Local inhabitants’ use of forests in Kasyoha-Kitomi forest landscape

Kim RabenNatural Resources and Poverty UnitThe Danish Institute for International StudiesOctober 2006

Example of a local inhabitant’s perception of the poor in Maskati village

• They live in houses built by mud. Houses are thatched by grasses.

• They can’t manage more than ½ hectare of land.• They eat one meal a day and face hunger for three months each

year. • They are always indebted and therefore most of what  they

harvest is used to pay back debts.• They work as casual laborers • Some are involved in charcoal burning and selling of fire wood.• They have not completed their contributions to village water

project.• They eat boiled food because they cannot afford to buy cooking

oil.

Poverty indicators

• Causual labouring

• Animal ownership• Land ownership• Non-agricultural

sources of income• Children’s schooling• Marital status and age

• Hiring agricultural labourers

• Food security• Quality of diet• Housing quality• Dressing• Health status

Poverty levels in in PEMA intervention areas

• Greater equity in Tanzania than in Uganda

• Greater size of the less poor group and much smaller size of the poorest group in Tanzania

Who owns the land?

Land ownership Kasyoha Kitomi Forest Landscape (% of households)

38

61

27

63

30

1

36

63

01020304050607080

Own > 5 acres ofland

Own < 5 and > 1acre of land

Own < 1 acre ofland

better-off

less poor

poor

Non-agricultural sources of income

Who has non-agricultural sources of income (% of households)

62

19 196 19

74

2 4

95

020406080

100

Some have "highentry barrier"incomes as

professionals,(shops or

businesses)

Have incomes astailors, building,

crafts, brewing orpreparing andselling food

Nobody in thehousehold havenon-agricultural

sources of income

better-off

less poor

poor

The majority of local inhabitants benefit from forests in the landscape

Benefit from forest according to well-being level (% of households)

71,4 65,4 67,6

0

20

40

60

80

100

1

better-off

less poor

poorest

But they benefit from different types of forests!

Type of forest from which households get most benefits (% of households)

25,6

10,3

64,1

34,327,3

38,4

69

10,920,2

-10

10

30

50

70

90

forest reserve forest on public land notdeclared reserve

private forest onindividual land

better-off

less poor

poorest

… and they benefit in different ways!

Benefits from the forest (% of households)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Timber andpoles

Firew ood Thatch Plants formedicinal and

otherpurposes

Agriculture,grazing,

grow ing trees

better-off

less poor

poorest

Forests do not only provide benefits

Problems resulting from being near a forest, Kasyoha-Kitomi(% of households)

32

11 13

0

55

20 17

3

68

26

8 7

0

20

40

60

80

Wild animals are aproblem

Diseases are aproblem

Insects are aproblem

Invading plants area problem

better-off

less poor

poor

The poor are less informed and do not participate

Local participation in forest management

35,7

23,521,5

13,311,8

1,30

10

20

30

40

Knowledge of villagesparticipating in forest

mangement

Somebody in the householdparticipated in making rules

better-off

less poor

poorest

Conclusions from Kasyoha-Kitomi Forest Landscape

• 2/3 of the households benefit from forests in the landscape.

• The poor are more dependent on benefits from the forest reserve compared to the less poor and the better-off who benefit more from forests on public land and private forests.

• Better-off, less poor and poorest benefit in different ways.

• Forests are not only a source of benefits but also pose risks, especially among the poorest.

• The poorest do participate less in decision-making on forest management.