2.1 The method
2.2 General conclusions
2.3 Role and importance of forests
2.4 Additional thoughts
The preparation of the handbook started from the premise that people know which trees they prefer for specific uses and this preference is based on solid experience often with both indigenous and exotic species. Selecting the proper species requires matching people's preferences with appropriate silvicultural techniques and planting sites. However, this is not always easy to accomplish due to the many uncertainties associated with assessing:
· the actual needs and preferences of farmers;· the adaptability of species to an area's climate, soils, topography, and land use conditions;
· the propagation and management requirements of preferred species, for which there is a lack of information.
Thus, a framework was developed to help identify species preferred and highly valued by women and men, and which have silvicultural potential for planting, either in agroforestry, farm forestry, or as single trees. The stages used in the formal survey process are also recommended to those undertaking forestry activities which involve people in tree planting. These stages are outlined as follows:
|
Stage 1 - Identify a Preliminary Species List Steps · Conduct preliminary survey with experts by mail. Output A preliminary list containing species which could be included in reforestation work in a particular area. The criteria used to select to species for inclusion in the handbook included the following (a similar set of criteria could be developed for a particular project). · local species which are highly valued by women and men: |
|
Stage 2 - Develop a Working Species List Steps · Discuss with researchers, seed experts, NGOs, field foresters, donors, and project managers about species that have the potential for more: intensive cultivation and are valued by local people. · Finalize Species Data Questionnaire 1 (questionnaires are presented in Appendix B) for use with local experts in the field based on the above discussions · Collect technical information using Questionnaire 1 for species identified in Stage 1, taking into consideration the following desirable characteristics (USAID 1991). - fast growing Output A preliminary list of species with information on site requirements, propagation, silviculture, and management potential. |
|
Stage 3 - Verify Species List in the Field Steps · Establish and test questionnaire with local groups · Modify and test questionnaire · Train staff to be enumerators · Implement surveys using a format similar to Village Level Questionnaire 2 and Market Survey · Verify findings trough discussions with villagers, local experts, discussions with local groups, and market vendors. Output A list of species valued by local people with information on economic aspects, including markets, substitutes, importance to different members of the family and to the welfare of the family. |
|
Stage 4 - Finalize Species for Planting Project/Programme Steps Match the preferred species identified in Stage 3 with technical aspects from Stage 2 to determine which species are best suited to: - meeting the actual needs and preferences of farmers; Output A list of potential indigenous tree species suitable for planting in specific areas, which can be discussed with farmers who are interested in planting trees. |
Much of the information in the handbook was obtained from both formal and informal surveys which were carried out during 4 visits to Tanzania. An initial rapid rural appraisal was conducted from September to November 1989 at various sites in Songea and Mbinga districts of Ruvuma region. Two visits were made for a 2 month period during May and June (1991 and 1992) and the other was for 1 month during February (1991).
The formal in-depth survey was carried out by 4 people in 1992 and reached 53 villages and 352 respondents in the following regions: Arusha, Dodoma, Iringa, Kilimanjaro, Morogoro, Mbeya, Tabora, Tanga, and Ruvuma. This information was supplemented by an in-depth needs assessment of 15 villages in Ruvuma region in 1991 and a rapid appraisal of 8 villages in Iringa region in 1991. Refer to Map 1 for village locations and the number of people contacted at each site. Market surveys were carried out in 8 major towns, 1 in each of the above-mentioned regions and at 3 smaller weekly markets. Discussions were held with individuals, groups, foresters, NGOs, and others working in the areas of land use and reforestation.
The species included in this handbook and the resultant lists, have been identified through these survey processes and the survey data has been entered into a data base called SPECIES. SPECIES is a user friendly, menu driven programme that allows the user to input specific as well as general information regarding uses, propagation, management, distribution, and site characteristics.
These lists should not be considered exhaustive, but rather as suggestions on species which have been identified by forest product users in selected areas as being economically important and which have the potential for planting in either agroforestry, woodlots, or individual plantings. It is taken for granted that there are other species which could have been included. It is hoped that these species will be added to the data base and that this information will become available at a later date.
TABLE 2.1 Survey Sites and Number of Respondents
1. Needs Assessment in Ruvuma Region
|
Village (15) |
Respondents (312) |
|
Mbinga |
15 |
|
Tunduru |
28 |
|
Liwumbu |
25 |
|
Lihwena |
14 |
|
Ndilimalitembo |
23 |
|
Matogoro |
24 |
|
Nandembo |
19 |
|
Namwinya |
26 |
|
Kilangalanga |
16 |
|
Namanguli |
24 |
|
Suluti |
15 |
|
Rwinga |
24 |
|
Mntonya |
27 |
|
Namtubo |
22 |
|
Maposeni |
10 |
2. Iringa RRA Survey
|
Village (10) |
Respondents (95) |
|
Kilolo |
4 |
|
Mazamba |
15 |
|
Imagi |
8 |
|
Idodi |
14 |
|
Isimila |
7 |
|
Dabaga |
11 |
|
Lugalo |
8 |
|
llulu |
10 |
|
Lulanzi |
12 |
|
Mgongo |
6 |
3. Formal Survey (53 villages, 352 Respondents)
A. Dodoma
|
Village (11) |
Respondents(85) |
|
Thuna |
9 |
|
Lahi |
8 |
|
Mpinga |
9 |
|
Nzali |
7 |
|
Kurio |
11 |
|
Chinangalitwo |
4 |
|
Kigwe |
5 |
|
Ihumina |
9 |
|
Patti |
7 |
|
Kwamtoro |
6 |
|
Kwa Dimu |
10 |
B. Arusha
|
Village (6) |
Respondents (58) |
|
Gwanamehi |
18 |
|
Murray |
8 |
|
Moringa |
14 |
|
Hayloto |
4 |
|
Nainolanoka |
9 |
|
Oloubi |
5 |
C. Morogoro
|
Village (4) |
Respondents (28) |
|
Melela |
4 |
|
Kiroua |
2 |
|
Kiroka |
2 |
|
? |
6 |
D. Kilimanjaro
|
Village (6) |
Respondents (23) |
|
Masaera |
4 |
|
Kilemapolo |
2 |
|
Kidia |
6 |
|
Kimaroroni |
4 |
|
Somahi mairni |
5 |
E. Lushoto
|
Village (2) |
Respondents (9) |
|
Bogga |
8 |
|
Migambo |
1 |
F. Mbeya
|
Village (5) |
Respondents (26) |
|
Township |
1 |
|
Kibisii |
9 |
|
Wangingombe |
9 |
|
Nandu |
2 |
|
Tukuyu |
6 |
G. Iringa
|
Village (12) |
Respondents (74) |
|
Ibulu |
4 |
|
Nanbu |
9 |
|
Mazombe |
5 |
|
Lulanzi |
16 |
|
Ismani |
1 |
|
Ibumu |
7 |
|
Wangingombe |
2 |
|
Makuka |
3 |
|
Image |
5 |
|
Irumu |
4 |
|
Kittorogota |
3 |
|
Makambaku |
7 |
H. Tabora
|
Village (2) |
Respondents (14) |
|
Township |
7 |
|
Ibiri |
7 |
I. Ruvuma/Njombe
|
Village (5) |
Respondents (35) |
|
Gumbilo |
5 |
|
Igawisenga |
8 |
|
Myangimbole |
10 |
|
Njombe |
5 |
|
? |
7 |
4. RRA Ruvuma Region Villages
|
Songea |
Malindindo |
|
Mfaranyaki |
Kihereketi |
|
Lilambo |
Liparamba |
|
Matete |
Amanemokolo |
|
Tanga |
Mukako |
|
Lumecha |
Lipumba |
|
Matetereke |
Namapola |
|
Lilondo |
Mhekela |
|
Lugazo |
Lilombo |
|
Kiherekete |
Mbinga |
Given the complexity of village level political, labour, land, resource tenure, and gender relationships, needs assessments independent of the formal survey were carried out in Ruvuma and Iringa regions. The main purpose was to try to understand how people used forest resources and what approaches might be appropriate for village level tree planting activities. The result of these assessments is a broad range of tree uses and participatory tree planting options; options that are unique for each village surveyed, depending on the different interests, preferences, constraints, and needs of a cross-section of women and men in a particular village.
Some of the general conclusions that were derived from group interviews, village wide discussions, talks with individuals, discussions with village governments, and formal village meetings include:
· the perception of village and family problems, uses for trees, and planting preferences (including species, types of plantings, nursery organization, labour arrangements, etc.) varied considerably between men and women and at times men tried to influence women's responses so that they corresponded with their own;· overall at the village level, men showed greater interest in tree planting activities, while women were less confident that tree planting would actually benefit them. The reasons for women's hesitation varied, but included: women generally are not involved in village level government decision making; the failure of past development projects; men take more than 1 wife, and a high divorce rate in some villages, resulting in women losing access to joint property including planted trees;
· a majority of men indicated a preference for planting as individuals. Slightly more women favoured planting as part of a group;
· in most villages forest-related problems were not included in the top 3 most serious problems either at the village level or for a particular family;
· in most villages the governments were rather weak and there had been few successful development activities;
· in general people were sceptical of the Forest Department's ability to assist them in tree planting activities. Most villagers had not been in contact with a forest extension officer;
· in all villages visited there was at least 1 person considered to be an expert on local trees, and in 8 out of 10 villages surveyed in Songea district of Ruvuma region, indigenous trees had been planted without the assistance of the Forest Department.
Major findings from the different surveys undertaken indicate that the level of dependence on forests, woodlands, and bush areas and the uses for indigenous trees varies considerably from region to region, district to district, sometimes even from village to village. In certain areas there is a diverse range of ways that people exploit forests for: fuelwood, fodder, medicine, fruit, building materials, honey, household items, land improvement, and rituals. In other areas, the reliance on the forest, the retention of important trees, and the planting of indigenous species is less significant. However, in general, people in Tanzania still rely heavily on surrounding forests for both subsistence needs and as a source of income. In many areas people would have difficulty surviving if they had to depend only on cultivated land for food, fuel, and cash income.
Almost all fuelwood is collected or produced on non-cultivated lands. A substantial part of household income is derived from products grown on these lands and some food, though more difficult to assess, is harvested from non-cultivated lands. Most rural people still depend on forests and bushlands for both economic and food security, and in many cases this dependence is increasing with improved living standards and increasing population.
It is also evident that the role and importance of forests have changed and will continue to change as do socioeconomic conditions within Tanzania.
Some factors that influence consumption of indigenous tree products include (1) the type of forest cover and the percentage of cover remaining, (2) the accessibility of treed areas both in terms of distance from the village and entry restrictions, (3) the degree to which exotics have been introduced and accepted, (4) disposable income and the availability of substitute Products and (5) the traditional importance of trees within a Tribe.
|
The importance of trees and forests in protecting the environment and in positively affecting farming is firmly established m the minds of farmers. |
In every village visited, some farmers mentioned the need to plant and protect trees in order to stem environmental deterioration and halt the decline in agricultural production. It seemed to be generally recognized that trees and forests improve the productivity of cultivated fields. The strongest preference to emerge from the survey was that both men and women generally tend to consider wood uses of trees most important (firewood, firewood, building materials, domestic items).
Other findings include:
· even though there is widespread promotion and planting of exotics, people retain certain indigenous trees in the fields and have a strong preference for exploiting indigenous species for specific uses;· in all villages visited, except Masai villages, people had planted trees, and many had planted indigenous species;
· a reason often given for planting trees was that farmers were experiencing an increasing shortage of local trees and there are few or no alternatives for their products;
· both production and protection were mentioned as major reasons for planting trees, although the protective and productive functions varied according to topography, and other conditions of the area;
· trees tend to have very specific uses. All potential uses are not realized in an area, and a common use in a village may not be practiced in the adjacent village;
· in drier areas or in areas where there is increasing scarcity of indigenous trees, multiple uses for a particular species are more common;
· many forest fruits are valued as food for children and are collected by children while in the woods. In many cases adults eat these fruits when carrying out other activities in the forest;
· where exotic fruits such as mango, papaya, and banana have been planted, little use is made of forest fruits. Likewise, where a large number of indigenous trees have been retained or planted, the variety of exotics is small;
· farmers use various propagation techniques for indigenous species: cuttings, transplanting wildlings, directly sowing untreated seeds, and seed treatment. They also undertake management activities including protection, weeding, pollarding, and coppicing, depending on the species and the end product desired.
These findings suggest that future forestry efforts need to focus on managing and developing locally important forest products, fully involving local people, both men and women, and incorporating their knowledge in this process. As many farmers are demonstrating, a variety of useful indigenous trees can be propagated by stumps, cuttings, direct sowing, and transplanting wildlings. These types of propagation techniques generally require timing adapted to specific sites and species, and this information often rests with the elders in a village. A large percentage of the most successful agroforestry trees used in Africa are indigenous and the probability of finding an appropriate indigenous agroforestry tree is much greater than finding a suitable exotic (Johansson 1992).
Finally, the indigenous trees of Tanzania represent a valuable genetic resource that needs to be cared for by the people relying on them. To date little has been done to research and promote the propagation, management, and local exploitation of these trees. It is time that local foresters, extension agents, NGOs, and farmers work together to study management and propagation techniques and work for the long term and sustainable use of indigenous trees in Tanzania.
