour and bussiness. (Source www.aridland.go.ke, 2005)

Soil types within the County differ widely in depth, texture, physical and chemical properties enabling for different economic activities. There is a strong correlation between topography and soils in the district, the soil types run parallel to the coastal line due to the sedimentation process

(Kilifi District Development Plan, 2010). For example, along the coastal plain are Triassic sediments of marine and deltaic origin, these include coral limestone marble, clay stones, and alluvial deposits, which yield deep soils, Sabaki deposits, which are rich and good for agricultural crop development.

An Open Access Journal published by ICRISAT ______

access to markets, policies, institutions, etc.). The type of livelihood strategy that resource users practice through production and consumption decisions and existing market, policy, and institutional incentives for undertaking resource-improving investments determine the outcome of the links between livelihoods and the environment (Fig. 1). In certain vulnerable systems, the livelihood-environment link may develop into a downward spiral when demographic pressure is high and households lack access to appropriate technologies, policies, markets, and institutional arrangements. This limits adaptive responses and options available to resource users, and hence impoverishment and resource degradation would ensue. When appropriate technologies, enabling policies and access to markets and institutions create proper incentives to encourage collective and private resource-improving investments, several case studies in developing countries have documented the ability of local communities in successfully dealing with and reversing the problems of resource degradation along the lines of Boserup-type responses (e.g., Turner et al. 1993, Tiffen et al. 1994, Heath and Binswanger 1996, Templeton and3.2 ScherrConceptual 1999, Scherr framework 2000). The upward and downward arrows in Figure 1 depict these two possible outcomes of livelihood-environment linkages.

Sustainable Sustainable livelihoods resource use

Biophysical factors

Rural Environmental livelihoods resources

Socioeconomic and demographic factors

Poverty Resource degradation

Figure 1. Poverty-environment links in rural areas and the conditioning role of Figuresocioeconomic 3.3: socio and-economic biophysical and biophysical factors. factors in society-environment links in rural areas (source Scherr, 2000) These results indicate that under highly constrained socioeconomic and policy environments, poor people lack the ability in effectively responding to the problems of high population pressure and degradation of soils and other resources upon which their livelihoods depend. The above conceptual framework (figure 3.3) depicts two possible outcomes of livelihood-

6environment linkages. The type of livelihood strategy that resource users practice through

SAT eJournalproduction | ejournal.icrisat.org and consumption, existing markets, policies and institutional August 2006incentives | Volume determine 2 | Issue 1 the

outcome of the links between livelihoods and the environment. In certain vulnerable systems for

example, the livelihood-environment link may develop into a downward spiral when

demographic pressure is high and households lack access to appropriate technologies.

3.3 Research Design

This study used a non-experimental/survey design. A survey was used because of its purpose in describing the nature of existing conditions. This study also employed a descriptive research design, which enabled for generalization of information based on the data collected on the variables. The independent variables identified for this study were the socio-economic and socio- cultural aspects. These comprised: income, age, gender, education and religion. The dependant variable was the status (remnant forest area, species available) of the Kaya forest.

Both primary and secondary data were utilized to realize the objectives of this study. Secondary data was extracted from existing literature, which included a synthesis of similar studies that have already been carried out at the same or different localities, while using methodologies that is described below; primary data was collected during fieldwork at the study site.

3.4 Population, and Sample Size

The target population was drawn from the Rabai Location that has a population of 7,870. A confidence level of 90% and a confidence interval of 5% were used to determine the representative sample sizes from the eleven villages within this Location. For objective two, the target population was categorized into five; these groups included respondents of different age groups. Simple random sampling was selected as the appropriate sampling technique for the socio-economic survey because it ensured that all households had equal, non-zero chances of being selected. Purposive sampling was used in determining the species of medicinal significance because the targeted informants were those with good knowledge of medicinal plants in the Kaya forest and their uses.

The table 3.1 below indicates the sample size in each village where questionnaires were administered. All Eleven villages of Rabai location were covered and the number of respondents selected depending on the total population of that village.

Square root of sample size = square root of x confidence level divided (p)*(1-p) by the margin of error

Where: p= 0.5

Confidence level= 90%

Confidence interval=5%

Table 3.1: List of Villages sampled during the household survey for this study and corresponding sample sizes/frequency calculated based on the total number of households per village.

Village Total No of HH Sample size Maungoni 53 8 Chikobweni 56 9 Shaurimoyo 67 10

Bambam 63 9

Jaribu 65 10 Makaburini 44 7 Mwabena 60 9 Kisurutini 54 8 Chinyakani 48 7

Bengo 58 9 Mwele 92 14 Total 660 100

3.5 Data Collection

For objective one, which was to identify trees of medicinal significance in Kaya Mudzimuvya,

Purposive sampling was used, targeting Kaya elders, medicine men and people with medicinal knowledge of plants of Kaya Mudzimuvya. To realize this objective, data was collected through interviews. Objective two, random samples were taken from respondents within age groups: 20-

29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59 and >60. With questionnaires and interviews, data was amassed. Data collected for objectives two and four were analyzed and compared to realize objective three.

For objective four, the process below, as shown in figure 3.1 was followed during GIS analysis, from the initial step of image acquisition to change analysis, that showed changes happening in

Kaya Mudzimuvya over the last two decades. The explanation to each process is explained below.

Aquisition of Universal Subset of ROI Manual Attribution of Image Change LandSat TM transverse (dark object digitizing features segmentation Analysis images. Mercator subtraction/

projection MadCat (Registration&geo- atmospheric correction) correction) FAO LCCS

Figure 3.4: Summary of GIS process followed from acquisition of images to analysis.

Four time-step Landsat TM images were acquired for the periods 1990, 1995, 2003 and 2011.

1990 acted as the base year and forest cover change was calculated for the subsequent years.

Images were registered and geo-corrected to a Universal Transverse Mercator projection of WGS

1984 and dark object subtraction atmospheric correction applied to compensate for atmospheric effects on the imagery taken at different dates. Later, a subset of the region of interest (ROI) was created and preliminary visual interpretation of the images done. Since the ROI was small and features easily recognizable by looking at the tone, texture, shape and pattern, manual digitizing of the features was thus done on (MadCat) Mapping Device-Change Analysis tool which is a software mainly devoted to optimizing the production of vector polygon based maps. The software also includes a module for change assessment and analysis. The FAO Land Cover

Classification System legend (FAO LCCS) was used to attribute different feature types. Image

30 segmentation was first done for easier editing of the vector shapes generated. Change analysis was done based on comparison of area of polygons representing the different mapped features as explained by (Bayarsaikhan, et al., 2009).

3.6 Data Analysis and presentation

With the aid of SPSS software the collected data was analyzed as appropriate. Differential

(Means, percentages, ratio) statistics was used for example to determine the level of demand for each tree product, demographic composition, quantity of products extracted among other parameters relevant during this study. The results of this data were presented in: tables, graphs, frequency polygon, and pie chart. For instance, the results from data gathered for objective one is presented in form of tables of indigenous species with corresponding uses. Inferential statistics

(two tailed Spearman correlation and Pearson’s chi square) were utilized to determine the relationship between variables and the direction and strength of association between them. The imagery acquired for objective four was processed analyzed and interpretation done as discussed later in this chapter. Classification comparison of land cover statistics was used to determine quantitative changes in land cover while Normalized Difference vegetation index (NDVI) was used to determine vegetation areas and their status as at the afore-mentioned seasons over time.

NDVI analysis

The principle behind NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) is that the red-light region of the electromagnetic spectrum is where chlorophyll causes considerable absorption of incoming sunlight, whereas in the near-infrared region of the spectrum a plant's spongy mesophyll leaf structure creates considerable reflectance (Tucker et al., 1991). As a result, vigorously growing healthy vegetation has low red-light reflectance and high near-infrared

31 reflectance, and hence, high NDVI values. Due to the high or low reflectance, therefore, the deeper the red color on the NDVI maps, the healthier the vegetation. This relatively simple algorithm produces output values in the range of -1.0 to 1.0. Increasing positive NDVI values, shown in increasing shades of brown on the images indicate increasing amounts of green vegetation. NDVI values near zero and decreasing negative values indicate non-vegetated features such as barren surfaces (rock and soil) and water, snow, ice, and clouds. NDVI is thus an index and is calculated by the function;

NDVI= (NIR-VIS) / (NIR+VIS), where

NIR is Near Infrared band (band 4 for Landsat TM)

VIS is Visible band (Band 3 for Landsat TM)

NDVI composites of 1995 and 2011 were created and change analysis done on the mean NDVI values between the two years. Images for these years were acquired relatively in the same season with the 1995 taken in February and the 2011 taken in January. This is a generally dry period in the region of interest. It’s recommended that when comparing NDVI between different years that images should have the same or close acquisition dates to minimize the effect of wet and dry seasons on the reflectance of vegetation as NDVI is a measure of leaf moisture and the greenness of vegetation. In this study, NDVI is used to compare changes in the mean value of Kaya

Mudzimuvya between the two years. For purposes of comparing changes between these two periods, the extent of the forest in 1995 is used to calculate zonal statistics for both years.

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter presents and discusses results of the analyzed primary data collected during the field survey. These were amassed in accordance with the methodologies outlined in chapter three.

Results of the analysis have further been organized in correspondence with the objectives for which they were collected. This chapter first apprises of the respondents characteristics followed by analysis and findings of the specific objectives of this study.

4.1 Response rates and respondent characteristics

This study selected 100 households in 11 villages of Rabai location, out of the possible 660 households in collecting data with regard to natural products utilization and trends. All the 100- targeted respondents were identified and interviewed after which the responses were recorded in the questionnaire sheet.

Table 4.1 List of Villages in Rabai Location from where the respondents were drawn with corresponding total number of households/village

Village Total No of HH Maungoni 53 Chikobweni 56 Shaurimoyo 67 Bambam 63 Jaribu 65 Makaburini 44 Mwabena 60 Kisurutini 54 Chinyakani 48 Bengo 58 Mwele 92 Total 660

Table 4.1 above indicates the list of villages from which respondents were drawn during this survey and corresponding total number of households per village (refer to table 3.1 for the sampled households per village). On average, there are 60 households per village in Rabai location.

4.1.1 Gender and marital status of the respondents

Gender in this study was used to highlight sentiments of both females and males on the issues of environmental conservation and protection, through utilization of natural products at the household level.

Male 33%

Female 67%

Figure 4.1: Gender representation of the respondents

The ratio of respondents as indicated by figure 4.1, based on gender was 67:33 (female 67% and male 33%) with more females reflective of the national demographic structure. The explanation for this disparity is that many males in the villages out-migrate to the neighboring city of

Mombasa and Malindi town in search of job opportunities, while females are left to fend for the household left back in the village. Again, most female household heads were widows, perhaps an insight to the hypothesis that women live longer than men (Parnell, 2006). In spite of this disparity in female-male ratio, this study did not purposefully target female respondents and female-headed households. Of all the respondents interviewed, 63% were married, 20% of them

34 were widowed, 4% were divorcees and only 13% were single. It is evident from the statistics that majority of the respondents are married. This aspect also influenced the trends in number of people in each household. Of these respondents, 58% who said they are household heads were female. While some of these heads were widows or unmarried, the other reason is due to the absence of male spouses seeking job opportunities outside the village thus leaving women to head the households.

4.1.2 Age composition of the Respondents

3 0

2 5

2 0

1 28.5

Percen t 5 7 2 2 5 5 1 0

5 10.7 10.7 1 1

0 60yrs 50- 40- 30- 20- andabov 59yrs 49yrs 39yrs 29yrs e age

Figure 4.2: Age composition of the respondents involved during this survey.

Figure 4.2 above indicating age distribution of respondents, shows that most of the residents of the area are relatively older citizens (40 years and more). Most of these comprise of retirees from employment in other parts of the country and those with established businesses and employment within the location. The youthful population (< 39) in this study area work outside the village and as explained in the paragraphs above, their spouses (most of who fall within this age bracket)

35 and children are left in the village. This finding is reflective of the 2009 census conducted by

KNBS (2009) which reveled that 47% of Rabai population is comprised of children of 14 years and below. The figure 4.1 does not document the values for population below 20 years because only respondents above 19 years were considered legible to give satisfactory information.

4.1.3 Level of education

None 27% Secondary 37%

Primary 36%

Figure 4.3: The highest level of formal education attained by the respondents

This study recognized that education level informs certain decisions in the household and perhaps could also influence resource use patterns. 37% of the respondents said they had attained secondary education while 27% said they had no formal education. 36% had basic primary education as shown by 4.3 above.

4.1.4 Occupational activities of the respondents

Table 4.2: indicates the income generating activities that the respondents are involved in. Occupation %

Unemployed 3.3 Manson 6.7 Housewife 23.3 Herbalist 3.3 Retired 3.3 Self employed 13.3 Farmer 46.7 Total 100.

Economic situation analysis shows that respondents are involved in different economic activities in order to sustain their livelihoods as depicted by table 4.2 above.

The many occupational activities could mean variation in income levels as well as products utilization. As indicated by table 4.2, most (47%) of the respondents said they were farmers while the unemployed constituted 4%. It is observable that many income activities that the residents are engaged in are low-income economic activities. Despite Kaya Mudzimuvya being endowed with rich biodiversity including important flora, it is surprising that less than 5% are herbalists. During the interview with these herbalists it emerged that more and more of these professionals have been and are continually being pushed out of this trade. This is as a result of several concerns: one, diminishing floral diversity making it difficult to find some species, two, loss of intellectual property, that is, those currently holding the medicinal knowledge do not pass it on to the next generation. Also, most old folk have died with immense knowledge without passing it on to the subsequent generation, which is over-reliant on contemporary medicine save for cases involving supernatural phenomenon and witchcraft.

4.1.5 Size of households

Household size was also thought to affect the utilization of natural products, in the sense that, depending on household size, a household will utilize varying quantities of harvested products to suffice its needs. Results (Figure 4.4 below) indicated that most households were generally small to medium in size with 55% having 5-10 members, 28% composed of 0-5 members, 10% having

10-15 members and 7% comprising of 20-25 members.

Figure 4.4: Variation in sampled household sizes in Rabai location.

4.1.6 Duration of Stay in Rabai location

This study also sought to find out if the duration of stay of the respondents in this locality.

Whether the residents have more or less permanently resided in this area or are immigrants.

Table 4.3 below displays the results, and indicates that most of the respondents had resided in

Rabai location for a relatively short time i.e less than 20 years.

Table 4.3: Respondents’ Duration of stay within the Rabai location

Duration of stay (years) Percent 60 > above 4

50-59 13 40-49 13

30-39 10 20-29 17 < 20yrs 43 Total 100

As shown by table 4.3 above, despite the population comprising of older population (>50 years

38 old) (refer to figure 4.2), the biggest number (43%) of residents had resided in Rabai for less than

20 years while 4% have lived there for 60 years and more. An explanation to this is that people from other parts of the County are increasingly buying land and settling in this area and as afore- mentioned, most people have returned to the village only after retirement from their jobs outside the study area. 3.3% clarified that they were born in this study area and have always lived there; the other 0.7% immigrated into the area after marriage.

4.1.7 Housing

Given the type of housing most common in this area, this study sort to determine whether the various housing types possibly influenced utilization trends, types of materials harvested as well as quantity. Majority of people (97%) owned traditional makuti houses the other 3% owned iron sheet, modern housing (Figure 4.4). In some instances, some families owned both types of housing. There are two major reasons why most people prefer makuti housing. First due to cultural reasons: it is the traditional Arabai type of housing. Secondly, it is cheaper to construct because it utilizes natural resources that are locally available compared to modern iron sheet houses.

Table 4.4: Type of housing owned by the respondents, showing makuti as the dominant type. Type of housing Total (%)

Makuti 96.7 Iron sheets 3.3 Total 100

4.2 The medicinal plants of Kaya Mudzimuvya

This study, in its objective one, purposed to enquire whether there was inherent indigenous

knowledge attached to the flora of Kaya Mudzimuvya forest. This led to interviews to answer to

the questions: which species of medicinal significance are extracted from this forest? How are

they used? What are they used for and which parts of the specific plant are used?

Table 4.5 below shows some of these species that posses medicinal properties, how they are

used, which plant part is important for the said use as well as both its local and botanical names.

Table 4.5: Results of interviews of indigenous knowledge of Species of medicinal significance extracted from Kaya Mudzimuvya with corresponding use.

Local name Botanical name Plant part used Medicinal significance Myama Croton pseudopulchellus Decoction of burnt Used in special rituals to drive away leaves and roots evil spirits. Munwamadzi Trichilia emetica Seeds, an infusion Emetic-lethal in overdoses. roots Mkone Grewia holstii Branches, young Cultural significance- important trunk elders’ grave markers. Chitadzi Ormocarpum kirkii Crushed leaves Headache Mvumo Borassus aethiopum Leaves Applied to wounds. Mkula usiku Clerodendrum Roots, Leaves are Chest medicine (roots). Fish bait Hildebrandtii also pounded. (leaves) Mpera Vismia orientalis Root decoction Tonic. Mvunjakondo Allophylus rubifolius Roots Cure for people possessed with evil spirits Myenze Parkia filicoidea Bark Tannin yields red dye. Mudzala Uvaria acuminata Root decoction is Used against dysentery. Mbokwe Annona Senegalensis Root decoction Treatment -stomach upsets Mwambangoma Erythrina abyssinica Roots Brew tonic tea to clear worm infections Mchu Ochna Mossambicenisis Root decoction Stomachache relief, halt diarrhea Murusapangu Clerodendrum incisum Leaf decoction Used against headache. Mwangala Abrus Precatorius Leaves, roots During special rituals and as anti-evil nyuchi/Chivuma combined with other spirits to prevent bad fortune. nyuchi species Mugandi Ficus bussei Bark. Making strings used by traditional birth attendants Mutseketse Piliostigma thonningii Bark Prepare cough medicine

Mchera- Combretum hereroense A decoction of roots Cure of bewitched people and to cure ngo’mbe and leaves and fatten thin children. Mvande Craibia brevicaudata Roots Ash is used to treat stomach ache, wounds Mlazakoma/Mza Vernonia zanzibarensis Leaves, bark and Medicine for livestock lakome roots Mumbu Senna singuena Roots Stomach pains, Mwanga Terminalia spinosa Leaves, roots Used to curve important elders’ grave markers, concoction with other species used in rituals, eradication of evil spirits. Reza - Root decoction, Fever, eradicate evil spirits, leaves, bark; Muarubaini Azadirachta indica Bark, roots, leaves Cures variety of ailments (skin conditions, cough, fever, stomach upset, measles, acne) Mrahani - Root decoction Offers protection against evil spirits and ghosts. Murusapungu Stychnos spinosa Roots, Fruits. Stomach ailments and ulcers Muhumba Cassia afrofustula Bark, roots Grave marking, tannin, Mgongolo Combretum schumannii Roots Stomach ache Chibambara Commiphora africana Root, bark, resin, Insecticide, insect repellant, wounds. leaves, fruits, Mkone Grewia Spp Roots, leaves, fibre Special rituals Mudungatundu Flaucourtia indica Bark, roots Treatment of wounds

Kaya Mudzimuvya is endowed with rich biodiversity, especially plant species that are useful to

the community dependant on them. This study established that numerous plant species are

extracted from this forest for medicinal purposes, either to remedy or palliate the effects of

physical ailments, conditions supposedly caused by supernatural factors for example witchcraft,

as well as during important cultural/ spiritual rituals such as cleansing ceremonies or special

interventions. Some species were found to be significant not only for medicinal purposes but

acted as important species for carving cultural symbols such as grave markers (Vigango), for

example Terminalia spinosa. During this study, it was revealed that there are some medicinal

41 species initially found within the Kaya forest, but which now cannot be located in the forest, perhaps due to extirpation of this species from the forest.

4.3 Tree products extracted and utilized from Kaya Mudzimuvya

An attempt to determine the types of tree products extracted from Kaya Mudzimuvya forest and utilized by the local residents elicited Figure 4.5. This reveals that building poles, medicine and wood-fuel are the major tree products harvested from the Kaya Mudzimuvya. Honey is the predominant non-wood product harvested from this Kaya forest. Just as Kirubi et al, (2008) documents: more than 80% of people in Kenya depend on fuel wood for energy, this study found out that wood fuel is the most sought after commodity from the forest (80%), while building poles is the least extracted (4%). Wood fuel is the highest demanded tree product due to its significance in fulfilling one of the most important basic needs of a person: food. One of the most important uses of wood fuel is regular food preparation for the household.

Woodfuel

Medicine %

Poles

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 4.5. Indicating households’ tree products demand from Kaya Mudzimuvya, showing that wood fuel is on highest demand in comparison to poles and medicine.

Since wood fuel use has been incriminated in the degradation of forestland, this study investigated the use of this product among the communities within the study area, in recognition

42 of the fact that trends in energy use has implications on the resource in terms of forest degradation and / or conservation. Again, the concern of biodiversity loss was investigated here in light of the assumption that quality of wood fuel varies from specie-to-specie and thus prompt users to prefer or even target species that are considered to be of superior quality to those perceived to be of less quality. Utilization patterns, that is; cutting down whole grown trees, pruning branches, collecting dead wood or broken twigs from the forest, parts harvested, all have different implications, both on the forest area and the biodiversity itself. It was established that people collecting wood fuel for domestic use, mostly collect dead wood and broken parts while those exploiting for commercial purposes (either to manufacture charcoal or trade at the local market or neigbouring towns) targeted specific species which are cut down and split into transportable units. Although in some instances, some people exploiting for domestic use also target specific species.

Other sources of wood fuel other than direct harvesting from the forest, for example buying from traders who harvest the products from the forest gave an indication of the scale of exploitation as well as the economic value of harvested tree products. Figure 4.6 below gives an indication of the sources of wood fuel for households in Rabai location.

Collected woodfuel Bought woodfuel Both

Figure 4.6: Households’ sources of wood fuel giving an indication that most wood-fuel for domestic use is collected directly from the Kaya forest.

80% of the respondents in the study area confirmed that they utilize wood-fuel as the only source of energy for cooking, while the remaining 20% besides using firewood, also utilize charcoal and kerosene. Of these households using wood-fuel as the sole energy source, 67% collect their wood fuel directly from the Kaya forest, 10% purchase logs both locally and from the nearby market while 23% augment their collected wood-fuel with purchases either locally or from the market centres. It was also established that the 67% collecting fire wood directly from the Kaya forest are women who do so to suffice their domestic energy requirements, most of these wood is usually comprised of dead wood, small trees, broken branches and fallen twigs. Collected firewood is often limited to one load (Mzigo) of approximately 25Kg per collector. The 10% purchasing locally, do so from more established harvesters who target older trees and specific species in order to maximize on their profits. Some even employ the use of power saws to bring down their target trees. It was determined that 100% of these more established harvesters (people that do the actual cutting) are men, though it cannot be overlooked that they may be exploiting

the resources on behalf of someone else (employer) some of who may be women.

Table 4.6: shows weekly, monthly and yearly estimates of the average quantity of wood fuel collected from Kaya Mudzimuvya, that collected from on-farm and quantity of wood fuel purchased locally per households Means Sources Average No. Average Total quantity Qty/HH/month Qty/HH/year Of Quantity (Kg)/HH/week (tonnes) (tonnes) trips/week/HH (Kg)/trip/HH Collected Forest 2 25 50 1.5 549

On 12 6 72 2.2 805.2 Farms Bought Market 1 8 8 0.2 1.6

Data presented in table 4.6 above resulted from interviews with the 100 households involved in

this survey. Although this study did not involve the fuel wood businesses at the local markets,

some of who also harvest their products from the Kaya Mudzimuvya, it encompassed residents

purchasing fuel wood locally within the villages. Residents harvest more on-farm fuel wood,

which comprise of: broken palm leaves and other on farm trees. On-farm collections still does

not suffice domestic fuel needs of the households, particularly because palm fronds which have

low calorific value comprises the biggest component of these on-farm wood fuel collections, and

therefore does not last long. Thus, on-farm wood-fuel is often supplemented by collections from

the Kaya forest and purchases from both the villages and local market.

For these 100 households included in the survey, a total of 5 tonnes of fuel wood is harvested

every week per household. For the 660 households in this study area, approximately 33 tonnes of

wood fuel is harvested for domestic cooking and heating purposes every week. This, however,

neither includes wood fuel harvested for sale nor that purposed for other activities such as

building or other needs. Purchases of wood fuel comprise the least source for domestic needs.

Asked why they buy less fuel wood compared to that collected in the forest and on-farm, the respondents mentioned poverty (living on less than $1/day) and inability to afford the hefty prices of wood fuel, easy accessibility to the forest and availability of wood fuel in form of broken palm fronds and branches which are commonly used for cooking and heating in this area.

It is no doubt that the lucrative fuel wood trade at the local and nearby markets encourages unsustainable use of the forest. It was established that neighboring towns such as Malindi and

Mombasa also depend substantially on wood fuel from this forest both in form of charcoal and raw wood.

Of all the respondents, 87% acknowledged not using alternative energy such as solar, electricity or Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), which indicated poor uptake of alternative energy. Again, the respondents sited poverty causing inability to afford such alternatives.

Some respondents said they just harvested what they found available in the forest and that their collection largely depended on the ease with which to harvest the wood i.e. whether they came across broken branches or dead wood. Other respondents (67%) attested to targeting certain species either for medicine, wood fuel or/and building poles. Table 4.7 below shows some of the preferred and targeted species for specific uses such as wood-fuel, poles and medicine.

Table 4.7: Shows some of the preferred species for different uses and specifically targeted species for the same uses by households.

Use Most preferred species Specifically targeted species Wood fuel Ficus bussei, Flueggia virosa, Croton Grewia Spp, mnyanyani, Craibia pseudopulchellus, Grewia spp, Crabia brevicaudata, Borassus aethiopum, brevicaudata, Cynometra suaheliensis, Ficus bussei. Milletia usaramensis, mnyanyani, Albizia adianthifolia, Afzelia quazensis, Paramacrolobium coeruleum, Borassus aethiopum, Dalbergia melanoxylon and Albizia adianthifolia, Craibia brevicaudata. Medicine Azadirachta indica, Senna singuena, Azadirachta indica, Senna singuena, Cassia abbreviata and Combretum Cassia abbreviata Combretum schumannii, Combretum hereroense. schumannii, Combretum hereroense Poles Afzelia quazensis, Azadirachta indica, Afzelia quazensis, Azadirachta indica, Grewia spp, Flacourtia indica and Borassus aethiopum, Grewia spp, and Tamarindus indica. Tamarindus indica.

High calorific value determined species preferred and targeted as wood fuel while straightness of the trunk, durability and termite resistance were the most desirable characteristics in building poles. The results indicated that households collecting fuel wood directly from the forest did not necessarily target preferred species. It was only during wood fuel selection at the market that these qualities really mattered to them. On the other hand, people extracting wood fuel from the forest to later trade, purposefully targeted these preferred species so as to be more marketable, having the knowledge that buyers will take into account the quality of wood fuel they purchase from the market.

Exploitation for medicinal plants depended on the medicinal properties of a particular tree specie. Most of these species, however, are not used in isolation but are combined with others to effectively serve the functions for which they are prepared.

4.4 Relationship between social, cultural and economic situation of the population and tree products utilization trends at Kaya Mudzimuvya

The aim of objective three was to investigate how social, cultural and economic factors influence resource use trends, whether positively or negatively. These factors are considered a function of ecosystems status, that is: they will determine the level of utilization of the forest resource, whether is will be over utilized, degraded, underutilized or conserved (Blaikie, 1989). The factors considered for this study included: age, gender, education level, income, household size, religious orientation, cultural beliefs and perception.

Githito, (2009) according to the Mijikenda tradition, Kaya forests hold some cultural significance. This study sought to find out how important this forest really is to the local community, and to establish how individuals actually view this resource away from the

‘community’ umbrella. The idea was to link the individual perception of the forest to resource use trends, conservation and/or degradation of this sacred forest.

Very Important Important to 23% the elders 17%

Not important Important 33% 27%

Figure 4.7: shows the responses received from the respondents regarding the level of importance of the Kaya forest to them.

Figure 4.7 above questions the common perception that Kayas are important to the Mijikenda

‘community’, perhaps the importance of these forests have often been overshadowed behind the

‘community’ umbrella that insinuates that the sacred forests are important to all Mijikenda people, forgetting that a community comprises individuals with divergent opinions, and households with varied values. In Kaya Mudzimuvya an incredible 33% consider the Kaya unimportant, while 17% feel that it is important only to the elders. An attempt to discover why the respondents had these sentiments yielded figure 4.8 below, where about 48% said the Kaya is important because the elders use it as a sacred site for performing rituals and in this way, it is important to the community as a whole, because these rituals are often performed for the greater good of the community. For instance, to avert curses, enhance land productivity, rain making etc.

35%, however, felt that the Kaya was not of any importance because no benefits accrues from it either for their individual gratification or their households. Less than 5% gave ‘cultural significance’ as the major reason for seeing the Kaya as important.

Figure 4.8: Respondents’ reasons for their perceptions of the Kaya to justify results of figure 4.7.

Several respondents lamented that the forest is a resource that they (residents) should be left to exploit, to burn charcoal freely and to sell timber, but these are prohibited thus those who harvest grown trees do so illegally. The other reasons given were: that the Kaya is historically culturally important, it is an important source of wood fuel and 3% said they pray inside the Kaya and thus making it an important shrine for them.

4.4.1 Gender and perception of Kaya importance

An attempt to determine how gender influenced perception of the respondents regarding how important the Kaya is for them, yielded figure 4. 9 below, which showed that more women than men felt that the Kaya was not important while most men felt that the Kaya forest was very important. Reasons for this difference in opinion between the male and female respondents, was, however indeterminate at the time of this survey. For instance, it was not understood why more women felt the Kaya was unimportant when they (the women) attested that the forest is a source for fuel-wood. Perhaps the answer lies with the perspective from which both genders were approaching this question. Also considering the fact that more women than men are Christians subscribing to the salvation ideology, they probably view the Kaya forest and accompanying rituals as ungodly and contrary to their faith, as will be discussed later in preceding chapters.

Figure 4.9: Gender Vis a Vis perception on importance of the Kaya forest.

4.4.2 Age and resource use trends

Figure 4.10 below indicates the results of the question whose aim was to find out what the respondents thought about the status of the Kaya Mudzimuvya, whether it was degraded, the level of degradation, or whether it is intact.

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 very Degraded alittle Intact degraded degraded

Figure 4.10: Shows the Status of Kaya Mudzimuvya according to respondents

Majority of the respondents (43%) felt that Kaya Mudzimuvya is a little degraded whereas 21% thought that it was very degraded compared to 18% that said the forest has always been the way it is today, i.e. intact. According to The National Museum of Kenta records, Kenya Forestry service and the coastal forest conservation Unit, Kaya Mudzimuvya has lost almost 50% of its original tree cover. From the findings, those who thought the Kaya is intact fell within the age bracket 20-29, while those who felt the forest is a little degraded were between the ages of 30 and 40. Respondents of ages 50+ said the Kaya was degraded or very degraded.

To corroborate this observation, a chi-square test for association was run to determine whether there is a significant relationship between age and the quantity of tree products harvested. There was a strong positive correlation (Chi-value= .712), which was statistically significant. Again,

Phi and Cramer’s strength of association test = .807) indicated a strong association between age and quantity of tree products extracted. It was determined that the younger population (<30 years) harvested the most products from the forest due to their belief that the forest was not degraded and that it is a resource for them to sustain their livelihoods.

4.4.3 Education as a factor in resource use

It was assumed in this study that the level of education might influence the activities related to the forest use, exploitation and conservation, because generally education and awareness, whether formal or informal, shapes perceptions, resource utilization, conservation, management and mindfulness of ones environment. In this study however, the focus was on formal education.

Nonetheless, this did not imply that informal education does not shape resource use trends.

Through the results of this study showing that most of the population is literate, and thus may be aware of the impacts of their resource utilization trends, it was expected that conservation be entrenched within this community.

Figure 4.11: Level of education vis a vis selective cutting of tress species for specific uses

Although the Figure 4.11 above shows that people who had attained secondary education least targeted specific tree species and that primary educated respondents targeted specific species the most, the notion of education and conservation here was inconclusive, since looking at the fact that the respondents who registered their education level as ‘none’ targeted species less than the respondents considered literate (primary education). The answer to this was found to lie in the fact that the respondents whose level of education was “none” were also the older population, who mostly had informal education and were more inclined conserving the forest due to its cultural and spiritual significance.

4.4.4 Income and resource use trends

With reference to table 4.2 it is evident that most occupational activities of the Rabai people are of relatively low income. Besides, 90% of farmers in Rabai location are small scale and subsistent farmers, who also depend on the little they produce in their farms for sustenance. This

53 could be a contributing factor in, for instance affordability to alternative energy and fuels. Indeed as established through this study 80% are dependent on wood fuel as the sole source of energy.

A Pearson’s Chi Square run to determine the relationship between income and diversity of fuels sources among the respondents elicited Chi value .683 indicating a positive statistically significant association between the two. Phi and Cramer’s V of .685 suggested a very strong relationship between the two variables. It was established that the households with the least income per day (

4.4.5 Household size

It was established that the bigger the household the more products, it utilized. This was more visible with wood fuel, meaning more natural resources especially wood-fuel harvested from the forest by bigger households compared to smaller families.

The larger (>8) families had a higher demand for wood fuel (average 3 trips/week) compared to the smaller (< 8) families (average 1 trip/week). Correlation results of significance also affirmed this. A two-tailed spearman Rank order correlation was run to determine the relationship between household size and quantity of wood-fuel harvested by the respondents per week. There was a strong positive correlation, which was statistically significant (rs (98)=. 547, P =. 023).

These results affirmed that the larger the household the greater the quantity of wood fuel harvested to suffice its needs.

4.4.6 other potential factors

Several factors, although not tested to ascertain their veracity, are thought to influence resource use trends in Rabai location. These include:

4.4.6.1 Length of stay

Analysis revealed that the 4% who had stayed in the locality for 60 years and more, also said the

Kaya was very important for them where as the majority of people that said the Kaya is not important to them are also the same respondents who had stayed in Rabai for less than 20 years.

Perhaps then, the duration a person stays in the area is factor/determinant of the perception or attachment he/she will have on the environment around him/her and thus will influence the level of importance of different resources to him/her.

4.4.6.2 Type of housing

An overwhelming 74% of the respondents indicated that they harvested building products

(particularly poles) alongside other products from the Kaya Mudzimuvya as compared to 26% of the respondents who indicated that they were not harvesting anything directly from the Kaya

Mudzimuvya but rather bought from traders, some of who harvested from the Kaya forest.

It was established that makuti housing, often semi permanent or temporary, requires renovation every two years, uses mostly natural products, that is, timber and palm for roofing. Iron sheet houses on the other hand are more permanent and require less maintenance and renovation approximately every ten years. Thus looking at the number of makuti house owners, building materials required and the maintenance demand, it is probable that makuti housing contributes to higher extraction rates of building materials from the forest, whether directly or indirectly

4.4.6.3 Religion

Analysis to determine the perception of the Kaya forest in relation to the respondents’ religion indicated that of the 40% that said the Kaya was either not important or important to the elders,

70% were Christians. 95%, who said the Kaya is very important to them, were subscribers of the traditional Kaya culture as a religion giving an indication that religious inclination is a considerable factor in resource use of the sacred Kaya Mudzimuvya. Perhaps the significance that the Kaya holds in the eyes of the Kaya traditionalist or Christian or Muslim could determine whether the resource itself is conserved or degraded.

4.5 Changes in Land use and Kaya Mudzimuvya forest cover

4.5.1 Kaya Mudzimuvya cover change

There was a decline in the forest cover from 1990 to 2011 with the highest loss happening between 2003 and 2010 from 8.1 ha to 2.7 ha representing 66.5% decline and least between 1990 and 1995 at 4% decline. The rate of cover loss was high (R²=0.78) with increasing years. Figure

4.10 and table 4.8 show change in the forest cover (in hectares) in the four time steps.

Figure 4.12: Graph showing the trend in the forest cover for Kaya Mudzimuvya between 1990 and

2011

Table 4.8: Table showing the percentage changes in the forest cover for Kaya Mudzimuvya between 1990 and 2011

4.5.2 Land use/cover changes

There was a decline in land cover for cropped lands and riverbed at 29% and 8.5% respectively and a high increase in barelands/settlements and other forests within the study area at 441.6% and 228.7% respectively (Figure 4.11, table 4.9).

160 1990 2011 140 120 100 80 60 40 Cover (Ha) (Ha) Cover 20 0

LC type

Figure 4.13: Graph showing changes in land cover/land use in the study area between 1990 and 2011

Table 4.9: Table showing percentage changes in land cover/land use in the study area between 1990 and 2011

Figure 4.14: Maps showing changes in land cover and land use in the study area between 1990 and 2011

The four maps above (Figure 4.14) generated from the GIS analysis displays and buttress the information on figure 4.13. These maps indicate land use and land cover dynamics between 1990 and 2011. They clearly indicate changes happening on different land uses over time. The maps show a decrease in the Kaya forest, an increase in bare land and increase in settlement perhaps due to a population that is fast encroaching into the forest area. Interestingly, the map also shows

59 decreasing farmland. This is attributed to the abandonment of old coconut farms to pave way for settlement as the population increases. One intriguing feature visible from these maps is the disappearance of the river, perhaps due to siltation from increased erosion due to deforestation in the forest and climatic changes.

4.5.3 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) changes.

The mean NDVI values for 1995 was 0.65 with a maximum of 0.73 and a minimum of 0.54 while 2011 had a mean of -0.05, a maximum of 0.09 and a minimum of -0.2 (Figure 4.13 and

Table 4.10). This result is indicative of high degradation within the area with the area covered by vegetation decreasing and that covered by other land types with generally lower NDVI values increasing such as bare land and settlements.

Figure 4.15: Graph showing changes in NDVI in Kaya Mudzimuvya forest between 1995 and 2011

Table 4.10: Table showing changes in NDVI In Kaya Mudzimuvya between 1995 and 2011

Figure 4.16: Map of NDVI changes in Kaya Mudzimuvya forest (1995)

Figure 4.17: Map of NDVI changes in Kaya Mudzimuvya forest (2011)

NDVI maps produced for Kaya Mudzimuvya (Figure 4.16 and 4.17) portray the declining forest cover or rather increased deforestation and degradation of this Kaya forest. The negative values in 2011 indicate a decline in vegetation cover.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a summary of the key findings of each objective of this study after which conclusions have been drawn from the findings and recommendations made. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of tree products utilization trends on conservation of the Kaya

Mudzimuvya forest. In light of this purpose, this study sought to inventory medicinally significant trees, determine which products are demanded by the population of Rabai location from the Kaya forest, ascertain the socio-economic factors that influence resource use trends and investigate the forest dynamics in terms of cover and land use changes.

5.2 Summary of findings

This study has shown that the social and economic factors will determine their resource use trends and consequently shape the resource on which they depend. Despite this fact, it is noteworthy that all these factors do not occur in isolation but rather, interact, producing more severe compounded impacts compared to the additive impacts of any one single factor acting on its own. The drivers of Kaya degradation were identified as: poverty and food insecurity, human population dynamics, land use policies and conflicting jurisdiction that encourage unsustainable utilization such as illegal logging, selective cutting, overharvesting and encroachment into this forest. Copi & Cohen (2005) attest that people’s actions are influenced by their perception.

Thus, the respondents who perceived the Kaya as unimportant are likely to be apathetic towards

63 conservation or sustainable utilization of the resource and will most likely not consciously conserve the Kaya forest, but rather utilize it till its not utilizable. Majority of those respondents that indicated that the Kaya was not important for them are also the same ones that felt they should be left to exploit the resources such as manufacture charcoal since the resource is ‘theirs’ and its function is to ensure that the residents live comfortably.

One of the factors contributing to resource degradation is lack of alternatives, not because alternatives are absent but more because alternatives are too expensive. In this study area, poverty has deprived the population of alternative energy sources, which are perceived to be too expensive thus un-affordable, leaving wood-fuel as the sole energy source for households. Chi square value of .683 and Phi and Cramer’s V of .685 indicated a strong positively significant association between income and diversity of energy sources. The amount of money a household has at the end of each month will determine whether they will have enough left after spending on basic needs, to afford alternative energy. Often, wood fuel is cheap because it is ‘free’ perhaps all that is attached to it is the social cost of collecting it. This study affirmed that the higher income households had other forms of energy other than wood fuel while the households that had wood fuel as their only source of energy were the lowest placed in terms of income.

Age was found to be a significant determinant in resource utilization trends and conservation, where the younger population (<30) harvested more wood fuel compared to the older population

(>30). A chi-square for association run to determine this association revealed a strong positive correlation that was statistically significant (Chi-value= .712, Phi and Cramer’s strength of association test = .807). Furthermore, The older respondents attached more importance to the

Kaya forest and advocated for conservation either due to the cultural significance or the

64 ecological functions of forests while the younger respondents attached none or less value to the

Kaya, and advocated for utilization of forest resource to uplift their economic situation.

Household size determined the quantity of fuel-wood harvested and utilized by each household.

Larger households harvested and used more fuel wood compared to smaller households. A two- tailed spearman Rank order correlation run to determine the relationship between household size and quantity of wood-fuel harvested by the respondents per week indicated a strong positive correlation, which was statistically significant (rs (98)=. 547, P =. 023).

The results of this study also showed that the duration the respondents stayed in the area is a relevant factor/determinant of the perception he/she will have on the environment around him/her, this includes the Kaya forest. The respondents that had spent many years of their lives in this area attached more importance to the forest compared to those that had recently immigrated into the area. This was found to further influence resource use trends.

The three major religious forms in the study area were: traditional Kaya religion, Christianity and Islam. These were found to influence people’s perception about the Kaya forest and their involvement in its conservation. Most Christians disapproved of the Kaya culture and disassociated themselves from the cultural rituals performed inside the Forest, which they said contaminates the whole forest and thus making it an evil place for evil practices and therefore would not care less if the whole forest were cleared away. Those subscribing to the traditional

Kaya culture felt close to the forest and would give anything to preserve the forest to prevent cultural loss. Islam on the other hand was found to be more tolerant to the traditional Kaya religion compared to Christianity.

This study established that Kaya Mudzimuvya is an important natural resource with immense biodiversity value that plays a vital role in livelihood sustenance of the local populace. The Kaya

Mudzimuvya is also revered as a cultural and spiritual site important to some of the population of

Rabai, where cultural rituals are performed and spiritual interventions are sort. In essence, this

Kaya possesses the qualities of both natural and cultural heritage. The multifacetedness nature of this forest means that different stakeholders are implied in its management, conservation and use, all having different vested interests, which consequently impacts on the sustainability of this resource, both as a natural resource and a cultural heritage.

Kaya Mudzimuvya faces challenges mainly emanating from an attempt by the inhabitants to sustain livelihoods coupled with other socio-cultural and political factors. GIS analysis on land cover changes as well an NDVI values (-0.70 mean) bolstered the secondary data indicating that

Kaya Mudzimuvya has undergone degradation and is continually being degraded as the forest area continues to diminish. These analysis further revealed increase in bare ground coverage and settlement (442%), decrease in agricultural area (-29%) and loss of forestland (67%). All in all,

Kaya Mudzimuvya despite being an important source of livelihood sustenance and an important world heritage site is undergoing degradation at a faster rate than its regeneration. Furthermore attempts to enhance sustainable utilization are challenged by socio-economic, socio-cultural and political factors that have contributed to shape utilization trends and further encouraged unsustainable extraction of tree products.

5.3 Discussion of Findings

Results from this study corroborate (Kibet, 2002) that Kaya Mudzimuvya is under threat of extirpation as a result of high and increasing anthropogenic pressures, which have exacerbated deforestation of this forest. This study also shares Kibet (2002) sentiments that continued utilization without appropriate management interventions may lead to significant changes in phyto-sociological attributes of the forest, including loss of biodiversity through loss of expansive forestland. Kibet (2002) further affirmed at the time of his study, that repeated harvesting had led to decline or complete absence of individuals from the forest at reproductive stage necessary for perpetuation of future tree generations.

Although Kaya Mudzimuvya is one of the Mijikenda Kayas that are considered active (Kiriama,

2009), it is also among those that are experiencing challenges emanating from both natural and anthropogenic factors. Overuse of resources, especially wood fuel, unsustainable harvesting methods such as cutting down grown trees, purposive harvesting as in the case of targeted species with desirable values. These factors were found to influence sustainability of this forest the most, especially with increasing demand for tree products. These challenges notwithstanding, it is one of the sacred sites in the Kenyan coast where a somewhat successful eco-tourism project in collaboration with the local stakeholders has been implemented (Kiriama,

2009). To some extent this project has contributed to the conservation of Kaya Mudzimuvya probably due to the revenue that accrues to the local stakeholders involved in this venture.

Regardless of all the effort by the local, state and non-state actors, for the conservation of Kaya

Mudzimuvya, however, bottlenecks to successful conservation and impending degradation still loom. As a result of habitat destruction, logging and deforestation, biodiversity loss is a major

67 concern in this Kaya as it was established that some species of medicinal significance are no longer available for use from the forest.

Land cover and land use classifications results show that the area of the Kaya Mudzimuvya has tremendously decreased while that of bare land and settlements has increased significantly.

Analysis on land cover type changes and decreasing NDVI values within the same area has further affirmed this. These results discussed in chapter four give an indication of loss of forestland and increased pressure on this natural heritage as a result of several factors that will be discussed later in this chapter. Has Kaya Mudzimuvya, lost the sacredness that previously protected it from degradation and unsustainable use or is the tag “world heritage site” insignificant insofar as conservation of this natural cum cultural heritage site is concerned? It may be anticipated that once a site like this one is inscribed with such status as world heritage site, then it is protected from further degradation, this does not seem to be the case according to the results of this study.

1). Factors for forest resource degradation and biodiversity loss at Kaya Mudzimuvya

Several factors have directly or indirectly contributed or exacerbated degradation of forestland and loss of biodiversity at Kaya Mudzimuvya. These factors, established by this study can be categorized into two: Natural/ environmental factors and human/anthropogenic factors. It is important to note that these factors, that will be discussed below do not occur in isolation but rather, are interlinked/ interconnected with one another and that the degradation of this sacred site has occurred not as a result of one single factor but the consequence of a confluence of factors (Hansen, 2007).

A) Natural environmental factors

Forest degradation can be prompted by environmental changes (WWF, 2005). In an ideal environment, however, this is not expected to occur since there is the natural balance of nature, without interference from the human environment. Usually the health, abundance, and even diversity of life forms in a particular habitat are dependent upon the carrying capacity of that habitat as well as the biophysical conditions of that environment. The carrying capacity of an ecosystem is pegged to the vegetation because of its primary productivity on which all other trophic levels depend. For instance, the primary productivity determines whether there will be more competition, whether the natality rate will exceed mortality rate, availability of food, shelter, and mates in the case of animals (Oroda, 2005). Changes in environmental conditions such as precipitation, temperatures especially due to climate variability and change whose adverse impacts are being experienced in many parts of Africa is listed by IUCN (2005) as one of the causes of biodiversity loss. Although this study did not attempt to find out the changes in weather and climatic patterns in this study area, senior residents lament about the changing environmental conditions, they talk of wetter seasons in the past, more rainfall and good harvest compared to the hot weather, less and erratic rainfall and poor harvests today (as at the time of this survey).

Flora survivability also varies with its germination and survival ability. All these depend on seed viability, rate of maturity and environmental requirements e.g. moisture, sunlight soils (Kibet,

2002) as well as un-interference from the anthropo-system. Most indigenous tree species, which

Kaya Mudzimuvya is rich in, are characterized by difficult germination, very slow growth and take very long to mature, thus once the saplings have been destroyed and substantial quantities of trees of reproductive age, that are expected to contribute to regeneration of the forest are

69 harvested, the future of this forest is gleam. From this survey, indigenous species are targeted for charcoal, timber, wood fuel due to their superior qualities such as high calorific value and thus endangering them and increases their chances of becoming rare or even extinct from this forest, given the fact that they take very long to mature and especially since no effort is made to propagate them.

B) The Human environment

Kiriama et al (2009) suggests that the human environment comprises Man, his culture, his activities and their products. This element of the environment is usually seen as the major precursor for environmental degradation and biodiversity loss at a faster rate than any other factor. The reason for this is that man, through his activities, is able to manipulate the environment to suit his interests, while not appreciating the potential impacts of his activities on other spheres of the environment e.g. flora, fauna which are also dependent on the environment for survival. From the findings of this study, at Kaya Mudzimuvya forest, the degradation is attributed largely to the human environment, specifically anthropogenic factors. The overwhelming cost of living and a fast growing population has exerted pressure on this resource, leading to degradation of the environment, without knowing that doing so is to their own detriment. i) Human population dynamics

Human population growth whether positive or negative, has been characteristic of many nations and societies/communities over the world. Rabai region is not an exception; the population has increased tremendously over the years. The (KNBS, 2009) indicates Rabai location population growth rate as 3.05%, which is tremendously disproportionate to the growth of forest resources

70 within this area. Furthermore, there are no conscious attempts for re-forrestation to save this dying relic. According to land cover type changes analysis; the forest cover loss happened between 2003 and 2010, it is too much of a coincidence that this is also the period that has recorded highest trends in population growth for the area (KNBS, 2010).

Unlike the past when a particular community inhabited a particular area, today, besides population dynamics of the indigenous community through natural increase or decrease, immigration of other communities to an area has added to this population increase. With increased population, comes increased demand for human needs, most fundamental being land for settlement and food production. People therefore tend to clear away forestland to give way for cultivation and settlement. In the case of Kaya Mudzimuvya, results of GIS analysis reveals that cropland has declined while bare ground and settlement has increased. Reason for the decline in cropland in spite of the fact that the population is increasing, is that, most farms around the forest were of coconut trees, most of these are old plantations that are slowly disappearing because of establishment of fewer and in some areas no new coconut plantations.

With time these crops die out and the parcel of land, which once habited coconut farms are sold to immigrants, who construct their homes for settlement. Perhaps this crop associated with the

Coastal Kenya is endangered too.

Although the main Kaya within the forest is seldom interfered with because of the stringent regulations regarding access to the Kaya itself, the periphery of the Kayas as in the case of Kaya

Mudzimuvya is heavily degraded and encroached into. Kibet & Nyamweru (2008), Kibet (2002) document extraction of forest products and encroachment at the periphery of the Rabai Kayas.

With changes to the surrounding environment, micro environmental changes are inevitable, and thus in turn affect the remaining vegetation. So as much as the Kaya itself (which was mostly

71 settlement) is not interfered with in terms of vegetation degradation, actions in its environs affect its survival. It should not be forgotten that as the forest slowly degrades away, the faunal species depending on the forest as feeding, breeding and habitat grounds are adversely impacted on, further exacerbating the problem of biodiversity loss. ii) Cultural dynamics

Culture change is inevitable especially given its dynamism in multicultural societies (Busolo,

2006). In many societies people no longer live as homogeneous groups but embrace the heterogeneity brought as a result of inter marriages or other alien communities immigrating into the previously homogeneous community. Cultural influences from these immigrant communities are responsible for the evolution of existing cultures. Cultural differences between the aborigine community and immigrated communities may not enhance biodiversity conservation; for instance an important species for a community may not necessarily hold the same importance to another and therefore indifference towards its existence or conservation. Apart from the influence of other communities, other factors such as religious beliefs also influence existing aspects of culture including language, cultural beliefs and activities. In Kaya Mudzimuvya for example, Christianity, Islam and abandonment of the Kaya have influenced the culture modification the most. It is here at Rabai, just three hundred metres from Kaya Mudzimuvya, where Dr. Ludwig Krapf, a missioner from Church Missionary Society (CMC) in 1844 established his first church (Tinga, 2007). It is also here that freed slaves were settled after the

Indian Ocean slave trade was banned in the mid 19th century. With the embracement of

Christianity, the converts saw Kaya culture as evil/un-Godly thus severing links with it. It is no different today, Christian faithful; especially those subscribing to the salvation movement do not want to be associated with the Kaya. From the interviews, some even said it would be nice to

72 have the forest cleared away since evil rituals are performed in it, therefore bringing curses and

God’s wrath upon the community. With time, the Kaya ceased to have the same value it had during its occupation, this value has continued to diminish with time. Proliferation of Islam has also contributed to a changing culture, though, Kibet and Nyamweru (2008) argue that Islam has a positive attitude to environmental conservation because its principles enable for easy co- existence between it and indigenous traditional religion compared to Christianity where such co- existence is non-existent. This hypothesis, that Christianity is less tolerant to indigenous cultures and beliefs, is, however, questionable because the current elder of the elders of Kaya

Mudzimuvya, is also a staunch member of the Rabai Anglican Church of Kenya (ACK) Church choir, the same one that Dr. Krapf established. Declining importance of the Kaya after its abandonment, consequent changes in religious beliefs, as well as over-reliance on modern medicine have all played a significant role in the exploitation and/or conservation of sacred forests in the Kenyan Coast, Kaya Mudzimuvya included, compared to the era when people still believed, lived in and depended on the Kaya.

Kaya Mudzimuvya was inscribed as a world heritage site in 2008 (UNESCO, 2009); this has meant that it has become one of the attractions in the Kenyan Coast, receiving significant number of tourists. This has enabled for the establishment of an eco-tourism project, whereby, tourists to the Kaya are guided along established and defined paths through the forest and into some sections of the Kaya. Looking back to when no ‘aliens’ were allowed inside the Kaya, today the cultural structures are not as stringent as they were. For example in 2008, some researchers including a lady were allowed to witness and document a ritual to induce rain that was initially a preserve of the privileged few (Kaya elders and other culturally significant people) within this community and Again, the fact that the female researcher who conducted this study was granted

73 access into the Kaya forest and to some sections women were strictly forbidden clearly indicated weakening statutes within the Kaya traditions itself. In the past, foreigners (people from a different community) were strictly kept outside the perimeter of the Kaya demarcated boundaries.

The study also revealed that presently, medicinal significance of flora still upheld are those used in cure/treatment of witchcraft/supernatural related cases as opposed to curative medicine for physical ailments and illnesses. This is due to the fact that most people have embraced contemporary modern medicine for illnesses. People only resort to traditional medicinal plants either when the patient seeking modern healthcare does not get cured or has a terminal illness or in emergency situations when, either one is not able to get to hospital in time but needs relief of some kind, or the patient is unable to afford hospital cost. Probably there aren’t modern counter measures comparable to hospital for witchcraft and more supernatural related cases. The community is therefore apathetic towards efforts to propagate or even conserve the important tree species with medicinal properties. As attested by this study, the people with knowledge on tree species with medicinal properties are either medicine men or are older members of the community (40+). Most people today are not knowledgeable of plant species with medicinal value and therefore could not care less cutting it down whether accidentally or deliberately and using them as wood fuel or building poles instead. Most respondents under the age of 30 could not mention any trees they know that has medicinal properties, while those that knew several only had the knowledge that these were medicinal trees but didn’t know what they are used for, probably because they see their parents or grandparents using them but are not interested in further details concerning its preparations or indications.

While some aspects of the Arabai culture are still upheld, others are slowly fading away, those that have tremendously declined are associated with the Kaya, these are still upheld mostly by the old, and Kaya elders themselves. The socio-cultural aspects that have changed include: roles of different categories of people in the community, domestic fauna diversity, religion, traditional intellectual properties, diversification of dietary habits and use of modern technology. This change in cultural aspects has tremendously impacted not only on the biodiversity of Kaya

Mudzimuvya, but also the Kaya itself plus what it symbolized. This culture has evolved to the detriment of biodiversity. The fauna and flora that had certain significance be they cultural, medicinal or other, are not very significant anymore, not because they have lost their significance but because the community has shifted its priorities elsewhere. For instance, because people can get ‘better’ healthcare from modern medicine, they seldom use traditional medicinal plants, even though these plants still have the same medicinal properties. The most notable intellectual property that is fast fading away among the Arabai community is traditional medicinal knowledge and use. Knowledge about traditional medicine and medicinal plants their methods of preparation and administration rest with the old. Even though the local medicine men posses this knowledge, they seldom use it. As previously mentioned, the form of traditional medicine still widely in use is that associated with supernatural or other cultural phenomena associated with spirits. This could be because unlike physical ailments, which have been catered for by modern medicine, there has not been something similar to usurp the traditional beliefs in witchcraft etc so people still depend on it. To some extent, this has also declined because of the embracement of

Christianity.

Sustainability of the indigenous traditional medicinal knowledge is endangered, as holders of the valuable information are mostly old people who will soon die with all the knowledge without

75 imparting it to the younger generation who seem disinterested in it anyway. This in turn brings with it the question whether traditional indigenous medicinal plants will be able to survive another half century especially since nobody will probably have use for them. iii) Political configurations

Being a cultural and natural heritage of interest to the country, several government and non- governmental bodies are stakeholders to this Kaya forest. Most often these state actors have conflicting and overlapping mandates and sometimes duplication of efforts, which in itself is a challenge to the governance of the natural resource. For example, being a forest, the Kenya forest service has a stake in it, the National Museums of Kenya is the state body mandated to be custodian of all heritage in the country and therefore is implied in it, the Kenya wildlife service too have a stake in the wild fauna and flora in this heritage site not to mention the tourism ministry which has a stake in tourist attraction sites like Kaya Mudzimuvya. The National

Environment Management Authority (NEMA) overseeing all matters of environmental conservation and enhancing sustainability in the country is implied too. Although at the beginning the management of these forests seldom involved the local community, The Coastal

Forest Conservation Unit (CFCU) was formed in 1992 within the National Museums of Kenya

(NMK), to enhance participatory approach to resource conservation in collaboration with the local communities. At the community level, the Kaya elders have a stake in the Kaya and are charged with the mandate of managing it. Although their duties include ensuring that no illegal logging or deforestation occurs within the forest and punishing such offenses, the respondents look at the Kaya elders as being ineffective since there are allegations of corruption, bias and inefficiency in discharging their mandate.

76 iv) Socio-economic situation and resource exploitation

Kaloleni division has a population of 37,370 (KNBS, 2009) that requires wood fuel as the major source of energy for lighting, cooking and heating while at the same time facing problems of: abject poverty, landlessness and food insecurity compounded by climate variability and change.

It is thus visible why Kaya Mudzimuvya has experienced unsustainable resource harvesting and exploitation that has resulted in its degradation. The demand for forest, especially tree products outweigh conservation efforts in place because at the end of the day people have to eat, feed their children, find shelter and sustain their livelihoods. The tough economic times the country faces has not made things easier. Results of this study as discussed in chapter four has revealed the overdependence on forest products due to the inability to afford alternative fuel, the major cause for deforestation in this forest. Here, poverty is seen as the major culprit due to low income that has not enabled for diversification of energy sources that will consequently save the forest from overdependence on tree products and over-utilization.

2) Impacts of forest degradation on Kaya Mudzimuvya.

Several negative consequences of Kaya Mudzimuvya degradation are being experienced by both the inhabitant communities and neighboring ones. As a result of a diminishing forest, ecosystem services provided by them have also diminished perhaps by the same magnitude or more. It is these same services that have diminished that are also vital for human survival and sustainable livelihoods. i) Loss of biodiversity

The immediate impact is that, due to loss of fauna and flora (biological diversity), they are no longer available to the community for use. For instance, those that served as food such as wild

77 fruits and vegetables to the community, are no longer available for subsistence, while those that were relied upon for their medicinal or cultural properties are either not available or take significant amount of time to locate. An example is a medicinal plant “Mrehani” known to cure several ailments including remedying illnesses cause by evil spirits is no longer available in the

Kaya, according to the medicine men interviewed during this survey. Several respondents mazed at how in the past there was “nothing called hunger”, because even when crops were not ready for harvest, they would find wild fruits, roots and tubers from the forest unlike today when there is “nothing”. ii) Declining land productivity

With the loss of more than 50% of the original forest, there is bound to be an impact on the microclimate of the area. Respondents accede that today, there is more sun intensity/ the sun scorches more than it did before. A factor which can be attributed to the fact that, the forest which would have otherwise reduced the sun insolation by absorbing some of the radiation has been lost, thereby, leaving the ground bare, with less vegetation cover. The respondents also lament at how much rain they had before but now, rainfall besides being too little, is erratic.

They lament that in the past and they cultivated only a small area of land and had better harvest, today they cultivate larger areas but harvest cannot match what they got with the small areas they cultivated in the past, especially since poverty has not allowed for agricultural intensification.

Factors attributed to this decreased land productivity are: increased soil erosion that leads to nutrient deficient soils (the study showed an increase in bare land and decrease vegetation cover), prolonged drought and decreasing rainfall. The Kaya elders associate these droughts and inadequate rainfall with the absence of rainmakers who supposedly had the ability to somehow induce rain. They say that although sometimes they conduct rituals to induce rain during

78 prolonged drought, renowned rainmakers have since died, and since the knowledge had not been passed to others, the art is disappearing. A more scientific reason would be that: trees are associated with inducement of rain due to the large amount of water/moisture they contribute to the atmosphere through evapo-transpiration. Recent scientific findings have found proof that cutting down forests reduces rainfall. Norvis (2004) explains that the finding, independent of previous anecdotal evidence and computer modeling, uses physics and chemistry to show how the climate changes when forests are lost, although the causes of rain are, for the most part, wholly beyond the influence of the forest. The effect of a forest in checking moisture-laden winds is something like that of mountain ranges, although, in the case of the mountain ranges, there is an additional element. Warm, moist winds striking a mountain are forced up the incline and, owing to the fact that air expands as it rises, are thereby cooled and so cause rainfall

A reduction in vegetation cover or even vegetation composition therefore, most often acts to influence climatic factors such as rainfall, soil moisture and temperature. Catchment areas for example are mostly forested areas and receive plenty of rainfall. With less and more erratic rainfall, less soil moisture and land degradation causing reduction in soil fertility as a result of soil erosion increased by de-vegetation, harvest/land productivity is thus expected to decline. iii) Loss of intellectual property

Having noticed that most of the Kaya elders are old, it is indeterminate whether the younger generation in this site, who show apathy and most often disdain for the Kaya culture would be able to take up responsibility to replace the existing elders when they pass on. This makes the sustainability of these cultural systems that have to some extent protected the natural systems at stake. Again, local medicinal knowledge is fast fading away first because it is not imparted to

79 upcoming generations and second, biodiversity loss has made it tedious and in some instances impossible to find specific species for certain ailments. According to the medicine men interviewed, rarely do they use one species of vegetation to cure an ailment because most often they have to combine several species together in order to successfully remedy diseases and conditions. Rainmaking, an art that saved the community in times of distressful consequences of prolonged drought has disappeared, save for the Kaya elders who can, occasionally perform sacred rituals to appease spirits to send them rain. iv) Loss of habitat

Deforestation is one of the major causes of habitat destruction, consequently leading to loss of habitat for fauna species depending on that habitat. With continued degradation and habitat loss at Kaya Mudzimuvya, the faunal species are endangered too. Perhaps it is due to this reason that in recent times (since 2006) cases of big reptiles (pythons) finding their way to homesteads in search for food (goats and chicken) have become rampant. Food has become scarce in the forest as animals move away from the degraded forest in search for food.

The dynamics of Kaya Mudzimuvya as a protected area.

“Protected areas” is thought to be one of the most cost effective ways of natural resource and biodiversity conservation (J. Ervin, 2008). Conservation milestone is represented by the increase in the number of protected areas globally, estimated by (UNEP, 2003) to be around 44,000 worldwide and occurring within the last 30 years. Kaya Mudzimuvya is accorded protection at several levels of, first as an important cultural site, as a forest an archaeological site, as an important tourism site, and most recently as a world heritage site.

The existence of protected area is influenced by the motivation for conservation, which then determines the scale at which the protected area will exist, whether it is the desire to protect resources/biodiversity: fauna or flora that is endangered by over-exploitation or unsustainable development, protection of important catchment areas in a country to prevent it undergoing further degradation or protection due to important cultural and/or spiritual significance to a community as in the case of Kaya Mudzimuvya.

Despite the fact that Kayas are protected areas and have some cultural significance with sacredness value attached to them, as discussed above, these forests continue to face challenges of degradation as a result of unsustainable exploitation brought about by several factors, cutting across social, cultural, political and economic fronts, including those discussed in this text.

Like other protected areas, the Kaya Mudzimuvya seems to occur in separation from other land uses and for a long time the population was seldom included in its conservation and management efforts, yet the local population is dependent upon the natural resources within this natural heritage resource. Most often, it is forgotten that a protected area does not occur in isolation but has an interrelationship with the greater ecosystem, with ecological interactions such that activities outside the protected area are likely to impact on the protected area itself (Defries,

2007), as has been experienced with Kayas like Mudzimuvya. The protection that these sacred sites are accorded, most often occur in disregard to other factors outside it confines, factors, which also influence the sacred site itself. For example, the economic situation of the local population, politics around protected areas themselves as well as other social configurations.

The greatest challenge in natural resource management and sustainability has been to implement management opportunities that not only maintain the ecological functions of the protected area,

81 but also minimizes restrictions of the local population from the resources they need, while at the same time, providing alternative options that reduce over-dependence on natural resources in order to ease pressure on them. Hansen and Defries (2007) suggest: changes in effective size of protected areas (implications for dynamic area, species richness, trophic structure), altered flows of materials in ecological process zones, loss of crucial habitats (migrations and population areas) and exposure to human at reserve edges, as general mechanisms linking human land uses and ecological functioning of protected areas. Hansen and Defries (2007) further stress, that the confluence of the afore-mentioned factors has tremendous implication than the additive impacts of the individual factors.

So why do these sacred sites continue to suffer as a result of anthropogenic activities, have they lost the sacredness that initially was meant to ensure sustainability of these natural systems? The answer lies within the understanding of the interrelationship between the natural, socio-cultural- socio-economic and political systems and the consequence of an unbalanced relationship between them. Although loss of touch with the cultural values or disregard to the traditional customs that previously ensured the sustainability of both the cultural and natural heritage systems has to a large extent contributed to the degradation of this Kaya forest, other factors have acted to compound their negative impacts.

5.4 Conclusion

The environment comprises different components that are interlinked and thus due to the interconnectedness, an action (positive or negative) on one of the components is bound to have an impact on one or more of the other remaining components, either positively or negatively.

Man and his action are part of this complex system, and most often associated with manipulation that results into degradation and unsustainability of these resources on which he depends.

As shown by the results of this study and discussed in this chapter, it is evident that Kaya

Mudzimuvya is not only an important natural resource, but is also endowed with species of medicinal significance. These are depended upon by the local community to cure ailments and prevent impending doom. About 33 species of medicinal value have been identified in this study and their uses elaborated.

Kaya Mudzimuvya being a forest resource is beneficial to the local population in terms of products it provides to them. This study identified wood fuel as the most demanded product from this forest followed by medicine and timber for building. It has been established that about 80% of the population solely depends on wood fuel as a source of energy. For this reason, the Kaya

Mudzimuvya is continually undergoing degradation as the local population harvest wood fuel to suffice their energy needs. Thus unsustainable extraction of wood fuel is one of the factors leading to the degradation of Kaya Mudzimuvya.

Socio-economic factors play a significant role in determining resource use trends in terms of the type of product harvested as well as quantity of each product harvested. The investigation of this survey has ascertained that age, gender, education, income and household size influence resource use trends at Kaya Mudzimuvya insofar as the type and scale of extraction is concerned. This in the long term affects conservation of the said resource.

GIS analysis conducted by this study including NDVI values from the analysis all point out the fact that the Kaya Mudzimuvya and surrounding areas have been changing in terms of land use and land cover. Results indicated that the Kaya itself has significantly declined whereas the human settlement has also significantly increased. The Decline of the Kaya forest is thus attributed to increasing population, which prompts for more land to be cleared at the periphery of the forest for settlement and agriculture.

Due to the strong positive correlations and association between the above mentioned factors in addition to the other factors presented in chapter four and discussed in chapter 5, this study accepts the hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between social and economic situation of the inhabitant population and resource utilization trends. It also attests that cultural/spiritual inclination of the populace also influences resource utilization trends and conservation. These utilization trends consequently shapes the state of the forest and are an important function to determine whether resources will be conserved, over-utilized or used sustainably.

5.5 Recommendations

The negative impacts of unsustainable resource use are compounded by a confluence of several factors as opposed to one single factor, thus, remedy to this situation calls for an approach that cuts across all of the contributing factors.

In order to successfully curb the challenges facing the Kaya Mudzimuvya forest both as a natural resource and important natural and cultural heritage, this study recommends an integrated approach. This calls for good knowledge of how one sphere/components plays on the others and triggers/catalysts of imbalance that lead to subsequent alteration, degradation or conservation of

84 one or more of the other components. Thus resource sustainability here should be seen as a function of rural poverty situation, energy conservation mechanisms in place, sustainable resource use and efficient resource management techniques. More specifically, this study recommends: a) Community and other stakeholder recommendations

With the new devolved system of government, reduction of rural poverty should be made a priority. This will ameliorate the standards of living, more specifically increased income which may increase affordability to alternative energy and thus eliminate total dependence on wood fuel.

Environmental education and awareness creation in sustainable resource use is key to educate the local population of the consequences of their unsustainable actions in the long term. This will enhance sustainable practices.

There is need for stakeholders such as the National Museums of Kenya and Kenya forestry service to involve the local communities from the onset of decision making to implementation of conservation efforts so that they (community) own conservation projects and not feel neglected by them.

Again, stakeholders involved in the management of Kaya Mudzimuvya need to help the local community set up and offer support to alternative non wood forest product benefits such as ecotourism and bee keeping.

The Kaya elders as well as the forest officers mandated to ensure that no illegal activities is done within the forest need to be more transparent, accountable and more stringent with regard to penalties on offenders. b) Further study

Further research is necessary for the sustainability of Kaya Mudzimuvya. Gaps that have not been filled by this study include:

1. Biochemical analysis of medicinal plants to determine the active components within these

plants

2. The issue of gender and resource use has not been exhaustively discussed. It is important to

ascertain how gender is mainstreamed in resource conservation and how it influences

resource use trends.

3. The role of existing policies and how they have contributed to the current

situation/degradation of natural resources like Kaya Mudzimuvya has not been explicitly

covered by this study.

4. Although culture seems to be a factor that contributes to influence resource use trends, this

has not been conclusively tested to determine the existing relationship.

5.6 REFERENCE LIST

Adongo, C. (2007), Biodiversity Loss: a Function of Cultural and Environmental Dynamics at a Coastal Hinterland Site of Kaya Bate in Malindi, Kenya. Unpublished report, Fort Jesus Museum, Mombasa.

Anup, S. (2011), Why is biodiversity important? Who cares? Global issues (online). Available from: http://www.globalissues.org/article/170/ (Accessed 1/05/2009).

Arid Lands Resource Management Project, Ministry of state for development of northern Kenya and other arid lands, (2009) (online). Available from: www.aridland.go.ke. http://softkenya.com/kilifi-county/2011/08/24/population-of-kilifi-county/ (Accessed 13/05/2010).

Beentje, H.J. (1994). Kenya Trees, Shrubs and Lianas. Nairobi: National Museum of Kenya.

Burgess, N., Clarke. G. P. and Rodgers, W. A (1998). Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa: Status, Endemism Patterns and their Potential Causes. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, London, 64: 337–367.

Busolo, I. (2008). Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in Kenya. In: Kiriama, H., Odiaua, I. and Sinamai, A. eds. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in Africa an overview: Mombasa: Centre for Heritage Development.

Bayarsaikhan, U., Boldgiv, B., Kim, K.R. and Park, K. A., Lee, D. (2009). Change Detection and Classification of Land Cover at Hustai National Park in Mongólia. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observation. Geo-information. 11, 273–280.

Blaikie, P., (1989). Environment and Access to Resources in Africa (online). Available from: http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0001972000036123 (Accessed 9/01/2013)

Brockington, D. and Homewood, K. (1999). Tropical Open Woodlands: Biodiversity, Conservation and Development in Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania (online). Available from: http://crs.itb.ac.id/media/Jurnal/Refs/Landscape/Conservation%20-%20Tanzania.pdf (Accessed 3/12/2012)

Castellanet, C. and Jordan, C. (2002). Participatory Action Research in Natural Resource Management: A Critique of the Method Based on Five Years' Experience in the Trans- amazônica Region of Brazil. Brazil: Taylor & Francis.

Convention on Biodiversity Diversity (2010). What progress has been made towards the 2010 target of the Convention on Biological Diversity? (Online). Available from: http://www.greenfacts.org/en/digests/biodiversity.htm (Accessed February 10, 2010).

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund: Ecosystem Profile. (2005). Available from: www.cepf.net (Accessed 12/08/2009).

Defries, R. and Hansen, J. (2007). Ecological Mechanisms Linking Protected Areas to Source: Ecological Applications, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Jun., 2007), pp. 974-988. (Online). Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40061895 (Accessed: 09/03/2012 06:25)

Ellis, E. C., J. O. Kaplan, D. Q. Fuller, S. Vavrus, Goldewijk, K, and Verburg, P. H. (2008). Used Planet: A Global History. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Ellis, J. and Robin, S. (1995). Impacts of Pastoralists on Woodlands in South Turkana, Kenya: Livestock- Mediated Tree Recruitment. In: Ecological Society of America Eds. Ecological Applications, Vol. 5, No.4, pp. 978-992 (Online). Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2269349. (Accessed: 09/03/2012 05:46)

Faith, A. and Daniel, P. (2008). The Stanford encyclopedia philosophy. Edward, N. and Zalta (ed.) (Online). Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/biodiversity (Accessed 10/04/2011).

Food and Agriculture organization (FAO). (2011). Forests and Poverty Reduction (Online). Available from: http://www.fao.org/forestry/livelihoods/en/ (Accessed 15/01/2011)

Githitho, A. N. (2009). Research Project on Traditional Conservation Practices in Africa, Conservation of Immovable heritage in Sub Sahara Africa, In: Africa 2009. Ed. Traditional Conservation and Management Practices in the Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests of Coastal Kenya: Mombasa, African archaeological network.

Githito, A. (1998). Institutional Challenges in Conservation: the Case of the Sacred Kaya Forests of the Kenya coast. Unpublished report for World bank/WBIs.

Helm, R. (2002). Conflicting Histories: The Archaeology of the Iron Working, Farming Communities in the Central And Southern Coast Region of Kenya. Archaeology Department: Bristol University, PhD thesis.

Hansen, J. and Defries, R. (2007). Ecological Mechanisms Linking Protected Areas to Source: Ecological Applications, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Jun., 2007), pp. 974-988. (Online). Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40061895 (Accessed: 09/03/2012 06:06)

Hubert, B. and Ison, R. (2008). Institutionalizing Understandings: from Resource Sufficiency to Functional Integrity. In: Kammili.T, Hubert. B. and Tourrand, J.F. (Eds). A Paradigm Shift from Livestock Management: from Resource Sufficiency to Functional Integrity. Hohhot, China: Cardere éditeur Lirac.

IUCN. (2006). The Future of Sustainability: Rethinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first century. Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, 29-31 January 2006.

Kibet, S. (2002). Human Disturbances and Its Impact on Vegetation, Structure, Composition and Regeneration of Kenya Coastal Forests: A case study of Kaya Mudzimuvya forest. Department of Botany. Nairobi: Jomo Kenyatta University. Msc thesis.

Kiriama, H., Odiaua, I. and Sinamai, A. (2010). Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in Africa: An Overview. Mombasa: Centre for Heritage Development in Africa.

Kiriama, H. (2009). Excavations at Kaya Mudzimwiru. An unpublished report for the National Museums of Kenya, Fort Jesus Museum, Mombasa.

Kirubi, C. and Kammen, D.M. (2008). Poverty, Energy, and Resource Use in Developing Countries: Focus on Africa.” Annual New York Academy of Sciences.

Kung’u, J.B., Wangombe E. and Otor C.J. (2008). Community Participation in Dry Land Forest Conservation: the Case of Nuu and Iveti Hills in Kenya. In: African Journal of Environmental Studies and Development Vol. 1.

Leach,M., Mearns, R. and scoons, I. (1999). Environmental Entitelements Dynamics and Institutions in Community Based Natural Resource Management. In : World development eds vol.7.

Lehmkuhl, J.F. (1999). Monitoring Biodiversity: Quantification and Interpretation. United States dept of agriculture. General technical Report PNW-GTR-443.

Loyd, J. (2011). Biodiversity, The encyclopedia of earth (online). Available from: http://www.eoearth.org/article/biodiversity (Accessed 08/02/2012).

Marglin, A. and Mishra, P.C. (1993). Sacred Groves: Regenerating the Body, the Land, the Community. In: W. sachsa (ed) Global ecology: A New Arena of political Conflict. London: Zed books.

Ministry of planning and national development. (2010), Kilifi district development plan, Nairobi: national printing press.

Minister of State for Planning, National, Development and Vision 2030 (Online). Available from: http://www.knbs.or.ke/Census%20Results/Presentation%20by%20Minister%20for%20Planning %20revised.pdf (Accessed 31/08/2012).

Morton, R.F. (1977). New Evidence Regarding the Shungwaya Myth of Mijikenda origins. International Journal of African Historical Studies, 1998: 628-643.

Mugenda, O.M. and Mugenda, A.G. (1999), Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative Approaches. Nairobi: Africa centre for Technology studies.

Mutoro, H.W. (1994). The Mijikenda Kaya as a Sacred Site. In: D. Carmichael, Hubert, J., Reeves, B and Schanche, A (eds), Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. Rutledge.

National Museums of Kenya/Coastal Forests Conservation Unit, Annual Project Progress Report. Unpublished NMK/CFCU reports, Nairobi, 2000.

Nyamweru, C. (2003). Women and Sacred Groves in Coastal Kenya: a Contribution to the Ecofeminist Debate. In: Eaton, H and Lorentzen, L.A. (Eds.). Ecofeminism and Globalization. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham MD.

Nyamweru, C., Kibet, S., Pakia, M. and Cooke, J. (2007). The Kaya Forests of Coastal Kenya: ‘remnant patches’ or dynamic entities? In: Sheridan, M and Nyamweru, C (Eds.). African Sacred Groves: Ecological Dynamics and Social Change. Oxford and Athens O.H: James Currey and Ohio University Press.

Oroda, A (2005). The Impact of Land Subdivision and Sedentarization on the Land Cover Dynamics in the Mt Marsabit area, Kenya. Nairobi: Kenyatta University. Msc Thesis.

Parnell, N. (2006). Genetical Differences between Men and Women. London. London press.

Pimbert, M. and Pretty, N. (1995). Parks, People and Professionals: Putting `Participation' into Protected Area Management. United nations Research Institute for Social development, International institute for environment and development World wildlife fund for nature. Discussion Paper No 57, Geneva: UNRISD.

Ruijun, L. et al. (2008). A Strategy for Sustainable Management in a Rangeland Ecosystem. In: Kammili, T., Hubert, B., Tourrand, J.F. (Eds), 2011. A Paradigm Shift from Livestock Management: from Resource Sufficiency to Functional Integrity. Hohhot: Cardere éditeur Lirac.

Robertson, S. A. (1986). Preliminary Floristic Survey of the Kaya Forests of Coastal Kenya. Unpublished report, National Museums of Kenya and WWF International. Nairobi, Kenya.

Robertson, S. A and Luke, W. R. Q. (1993). Kenya Coastal Forests: The Report of the NMK/WWF Coast Forest Survey. WWF Project 3256, Coast Forest Status, Conservation and Management. Kenya: WWF.

Scherr, S. (2000). A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural resource degradation. Food policy 25: 479-498

Spear, T. (1978). The Kaya Complex: A History of the Mijikenda Peoples of the Kenya Coast to 1900. Nairobi: Kenya Literature Bureau. Nairobi.

Tinga, K. K. (2004). The Presentation and Interpretation of Ritual Sites: the Mijikenda Kaya case. Melbourne: Museum International.

Tucker, C. J., Newcomb, W. W., Los, S.O., and S. D. Prince. (1991). Mean and Inter-year Variation of Growing-season Normalized Difference Vegetation Index for the Sahel 1981-1989. International Journal of Remote Sensing, v. 12, p.1113-1115.

UNEP world conservation monitoring centre. Annual report (2005),Printed in the UK by The Lavenham Press.

United Nations Environment Program, (2003). Annual Report (Online). Available from: http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=67&ArticleID=4464&l =en (Date accessed: 17/12/2012).

UNESCO. (2009). Sacred Mijikenda forests (Online). Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1231 (Accessed 20/06/2011).

WWF-EARPO, Eastern African Coastal Forest Progamme. (2002) Regional Workshop Unpublished report. Nairobi.

WWF-EARPO, Eastern African Coastal Forest Progamme. (2004) Regional Workshop Unpublished report. Nairobi.

World Wildlife fund for nature. (2005). Annual review.

WWF-the Eastern Africa Coastal Forest Ecoregion. (2006). Strategic Framework for Conservation, WWF Eastern Africa Regional, Nairobi.

APPENDIX Household questionnaire administered to respondents during this study

INTERVIEWER ……………………….. VILLAGE ……………………………..

LOCATION ……………………. DATE …………………………….… CASE …………………………….…

The data acquired through this questionnaire will be used solely for the purpose of research and informant discretion and confidentiality will be highly upheld.

A. RESPONDENT PERSONAL PROFILE A.1. NAME…………………………………………………………………………. A.2. GENDER (1) MALE (2) FEMALE A.3. AGE………. If no answer, year of birth………………………………………… A.4 Marital status (a)married (b) single (c) divorced (d) widowed A.5. Is the respondent head of the household ? Yes […..] No […..] A.6. Education (a) none (b) primary (c) secondary (d) tertiary A.9. Occupation of the respondent : …………………………………………………… A10. Occupation of Household head (if respondent is not household head)………......

B. HOUSEHOLD AND SOCIO ECONOMIC DATA

B.1. Household size : Male adults……... Female adults……… Children……… Total…………… B.2. Duration of stay of respondent in this village (give value in years) ……………………… B.3. Type of housing (Mark X in the appropriate box and precise the number) : Makuti Iron sheet roofed Other

Number if exist : Number if exist : Number if exist :

B.4. For each of the présent housing types give the following détails : House type Roofing Wall Floor N° of rooms

B.5. Give details of the income sources for this household and indicate the total value (amount)/month. Income generating activity (include regular remitances) Amount/month

B.6. Does your household own any livestock: Yes […....] No [..…..] If yes in B6, list the animals owned……………………………………………………………...... B.7. Does your household own any of the following: (a) bicycle (b) mobile phone (c)solar panel (d)other…………….

C. ENERGY USE/FUEL CONSUMPTION

C.1. C.2. C.3. C.4. C.5. C.6. C.7. Species used Energy Sources Distance to Time spent to Frequenc Quantit Source for (where energy acquire y(trips/we y/trip cooking from) source (Km) energy in C1 ek (Hrs) Collected woodfuel

collected woodfuel

Bought wood fuel

Other

C.8. Which species do you prefer most as wood fuel? (in order of preference) (a)………………………(b)……………………(c)……………………(d)…………… ……… Why do you prefer these species?...... C.9. Do you harvest any products you from Kaya Mudzimuvya? (a) Yes (b) No

Forest Quantity/wee Sold ? Income of Main market Preffered Species product k sales/week for produce sold harvested woodfuel medicine

Honey

Poles

Other……… …………..

If yes, please give the following information:

C.10. Do you target specific species for either of these products? (a) Yes (b) No If yes: Activity Targeted species ……………………….. …………………………………………….. ……………………… ……………………………………………. ……………………….. ……………………………………………..

C.11. In your opinion, what is the status of Kaya Mudzimuvya? (a) Intact (b) degraded (c) a little degraded (d) very degraded (e) other……………………….

Give reason for the answer in C.11 above…………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………...... C.12. What do you feel needs to be done to restore the forest/ prevent further degradation (if respondent feels the forest is degraded)? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………….

C.13. How important is the Kaya Mudzimuvya to you? (a) Very important (b) important (c) not important (d) important to the elders

97 Why? Explain the answer in C.13 above…………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………..