An integrated assessment of the biodiversity, livelihood and economic value of wetlands in Mtanza-Msona Village, Tanzania

Gita Kasthala, Aloyce Hepelwa, Hamoud Hamiss, Emmanuel Kwayu, Lucy Emerton, Oliver Springate-Baginski, David Allen and Will Darwall

IUCN Tanzania Country Office

An integrated assessment of the biodiversity, livelihood and economic value of wetlands in Mtanza-Msona Village, Tanzania
Gita Kasthala, Aloyce Hepelwa, Hamoud Hamiss, Emmanuel Kwayu, Lucy Emerton, Oliver Springate-Baginski, David Allen and Will Darwall

This document was produced under the project Strengthening Pro-Poor Wetland Conservation Using Integrated Biodiversity and Livelihood Assessment, carried out with financial support from the Darwin Initiative of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or Defra.

Published by:

IUCN Tanzania Country Office

Copyright: Citation:

2008 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Kasthala, G., Hepelwa, A., Hamiss, H., Kwayu, E., Emerton, L., Springate-Baginski, O., Allen, D., and W. Darwall (2008) An integrated assessment of the biodiversity, livelihood and economic value of wetlands in Mtanza-Msona Village, Tanzania. Tanzania Country Office, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Dar es Salaam. Fishermen at Lake Mtanza. Gita Kasthala 2006 Lucy Emerton IUCN Global Economics & the Environment Programme Tanzania Country Office IUCN 63/1 Galu Street Ada Estate, Kinondoni PO Box 13513 Dar es Salaam Tanzania Freshwater Biodiversity Unit IUCN Species Programme 219c Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 ODL United Kingdom Email: species@iucn.org http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/our_work/freshwater/darwin_index.htm Global Economics & the Environment Programme IUCN 4/1 Adams Avenue Colombo 4 Sri Lanka

Cover Photo: Design: Produced by: Available from:

Contents
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................................................i List of Tables, Figures, Boxes Photos and Maps..................................................................................................................................ii Note on Maps......................................................................................................................................................................................vi List of Acronmyms...............................................................................................................................................................................vi

Introduction: strengthening pro-poor wetland conservation using integrated biodiversity, livelihood and economic assessment.......................................................................................................................................1
The project...........................................................................................................................................................................................1 Aims of this study.................................................................................................................................................................................1 Setting the scene: Mtanza-Msona Village, Tanzania............................................................................................................................3 Location................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Natural environment.............................................................................................................................................................................3 Human environment.............................................................................................................................................................................8 Environmental governance...................................................................................................................................................................8

Methodology: how the assessment was carried out.......................................................................................11

The principles of integrated wetland assessment...............................................................................................................................11 Applying an integrated methodology in Mtanza-Msona......................................................................................................................12 A note on overcoming integration challenges during fieldwork...........................................................................................................14 Defining the management objective...................................................................................................................................................14 Survey techniques and data collection methods.................................................................................................................................15

Findings on village livelihood assets and vulnerability context.......................................................................28

Applying the sustainable livelihoods framework in Mtanza-Msona.....................................................................................................28 Human capital....................................................................................................................................................................................29 Social capital......................................................................................................................................................................................30 Physical capital...................................................................................................................................................................................30 Financial capital..................................................................................................................................................................................32 Natural capital....................................................................................................................................................................................33 Household production, consumption and income flows......................................................................................................................33 Vulnerability context...........................................................................................................................................................................33

Findings from the literature review of biodiversity throughout the wider Rufiji District....................................38 Findings from the biodiversity field survey......................................................................................................44
Fish.....................................................................................................................................................................................................45 Birds...................................................................................................................................................................................................46 Amphibians.........................................................................................................................................................................................49 Vegetation..........................................................................................................................................................................................50 Mammals............................................................................................................................................................................................50 Crabs..................................................................................................................................................................................................50 Odonata..............................................................................................................................................................................................51

Findings on the local use and economic value of wetland biodiversity...........................................................52

Fishing................................................................................................................................................................................................52 Woodfuel............................................................................................................................................................................................57 Timber................................................................................................................................................................................................58 Grasses, reeds and palms..................................................................................................................................................................60 Medicinal and aromatic plants............................................................................................................................................................61 Wild food plants..................................................................................................................................................................................62 Hunting and animal-based foods........................................................................................................................................................64 Wild honey..........................................................................................................................................................................................66 Clay....................................................................................................................................................................................................66 Indirect, option and existence values..................................................................................................................................................67

Conclusions: the livelihood and economic value of Mtanza-Msonas wetland biodiversity............................69

Household participation in wetland activities......................................................................................................................................69 The economic value of wetland resource use.....................................................................................................................................70 Wealth, poverty and wetland dependence..........................................................................................................................................71 How wetlands contribute to social wellbeing and positive livelihood outcomes..................................................................................74

Management implications: conserving wetlands for sustainable livelihoods..................................................79

Understanding Mtanza-Msona wetlands in the context of national and local-level environmental management processes...............79 Making the economic and development case for village wetland conservation..................................................................................79 Providing local-level incentives for wetland conservation...................................................................................................................80

References......................................................................................................................................................82
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................................................i List of Tables, Figures, Boxes Photos and Maps..................................................................................................................................ii Note on Maps......................................................................................................................................................................................vi List of Acronmyms...............................................................................................................................................................................vi

Introduction: strengthening pro-poor wetland conservation using integrated biodiversity, livelihood and economic assessment.......................................................................................................................................1
The project...........................................................................................................................................................................................1 Aims of this study.................................................................................................................................................................................1

Setting the scene: Mtanza-Msona Village, Tanzania............................................................................................................................3 Location................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Natural environment.............................................................................................................................................................................3 Human environment.............................................................................................................................................................................8 Environmental governance...................................................................................................................................................................8

Methodology: how the assessment was carried out.......................................................................................11

The principles of integrated wetland assessment...............................................................................................................................11 Applying an integrated methodology in Mtanza-Msona......................................................................................................................12 A note on overcoming integration challenges during fieldwork...........................................................................................................14 Defining the management objective...................................................................................................................................................14 Survey techniques and data collection methods.................................................................................................................................15

Livelihoods and economic values..........................................................................................................15 Biodiversity.............................................................................................................................................23 Findings on village livelihood assets and vulnerability context.......................................................................28
Applying the sustainable livelihoods framework in Mtanza-Msona.....................................................................................................28 Human capital....................................................................................................................................................................................29

Place of origin........................................................................................................................................29 Household size and composition...........................................................................................................29 Education and occupation......................................................................................................................29 Health status..........................................................................................................................................30
Social capital......................................................................................................................................................................................30 Physical capital...................................................................................................................................................................................30

Farmland................................................................................................................................................30 Livestock................................................................................................................................................31 Housing, tools and equipment...............................................................................................................32 Public infrastructure...............................................................................................................................32

Financial capital..................................................................................................................................................................................32 Natural capital....................................................................................................................................................................................33 Household production, consumption and income flows......................................................................................................................33 Vulnerability context...........................................................................................................................................................................33

Stresses and shocks..............................................................................................................................34 Factors which influence peoples vulnerability and resilience...............................................................34 Wealth status.........................................................................................................................................35 Trends and changes..............................................................................................................................35 Findings from the literature review of biodiversity throughout the wider Rufiji District....................................38 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................................39 Mammals................................................................................................................................................40 Birds.......................................................................................................................................................40 Amphibians............................................................................................................................................40 Reptiles..................................................................................................................................................40 Fish.........................................................................................................................................................41 Molluscs.................................................................................................................................................41 Crabs......................................................................................................................................................42 Odonates................................................................................................................................................42 Findings from the biodiversity field survey......................................................................................................44
Fish.....................................................................................................................................................................................................45

Kachinga................................................................................................................................................46
Birds...................................................................................................................................................................................................46

Mkono.....................................................................................................................................................47
Amphibians.........................................................................................................................................................................................49 Vegetation..........................................................................................................................................................................................50 Mammals............................................................................................................................................................................................50 Crabs..................................................................................................................................................................................................50 Odonata..............................................................................................................................................................................................51

Findings on the local use and economic value of wetland biodiversity...........................................................52

Fishing................................................................................................................................................................................................52

Who engages in fishing..........................................................................................................................52 What, where and when people fish........................................................................................................53 How people fish......................................................................................................................................54 How much is caught...............................................................................................................................55 The value of fishing................................................................................................................................56
Woodfuel............................................................................................................................................................................................57

What is used and by whom....................................................................................................................57 The value of firewood and charcoal ......................................................................................................57
Timber................................................................................................................................................................................................58

What is used and by whom....................................................................................................................58 The value of timber................................................................................................................................59

Grasses, reeds and palms..................................................................................................................................................................60

What is used and by whom....................................................................................................................60

Medicinal and aromatic plants............................................................................................................................................................61

What is used and by whom....................................................................................................................61 The value of medicinal and aromatic plants..........................................................................................62
Wild food plants..................................................................................................................................................................................62

What is used and by whom....................................................................................................................62 The value of wild food plants ................................................................................................................63
Hunting and animal-based foods........................................................................................................................................................64

What is used and by whom....................................................................................................................64 The value of hunting...............................................................................................................................65

Wild honey..........................................................................................................................................................................................66

What is used and by whom....................................................................................................................66 The value of wild honey and beeswax...................................................................................................66
Clay....................................................................................................................................................................................................66

What is used and by whom....................................................................................................................66 The value of clay....................................................................................................................................66

Indirect, option and existence values..................................................................................................................................................67

Conclusions: the livelihood and economic value of Mtanza-Msonas wetland biodiversity............................69

Household participation in wetland activities......................................................................................................................................69 The economic value of wetland resource use.....................................................................................................................................70 Wealth, poverty and wetland dependence..........................................................................................................................................71 How wetlands contribute to social wellbeing and positive livelihood outcomes..................................................................................74

Peoples occupations.............................................................................................................................74 Household and village economies.........................................................................................................74 Human wellbeing....................................................................................................................................76 Management implications: conserving wetlands for sustainable livelihoods..................................................79
Understanding Mtanza-Msona wetlands in the context of national and local-level environmental management processes...............79 Making the economic and development case for village wetland conservation..................................................................................79 Providing local-level incentives for wetland conservation...................................................................................................................80

References......................................................................................................................................................82
Annex 1: By-laws to protect the natural forests and the environment of Mtanza-Msona Village..............................................................84 Annex 2: Forest management plan for Mtanza-Msona North Village Forest Reserve.............................................................................90 Annex 3: Household questionnaire..........................................................................................................................................................94 Annex 4: Data tables from the household survey..................................................................................................................................120 Annex 5: Seasonal calendars................................................................................................................................................................122 Annex 6: Species lists for Mtanza-Msona..............................................................................................................................................124 Annex 7: Value of and participation in wetland activities.......................................................................................................................140 Annex 8: Geo-reference data................................................................................................................................................................142

Acknowledgements
The project Strengthening Pro-Poor Wetland Conservation Using Integrated Biodiversity and Livelihood Assessment is funded under the Darwin Initiative of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. At a global level the project is implemented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Overseas Development Group (ODG) of the University of East Anglia. Project partners in Tanzania, under the coordination of the IUCN Tanzania Country Office, are the Rufiji District Council, and the Economic Research Bureau, Institute of Resource Assessment and Department of Geography of the University of Dar es Salaam. The authors would like to acknowledge many individuals and institutions for their support in making this assessment possible, while emphasising that any errors remain those of the authors alone. Firstly, we express our huge thanks to the villagers of Mtanza-Msona for their help and participation throughout the assessment. In particular we acknowledge the Village Government and the Village Environment Committee for their permission for the project to work in Mtanza-Msona, and thank Shabani Nyangalio (Natural Resource Scout), Moshi Makasamala (Village Fisheries Officer), Hussain Hari (Rufiji District Council) and all the other villagers and District staff who assisted the project team with survey work. Elisabeth Taratibu is acknowledged for her assistance in the field, and many thanks are given to those who supervised fieldwork Dr Kassim Kulindwa and Dr George Jambiya of the University of Dar es Salaam, and Ms Hulda Gideon of COSTECH. Channa Bambaradeniya and Gaya Sriskanthan of the IUCN Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group Asia provided key inputs into the dry season biodiversity fieldwork, as did Mathew Knisely. Dr Geoffrey Howard of the IUCNs Global Invasive Species Programme kindly gave of his time and expertise to accompany the team on their initial scoping mission. Throughout the project Abdulrahman S. Issa and Yassin Mkwizu of IUCNs Tanzania Country Office provided ongoing managerial and technical support, while fieldwork could not have happened without the logistical and administrative backing of Mujungu and Elsie, also of IUCN Tanzania. Last but not least, the Darwin team would like to acknowledge the ongoing technical comments and advice of Dr Olivier Hamerlynck and Dr Stphanie Duvail; special thanks are given to Dr. Duvail for allowing us to make use of the Mtanza-Msona basemap. We are also grateful to Dr Viola Clausnitzer for her kind assistance with the identification of Odonata photographs, and to Dr Kim Howell for his key inputs in the identification of species.

List of Tables, Figures, Boxes Photos and Maps

Table 1: Sample sizes for each hamlet...........................................................................................................20 Table 2: Numbers of households interviewed.................................................................................................20 Table 3: Characteristics of different wealth categories as applied in survey data analysis............................21 Table 4: Main Occupations of Respondent Households in Mtanza-Msona .................................................29 Table 5: Cropping patterns and areas.............................................................................................................31 Table 6: Ownership of household assets........................................................................................................32 Table 7: Non-wetland household production and income...............................................................................33 Table 8: Village wealth categories..................................................................................................................35 Table 9: Perceptions of changes in household food status over the last year...............................................37 Table 10: Perceptions of changes in household socio-economic status over the last year...........................37 Table 11: Numbers of species assessed in each country of the Eastern Africa freshwater biodiversity assessment region..........................................................................................................................................38 Table 12: The global conservation status of species in four key freshwater taxa in Eastern Africa...............38 Table 13: The regional conservation status of selected freshwater species within the Eastern Africa region. .........................................................................................................................................................................38 Table 14: Plants of conservation concern present in Rufiji District.................................................................39 Table 15: Commonly utilised timber species sourced from the Mtanza forests.............................................39 Table 16: Tanzanian endemic reptile species recorded in Rufiji District by Doody and Hamerlynck (2003). 41 Table 17: The conservation status of mollusc species from the Rufiji River basin.........................................42 Table 18: Checklist of native Tanzanian freshwater crabs and their conservation status..............................42 Table 19: Odonata species recorded as present in the Rufiji river basin by the IUCN Red List ...................43 Table 20: Key habitat types found in the Mtanza-Msona village area............................................................45 Table 21: Fish species utilised in the Mtanza-Msona wetlands......................................................................46 Table 22: Dry season (September 2006) bird observations for 6 key wetland sites in the Mtanza-Msona wetlands..........................................................................................................................................................47 Table 23: Frogs and toads recorded during the Mtanza-Msona wetland survey............................................49 Table 24: Mammals present within the Mtanza-Msona wetlands...................................................................50 Table 25: Odonata collected from lakes and associated habitats..................................................................51 Table 26: Distribution of fish species and seasonality....................................................................................53 Table 27: Fish catch per unit effort..................................................................................................................56 Table 28: The value of fishing.........................................................................................................................56 Table 29: The value of firewood......................................................................................................................57 Table 30: The value of charcoal......................................................................................................................57 Table 31: Tree species used for timber...........................................................................................................58 Table 32: The value of wood used for house construction.............................................................................59 Table 33: The value of wood-based assets....................................................................................................59 Table 34: The value of timber harvesting for sale...........................................................................................59 Table 35: Value-added through the manufacture of timber products.............................................................59 Table 36: The value of grasses, reeds and palms..........................................................................................60 Table 37: Value-added through products manufactured from palm leaves....................................................60 Table 38: Commonly-used medicinal plants...................................................................................................61 Table 39: The value of plant-based medicines...............................................................................................62 Table 40: The value of plants for cosmetics...................................................................................................62 Table 41: The value of plants for essential oils...............................................................................................62 Table 42: Wild food plants...............................................................................................................................62 Table 43: The value of wild food plants...........................................................................................................63 Table 44: Animals hunted and/or consumed..................................................................................................64 Table 45: The value of hunting........................................................................................................................66 ii

Table 46: The value of insects........................................................................................................................66 Table 47: The value of wild honey and beeswax collection............................................................................66 Table 48: The value of clay.............................................................................................................................67 Table 49: Mean maximum willingness to pay for indirect, option and bequest values...................................67 Table 50: Probit regression results for WTP for conservation of the Mtanza-Msona wetlands......................68 Table 51: The value of wetland resources to Mtanza-Msona Village.............................................................71 Table 52: Average number of wetlands activities by household wealth category..........................................71 Table 53: Average wetlands value by household wealth category.................................................................73 Table 54: Main stated occupations of households .......................................................................................74 Table 55: Total wetland value as compared to other sources of household production and income.............75 Table 56: The value of medicinal plants as compared to household medical expenditures..........................75 Table 57: The value of wild foods as compared to household expenditures on food.....................................75 Table 58: Total number of species, number of threatened species, and level of unassessed species for each group included in the Mtanza-Msona survey.........................................................................................80 Annex Table 59: Origin of survey respondents.............................................................................................120 Annex Table 60: Education levels of respondents by gender.......................................................................120 Annex Table 61: Prevalence of disease.......................................................................................................120 Annex Table 62: Mosquito net ownership.....................................................................................................120 Annex Table 63: Distribution of land between households...........................................................................120 Annex Table 64: Households experiencing food shortage over the past year.............................................121 Annex Table 65: Household wealth ranking by hamlet.................................................................................121 Annex Table 66: Seasonal activities calendar..............................................................................................122 Annex Table 67: Crop cultivation calendar...................................................................................................122 Annex Table 68: Availability of wild vegetables and grains..........................................................................123 Annex Table 69: Amphibian species in Rufiji District, reported by Doody and Hamerlynck (2003).............124 Annex Table 70: Fish species present within the Rufiji District (Doody and Hamerlynck 2003)..................124 Annex Table 71: Bird species list for the Mtanza-Msona wetlands..............................................................125 Annex Table 72: Mammals present within the Mtanza-Msona wetlands......................................................127 Annex Table 73: Dragonflies recorded from the Rufiji region (from Clausnitzer, 2006) with their Red List status.............................................................................................................................................................128 Annex Table 74: Reptiles (other than snakes) recorded in Rufiji District. Extracted from Doody and Hamerlynck (2003)........................................................................................................................................129 Annex Table 75: Snakes recorded in the Rufiji District. Adapted from Doody and Hamerlynck (2003).......130 Annex Table 76: Plant species present in Riufiji District, Tanzania, from Doody and Hamerlynck (2003). .132 Annex Table 77: Rate of engagement in wetland activities..........................................................................140 Annex Table 78: Proportion of households engaging in wetland activities, and value of use......................140 Annex Table 79: Engagement in wetland activities by household wealth category (% of hholds)...............141 Annex Table 80: Value of wetland activities by household wealth category (TSh/year)..............................141 Annex Table 81: Georeferencing of Mtanza-Msona Village households involved in the survey..................142 Annex Table 82: Georeferencing of Mtanza-Msona Village facilities and landmarks...................................143 Figure 1: The integrated approach to wetland assessment............................................................................12 Figure 2: Steps and stages in carrying out the study, including stakeholder feedback..................................13 Figure 3: The sustainable livelihoods framework............................................................................................28 Figure 4: Agricultural landholdings: ownership, use, size and distribution.....................................................31 Figure 5: Households experiencing food shortage over the past year...........................................................34 Figure 6: Abundance and diversity of waterbirds in Mtanza-Msona village wetlands....................................48 Figure 7: Relative abundances of birds in the wetlands of Mtanza-Msona. Source: Darwin field survey, 2006-7.............................................................................................................................................................49 Figure 8: The total economic value of wetlands..............................................................................................67

iii

Figure 9: Rate of engagement in wetland activities........................................................................................69 Figure 10: Summary of household participation in wetland activities.............................................................69 Figure 11: Summary of the value of wetland products and activities to user households..............................70 Figure 12: Contribution of different wetland products and activities to total value..........................................71 Figure 13: Engagement in and income from wetland activities by household wealth category.....................72 Figure 14: Contribution of wetland resources to household production and income by wealth group...........76 Figure 15: Contribution of wetland resources to value of household medicines by wealth group..................76 Figure 16: Contribution of wetland resources to household food value by wealth group...............................76 Figure 17: Ecosystem services and human wellbeing....................................................................................77 Figure 18: The contribution of wetland products to fulfilling basic human needs...........................................77 Box 1: Vegetation and land use classification for Mtanza-Msona Village.........................................................5 Box 2: Information collected during focus group interviews............................................................................17 Box 3: Estimation of wetland indirect use, option and bequest values using CVM........................................22 Box 4: Fishing methods in Mtanza-Msona......................................................................................................55 Photo 1: Wooded grassland..............................................................................................................................7 Photo 2: Rufiji Floodplain..................................................................................................................................7 Photo 3: Rufiji River...........................................................................................................................................7 Photo 4: Lake Mkono........................................................................................................................................7 Photo 5: Lake Mtanza.......................................................................................................................................7 Photo 6: Lake Makoge......................................................................................................................................7 Photo 7: Mtanza-Msona Environmental Library................................................................................................9 Photo 8: Environmental Management Plans for Mtanza-Msona, Jaja, Mbunju-Mvuleni and Twasalie Villages, Rufiji District......................................................................................................................................10 Photo 9: Village meeting.................................................................................................................................16 Photo 10: Interviewing fishermen at Lake Mtanza landing site.......................................................................17 Photo 11: Georeferencing water resources....................................................................................................20 Photo 12: Conducting a market survey of fish traders....................................................................................21 Photo 13: Focus group interview with fisherfolk..............................................................................................22 Photo 14: Sampling molluscs..........................................................................................................................25 Photo 15: Sampling odonates.........................................................................................................................26 Photo 16: Setting bucket pitfall traps...............................................................................................................26 Photo 17: Cyclid; Kumba (Oreochromis urolepis) is the most frequently caught fish from Mtanza-Msona wetlands..........................................................................................................................................................46 Photo 18: Cyprinidae probably from the Labeo family is commonly found in fishers catches.......................46 Photo 19: A mating pair of damselflies on a hand-dug pond by Kisima Mchele lake.....................................51 Photo 20: Female of Anax tristis found on Dai Lake, previously unrecorded in Rufiji District........................51 Photo 21: Fisherman on Lake Mtanza............................................................................................................57 Photo 22: Firewood harvesting.......................................................................................................................58 Photo 23: Timber harvesting...........................................................................................................................60 Photo 24: Hats made from wetland palm species...........................................................................................61 Photo 25: Leguminous aquatic plant used for food.........................................................................................64 Photo 26: Rubbish dumped in woodland area close to the village.................................................................80 Photo 27: Infestations of the invasive species Pistia stratiotes on Lake Kihimbwa........................................80 Map 1: Location of Mtanza-Msona Village in Rufiji District...............................................................................3 Map 2: Mtanza-Msona vegetation and land use...............................................................................................4 Map 3: Location of survey households and hamlets.......................................................................................18 Map 4: Sampling locations within the Mtanza-Msona wetlands for Odonata, Molluscs, Birds and Anurans. 24 iv

Map 5: Wetland and landcover types within the Mtanza-Msona village area.................................................44 Map 6: Fishing sites in Mtanza-Msona............................................................................................................52

Note on Maps
Unless otherwise stated, all maps in this document are based on the following co-ordinate system: WGS 1984, UTM Zone 37S. The base map used throughout this report was produced (orthorectification, photo-interpretation, image analysis and cartography) by Stphanie Duvail (Institut de Recherche pour le Dveloppement) for the publication Mtanza-Msona Village, Our Village Environment Management Plan - An account of How We Drew It Up And Are Implementing It - Know Mtanza-Msona's Environment, 2004, IUCN - Eastern Africa Regional Programme. Map based on Aerial photographs1/50000 June 1999, prepared by Photomap for REMP and Landsat image courtesy of the Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership (TCMP), June 2000. Map redigitised by Dr. Anna McIvor (IUCN FBU) with permission from S. Duvail. Original groundtruthing (2003) by the villagers of Mtanza-Msona (P. Mwambeso, R. Elibariki) with S. Duvail, O. Hamerlynck. Additional groundtruthing by villagers and the Darwin project field team during fieldwork (Sept-Oct 2006, Feb-March 2007).

List of Acronmyms
CPUE CVM Defra GDP IUCN ODG PRA REMP TSh VEC VEMP WTP Catch per unit effort Contingent valuation method UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Gross Domestic Product International Union for Conservation of Nature Overseas Development Group of the University of East Anglia Participatory rural appraisal Rufiji Environmental Management Programme Tanzania Shilling (at the time of writing the exchange rate was US$1:TSh1,153) Village Environment Committee Village Environmental Management Plan Willingness to Pay

vi

Introduction: strengthening pro-poor wetland conservation using integrated biodiversity, livelihood and economic assessment
The project
The project Strengthening Pro-Poor Wetland Conservation Using Integrated Biodiversity and Livelihood Assessment, funded under the Darwin Initiative of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, runs between October 2005 and September 2008. The goal of the project is that pro-poor approaches to the conservation and sustainable use of threatened wetlands are strengthened through improved capacity, awareness and information on the biodiversity and livelihood value of aquatic ecosystems. A weak appreciation and lack of accessible information about the links between wetland biodiversity, economic status and livelihood security, and especially of the importance of wetlands to the poorest, remains one of the most important factors underpinning wetland degradation and loss. The project is founded on the recognition that developing sustainable, effective and equitable approaches to wetland conservation requires a thorough understanding of the interlinkages between socio-economic and biophysical status, influences and threats. This, in turn, requires that the methodologies used to assess wetlands and to inform management responses are integrated, and deal with biodiversity, livelihood and economic aspects. At the same time, there is a need to ensure that such information and insights are practical and policy-relevant, and are geared towards addressing real-world issues and concerns in wetland management. While techniques exist, and have long been used, to assess wetland biological, economic and livelihood values and trends separately, there is a lack of available methods to assess the interlinkages and connectivity between wetland health and economic/livelihood status, or to express this information in a form and with a focus that can inform and influence real-world conservation and development planning. The project thus aims to help in overcoming these methodological and informational constraints by the development and application of integrated assessment methods that can generate planning and decision support information to strengthen pro-poor approaches to wetland conservation. To these ends, activities being carried out under the project include the development of an integrated wetland assessment methodology and field protocol, the production of a toolkit outlining this methodology, and its application in two case study field sites: Stung Treng Ramsar Site in Cambodia, and Mtanza-Msona Village in Tanzania. Each of these two field studies involves the application of integrated assessment techniques to address a specific management issue which relates to the interaction between wetland conservation and sustainable development in that site, thus generating practical and policy-relevant information for planners and decisionmakers who are engaged in wetland management. They also provide an opportunity to work with national and local partners to develop, field-test and refine the integrated assessment methodology and toolkit which are being prepared under the project.

Aims of this study

Mtanza-Msona Village, in the Rufiji Floodplain of east-central Tanzania, was chosen as one of the two pilot field sites for this project due to the presence of rich wetland resources which yield a range of products that are used for subsistence and income purposes by local populations, and provide critical inputs into livelihoods particularly for poorer and more vulnerable groups in the community. The inclusion of Mtanza-Msona as a field site also provides an opportunity for the assessment to input directly into ongoing wetland management processes. Between 1998 and 2003, the Rufiji Environmental Management Project (implemented by the Government of Tanzania and IUCN) had the goal of promoting the long-term conservation and sustainable use of wetland resources and of improving and securing local livelihoods in the Rufiji Floodpain and Delta. The Regional Natural Resources Department, District Natural Resources Officers and Village Environment Committees developed a series of District and Village Environmental Management Plans for pilot villages, including Mtanza-Msona. The integrated assessment being carried out under the current project aims to generate management information about the links between wetland biodiversity, livelihoods and economic values which can assist in the implementation of the Village Environmental Management Plan (VEMP) for Mtanza-Msona. 1

A number of activities have been carried out under the project alongside the integrated field assessment, in partnership with the national institutions collaborating in the research (Rufiji District Council, and the Economic Research Bureau, Institute of Resource Assessment and Department of Geography of the University of Dar es Salaam). These include holding training courses on integrated wetland assessment and analysis, producing English and KiSwahili awareness and information briefs, and running national policy roundtables and local dialogues.

Setting the scene: Mtanza-Msona Village, Tanzania

The field assessment was carried out on Mtanza-Msona Village, Rufiji District. It focuses on all the wetlands (permanent and seasonal rivers, streams, lakes, swamps and floodplains) found within the village boundaries, including associated forest and grassland areas. This chapter provides a brief background to Mtanza-Msona Village, including descriptions of location, climate, land use, vegetation, soils, human population, livelihoods and resource management practices. Geo-reference data for major facilities and landmarks in the village are presented at the end of this report (see Annex 8: Geo-reference data).

Location
Mtanza-Msona is situated in the western floodplain area of Rufiji District (Map 1), on one of the 13 permanent lakes (Lake Mtanza) which are associated with the Rufiji, Tanzanias longest river. It is one of 98 registered villages in the district, and shares boundaries with Kisarawe District to the north, the Selous Game Reserve to the south, Nyaminywili village to the east and Mibuyusaba village to the west (Hogan and Mwambeso 2004). The village extends across a distance of more than 30 km from north to south, and 10 km from east to west, with a total estimated area of between 550-600 km2. Map 1: Location of Mtanza-Msona Village in Rufiji District

Rufiji District

From Hogan and Mwambeso 2004

Natural environment
Located at 7o 30 S to 8o 40 S and 39o 50 E to 39o 40 E along the east coast of Tanzania, Rufiji District has a tropical climate with little monthly variation in day length or temperature. The north-easterly monsoon blows from November to March, while the stronger south-easterly monsoon blows from April to November. Seasonality is mainly determined by rainfall and associated flooding. The climate is tropical with the short rains (Vuli) falling between mid-November and early January. This coincides with the hottest period. March, April and the first half of May form the long rains season (Masika). Floods occur from December through April, varying in intensity and duration from year to year, but usually with a small flood peak happening in December and the main floods taking place in April.

Map 2: Mtanza-Msona vegetation and land use

Mtanza-Msona Village contains a wide range of natural habitats, including forests, grasslands, bushlands, wetlands, sand dunes, farmland and areas of human settlement (Box 1). The vegetation, soil types and associated land uses in Mtanza-Msona Village can be considered in two blocks (Map 2), bisected west to east by the Rufiji River and the road that runs alongside it: the terrace (Mwinuko) and area to the north of the River, and the floodplain extending to the south of the Rufiji (Hogan and Mwambeso 2004). Although Mtanza Msonas village area is big, its population is relatively compactly settled in five sub-villages leaving a large area of forest to the northwest (Hogan et al 2000). Box 1: Vegetation and land use classification for Mtanza-Msona Village Area (ha) Mixed vegetation Bushed grassland Bushed grassland seasonally inundated Bushland with scattered cultivation Closed woodland Open grassland seasonally inundated Open woodland Wooded grassland seasonally inundated Woodland with scattered cultivation Natural forest Inland water Mixed cultivation Sand dunes Settlement 269 13,049 394 16,328 1,760 12,425 354 2,523 135 3,023 5,152 2,282 568 58,262 % of total 0.5% 22.4% 0.7% 28.0% 3.0% 21.3% 0.6% 4.3% 0.2% 5.2% 8.8% 3.9% 1.0% 100.0%

Lowland forest Others

Total From Malimbwi (2000)

Most of the land to the north of the river and road is covered in deciduous woodland with patches of mixed forest, which combines lowland coastal forest and miombo woodland (medium to low canopy woodland dominated by trees of the closely related genera Brachystegia, Julbernardia and Isoberlinia). The vegetation in this area also comprises bushland, grassland (tall and short grasses) and swamps. The densest woodland is adjacent to valleys and lakes, and in the riverine forest that line rivers and other drainage courses. Villagers distinguish sixteen different forest areas, including a large block of formallygazetted Forest Reserve to the north of the river (including Zili-Zili, Nyamwidege and Tanda forests, and part of Upper Msangazi and Dai Lake and Forest). These forests formerly had a large stock of commercially-valuable timber species, including Mkongo (Afzelia quanzensis), Mpingo (Dalbergia melanyxolon), Mpangapanga (Milletia struchmanii), and Mtondo (Julbernadia globiflora). However most of the harvestable stock of these species has been removed, and it is reported that there is no commercially harvestable timber remaining in the forests (Malimbwi 2000). The soils beneath the woodlands are primarily reddish-brown sandy loams (Msanga) of moderate acidity and fertility. There are some cracked clay depressions (Mabawe) scattered throughout the north part of the village which support wooded grassland with Doum palm (Hyphenae compressa) and Acacia species. Small patches of farmland lie to the north of the river, outside the Forest Reserve. Mtanza and Msona village centres are located on the north bank of the river, and a band of farmland and scattered settlement follows the rivers course along the floodplain the south. The strip by the river comprises of mixed woodland, mango (Mangifera indica) and cassia (Senna siamea) fallow. South of this is the main cultivation area on the very fertile loams and fine sands (Mbawila), which are fed with rich alluvium during the regular floods. The natural vegetation is Upanje (Hyparrhenia rufa) grassland interspersed with Msona (Acacia sieberana) trees. South again there are mixed woodlands, some dominated by Acacia spp. (including Mizigunga), stretching all the way to Kimbulu Depression and the Selous Game Reserve boundary. Apart from the Rufiji, there is one other permanent river the Mtalula, which runs west to east along the southern floodplain. The Kihimbwa and Msangazi rivers (to the north of the Rufiji) flow for about three months of the year. Mtanza-Msona contains a large number of permanent lakes, including Mtanza, Nyakasewa, Magenge, Makoge, Mtandia, Magoga, Andemela, Kibuyu, Mshamu, Ngohe, Mzambarawe and 5

Mwama.

(c) IUCN/Yassin Mwkizu 2007 Photo 1: Wooded grassland

(c) IUCN/Lucy Emerton 2007 Photo 2: Rufiji Floodplain

(c) IUCN/Gita Kasthala 2007 Photo 3: Rufiji River

(c) IUCN/Gita Kasthala 2007 Photo 4: Lake Mkono

(c) IUCN/Gita Kasthala 2007 Photo 5: Lake Mtanza

(c) IUCN/Gita Kasthala 2007 Photo 6: Lake Makoge

Human environment
Mtanza-Msona Village has a total population of 1,830 people in 428 households, and administratively, is composed of four hamlets (sub-villages): Bizi, Msiga, Mtanza, and Mturuma. The largest tribe in this village is Ndengereko (also known as Waruhingo). Others include Matumbi, Pogoro, Hehe, Ngindo and Zaramo. Although there are more or less equal numbers of women and men, the bulk of households are maleheaded (75%). Local livelihoods are based around crop farming. Most people of Mtanza Msona have a home in the official centre of the village north of the river Rufiji, but most of their time, especially their productive time, is spent on their farms, which are for the most part some distance away from the main village centre (Hogan et al 2000). The main cultivation areas are located in the floodplain area south of the river. While cultivation remains mainly at the subsistence level, food trading is a common way of generating cash income. Rice and maize are staple crops, with at least two and sometimes three harvesting seasons (the main sowing seasons are late November and December, March, and June). The flood recession area is used for the second rice crop (sown in June), and other wetland areas (such as Mbaligani, to the north of the river) also provide important rice cultivation areas due to their rich clay soils and good water retention capacity. Other important food crops include cowpeas, green grams, pigeon peas, cassava and sweet potatoes. Fruits and vegetables, including pumpkin, banana, tomato, okra, cashew and watermelon provide a source of cash income, as well as food. In addition to growing crops, some households keep livestock. Although larger animals (such as cattle and goats) are not common, due to the presence of tsetse flies, poultry are kept by many households. Despite its importance, crop cultivation remains a risky occupation, and few households rely on farming as a sole source of livelihood. Other productive activities include petty trade, fishing and handicraft production. People are considered to be most secure in economic terms when they have other sources of income from employment and business. Wild foods (both plant and animal) provide an important source of nutrition, and income earned from fishing and logging are used to generate cash to buy food when harvests fail. The main energy source in Mtanza-Msona is fuelwood, with charcoal also providing an important source of cash income. The use of plant-based medicines is widespread, and trees and grasses are commonly utilised for house construction. As described above, the main village centres of Mtanza and Msona are concentrated on the north bank of the Rufiji River. This is where most people have their permanent houses. Many villagers however also maintain and occupy a stilted house or shelter in the floodplain, known as Dungu. These seasonal dwellings are said to be located on the sites of the original villages of Mtanza-Msona, before the resettlement which took place as a result of Ujamaa or villagisation, in the late 1960s (Meroka 2006).

Environmental governance
The wetlands and associated resources found in Mtanza-Msona include formally-gazetted reserves, communal resources which are managed directly by local villagers, as well as trees and other habitats located on lands which are held and used privately. Line ministries (including the Forest Department and Wildlife Division), local authorities (most notably the Village Council and Village Environment Committee), as well as informal groups (such as natural resource scouts, the environment choir, beekeeping group, herbal medicines, plant protection group and tree-growing group) and individuals all participate in managing the natural resources in the village. With the exception of parts of Msangazi River, Mkono, Tanda and Dai Lakes, which are located within the Village Forest Reserve (see below), most of the wetland areas that are used for fishing have been utilised and governed under traditional use and access rights. In the past this has translated into often complicated arrangements which in practice have allowed open access to a wide range of fishers from both within and outside the village (Hogan and Mwambeso 2004). An example is the perceived, and uncontested, right of some villagers from Nyaminwili to fish lakes within Mtanza Msonas villages southern reaches (Hogan et al 2000). However increasing pressure on fisheries resources have resulted in a number of measures being set in place to restrict access at certain times, or for certain groups. The new Village by-laws on the environment regulate fisheries (see below), and Lake Mtanza (a primary fishing ground) has a closed fishing season since 2000 (Richmond et al 2002). This form of collective action, decided upon by the villagers themselves in response to the rapidly declining fish stocks in the lake, appears to have been largely successful (Richmond et al 2002, Meroka 2006). 8

The utilisation of wildlife resources is also intense, and carried out by both villagers and outsiders. Hunters from Kisarawe District and Dar es Salaam hunt in the northern part of the village, while tourist hunting is carried out on the lands to the south of the village; these hunting activities are often carried out illegally, without obtaining licences or informing the Village Authorities (Meroka 2006).

IUCN/Yassin Mkwizu 2007

Photo 7: Mtanza-Msona Environmental Library There are two main pieces of legislation that govern the regulation of land in Tanzania: the Land Act and Village Land Act, both promulgated in 1999. The Village Land Act provides for the management of land in villages, and gives power to the Village Councils to own and manage land as a trustee, on behalf of the villagers and others who reside in the village. In Mtanza-Msona, the local administration is responsible for allocating land for farming and other purposes. Cultivation is the main means of claiming user rights over land, which are held by the individual, household or the family. For an outsider to obtain use rights over land, they must apply to the local government. Land rights are vested in men - women are not seen as landholders, and lose their traditional rights to land if they divorce. The Village Council also plays an important role in forest management. The Forest Act of 2002 establishes four categories of forests, including Village Forest Reserves, and provides room for local communities to formulate by-laws to regulate and govern forests in their jurisdictions. The villagers of Mtanza-Msona have managed to gazette an area of forest to the north of the Rufiji River as a Forest Reserve. This involved reaching agreements with adjacent villages regarding the boundaries of the forests, and having forest surveys undertaken by the Forest and Beekeeping Divisions survey department. In 2001 the Ward Development Committee submitted a detailed forest plan and application for gazettement, in July 2003 the Director of Forestry made a public announcement of gazettement, and in November 2003 the village was informed by the Forest and Beekeping Division Legal Officer that, since there were no objections, this area could be legally considered as a Village Forest Reserve. At the end of 2003, the Mtanza-Msona Village Environment Committee sat for the first time, and commenced drafting new rules for the uses of the different natural areas and resources found in the village. Some of these rules reflect existing national laws, and others were subsequently enacted as by-laws under the Local Government Act (Village Governments) of 1982 under the title Laws for the Protection of the Native Forests and the Conservation of the Environment of Mtanza-Msona Village (see Annex 1: By-laws to protect the natural forests and the environment of Mtanza-Msona Village). These laws became operational on 14th August 2003. The Mtanza-Msona Village Environment Management Plan (VEMP) was prepared in 2000 by a village planning team which was appointed by the Village Assembly, approved by the Village Assembly, and is being implemented by the Village Government. The main objective of this plan is the protection and sustainable utilization of the natural resources and environment within the village boundaries. A village forest reserve management plan (see Annex 2: Forest management plan for Mtanza-Msona North Village Forest Reserve), which is part of the VEMP, covers the woodlands and forests north of the Rufiji River.

Photo 8: Environmental Management Plans for Mtanza-Msona, Jaja, Mbunju-Mvuleni and Twasalie Villages, Rufiji District Although the gazetted boundaries of the Selous Game Reserve lie outside Mtanza-Msona, the village abuts it to the south. The presence of this nearby Protected Area gives rise to some conflict over the ownership and use of land and natural resources. Two issues of concern to Mtanza-Msona residents are the large numbers of wild animals which come into the village (especially during the dry season) and cause significant crop damage, and the perceived exclusion of the local community from opportunities to gain from tourism in the Selous. There have also been a series of boundary conflicts with the Game Reserve (Malimbwi 2000). For example the line clearance by Selous Game Reserve which took place in 1997-98 is considered a serious land encroachment by the villagers of Mtanza Msona, and the ownership and control of Lake Utunge is another unsolved issue (Hogan et al 2000). As the gazettement of the Game Reserve took a large portion of land and fisheries grounds out of local use, it is argued that it resulted in a considerable increase in pressure of those natural resources which remained as village land (Meroka 2006).

10

Methodology: how the assessment was carried out

The principles of integrated wetland assessment
The field assessment followed the methodology detailed in the toolkit produced under this project (Darwall, W., Emerton, L., Allison, E., McIvor, A. and C. Bambaradeniya (2007), A Toolkit for Integrated Wetland Assessment), currently in draft format. In fact one of the aims of the Mtanza-Msona assessment was to field test these methods and protocols. The full background and approach to integrated wetland assessment is detailed in the draft toolkit (available from http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/our_work/freshwater/darwin_iwa/index.html). It is founded on the premise that an integrated approach to assessment is necessary in order to generate information that is practically useful, and policy relevant, for wetland planning and management. As both wetland values and threats encompass biological, ecological, economic and livelihood aspects, and wetland management responses must simultaneously address and react to each of these factors, a thorough understanding of all and of the interlinkages and interconnectivity between them is required. The main components of integrated wetland assessment are seen as species and habitat-based biodiversity assessment, economic valuation, and livelihoods analysis. The toolkit describes a framework for assessment which consists of the following stages: Defining management objectives: recognising and balancing both conservation and development goals, and promoting a pro-poor approach to wetland management, is a process that requires broad consultation and awareness of a wide range of issues. Developing a shared vision and rooting the assessment in real-world management goals and objectives are both essential to give purpose to the assessment process, and to identify relevant management and policy-related questions for the assessment to tackle. Conducting assessment: documenting the state of wetland biodiversity, identifying development and conservation pressures and threats, and understanding past, current and future management and policy responses requires the co-ordination of data collection, survey and review, across all relevant disciplines and methods. Carrying out analysis and presentation: analysing the data generated to address needs for management and policy information, to emphasise the interlinkages and connectivity between biodiversity, economic and livelihood factors, and to ensure that information is presented in a practical and policy-relevant form which is both appropriate and useful for planners and decision-makers in conservation and development sectors.

The guiding principles supporting the toolkit are therefore that wetland assessments should: Be integrated across disciplines and themes; Be geared to address a particular management issue or question; Generate information that can be used to support and improve the planning of on-the-ground wetland management, and provide information to make better decisions about how to use and allocate investment funds, land and resources in and around wetlands; Work to strengthen existing wetland management process; Serve to sustain wetland values, with a particular focus on ensuring the continued generation and equitable access to wetland goods and services, particularly for poorer and more vulnerable human groups.

The integrated assessment model, applied in the case of Mtanza-Msona, thus has the advantage that exchange of ideas takes place at all stages from defining objectives, through carrying out fieldwork, to data analysis and presentation (Figure 1). Its disadvantages may include the time and difficulty it takes to plan and conceptualise and the intellectual and professional demands it places on participants. This model helps wetland conservation and development stakeholders to move away from a situation where they are making decisions on the basis of a series of biodiversity assessments, economic valuations and social development reports that have been carried out by different groups of people, who were commissioned separately by programme or project planners, did not consult one another, worked in different places and at different 11

times to each other, using different methods, analytical tools and scales of working, and were each able to provide only a part of the information required and who left gaps which had to be filled by information derived from guesswork, inapplicable generalisations or vested interests. Figure 1: The integrated approach to wetland assessment

Integrated Management Objectives Integrated Management Objectives

DETAILED PLANNING CONCEPTUAL INTEGRATION RESEARCH FIELD SURVEY

Jointly Derived Research/Management Questions

Biodiversity Livelihoods Survey Analysis Economic Valuation

DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS REPORT

INTEGRATED REPORT

PRESENTATION

INTEGRATED BIODIVERSITY, VALUATION AND LIVELIHOOD INFORMATION AND MANAGEMENT ADVICE

Management Plan
From Darwall et al 2007

Applying an integrated methodology in Mtanza-Msona

Putting integrated assessment into practice presented many challenges; most people have technical skills and experience in only part of the process. For integration to work, everyone needed to have an awareness of the whole process. This involved expanding the boundaries of each persons own study area, feeding into areas with which they were not familiar, and receiving input from researchers in other areas who may not have understood the rationale or constraints of their own area. There were obvious overlaps between the approaches already used in the three research areas of biodiversity, livelihoods and economics, and the challenge here was to maximise the synergies between these approaches, while minimising the costs and complexities of carrying out assessments across such a broad range of expertise. For the Mtanza-Msona study, a core field team of 4 people and a broader reference group of 12 people were formed to plan and carry out the field survey, including biologists, ecologists, rural sociologists and economists. An initial planning meeting brought the integrated study team together with additional experts from other research institutions and national/local government agencies (including from Rufiji District) in May 2006. At this point, training was carried out in both the integrated assessment framework and in methods for biodiversity, economics and livelihoods data collection. A series of steps, stages and milestones were formulated to deliver on the study, with particular attention being given to mechanisms for incorporating stakeholder inputs and feedback, at both local and national levels, throughout the process (Figure 2). A short scoping mission to Mtanza-Msona ensured that the plan developed was practical in the field context, and secured feedback from local stakeholders.

12

Figure 2: Steps and stages in carrying out the study, including stakeholder feedback

Timeline

Key steps in the study

Stakeholder feedback loop

May 2006

Initial planning Initial planning

National dialogue meeting National dialogue meeting

Training Training

Field scoping Field scoping

Local dialogue meeting Local dialogue meeting

Jul-Aug 2006

Literature review Literature review

Piloting of field methodologies Piloting of field methodologies

Sep-Oct 2006 Feb-Mar 07

Continuous Continuous local interaction local interaction Dry and wet season fieldwork Dry and wet season fieldwork

Apr-Nov 07

Data analysis Data analysis

Local dialogue meeting Local dialogue meeting

Dec 07

Production of draft report Production of draft report

National roundtable National roundtable

Jan-Jun 08

Finalisation of technical report Finalisation of technical report

Local dialogue meeting Local dialogue meeting National roundtable National roundtable

Between July and August 2006, a literature review was carried out of both published and grey literature relating to Mtanza-Msona, and the data collection methodologies were pilot-tested in the field. The main field assessment was carried out in two stages: during the dry season (September-October 2006) and the wet season (February-March 2007). A total of six wetland sites were surveyed and 3 focus group discussions were held for the biodiversity assessment (flora and fauna), 112 households were interviewed and 12 focus group discussions were held for both livelihood and economic valuation exercises. An important element of the fieldwork was that data collection was carried out simultaneously by the full multidisciplinary team. Integration was promoted through biodiversity, economics and livelihoods experts each being involved in collecting information relating to all three thematic areas, and daily planning and information review meetings were held and attended by the entire team (described in more detail in the next section of this chapter). Over this period, ongoing interaction with local government authorities and villagers ensured a continuous stakeholder feedback loop as the survey was carried out. With the field survey work completed, data analysis and report drafting took place between April and November 2007. A dialogue meeting was held in July 2007 in Mtanza-Msona, involving a broad range of local stakeholders, in order to share preliminary findings and solicit feedback and verification. With the production of the final draft report in December 2007, a national dialogue meeting was held to share findings and seek feedback from conservation and development policy-makers and planners from government and NGOs, as well as from Rufiji District administration. After the report is finalised, based on these inputs, a final series of national and local dialogues will be held to disseminate and share the technical report with stakeholders by the end of June 2008.

13

A note on overcoming integration challenges during fieldwork

Initial issues with lack of coordination and unfamiliarity with the methodology were experienced. Adapting thematic methodologies to incorporate more integration in the field was also not easy, as questionnaires had already been designed and printed in large numbers, so there was resistance to changing what had already been put together. In the field, teams held regular interaction meetings during the evenings to discuss and share information gathered. During the field work, it was tried as much as possible to have a different person lead the evening discussion each night. In these meetings, teams exchanged the lessons they had learned and information they had gained during the course of the day: the biodiversity team provided all relevant information to livelihood and economics team, and vice versa. Also, the schedule for the next mornings field survey was prepared, and all issues anticipated to be likely to cause any logistical problems were resolved (for example, the allocation of people and resources such as the field vehicle). When the teams began to interact informally, a sense of confidence and trust was developed, and this led to constructive suggestions and ideas being taken up at the discussions, reaching consensus on tasks to be carried out. Aspects such as the need to listen to all team members, mutual respect (for suggestions and ideas related to different subject matters), and patience were all important in reaching consensus related to integrating the three disciplines. There was a gradual evolution of daily discussions, where the teams began to discuss and apply new tools to be tried out to gather information in an integrated manner. Evening discussions started with everyone going round saying what they'd been doing, and any problems they'd been having. Then people tried to share information they had come across that they thought would be useful to the other team. Team members on both sides got to grips with the idea of integration and its benefits. Certain topic areas/issues that the team encountered created common ground for discussions between the two teams; for example, the issue of working around Ramadan and the constraints it imposed on when interviews and focus groups could be held; also the issue of illegal fishing. One issue was that people were tired in the evening, so didnt have a lot of energy for grappling with integration issues. Ethnobotanical tools were found to be particularly helping in bridging the gap between the biodiversity and livelihoods teams; for example, the community calendar focusing on what people harvest and eat in the different seasons and why, or the focus group with fishermen. The draft toolkit produced under the project was helpful in planning out the assessments, and the teams will be able to suggest modifications to the toolkit, after the completion of the field work. Ultimately, integration is difficult, and by the end of the field work there were still clearly two teams (social scientists and natural scientists) who were trying to integrate, rather than a single integrated team. Although attempts were made to understand the work of the other team, there was still a lack of knowledge of the concepts of the other discipline.

Defining the management objective

Possibly the most important consideration driving the design of the study in Mtanza-Msona was that, as well as serving to pilot and refine an integrated approach to wetland assessment, it aimed to generate practical and policy-relevant information that can be used to assist in wetland conservation planning and management in the Rufiji floodplain. The reason for this emphasis on defining a management objective for the study is that wetland assessment does not take place in isolation. It is prompted by a particular management or policy issue that needs to be addressed, or a particular decision that needs to be made about the use of funds, land or other resources. The information that is generated by the assessment therefore aims to assist in understanding or dealing with this issue, or in making this decision. However academically interesting it is to know the status, characteristics or worth of a particular site, wetland assessment is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end better and more informed conservation and development decision-making. It is the management or policy issue which determines the scope, objective and parameters of wetland assessment. Thus, before undertaking the integrated assessment of Mtanza-Msona, it was important to understand the management context in which the study would take place, and to clearly define the issues which it would aim to address. If these management issues had not been clarified, and understood by the whole team, at the start of the study, the assessment would have run the risk of lacking focus and cohesion, and of ultimately proving to be of little use to wetland managers and decision-makers. At the same time, it was critical, at this very initial stage of formulating the assessment, to ensure that the various stakeholders who are involved in and impacted by wetland management in Mtanza-Msona were brought into discussions, and 14

assisted in formulating the aims of the assessment. This was achieved through ensuring that both national and Rufiji District government representatives were involved in the initial planning for the study, and that extensive opinion and inputs were solicited from the local administration and village members during the first scoping visit to Mtanza-Msona. An overriding issue shaping the focus of the study was the current lack of information about wetland status and values in the village (and in Rufiji District and Tanzania more generally), which has acted to hinder decision-making and has resulted to decisions being made which omit proper consideration of either conservation priorities, or of local needs for secure livelihoods and sustainable development. There are many competing demands on the land and natural resources in Mtanza-Msona. While there is some level of trade-off between managing wetlands for conservation and for human development needs, there is also a need to understand the nature and magnitude of this competition, and to be able to balance the competing demands to generate maximum benefits for both conservation and development. The assessment therefore aimed to provide information which could help in better understanding these trade-offs, and representing them when decisions are made about land and natural resources. The high incidence of poverty in and around Mtanza-Msona also formed an important consideration when defining the focus of the study. A pro-poor focus recognises that poor people not only lack the basic necessities of life, they also lack power and control over their lives. It thus aims to take specific consideration of these needs, and to ensure that any activity carried out in wetlands should not negatively impact on the status of the poor and wherever possible should attempt to improve it. The study intended to incorporate an understanding of the specific needs and status of the poor in Mtanza-Msona, and their links to wetland ecology and biology within broader livelihood and economic processes. Thus, the management objective of the study was to generate information which can support the ongoing implementation of the Mtanza-Msona Village Environmental Management Plan (VEMP) and advocate for broader support to this process from government and donors, and to generate data that can be used to inform the planning and implementation of on-the-ground wetland conservation activities in the village. Due to a range of socio-economic conditions, including widespread poverty and food insecurity, poor access to markets, and weak infrastructure, villagers in Mtanza-Msona lack adequate means to address the external threats to wetland resources or to improve the benefits they derive from wetlands. The VEMP aims to secure and enhance wetland benefits for the local population, and to support pro-poor sustainable development processes through wetland conservation. The assessment aimed to inventory the general socio-economic conditions and wetland species and habitats that exist within the village, to investigate what, how, when, why and by whom wetland resources are used, and to identify the implications of this use on wetland conservation status and the status of the local economy and livelihoods.

Survey techniques and data collection methods

The biodiversity, economics and livelihoods assessment tools presented in the projects draft toolkit (Darwall et al 2007), were refined and adapted to the specific aims and context of the Mtanza-Msona study, and to its management objective. The paragraphs below describe, for both biodiversity and socio-economic aspects of the survey, the specific methods used to collect information.

Livelihoods and economic values

Both primary and secondary socio-economic data were collected. Secondary data comprises a review of government statistics, and other studies carried out on livelihoods and economic activities in Mtanza-Msona and the surrounding area. Primary data constitutes information on household and community use of natural resources from the wetlands, including: General socio-economic characteristics of the population, Land ownership, Crop production, Perceptions of natural resources and trends over time, Frequency, amount, and value of the wetland products harvested and used, Markets, trade and prices of wetland and other products, Willingness to pay for conservation of the wetlands to secure indirect, option and non-use values. During the pilot testing of survey methods, four instruments were tested. These were each designed to capture a different kind of information for the study: one was for the general socio-economic profile 15

(including demographic surveys and valuation of marketable wetland products), while the other three were instruments for valuation of wetland resources that do not have market values (encompassing indirect, option and bequest values). In the final analysis however, the team used one harmonized instrument a questionnaire to capture both the socio economic information and valuation, taking into account information collected during the pilot study, and supplementing more qualitative tools such as group discussions and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools. Primary data on both livelihoods and economic values were therefore collected via a single instrument which incorporated the following methods: Village meetings, Key informant interviews and focus group discussions, Household questionnaire survey, Market price valuation of resource use, Contingent valuation of wetland non-use values. Village meetings Two village meetings were conducted during the piloting exercise. The first meeting comprised Village Council members, and had the aim of introducing the work, objectives of the study, and the survey team members. With the help of the Village Council, a larger village meeting was called, during which a variety of PRA exercises were conducted (including wealth ranking, seasonal calendars, historical timelines, resource use and availability trend analysis) to understand what villagers know about the wetland resources, how they use them, where they get them, and how they manage them.

(c) IUCN/David Allen 2006

Photo 9: Village meeting A wealth-ranking exercise was also carried out during the second meeting. Households in the village were clustered according to wealth categories based on the understanding of the villagers themselves and on criteria that they themselves had determined. As well as giving an overview of the relative wealth distribution in Mtanza-Msona, this provided information which could be used in selecting participants for the household questionnaire survey (see below). Key informant interviews and focus group discussions The team conducted key informants and focus group discussion on general issues pertaining to wetland resources, histories/events, and trends in the availability of wetland resources in the village. Membership of these groups was identified with the help of the Village Council and villagers during the meetings held earlier (see above). Key informant and focus group discussions involved various categories of wetland experts, managers and users, including local officials, fishing groups, vegetable growers and farmers. The discussions aimed to provide a clear picture on the benefits of the wetland resources to these different groups of people, and yielded a broad range of data (Box 2).

16

Box 2: Information collected during focus group interviews Historical Context Historical events occurred in the village since 1927 to 2006 Culture Cultural matters in the village and how they are related with wetlands resources. Livelihoods Cultivation in different areas of the wetlands. Crop and natural resources harvesting and marketing in the village Beekeeping and honey harvesting in the village Households dependence on the wetland resources. Availability and the access to wetlands resources Yearly activity calendar i.e. time of land preparation, planting, weeding and harvesting. Seasonality, availability of wetland resources Information on existing resource use and border conflicts among stakeholders Species Medicinal plants species(local names) available in the village Fish catches in River Rufiji, Mtanza lake and other lakes Types of fishes in lakes and rivers Habitat and fishing timing in the river and lakes Governance Organizations having businesses with people in the village Legal systems in the village Views on the accountability of village government and district government to people. Environmental management activities, their success and failure Social services in the village, education and health issues. Existing conflicts in the village

(c) IUCN/Gita Kasthala 2007

Photo 10: Interviewing fishermen at Lake Mtanza landing site Household questionnaire survey A detailed structured questionnaire was administered to one hundred and twelve households in the village. Respondents were selected through simple random sampling from each of the wealth categories that had 17

earlier been identified during village meetings (see above). This aimed for a representative sampling of households from the entire village of Mtanza-Msona, incorporating all of its four hamlets (Map 3). Georeference data for survey households are presented at the end of this report (see Annex 8: Geo-reference data). It should be noted that the surveyed households have a wide spatial distribution, including hamlet members who were not interviewed in the main hamlet location. Respondents incorporate both residents of the main settlements on the north bank of the Rufiji River, as well as a minority who occupy the southern floodplain area, but consider themselves to be part of the hamlets which are located on the north bank. There are two explanations for this. Some (relatively richer) residents maintain two houses, one in the main settlement area and one on the floodplain; the family remains in the main settlement so that the children can more easily attend school. Additionally, while respondents were interviewed at their house on the north bank of the river, others were interviewed while working in their fields on the southern floodplain. Map 3: Location of survey households and hamlets

18

It was considered particularly important to ensure that poorer households were incorporated in the survey, as well as to be able to disaggregate survey data and responses between households with different socioeconomic status. The sample was thus stratified to reflect wealth categories and the relative proportion of each in different hamlets (Table 1).

19

Table 1: Sample sizes for each hamlet Wealth distribution of hamlet (%) Poor 75% 75% 88% 75% 78% Middle 25% 25% 12% 25% 22% Poor 32 13 23 25 93 Sample selected (number of hholds) Middl e 12 4 3 8 27 Total 44 17 26 33 120 % hamlet populati on 28% 28% 28% 28% 28%

Hamlet

Total number of households in hamlet 158 61 92 117 428

Bizi Msiga Mtanz a Mturu ma Total

Although the selected survey sample comprised 120 households, eight were unable to be interviewed as they were not present on the day of the interview. Thus a total of 112 households were actually interviewed, representing 94% of the target population and 26% of the entire village population (Table 2). Table 2: Numbers of households interviewed Poo Middl Tot % of all Hamlet r e al households Bizi 29 12 41 26% Msiga 11 4 15 25% Mtanz 23 3 26 28% a Mturu 22 8 30 26% ma Total 89 27 112 26% Structured interviews involving a questionnaire (see Annex 3: Household questionnaire) were administered to the head of each of the 112 households surveyed. The questionnaire comprised both closed and openended questions. The respondents were asked questions about their general socio-economic, demographic and farm characteristics, occupation and income sources, as well as about the incidence, levels and value of wetland resource use. The questionnaire also included a section designed to elicit respondents willingness to pay for wetland indirect and non-use benefits (see below). All households, as well as key facilities and landmarks in Mtanza-Msona village, were georeferenced using GPSs.

(c) IUCN/Gita Kasthala 2006

Photo 11: Georeferencing water resources Market price valuation of resource use 20

The main focus of the economic valuation exercise was on the direct use of wetland resources by MtanzaMsona villagers. Data were collected on the percentage of households participating in different wetland utilisation activities, and the quantity of products harvested or processed. Market price techniques were applied to value this resource use, using local prices. The values yielded are gross financial values, and do not net out the costs of labour, equipment and other inputs used to harvest or process resources. This is because, with the exception of canoes, beehives and fishing gear (which are made locally, and involve relatively small expenditures), wetland resource use does not employ specialised equipment or require investment in specific tools. The tools and equipment (axes, machetes, knives) that are used to harvest wetland resources are already owned by households, and their main use is for other purposes. With the exception of a limited and largely seasonal casual agricultural labour market there is virtually no formal employment in Mtanza-Msona, and the bulk of household labour is utilised on-farm (wetland harvesting activities are timed around agricultural activities): the opportunity cost of labour is therefore considered to be negligible, and is excluded from calculations.

(c) IUCN/Gita Kasthala 2007

Photo 12: Conducting a market survey of fish traders The value of each type of wetland resource use was calculated at the household level, for users, and average values were ascertained for those households who engaged in the activity. These average per households figures were extrapolated up to the whole village level using information gained from the survey on the proportion of households participating in different wetland use activities. In order to determine whether wetland resource use and values varied between households of different socio-economic status, a composite index was assigned to each household, taking land and asset ownership, levels of farm production and off-farm earnings as proxy indicators of wealth. Data were analysed at a disaggregated level for each of four equally-sized wealth-based categories: richest, richer, poorer and poorest (Table 3). Table 3: Characteristics of different wealth categories as applied in survey data analysis
Land (acres) Richest Richer Poorer Poorest Avg 7.39 3.96 2.89 1.89 Range 1-25 1-8 1-5 1-5 Non-land assets (TSh mill) Avg Range 1.89 0.05-10.14 0.58 0.05-1.64 0.69 0.04-4.43 0.16 0.01-0.66 Farm production value (TSh mill/yr) Avg Range 1.00 0-14.68 0.43 0-3.58 0.33 0-3.08 0.03 0-0.16 Off-farm earnings value (TSh mill/yr) Avg Range 0.27 0-1.2 0.18 0-10 0.09 0-0.60 0.04 0-0.30

Contingent valuation of the indirect and non-use values of wetlands The absence of prices or markets for wetland goods and services, of close replacements or substitutes, or of links to other production or consumption processes, does not mean that they have no value to people. In particular, people value wetland ecosystems and species due to their indirect benefits (ecosystem services and functions), option benefits (possible future uses and applications) and non-use benefits (existence, cultural, heritage and bequest significance). These benefits are almost impossible to value using market prices. Contingent valuation methods (CVM) infer the value that people place on ecosystem goods and services by asking them directly what is their willingness to pay for them or their willingness to accept compensation for their loss, under the hypothetical situation that they could be available for purchase. This involves 21

communicating to participants a proposed change in the quantity or quality of the wetland resource, and the benefits it yields, and finding out the different amounts they would be willing to pay to preserve or maintain these values. CVM were used in the study to ascertain the value that local villagers place on the less tangible benefits associated with wetlands, that do not arise from the direct use of resources or products (indirect, option and bequest values). The CVM survey incorporated two stages. The first involved a general discussion with villagers on matters relating to their understanding of wetland resources, perceptions of changes in their quantity and quality over time, and involvement in/perceptions of various programmes which are ongoing and deal with wetland resources. This set the scene for the CVM, and provided the background information and shared awareness necessary to carry it out. A second stage was then to elicit peoples stated preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for wetlands. A CVM survey was carried out of questionnaire respondents, eliciting their bids using a dichotomous choice method (which present an upper and lower estimate between which respondents have to choose). Villagers were asked whether they would be willing to contribute to a hypothetical trust fund, set up to implement wetlands conservation programmes in the area. Estimations were made of indirect use, option and bequest values, using a model adapted from Kulindwa et al 2006 and Georgion et al 1997 (Box 3). Respondents were asked whether they would be willing to pay for a conservation programme to secure indirect use, option and bequest benefits, with bidding values of TSh 8,000, TSh 16,000 and TSh 32,000 a year. If the respondent answered yes to and initial question of WTP of TSh 16,000, s/he was asked a second question about WTP TSh 32,000. Conversely, if the first amount was refused, a second question was asked about WTP TSh 8,000. Taking into account the fact that respondents WTP may be below or above the stated amount, additional questions were asked about maximum WTP. Box 3: Estimation of wetland indirect use, option and bequest values using CVM WTP Estimation Aggregate WTPa = i [(i) x (j) x (i wtp)] ........................................ (1) Where: WTPa = Willingness to pay for wetland goods and services per annum i = Percentage of the sample in category i j = Total number of households of the area i wtp = Mean maximum amount of money individual household is willing to pay for wetland indirect use values, optional use value and bequest value per annum in order for their continuous existence. Individual Household WTPa = Aggregate WTPa/ j ........................ (2) j = Aggregate number of households in the Mtanza-Msona village is 428 From Kulindwa et al 2006

(c) IUCN/Gita Kasthala 2007

Photo 13: Focus group interview with fisherfolk

22

Biodiversity
The biodiversity assessment focused on the following taxonomic groups: fish, molluscs, gastropods, odonates, birds, amphibians, and plants. These species groups were selected as they tend to be utilised in many cases, they cover a wide cross-section of the ecological niches in the ecosystem and, finally, they are relatively well known and easy to observe or collect. Information was compiled through a combination of literature review, field collection and local knowledge. Time and available resources did not permit implementation of a full field-sampling programme to cover the full range and extent of habitats. A reduced programme was therefore drawn up where sampling was aimed to include all representative wetland habitats but with only limited sampling within those habitats. Species distributions were therefore assumed to extend across the full extent of those habitats where recorded. Fourteen locations were surveyed (2 sites on the Rufiji River, 1 location on the Msangazi River, and 11 of the seasonal/permanent lakes within the village area, representing the key wetland resources (Lake Zumbi and Msangazi River were not sampled; see Map 4).

23

Map 4: Sampling locations within the Mtanza-Msona wetlands for Odonata, Molluscs, Birds and Anurans

24

Fish Information on fish and fishing activities was obtained through observation of the fish catch by local fishers and sellers, interviews and focus group discussions with fisherfolk, and visits made to meet fishers, fish sellers and traders in the village. Observations on the types of fish and size of fish caught from the village fisheries officer were collected. Interviews were conducted with a group of local fishers to determine the range of wetlands used for fishing, the fishing gear used and fishing methods. Fishers were also requested to state the duration of stay when fishing and the corresponding amount of fish obtained. Fish specimens were collected from the local fishers catches for identification. Photographs of the species present in catches were taken. Visits were made to various parts of the wetlands together with the village fisheries officer in order to collect information on the locations and habitats. Attention was made to visit areas where fishing is conducted, as well as known breeding sites for fish. Molluscs Bivalves Samples were collected at 11 locations (see Map 4, above). For larges bivalve ten sample quadrats were surveyed at each site employing timed (5 minute) hand searches with a distance of 100 m between samples. Collected mussels were held in a submerged mesh bag. Shells were held together with a rubber band, and then placed in 95% ethanol, replaced after 2 days with 70% ethanol. For small bivalves ten samples were collected from each site through timed (5 minute) sweep netting of submerged vegetation with 100 m distance between each sample. Any bivalves collected were stored in water and then preserved in 70% alcohol. Use of other preservatives was avoided as deterioration of the shells is often rapid and diagnostic shell surface features get lost. Gastropods Samples were collected at 11 locations (see Map 4, above). Five samples were collected from each site, using quadrants measuring 1 m by 1 m, allowing 10 m between each sample. Small areas of bottom sediment were excavated to a depth of ~3 cm using a sieve with an effective mesh size of 0.5 mm or smaller. The samples were washed several times through a sieve to remove as much mud, silt, and sand as possible. Areas with rooted aquatic macrophyte vegetation were sampled through timed searched of 5 minutes, using a hand net to sweep through vegetation. The contents of the sweeps were then placed in a sieve and washed to remove all unneeded materials. Again 5 samples were collected from each site, allowing 10 m between each sample. Samples were covered with a shallow layer of cool, clear native water in a flat-based container. A small amount of methanol was added to each container, and left undisturbed, in the dark over night. After 8-12 hrs, the water was replaced with 4% formalin to fix the specimens. After a further 1-2 days, the formalin was replaced with 70% alcohol.

(c) IUCN/Gita Kasthala 2007

Photo 14: Sampling molluscs 25

Odonates Samples were collected at 14 locations (see Map 4, above). At each site odonates were actively searched for and caught using sweep nets. Specimens were photographed in the field when live, killed using ethyl acetate vapour and stored in an airtight container. In the camp the specimens were air dried and immersed in ethyl acetate for 12 hours, dried in paper envelopes, and stored in an airtight container with silica gel. Specimens were initially identified, where possible, from photographs.

(c) IUCN/David Allen 2006

Photo 15: Sampling odonates Birds Initially it was proposed to employ both point counts and transect counts. However, due to the nature of the habitat it was not possible to carry out transect counts as visibility was limited. Therefore, the study employed only the point counts to provide an estimation of the relative abundance of each species present. Counts were undertaken for 10 minutes at 6 locations (1 on Lake Mtanza, 1 on the Rufiji River, and 4 lakes). A few minutes was allowed after arrival of the observers to allow birds to settle following any disturbance caused. All birds seen or heard up to an estimated distance of 500 m from the observer were counted. In addition to identifying the bird species, behaviours such as feeding, nesting, or breeding were noted along with records of the associated habitats. Amphibians A series of 10 bucket pitfall traps were spaced 5 m apart with drift fence joining all the buckets. Two sites were sampled within each of 7 wetland sites (see Map 4, above). Traps were checked over a 5-day period in the morning and after nightfall. Timed searches were also employed where researchers walked trap lines in each site for 20 minutes. Villagers were also asked to search for amphibians and to record the locations where individuals were found. Specimens were preserved in 100% alcohol for later the identification by taxonomists at the University of Dar es Salaam.

(c) IUCN/Gita Kasthala 2007

Photo 16: Setting bucket pitfall traps

26

Plants Time and available resources did not permit implementation of a full survey employing standard botanical methods for representative sampling of all vegetation. Instead a rapid survey was designed to focus on those plants linked to the villagers livelihoods. In collaboration with the livelihood and economic valuation team, interviews and discussions were held with village members to determine which plants are utilised by the villagers. All plants observed to be utilised by villagers were then collected, pressed, dried and identified at the University of Dar es Salaam herbarium.

27

Findings on village livelihood assets and vulnerability context

This section examines the findings from the household livelihood assessment. It applies the sustainable livelihoods framework (DFID 1999) to Mtanza-Msona, and examines both village livelihood assets (human, social, physical, financial and natural capital) and the flows of goods and services they provide for household production and consumption, as well as describing the vulnerability context within which households operate. This chapter interprets and summarises the data gathered from village and household interviews and group discussions; detailed data tables are presented at the end of the document (see Annex 4: Data tables from the household survey), and references are made in the main text of this chapter to specific tables in this annex.

Applying the sustainable livelihoods framework in Mtanza-Msona

The sustainable livelihoods framework, developed by the UK Department for International Development (DFID 1999), provides a useful structure for understanding how households produce, consume and survive in Mtanza-Msona. It is a tool to improve understanding of livelihoods, particularly the livelihoods of the poor, presenting and analysing the main factors that affect peoples livelihoods, and typical relationships between these. An asset pentagon lies at the heart of livelihoods analysis, encompassing the human, social, physical, financial and natural capital assets and endowments that are available for people to use to convert into positive livelihood outcomes (Figure 3). This chapter elaborates the various sources of capital that are available to households in Mtanza-Msona, and describes how they are used, singly and in combination, to generate the materials, conditions and opportunities that are required for them to survive. It also describes the vulnerability context within which Mtanza-Msona villagers operate and exist, and how factors such as trends, shocks and seasonality affect peoples livelihoods and the availability of assets. Figure 3: The sustainable livelihoods framework
Covered in this chapter Covered in setting the scene chapter
LIVELIHOOD ASSETS Human Capital VULNERABILITY CONTEXT Shocks Trend Seasonality Social Capital Natural Capital

Covered in conclusions chapter

TRANSFORMING STRUCTURES & PROCESSES Government Private sector Laws Policies Culture Institutions LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES

LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES income wellbeing vulnerability food security etc

Physical Capital

Financial Capital

Covered in biodiversity chapters

Adapted from DFID 1999

Covered in use & value chapter

This chapter therefore presents information about the basic building blocks of peoples livelihoods in Mtanza-Msona overall, and in terms of how access and entitlements to, and the scope and nature of, assets vary between different households at different times. Together with information provided elsewhere in this report on the structures and processes that determine and regulate how people interact and access their sources of livelihood (see Setting the scene: Mtanza-Msona Village, Tanzania), how natural capital is available and used (see , Findings from the biodiversity field survey and ), and the resulting livelihood outcomes (see Conclusions: the livelihood and economic value of Mtanza-Msonas wetland), this chapter helps to build a picture of how local livelihoods are shaped by, and themselves shape, wetland resources in the area. 28

Human capital
Human capital represents the skills, knowledge, ability to labour and good health that together enable people to pursue different livelihood strategies and achieve their livelihood objectives. At a household level, human capital is a factor of the amount and quality of labour available; this varies according to household size and composition, educational and occupational experience, health status and other factors.

Place of origin
There are few recent inmigrants to Mtanza-Msona: the majority of households originate within the study area. More than 90% of survey respondents were born in the village, another 6% come from other parts of Rufiji District, and less than 4% originate from outside the District (Annex Table 59). The few people who are reported to have migrated into the village state that they either came to MtanzaMsona because they married into the area (two thirds), or in order to access farmland (one third). A very small minority migrated into Mtanza-Msona for employment as teachers, medical officers and other civil service occupations. It is also notable that almost all inmigration took place prior to 1989.

Household size and composition

Average household size in Mtanza-Msona is 4.28 persons, which is slightly lower than the 4.49 recorded for Rufiji District as a whole (Hogan and Mwambeso 2004). According to the survey, gender composition of households is almost balanced; there are marginally more men (51%) than women (49%), and (as is common in Tanzania) the bulk of households are said to be male-headed (75%). As it would however appear that a large proportion of working-age males are at least temporarily resident elsewhere in search of employment (see paragraph below), many of the day-to-day decision-making in households may be carried out by women: a far larger proportion of households than indicated are likely to be de facto female-headed.

Education and occupation

Formal educational levels would appear to be low in Mtanza-Msona. More than half of the survey respondents have not been educated beyond primary level, and just over a third have had no formal education at all (Annex Table 60). Less than 4% of respondents (all male) have received tertiary education. The most common stated occupation of householders is agriculture (98% of respondents). The most common activities among survey respondents are crop cultivation, poultry keeping and fishing; other stated occupations (many of which rely on natural resources) include paid employment, firewood selling, tailoring and collection of reeds and grasses (Table 54). Table 4: Main Occupations of Respondent Households in Mtanza-Msona Occupation Cash crop cultivation Food crop cultivation Poultry keeping Fishing Paid employment Firewood selling Tailoring Reed / grass collection Other (including charcoal production, hunting, wild food collection) % of hh 98 88 25 17 7 5 3 3 3 Directly dependent on natural ecosystems and wild species Many are directly dependent on natural ecosystems and wild species Directly dependent on forest ecosystems and wild species Directly dependent on wetland ecosystems and wild species Link to natural ecosystems Waterflow and hydrological regime provide the soil moisture, nutrients and fertility required for cultivation

29

Health status
The incidence of disease is high in Mtanza-Msona, with villagers facing a wide range of health problems. Malaria, diarrhoea, worms, pneumonia, eye and ear infections, asthma, cardiovascular disease, urinary tract infections, anaemia and schistosomiasis are all reported to be common, and the incidence of these diseases has increased over the last 3 years (Annex Table 61). A number of factors contribute to the vulnerability of villagers to illness, and to the incidence of disease, including generally poor nutritional status, lack of basic sanitation and clean water facilities, and low use of mosquito nets (Annex Table 62).

Social capital
Social capital is the social resources upon which people draw in pursuit of their livelihood objectives. These are developed through networks, memberships of more formalised groups, relationships of trust, reciprocity and exchange. A complex network of formal and informal interactions govern daily life and social organisation in MtzanaMsona. Both the mosque and churches are important institutions, and villagers are engaged in a wide range of self-help groups and occupational associations. The local administration, through the Village Council, is the main form of local government. Organisations which are active in the village include political parties, chiefly Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM); the Moslem religion; Mtanza Soccer Club, Msona Soccer Club and CBD; and the family planning information representatives. Several institutions are directly concerned with natural resource management. The Village Environment Committee, which is responsible to the Village Government, consists of 12 members: 4 women and 8 men. There is also a group of natural resource scouts, as well as an environment choir, a beekeeping group, a herbal medicines and plant protection group, a vegetable and tree-growing group, a poultry vaccination group, a drama group and a drumming group. The village has a library, a natural resources bank account and villagers trained in book-keeping who can manage the account.

Physical capital
Physical capital comprises the productive assets that a household possesses. This includes basic infrastructure (such as transport, shelter and buildings, water supply and sanitation, energy and communications) and producer goods (tools and equipment) needed to support livelihoods. Although usually categorised as natural capital (see below), agricultural land holdings are treated as physical capital in this study, to distinguish them from lands which are under natural vegetation and are investigated in detail as a part of natural capital.

Farmland
Livelihoods in Mtanza-Msona are primarily based on agriculture. Peoples access to farmland, and the quality of this land, is therefore a core element of their physical capital. Farmland is an asset which both represents a store of value (which also has a market value if sold), as well as yielding a flow of income and other benefits through its use to grow crops and raise livestock. Multiple factors dictate household access to land, and size of landholding, including relative affluence, power and influence in the community, as well as available labour (household or hired), equipment and other facilities. All of the households surveyed have farmland. Although the majority of households own farmland and the majority of land cultivated is under the ownership of that household (only 2% of respondents did not have access to their own land), other sources of land (including public land) are also used for cultivation, accounting for 5% of total land used (Figure 4). The most fertile land, where the bulk of 30

farming is carried out, is located on the floodplain of the Rufiji river. Land is unevenly distributed: three quarters of respondents have access to 4 acres or less of farmland (Figure 4, Annex Table 63). While around a half of total land area is used by just 20% of the population with holdings of 6 acres or more, more than a third of the population hold just 23% of land with holdings of 2 acres or less. Figure 4: Agricultural landholdings: ownership, use, size and distribution
Source of farmland in Mtanza-Msona Ow n land cultivated 83% % hholds Public land cultivated 1% Ow n land uncultivated 12% Distribution of farmland in Mtanza-Msona 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0-2 2.1-4 4.1-6 6.1-8 8.1-10 > 10 Land size (acres)

Other land 4%

24 20 16 Acres 12 8 4 0

Distribution of farmholdings betw een survey households uncultivated cultivated

Respondent Households

The vast majority (98%) of households surveyed cultivate at least 1 acre of land, with a mean cultivated land area of 3.2 acres (total landholdings average 4.04 acres, meaning that on average 79% of available land is cultivated1). A wide range of crops are grown, with the most common being maize, beans, rice, sesame, tomato, cassava and cowpea (Table 5). Table 5: Cropping patterns and areas
Income source Maize Beans Rice Sesame Tomato Cassava Cowpea Crop cultivation % of households 69% 69% 59% 55% 4% 2% 2% 98% Average area (acres) 1.76 2.67 2.83 2.13 9.00 2.00 1.00 3.20

Livestock
Households in Mtanza-Msona do not keep cattle or smallstock, due to the prevalence of the tsetse fly in the area. Thirty nine percent of respondents however raise poultry, with an average flock size of 17 birds. This provides an important source of food for home consumption, as well as yielding a flow of marketable products (eggs, live birds and meat) which can be used to generate income on a regular basis, and in times
1

Uncultivated land refers to land that is temporarily not being cultivated. Cultivated land is used for both crops and trees.

31

of emergency or need.

Housing, tools and equipment

Tools, equipment and household items are vital for households to be able access adequate shelter, living conditions, and to undertake productive activities which can provide for daily subsistence and earn them income. Respondents were asked to list all productive assets they have in their households, and then estimate the value of each. The assets identified include a mix of household items (such as house, and furniture), as well as tools and equipment for productive activities (such as farming, beekeeping, livestock raising, fishing and sewing). The average value of housing, tools and equipment across the village is TSh 261,108 per household, with the major proportion accounted for by the value of the house, followed by beehives, bicycles, beds, canoes and fishing nets (Table 6). Table 6: Ownership of household assets
Hoes Houses Pangas Beds Buckets Mosquito nets Axes Radios Tables Chairs Fishing nets Bicycles Canoes Irons Beehives Sickles Sewing machine Total value of assets (Tsh/hhold)3 % households owning item 98% 96% 95% 94% 91% 81% 77% 72% 54% 51% 29% 28% 21% 17% 16% 11% 4% Average owned (items/hhold) 4 1 2 3 5 3 1 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 6 1 4 Average value (TSh/hhold)2 5,142 166,553 1,862 26,343 4,647 7,258 2,180 13,526 6,369 6,040 22,408 51,500 23,978 3,700 81,176 4,255 18,900 261,108

Public infrastructure
The equipment and facilities that comprises basic physical infrastructure is required for society and the economy to function properly, and for livelihoods to prosper and grow. Key infrastructure resources include roads, transportation and communication networks, markets, public buildings, water supplies, sewerage and sanitation facilities. There is little public infrastructure in Mtanza-Msona. The village is served with a main road, running west to east, along which a bus passes every day except Thursday, running between Mloka (to the west) and Dar es Salaam. Various trucks and vehicles also pass in, out, and through the village which bring in supplies of commodities and also purchase goods and products produced in the village. There is no sewerage or piped water supply. Drinking water is obtained from the river, wells, and from lakes. Mtanza-Msona also contains a primary school and a health dispensary.

Financial capital
Financial capital is the cash or financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood objectives. It includes both stocks (savings, bank deposits and liquid assets such as livestock) and regular inflows of money (such as through remittances, pensions or other transfers from the state). Little information was available about sources of financial capital in Mtanza-Msona. The majority of villagers have little or no cash savings or access to credit facilities (only 4% have a bank account, and just 3% have received credit or loans over the last year): the farm, house and associated equipment constitute their main source of stored wealth. A minority of households have businesses, and several informal savings and selfhelp groups provide a source of credit and savings (7% of households reported that they are members of
2 3

For households who own this asset Average across all households, accounting for different combinations and numbers of assets owned.

32

Savings and Credit Cooperatives).

Natural capital
Natural capital includes the natural resource stocks from which goods and services that are useful for livelihoods are derived. It ranges from less tangible public goods (such as the atmosphere and biodiversity) to divisible assets used directly for production (trees and wild habitats, etc.). Villagers have access to, and utilise, a wide range of natural resources in Mtanza-Msona. These include the forests, woodlands, lakes, swamps, river and floodplain areas, and the plant and animal species found in them. These in turn yield a wide range of products that form critical inputs into local livelihoods, both as regular sources of subsistence and income and as coping strategies or safety nets in times of periodic or seasonal emergency, shock or stress. The next two chapters in this report ( and ) provide a detailed description and analysis of Mtanza-Msonas natural capital, and its role in local livelihoods.

Household production, consumption and income flows

These various sources of capital and assets are combined to yield flows of goods and services which support household livelihoods. In Mtanza-Msona the primary sources of production and consumption items are farmland and livestock (yielding agricultural products for home use and sale), businesses and employment (yielding cash income with which to purchase market commodities), and natural capital (yielding a wide range of goods and services for both subsistence and income). The flows of goods and services from natural capital are considered in detail in the next chapter; the paragraphs below provide information on household income and subsistence sourced from farming, business and employment. Most households engage in multiple income-earning activities, which typically vary at different times, and for different household members. Almost all households in Mtanza-Msona carry out crop cultivation: 98% of survey respondents report growing cash crops as a main occupation, and 88% food crops, and a lower percentage (39%) own poultry. Agricultural production generates both cash and food; for households engaged in these activities, the combined annual value of production for home consumption and cash income is TSh 695,689 for crops and TSh 194,802 for poultry (Table 7). Just under a quarter of households receive remittances from family members working elsewhere (generating an average of TSh 83,526 a year), around a fifth participate in business (TSh 293,050), and a similar amount earn income from providing casual labour (TSh 85,261). Just 10% of the population are employed, although their average annual earnings at TSh 430,455 surpass all other off-farm income sources when considered individually. On average, across all households in Mtanza-Msona, varying sources of production and consumption are combined which yield an average value of TSh 592,186 per year. It should be noted that wetland sources of income are not included in this table, as they are discussed later in the report (see and Conclusions: the livelihood and economic value of Mtanza-Msonas wetland biodiversity). Table 7: Non-wetland household production and income
Income source Cash crops Food crops Poultry Remittances Business Casual earnings Wages and salaries Total % of households 98% 88% 39% 24% 21% 21% 10% Average value home consumption + cash income (TSh/hhold/year)4 695,689 194,802 83,526 293,050 85,261 430,455 Combined value whole village (TSh/ hhold/year)5 449,468

142,718 592,186

Vulnerability context
The vulnerability context frames the external environment in which people exist. Peoples livelihoods and the wider availability of assets are fundamentally affected by critical trends as well as by shocks and seasonality over which they have limited or no control.
4 5

Where the household is generating production or income from this source. Average across all households, taking into account variable sources of production and income.

33

Stresses and shocks

Natural hazards, both recurrent and periodic, provide a major source of stress and shock to livelihoods in Mtanza-Msona. Being a largely agricultural economy, peoples livelihoods and wellbeing as well as the ways in which they allocate and use their labour are driven by natural conditions and seasonality (see Annex 5: Seasonal calendars, Annex Table 66, Annex Table 67 and Annex Table 68). Key events experienced which impact negatively on peoples livelihoods are droughts, floods and wild animal damage. All of these conditions have direct and immediate effects on the food, income and other resources available to villagers. Farming itself is highly seasonal, with peaks and troughs in the availability of food and income over the year. Households in Mtanza-Msona also face a changing and uncertain physical climate, which in turn translates into a high degree of livelihood insecurity. All households are affected, to varying degrees, by dryseason scarcity in food and other resources, as well as by wet-season floods which can cause considerable damage to houses and other structures. Periodic severe droughts and floods affect the whole village, in some cases giving rise to severe famine and disaster. Wild animals, many of them migrating into MtanzaMsona from the nearby Selous Game Reserve, regularly give rise to crop damage, and on occasion also threaten human life (for example in 2001 a woman and a child were killed by a crocodile while collecting water, and two men were taken by lions in 2002). Food shortages, in particular, result from these stresses and shocks. About a quarter of the population regularly have problems meeting their daily food needs (Hogan and Mwambeso 2004), and many more suffer when extreme droughts and floods occur. The survey found that 80% of households had endured food shortages for six months or more during the last year, and 13% had faced inadequate food all year (Figure 5, Annex Table 64). Figure 5: Households experiencing food shortage over the past year
100% 80% % of hholds 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 month or less 3 months or more 6 months or more 9 months or more All year 13% 42% 100% 97% 80%

Period of food shortage

Factors which influence peoples vulnerability and resilience

Although the existence and incidence of these external stresses and shocks are largely beyond peoples control, a number of factors influence how they impact on different households in Mtanza-Msona. In general, their effects are exacerbated throughout the village as a result of generally insecure and limited livelihoods, weak access to alternatives (including externally-provided welfare support and emergency assistance), and a lack of savings (both financial and material) with which to plug gaps in food availability or deal with losses and damage costs. All of these conditions undermine peoples resilience to cope with stress and shock, and increase their vulnerability. People who have more insecure livelihoods, and fewer sources of support, such as women, the landless and the elderly, are particularly vulnerable to the effects of stresses and shocks, and find it especially difficult to recover from them. Living in an uncertain and risky environment, villagers have also developed a series of coping mechanisms and fallback strategies to deal with shock and stress. A wide range of social networks, relationships of reciprocity and obligation, and principle of self-help (Harambee) are all deployed as communal responses to emergencies and disasters. Within farming systems, a variety of strategies are used to maximise the likelihood of a good harvest, and to minimise risk. These include sowing many times and in several different sites, and under-sowing rice with maize. For most households, a diversity of livelihood sources are used as a mechanism to spread risk, and meet changing needs and opportunities to generate income and subsistence. As described in later sections of this report, wild resources also provide important safety nets 34

and coping mechanisms which are used to meet emergency needs and to fill periodic shortages in food and income.

Wealth status
Relative wealth is an important determinant of peoples ability to access secure and sustainable livelihoods, as well as their resilience, vulnerability and ability to withstand stresses and shocks. It is tied intimately to the level and type of livelihood assets that are available to them (and area described later in this chapter), as well as to their social status, power in decision-making, and overall ability to control, influence and make choices about how they interact and survive. The majority of villagers in Mtanza-Msona do not consider themselves to be rich. Although three wealth categories were identified during village meetings (rich, medium and poor), according to criteria set by villagers themselves (Table 8), no households were categorised as rich. More than three quarters of households were considered poor, as they have inadequate food, grow no cash crops, and rely on casual labour to earn cash income. The distribution of wealth categories is similar between the different hamlets that comprise Mtanza-Msona, with a slightly higher proportion of poor households being found in Mtanza Hamlet (Annex Table 65). Table 8: Village wealth categories Criteria Food production and sufficiency employ others, have agricultural production up to 20 bags of maize or rice per season, enough food to be self sustained for the whole season inadequate food and no cash crop, Income sources have multiple sources of income (have both food and cash crops), own a shop not involved in casual labour no source of income, casual labourer, no transfer earnings Other can buy, wash, and wear clean clothes -

Wealth Rank Rich Medium Poor

Percent of household s 0% 22% 78%

Here, it is important to emphasise that this categorisation reflects local perceptions of relative wealth and poverty. Although most of the residents in Mtanza-Msona have access to a low level and range of income, livelihood sources and material assets, observations show that there is at least a minority of the population who fall within the rich category as defined by villagers themselves: some own shops in the village or trade in fish and other products to sell to external markets, some have bought pumps or generators, and employ others on their farms or businesses.

Trends and changes

Various changes, both endogenous and exogenous, have influenced the environment in which peoples livelihoods operate, and the opportunities open to them. The villagisation process (Ujamaa) of the late 1960s and early 1970s which resulted in the concentration of human settlements in their current location changed fundamentally the conditions under which the households which now comprise Mtanza-Msona accessed and used land and natural resources and were administered as a village, and to some extend consolidated access to services and infrastructure. Changing laws and policies have resulted in a far higher degree of local autonomy and decentralised decision-making (as exemplified in the powers devolved to the Village Government, and recent reforms in local forest governance). At the same time improved market integration and infrastructure, although still extremely limited, have provided a series of new opportunities for trading, employment and income-generation as well as allowing an increased flow of consumer items and commodities into the village. It should however be noted that people have an unequal ability to benefit from these opportunities: not all have the means or influence to be able to afford to access them. The survey assessed respondents perceptions of how trends over time have been manifested as changes in household access to food, and their general socio-economic status. Although the majority of households continue to experience food shortage for the majority of the year, it was generally perceived that the food situation had improved over the last year: more than three quarters of households believe that their food status is better now (Table 9). Indications of overall improvement in socio-economic status are less encouraging, with under half of households seeing an improvement over time, and more than a fifth believing that socio-economic status was now much worse than it was a year ago (Table 10). Little variation 35

was noted between survey respondents from different wealth categories in perceptions of changes in household food and socio-economic status.

36

Table 9: Perceptions of changes in household food status over the last year
Perception of change in food status Much worse now A little worse Same A little better now Much better now % of hholds 8% 5% 10% 74% 3%

Table 10: Perceptions of changes in household socio-economic status over the last year
Perception of change in socio-economic status More worse now A little worse Same A little better now Much better now Dont know % of hholds 21% 3% 28% 37% 6% 5%

37

Findings from the literature review of biodiversity throughout the wider Rufiji District
When considering the conservation and sustainable use of wetland species within the Mtanza/Msona village and surroundings it is important to obtain relevant information from across the wider management unit which would, in this case, include the entire Rufiji river catchment. The river catchment has to be taken as the basic management unit in order to account for the high levels of connectivity within wetland ecosystems. For example, species within the Mtanza-Msona village area will be subject to both upstream and downstream impacts, such as pollution, alteration of river flows (e.g. through dams), or invasive alien species, often originating from sources a long distance from the village itself. It is also clear that species in the Mtanza-Msona village may rely on recruitment of new individuals from outside the immediate village area. It was therefore important to consider the Mtanza-Msona village biodiversity within its regional context by first collating all existing information on the distribution and status of wetland species throughout the wider Rufiji River catchment and the Eastern Africa region. The Rufiji river system is identified as an important centre for fresh water biodiversity in Eastern Africa (Clausnitzer, 2006; Darwall et al., 2005). Darwall et al. undertook an assessment of the freshwater biodiversity (odonates, crabs, molluscs, and fishes) of Eastern Africa. Levels of regional endemism are notably high with 82% of fish and 74% of molluscs restricted to the region. Tanzania has the highest numbers of species across all the assessed taxonomic groups except for odonata, and more recent work in the Rufiji has increased the number of odonata records for Tanzania Table 11: Numbers of species assessed in each country of the Eastern Africa freshwater biodiversity assessment region
Taxon Fishes Molluscs Odonata Crabs Combined Burundi 251 68 4 5 328 Kenya 211 96 172 13 492 Malawi 419 40 153 4 616 Rwanda* 43 N/A N/A 6 N/A Tanzania 633 145 169 23 970 Uganda 125 87 229 11 452

/A = not assessed. * In Rwanda only the freshwater crabs and the fish community in Lake Kivu were assessed. Source: Darwall et al. 2005

Table 12: The global conservation status of species in four key freshwater taxa in Eastern Africa
Threatened species Taxonomic Group Fishes Molluscs Odonata Crabs
Source: Darwall et al. 2005

Totals 901 215 295 37

EX 2 0 0 0

CR 38 5 9 0

EN 37 17 8 6

VU 175 13 4 14

NT 12 19 20 1

LC 564 90 233 16

DD 73 90 21 0

Table 13: The regional conservation status of selected freshwater species within the Eastern Africa region.
Threatened species Taxonomic Group Fishes Molluscs Odonata Crabs
Source: Darwall et al. 2005

Totals 1060 215 47 28

EX 2 0 0 0

CR 38 5 9 0

EN 41 17 5 6

VU 204 18 3 12

NT 17 22 10 1

LC 677 65 6 9

DD 81 88 14 0

Biodiversity data for Rufiji District has been summarised by Doody and Hamerlynck (2003). However, the compilation provided is not exhaustive, and the authors indicate that the species lists provided are not complete, particularly for little known groups such as invertebrates. This study recommends further biodiversity work in area. 38

Vegetation
A total of 449 plant species from 89 families have been documented from the Rufiji District (Doody and Hamerlynck, 2003) but with little focus on freshwater wetland species. Eighty-eight coastal forest endemic species were noted, with one endemic to Kenya/Tanzania and one more to Tanzania. Plant species listed were recorded indicating their locations and some details of their ecology, endemism, conservation status as well as whether the plants are native or introduced. Of these species, 20 are listed as threatened or near threatened on the IUCN Red List (Table 14). Table 14: Plants of conservation concern present in Rufiji District
Family Annonaceae Species Lettowianthus stellatus Diels Uvariodendron gorgonis Verdc. Caesalpinaceae Baikiaea ghesquireana J. Leonard Tessmannia densiflora Harms Dialium holtzii Harms Isoberlinia scheffleri (Harmns) Greenway Euphorbiaceae Milbraedia carpinifolia (Pax) Hutch. Fabaceae Dalbergia melanoxylon Guill. & Perr. Baphia kirkii Bak. Erythrina sacleuxii Hua. Flacoutiaceae Xylotheca tettensis Mimosaceae Newtonia paucijuga (Harms) Brenan Moraceae Milicia excelsa (Welw.) C.C. Berg Papilionaceae Pterocarpus angolensis Millettia bussei Harms Rubiaceae Rothmannia macrosiphon (Engl.) Bridson Rytigynia binata (K. Schum.) Robyns Tarenna drummondii Brids. Rutaceae Zanthoxylum holtizianum (Engl.) Waterm. Zanthoxylum lindense (Engl.) Kokwaro Source: Doody and Hamerlynck, 2003. Red List status VU VU EN EN VU VU VU NT VU VU VU VU NT NT VU VU VU VU VU VU

Clarke and Dickinson (1995) have also produced a checklist of the vegetation within the Rufiji district, which provides additional information on the plant species found throughout the whole coastal Rufiji flood plain forest. Finally, Mwasumbi, et al. (2000) provided a detailed checklist of flora within the Rufiji district, with a focus on selected forests, namely: Kichi Hills, Weme and Ilu. Little information was given for Mtanza-Msona Village forest reserve, and again there was minimal focus on freshwater wetland species. Mtanza forests are described as some of a number of heavily disturbed forests along the Rufiji floodplain and are subject to extensive forest clearing. These three forests are located to the south of the floodplain in an area which has a great potential for agricultural production due to regular deposition of rich alluvial soils brought from upcountry during the rainy seasons. Vast areas of former forest have been cleared by smallscale farmers who are migrating into the area in large numbers to cultivate maize, rice, pigeon peas, and an assortment of vegetables (Mwasumbi et al, 2000). Table 15: Commonly utilised timber species sourced from the Mtanza forests
KiSwahili name Scientific name Red List Status Mfuru+ Vitex doniana NE Mgoso*+ Swartizia madagascariensis NE Mkongo* Afzelia quanzensis NE Mtanga Albizia versicolor NE Mkwaju Tamarindus indica NE Mlondondo Xeroderris stuhlmanii NE Mng'ongo Sclerocarya birrea subsp. Caffra NE Mninga* Pterocarpus angolensis LC Myegea*+ Kigelia africana NE Mnyamweya / mpangapanga Milletia stuhlmanii NE Mpingo*+ Dalbergia melanoxylon LC Mpugupungu+ Markhamia obtusifolia NE Mseru+ Rhus natalensis NE Msolo+ Pseudolachnostylus maprouneifolia NE Mtarawanda+ Markhamia lutea NE Mtondo / miombo* Brachystegia speciformis NE Miombo Brachystegia bussei NE * Commonly known and utilised species; + Small diameter species; Red List categories: NE Not Evaluated; LC Least Concern. Source: From Malimbwi, 2000

39

According to Mwasumbi et al. (2000) Mtanza forests have the highest species richness of those surveyed throughout the District, with 22 plant species being recorded. Timber species recorded in the Mtanza forest include: Drypetes gerrardii, Terminalia sericea, Acacia sieberana, Afzelia quanzensis, Bombax rhodognaphalon and Sterculia quinquiloba. Overall, the forests in the area have diminished due to increased pressure following significant immigration of people into the area that is highly fertile due to annual flooding and is therefore also suitable for farming. Intact forests can still be found but they are at least 20 km from the riverbank in less fertile areas not reached by the floods which are not utilized by villagers. The long distance to these forests further reduces the incentive for people to exploit their resources. In summary, this literature survey shows that most surveys have concentrated on the forest and marine plants with minimal focus on wetland plants. Clearly more field survey is needed to map and assess the wetland plant resources of the area.

Mammals
Doody and Hamerlyncks (2003) summary of mammals from Rufiji District, documents a total 117 species, from 39 families and 16 orders (Annex Table 72). However, this compilation was largely obtained from informal sources. At least 11 species are described as forest dependent while 34 species may use the forest edge and other habitats such as woodlands. Only nine species are listed as non-forest species and none were specifically described as being wetland dependant, although clearly some species such as the hippopotamus are. During the dry season, many large mammals are found within the Mtanza-Msona village boundary. These include giraffe, zebra, buffalo, elephant, waterbuck, hartebeest, hippopotami, eland, kudu, impala and other antelope species, lion and hyena (Hogan, and Mwambeso, 2004). Furthermore, wild pig, baboon and Vervet monkeys are resident pests of the fields and households. Black and White Colobus monkeys are found in the riverine forests. The Red Colobus is thought to have been present up to 1999, but it is commonly agreed that a viable population is no longer present (Howell et al, 2000). Little information has been recorded for wetland dependent large mammals although there are incidental observations on the distribution of the hippopotamus. Additional survey is necessary to obtain reliable information on species distribution, abundance, trends and habitat preferences. Furthermore, there is very little documented information on the issue of human-wildlife conflict.

Birds
A high diversity of birds is found in the village area with many of the 431 bird species recorded to date in the floodplain of Rufiji expected to occur here (Hogan and Mwambeso, 2004). The area is also expected to be important for migrant species as Howell et al. (2000) reportedly captured African pitta Pitta angolensis and Grey-backed Camaroptera Camaroptera brachyuran, both migrants, in snap traps intended for small mammals. The African Pitta is believed to breed in the Rufiji basin forests (Howell et al., 2000). Doody and Hamerlynck (2003) also list a total of 431 species from 79 families as recorded in Rufiji District (see Annex Table 71). The study states that 172 species are non-forest dwellers and many are said to be wetland species utilizing lakes, rivers, mudflats, sandbars and coastline. A comprehensive checklist for wetland bird species would be useful as most of the checklists found do not tend to identify species habitat preferences.

Amphibians
Twenty-seven amphibian species have been recorded in Rufiji District (Doody and Hamerlynck, 2003) (Annex Table 69). Six of these species were found to be forest dependent, with 2 species, Metensophryne micranotis and Stephopaedes loverdgei (both belonging to the family Bufonidae), endemic to coastal forests exclusively reported in the Kichi hills. No studies were found which focused specifically on wetland areas so the number of recorded species may be underestimated significantly. Howell et al. (2000) also conducted a survey in the lower Rufiji flood plains, specifically of Weme and Kichi forests.

Reptiles
Eight-seven reptile species belonging to 25 families or subfamilies and 5 orders were reported by Doody 40

and Hamerlynck (2003) (Annex Table 74, Annex Table 75). Species recorded were either from forest, forest edge, woodland, or wooded grassland habitats. Freshwater wetland habitats were not specifically sampled but the list includes marine/brackish species, such as the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas (EN). Reptiles such as the Nile crocodile Crocodylus niloticus were widely reported by local residents. The conservation status of most species reported by Doody and Hamerlynck has not been assessed. None of the snake species occur in the IUCN Red List (2007), and only two other reptiles have been assessed; Green Turtle Chelonia mydas (EN) and the Zambezi Soft-shelled Turtle Cycloderma frenatum (NT). Four reptile species (Green Turtle Chelonia mydas, Flap-necked Chameleon Chamaeleo dilepis, Giant Onehorned Chameleon Chamaeleo melleri and the Southern African Rock Python Python natalensis) are protected under CITES, restricting international trade in those species. Table 16: Tanzanian endemic reptile species recorded in Rufiji District by Doody and Hamerlynck (2003)
Family Amphisbaenidae Atractaspididae Species Common Name Liwale Round-snouted Worm Lizard Ionides' Purple-Glossed Snake Usambara Centipede-eater Tornier's Cat Snake Usambara Green Snake Udzungwa Forest Gecko Broadley's Dwarf Gecko Yellow-headed Dwarf Gecko Copal Dwarf Gecko Large-eyed Worm Snake Four-toed Fossorial Skink Rondo Plateau Blind Snake Loveridgea ionidesi Ambylodipsas katangensis Aparallactus werneri Colubridae Crotaphopeltis tornieri Philothamnus macrops Gekkonidae Cnemaspis uzungwae Lygodactylus broadleyi Lygodactylus luteopicturatus Lygodactylus viscatus Leptotyphlopidae Leptotyphlops macrops Scincidae Sepsina tetradactyla Typholpidae Typhlops rondoensis Source: Doody and Hamerlynck, 2005. Red List status LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC Tanzanian endemic Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Howell et al., (2000) reported capturing the following species using bucket pitfalls: Cnemospis sp. (Gekonidae-Gekos); Mabuya maculilabris; Mabuya magalula; Mabuya striata; Panaspis wahlbergi, and; Sepsina tetradactyla (Skinkdae-skinks). Other reported species include Cordylus tropidosternum (Cordylidae-plated lizards), Aparallactus jacksonii (Atractaspididae-Snakes) and Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia (Collubridae). Species captured using techniques other than bucket pitfall include: Gerrhosaurus major; Varanus niloticus (captured by snape traps); Thelotornis capensis; Naja mossambica, and; Dendroapsis angusticeps (reported by local residents). Other recorded sightings include Batis arietans, Causes defilipi and Bitis gabonica (Viperidae vipers). The information contained in the literatures reviewed covers reptile species surveyed in the forested areas. Other species such those reported by local residents did not give information on capture location.

Fish
Research on the fish biodiversity of the Rufiji wetlands is limited and predominantly covers fish species of economic importance or which are regularly consumed locally (Doody and Hamerlynck, 2003). A summary of current knowledge lists 46 species from 15 families from Rufiji freshwater habitats including lakes (Doody and Hamerlynck, 2003; Annex Table 70). The IUCN Freshwater Biodiversity Unit also documented a relatively high diversity of fish species in the Rufiji river catchment, with a total of 74 species, including a small number of brackish water species, of which six species, mainly Nothobranchius spp., are listed as threatened (Darwall et al., 2005). The report identified the major threats to fish species as loss and degradation of habitat, in particular from sedimentation due to deforestation and eutrophication, and the introduction of alien species. Darwall et al. (2005) reported that a number of fish species within the Rufiji system undergo seasonal spawning migrations, with the number of migratory species recorded at 14. These species are particularly vulnerable to any blocking of migration routes, such as by dams. Finally, a total of 52 brackish and freshwater species were recorded for the combined Rufiji and Ruaha rivers (Eccles 1992), original source CLOFFA (Daget et al., 1984). It is concluded that information on river and lake fishes of the Rufiji system is still limited and that more survey would be beneficial, especially in relation to the livelihood value of individual species.

Molluscs
Darwall et al. (2005) reported only 10 species (Table 17) within the Rufiji system and none of these were 41

assessed as threatened. It is not thought that any molluscs are harvested as a food resource by the Mtanza-Msona community. Table 17: The conservation status of mollusc species from the Rufiji River basin
Family Ampullaridae Ellobiidae Planorbindae Species Lanistes stuhlmanni Auriculastra radiolata Auriculodes gaziensis Biomphalaria angulosa Bulinus africanus Bulinus forskalii Bulinus globosus Bulinus nasutus Bulinus tropicus Thiara amarula Red List status NT LC DD LC DD LC LC LC LC DD

Thiaridae Source: Darwall et al. 2005.

Doody and Hamerlynck (2003) do not specifically include freshwater molluscs in their survey, giving preliminary species lists only for marine and terrestrial molluscs. Clearly, a great deal more work is required to compile a full list of freshwater molluscs present in the region and to assess their conservation status.

Crabs
There are around 100 species of freshwater crab currently recognized from Africa (Dobson, 2004) of which 37 are found in Eastern Africa (Darwall et al. 2005). Of these, only two species (Potamonautes obesus and P. suprasulcatus) are known to be present within the Rufiji basin, both assessed as Least Concern according to the IUCN Red List. However, given the low level of survey effort in the area, it is thought likely that other species are present, especially within the wet forest of the Mtanza-Msona wetlands. Table 18: Checklist of native Tanzanian freshwater crabs and their conservation status
Family Potamonautidae Species Red List Status Potamonautes emini LC Potamonautes gerdalensis VU Potamonautes infravallatus VU Potamonautes johnstoni VU Potamonautes lirrangensis LC Potamonautes loveridgei LC Potamonautes obesus LC Potamonautes pilosus VU Potamonautes platycentron EN Potamonautes platynotus LC Potamonautes raybouldi VU Potamonautes suprasulcatus LC Potamonautes unisulcatus EN Potamonautes xiphoidus VU Deckeniidae Deckenia imitatrix VU Deckenia mitis VU Platythelphusidae Platythelphusa armata LC Platythelphusa conculcata LC Platythelphusa denticulata VU Platythelphusa echinata LC Platythelphusa immaculata NT Platythelphusa maculata LC Platythelphusa polita LC Platythelphusa praelongata VU Platythelphusa tuberculata LC Red List Ver. 3.1 (2001) (IUCN 2004). LC - Least Concern, NT - Near Threatened, VU - Vulnerable, EN Endangered. Source: Reed and Cumberlidge (2006). Only two species P. obesus and P. suprasulcatus are currently known to be present within the Rufiji basin

Odonates
An estimated 500 species of odonates (dragonflies and damselflies) are known from the wider Eastern Africa region, ranging from Somalia and Ethiopia in the north, southwards to Mozambique and Zimbabwe, and westwards to the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and Botswana (Clausnitzer and Jodicke, 2004). Although the habitat selection of adult dragonflies strongly depends on the terrestrial vegetation type their larvae develop in water where they play a critical role in regard to water quality, nutrient cycling, and aquatic habitat structure. 42

Darwall et al. (2005) reported 19 species within the Rufiji basin (Table 19), sixteen of which are globally threatened. However, more recent intensive survey work by Clausnitzer (2006) recorded 69 species (35 within the Rufuji floodplain alone) (Annex Table 73). Many of the species are common and widespread and inhabit the Rufiji River and its associated wetland habitats, while a smaller proportion are only found in seasonal and permanent streams draining into the Rufiji, permanent or seasonal lakes, or in forest habitats (which are generally under-surveyed, and may contain rarer species, such as the hollow-breeding Coryphagrion grandis. The high overall species diversity is a result of the variety of habitats and their connectivity, combined with the seasonal dynamics of flooding and water flow. The habitat specialists found in Ngumburuni forest and in the forests of the Kichi and Kiwengoma Hills are globally threatened species and require special attention in regard of conservation efforts (Clausnitzer, 2003, in Doody and Hamerlynck, 2003). Table 19: Odonata species recorded as present in the Rufiji river basin by the IUCN Red List
Species Red List Status Gynacantha immaculifrons DD Gynacantha usambarica LC Calopterygidae Umma declivium VU Chlorocyphidae Platycypha auripes EN Coenagrionidae Aciagrion gracile LC Agriocnemis pinheyi LC Ceriagrion mourae DD Pseudagrion acaciae LC Pseudagrion lindicum LC Teinobasis alluaudi EN Gomphidae Nepogomphoides stuhlmanni VU Paragomphus magnus LC Paragomphus sabicus LC Lestidae Lestes amicus LC Libellulidae Atoconeura biordinata LC Hadrothemis scabrifrons NT Thermochoria jeanneli EN Protoneuridae Chlorocnemis abbotti NT Pseudostigmatidae Coryphagrion grandis VU Red List Ver. 3.1 (2001) (IUCN 2004). DD Data Deficient; LC - Least Concern, NT - Near Threatened, VU - Vulnerable, EN Endangered. Source: Darwall et al. 2005. More recent work by Clausnitzer (2006) has increased this total to 96. Family Aeshnidae

43

Findings from the biodiversity field survey

Map 5: Wetland and landcover types within the Mtanza-Msona village area

Not all agricultural farmland belonging to the village is shown on this map; areas of farmed land have increased since the map was produced in 2003, there are extensive areas of farmland to the northeast, off the map. Areas of fallow ground are indicative, as these are likely to change on an annual basis.

44

The distribution of habitat types in the Mtanza-Msona village area are shown in Map 5. Wetland habitats present are dominated by the main Rufiji River, which flows through the village sustaining the many other wetlands such as shallow oxbow lakes, swamps and irrigation systems including paddy fields. The river itself includes channel habitats such as mudflats, sandbars and riparian habitats such as reed beds (dominated by Phragmites karka) and marshes. Among the oxbow lakes, some are annual, while others are perennial. Miombo woodland surround the lakes. The habitats of the Mtanza-Msona village area (Table 20) are highly diverse including riverine forests, many small lakes and wetlands, some permanent and others dependant upon seasonal flooding, and of course the main Rufiji River. Species lists from the field survey are combined with those obtained from the literature and are presented in Annex 6: Species lists for Mtanza-Msona. Table 20: Key habitat types found in the Mtanza-Msona village area
Closed woodland with high canopy Forest Closed woodland with low canopy Open woodland / grassland Mixed woodland with Mango and Acacia Floodplain Primarily found in residual stands along water courses (such as along the Msangazi River and the northern bank of the Rufiji, and in the ZiliZili, Dai, Tanda, Kihumbi and Nyamwidege forests within the Village Forest Reserve Medium to low canopy woodland dominated by trees of the closely related genera Brachystegia, Julbernardia and Isoberlinia The riverine strip along the South bank of the river comprises mixed woodland, mainly mango Mangifera indica and cassia Senna siamea fallow Main cultivation area on the very fertile loams and fine sands Mbawila on the southern floodplain. The natural vegetation is Upanje Hyparrhenia rufa grassland interspersed with Msona Acacia sieberana trees Bother semi-permanent and temporary. Temporary sandbanks are rapidly colonised by grasses and reed, and are valuable habitats for wetland birds; edible aquatic plant Talata Ipomoea aquatica harvested from the margins of temporary banks. Semi-permanent sandbanks and islands are often inhabited and used for crop cultivation Rufiji river Mtatula River (on southern edge of village area, adjacent to the Selous Game Reserve boundary Kihimbwa and Msangazi Rivers on the north bank; water flows during flood periods in the old Rufiji channels in the southern floodplain Zumbi, Mtanza, etc. Kisime Mchele, unnamed lakes within the southern floodplain Scattered throughout the northern village area on clay lenses; seasonal, usually only present during and shortkly after rains e.g. Kisime Mchele I and II (hand-dug rice wells)

Sandbanks

Rufiji River channel

Large rivers, permanent Smaller rivers, permanent Wetlands Small rivers, seasonal (flow for ~3 months/year) Permanent lakes Seasonal lakes (dry in dry season) Seasonal swamps Water holes

Fish
Livelihoods survey work, fisher focus groups, and other literature resources (Richmond et al., 2003; Turpie, 2003), identified twenty-two species of fish as being utilised in the Mtanza-Msona village wetlands (see Table 11 and Annex 6 for a complete list of species present in the Mtanza-Msona wetlands). Given that these species were recoded using local names it is likely that some will comprise more than one scientific species so the total number will likely be higher (indeed, the list presented in Table 11 is conservative, as there were a number of conflicting identifications based on KiSwahili names). Storage and preservation problems unfortunately left no fish specimens, as collected through fisher activities in Mtanza-Msona, available for later identification. Two utilised species have been assessed as threatened; Tungu Distichodus petersii VU and Bubu Barbus macrolepis NT, whilst a number of others have either not yet been assessed, or are Data Deficient.

45

Table 21: Fish species utilised in the Mtanza-Msona wetlands

Family Alestidae Species Alestes stuhlmannii Brycinus affinis Brycinus imberi Hydrocynus vittatus Petersius conserialis Ctenopoma muriei Anguilla bicolor Bagrus orientalis Oreochromis urolepis Citharinus congicus Clarias gariepinus Barbus macrolepis Barbus radiatus Labeo congoro Labeo coubie Opsaridium loveridgii Distichodus rufigiensis Distichodus petersii Synodontis fuelleborni Synodontis maculipinna KiSwahili name Kasa Kasa, Gingi Bembe Kachinga Kasa Mkunga Ktoga, Mbufu Kumba Pele Kambale Bubu Ngogo, Dagaa Pangapanga Nguchu Pata Duvi, Uduvi Tungu Kange Kogo, Ngogo Red Where found List LC Mtanza NE LC NE LC NE LC LC LC DD NE NT NE LC NE LC LC VU LC LC Rufiji Rufiji Selous lakes Notes Three species are named Kasa by local fishers Endemic to the Ruvu and Rufiji Rivers Tiger fish. A high-value species not reported in the fisher focus groups.

Anabantidae Anguillidae Bagridae Cichlidae Citharinidae Clariiidae Cyprinidae

Distichodontidae Mochokidae

Rufiji Mtanza Rufiji Rufiji Luanza, Mkona, Kihimbwa, Magenge, Magoge Makoge Kihimbwa, Mkono, Tanda, Popote, Nyakasawa, Magenge, Makoge, Mtanza Rufiji Rufiji Magenge, Makoge, Mtanza Rufiji Rufiji Endemic to the Rufiji River system Mtanza Rufiji Mtanza

Endemic to the Lake Rukwa basin, Mtera dam, Kidatu dam, and the rivers Rufiji and Wami.

Mormyridae

Marcusenius livingstonii Mormyrus longirostris Protopterus aethiopicus

Somo Mbelewele, Tapondi, Mbubu

LC NE NE

Rufiji Rufiji Rufiji

Protoperidae

Red List Status: NE - Not Evaluated; LC Least Concern; NT Near Threatened; DD Data Deficient. Sources: Darwin field survey; Turpie 2000; Richmond et al., 2003.

(c) IUCN/David Allen 2006 Photo 17: Cyclid; Kumba (Oreochromis urolepis) is the most frequently caught fish from Mtanza-Msona wetlands

(c) IUCN/David Allen 2006 Photo 18: Cyprinidae probably from the Labeo family is commonly found in fishers catches

Birds
Fourty-nine wetland species of birds were observed at 6 wetland sites (Table 22) during the course of the dry season (September 2006) fieldwork. None of the species observed are of conservation concern according to the IUCN Red List. The combined results of field survey and literature records results in a list of 99 species of birds recorded in the Mtanza-Msona wetlands (see Annex Table 71; Doody and Hemerlynck 2003). This includes three species of conservation concern, the White-headed Vulture Trigonoceps occipitalis VU, Yellow-throated Apalis Apalis flavigularis EN, and the Near Threatened African Skimmer Rynchops flavirostris. 46

There was a direct correlation between species richness and abundance with the sizes of wetlands. The Rufiji River, being the largest wetland in the area, recorded a species richness of 39 species and species abundance of 424 individuals. Next in abundance is Mtanza Lake, a large permanent lake, with a diversity of 23 bird species and an abundance of 143 bird individuals. Other surveyed wetlands with their species diversity and abundances respectively in the brackets are Mkono (4 and 22), Luanzo (5 and 20), Nyakasewa (5 and 8) and Makoge (11 and 37). Mkoge is thought to have a relatively high diversity and abundance because it is a large wetland adjacent to Mtanza Lake. Results from bird surveys indicate that the wetlands of Mtanza-Msona have more birds during the dry seasons than during the wet season. The seasonal difference was more significant in the Rufiji River than in other wetlands. Most birds reported during the dry season survey were not recorded during the wet season. For instance during the wet season 178 individuals of Yellow billed Stork, 32 Intermediate Egrets and 36 Pink-backed Pelicans were recorded but none of these were recorded during the dry season in the Rufiji River. Other species also indicated the same seasonal patterns. In the lakes the same pattern was observed although it was not as significant as was observed in the Rufiji River. Another interesting result is the clearly differentiated distribution of some bird species. Some birds were solely seen in the river while others only appeared in the lakes. The pelicans, African Skimmer, Yellow billed Stork and Sand martins are examples of birds that were only recorded in the river. Other birds were only recorded in the lakes, such as African Jacanas, African Darter, Purple Heron and Dwarf Bitten. Birds found to utilise both the river and the lakes include the Hadada Ibis, Hammerkop, Egrets, Pied Kingfisher, African open-billed Stork and Grey Heron. Table 22: Dry season (September 2006) bird observations for 6 key wetland sites in the MtanzaMsona wetlands
Nyakasawa 1 6 1 1 1 5 9 3 3 178 4 2 1 13 3 2 2 5 2 2 10 1 1 2 2 1 7 26 Rufiji River Red List status Makoge 1 1 25 1 8 6 1 3 1 1 3 13 1 5 2 2 1 8 2 Luanza 1 1 Mtanza Mkono 2

Family

Common name

Species

Accipitridae

Alcedinidae Anatidae Anhingidae Ardeidae

Cerylidae Charadriidae

Ciconiidae

Cuculidae Glareolidae Halcyonidae Halcyonidae Hirundinidae Jacanidae Laridae Meropidae

Motacillidae

Dark Chanting Goshawk African Harrier Hawk African Fish Eagle Malachite Kingfisher Pied Kingfisher Egyptian Goose White-faced Whistling Duck African Darter Common Squacco Heron Dimorphic Egret Dwarf Bittern Goliath Heron Great Egret Grey Heron Intermediate Egret Little Egret Purple Heron Rufus-bellied Heron Giant Kingfisher Blacksmith Lapwing Grey Plover White-headed Lapwing African Open-billed Stork Marabou Stork Yellow-billed Stork White-browed Coucal Collared Pratincole Brown-hooded Kingfisher Woodland Kingfisher Red-rumped swallow Sand Martin African Jacana African Skimmer Cinnamon-chested Bee-eater Little Green Bee-eater White-throated Bee-eater African Pied Wagtail

Melierax metabates Polyboroides typus Haliaeetus vocifer Alcedo cristata Ceryle rudis Alopochen aegyptiacus Dendrocygna viduata Anhinga rufa Ardeola ralloides Egretta dimorpha Ixobrychus sturmii Ardea goliath Casmerodius albus Ardea cinerea Mesophoyx intermedia Egretta garzetta Ardea purpurea Ardeola rufiventris Megaceryle maxima Vanellus armatus Pluvialis squatarola Vanellus albiceps Anastomus lamelligerus Leptoptilos crumeniferus Mycteria ibis Centropus superciliosus Glareola pratincola Halcyon albiventris Halcyon senegalensis Hirundo daurica Riparia riparia Actophilornis africanus Rynchops flavirostris Merops oreobates Merops orientalis Merops albicollis Motacilla aguimp

LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT LC LC LC LC

3 1

2 2 3

6 7 32 8

1 17

47

Nyakasawa 8

Rufiji River

Red List status

Family

Common name

Species

Pelecanidae Phoeniculidae Ploceidae Rallidae Scolopacidae

Scopidae Threskiornithidae

White Pelican Pink-backed Pelican Southern Brown-throated Weaver Lesser Moorhen Common Greenshank Common Sandpiper Green Sandpiper Marsh Sandpiper Hammerkop African Spoonbill Hadada Ibis Sacred Ibis

Pelecanus onocrotalus Pelecanus rufescens Ploceus xanthopterus Gallinula angulata Tringa nebularia Actitis hypoleucos Tringa ochropus Tringa stagnatilis Scopus umbretta Platalea alba Hadeda Ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus Totals

LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC

1 36 10 3 1 1 10 3 2 21 13 11 11 5 1 5 27 424 22 20

1 19 143

Source: Darwin Fieldwork, 2006-7.

Figure 6: Abundance and diversity of waterbirds in Mtanza-Msona village wetlands

Wetland bird abundance/diversity
450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
R iv er Lu an ak og e ta n za R iv er ko n za o

Abundance Diversity

N ya ka sa w a

u fij i

La ke

La ke

La ke

Wetland site

Source: Darwin field survey, 2006-7

48

La ke

Makoge 2 4 37

Luanza

Mtanza

Mkono

Figure 7: Relative abundances of birds in the wetlands of Mtanza-Msona. Source: Darwin field survey, 2006-7
70 60

Relative abunance

50 40 30 20 10 0 Lake Mtanza Rufiji River Lake Mkono Lake Luanza Nyakasawa River Lake Makoge

Wetland site

Amphibians
Thirteen species of amphibian anurans (frogs and toads) were recorded during the field survey including 6 species not previously reported by Doody and Hemerlynck (2003) namely, Ptychadena mossambica, B. maculata, B. regularis, A. galensis, P. edulis, and H. argus. All the species observed (and those listed by Doody and Hemerlynk) have been assessed as Least Concern according to the IUCN Red List. No anurans were reported as being utilised by households in Mtanza-Msona. The species caught included non-forest dependent species such as Ptychadena mossambica, Ptychadena anchietae, Phrynobatrachus acridoides (both Ranidae) and Heminsus mermoratum, which belongs to the family Hemisotidae. Other species included those with wide distributions ranging across a variety of habitats such as forests and wetlands - these include Arthroleptis sternodactylus and Afrixalus brachycnemis. Other species recorded were predominantly wetland species. A complete list of anuran amphibian species and their capture locations is given in Table 23. Table 23: Frogs and toads recorded during the Mtanza-Msona wetland survey
NyakasIUCN Red Magenge Mtanza Rufiji Mkono Luanzo List ewa Ptychadena mossambica LC 6 Ptychadena anchietae LC 1 1 1 Phrynobatrachus acridoides LC 11 2 3 1 Bufo maculate LC 1 Bufo regularis LC 1 Bufo gutturalis LC 1 Amnirana galamensis LC 2 Hemisus marmoratus LC 1 1 Pyxicephalus edulis LC 1 Arthroleptis stenodactylus LC 1 1 1 Hyperolius argus LC 1 Xenopus muelleri LC 5 1 Afrixalus brachycnemis * LC 1 Key: * Opportunistic observation. LC Least Concern, global species assessment, IUCN Red List. This list is likely to be incomplete due to sampling method inefficiencies. Source: Darwin field survey, 2007 Species

These results suggest that diversity and abundance of amphibians is low. However, this is probably an artefact of incomplete sampling as incidental observations combined with the variety of frog calls heard suggest a significantly higher abundance of species. Many amphibians were observed near to, or escaping from, the bucket pitfall traps. Interestingly tree frogs, Hyparolius agus and Afrixelus brachycnemis, were also captured in the wetlands. This demonstrates a benefit from the high diversity of habitats in the MtanzaMsona village area that includes a number of forest areas. 49

Seasonality did not account for any significant variation in amphibian catch. However, the lower than expected catch during the wet season, when abundance might be expected to be higher, could be due to the late arrival of the rains. Nevertheless three new species, Xenopus muleri, Chromontis xerompalina, and Afrixelus brachycnemis, not previously caught during the dry season survey were added in the list during the wet season survey. Clearly sampling was not exhaustive and more species are likely to be found.

Vegetation
The plant assessment was limited to those species of direct importance to the local livelihoods. The study involved participatory survey of the wetlands vegetation involving the villagers. Knowledgeable and experienced local people assisted the researcher. After discussions to identify those plants with direct uses, visits were made to those wetland areas where the plants are found. Local names, characteristics of the plants and their uses were recorded. A total of 84 plant species of trees, herbs, climbers and grasses were recorded as being used in a variety of ways. This is not an exhaustive list and many more plant species are likely to be recorded as useful to local livelihoods. The list of utilised species includes: 8 species of climbers; 22 trees; 27 shrubs; 2 sedges; 20 herbs and 7 grasses. Most of the plants found in these wetlands are not strictly aquatic but they do depend upon the seasonal inundation of the wetland. A few strictly aquatic plants were found to be utilised, including: Yungiyungi Pistia stratiotes; mafufu Pennisetum purpureum; Ukangasa Nymphaea lotus and Matete Phragmites mauritianus. These were found in the permanently water-logged wetlands. Seasonal wetlands such as Njacha and bawe were largely dominated by trees and grasses with grasses occupying most parts of the wetland. Grass species found in these permanent wetlands included: Mbalugwe Sorghum arundinacea; Kinyanzeke Echinochloa haploclada; Bugibugi Digitaria perrottetii; Upanje Panicum maximum and Nyakinzeke Echnochlora haploclada. These grasses are found together with scattered herbs, shrubs and trees.

Mammals
No direct surveying for mammals was undertaken although records were made of any animal sightings or signs. Records of mammals and their utilisation were collected through focus groups and household questionnaires and interviews with individual villagers and Selous Game Reserve staff. The main aquatic mammals present within the village area are Hippos Hippopotamus amphibious, although other mammals are associated with seasonal and temporary lakes. Table 24: Mammals present within the Mtanza-Msona wetlands
Family Red List Status Bovidae Aepyceros melampus Impala Swala CD Alcelaphus buselaphus Hartebeest Kongoni CD Connochaetes taurinus Wildebeest Nyumbu CD Hippotragus niger Sable Mbalape CD Kobus ellipsiprymnus Waterbuck Kulo/kuro CD Syncerus caffer African Buffalo Nyati CD Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck Mbawala LC Cercopithecidae Cercopithecus albogularis Sykes Monkey Kima LC Chlorocebus pygerythrus Vervet Monkey Ngedere LC Papio cynocephalus Baboon Nyani LC Equidae Equus quagga Zebra Pundamilia LC Felidae Panthera leo Lion Simba VU Hippopotamidae Hippopotamus amphibius Hippo Kiboko VU Hystricidae Athererus africanus African Brush-tailed Porcupine Nungunungu LC Suidae Phacochoerus africanus Warthog Ngiri LC Potamochoerus larvatus Bush pig Nguruwe LC IUCN Red List categories. LC Least Concern; CD Conservation Dependent; DD Data Deficient; NT Near Threatened; VU Vulnerable. Sources: Darwin Field Survey 2006-7; IUCN Red List 2007. Compiled from villager responses obtained through the Darwin village survey Species English name Local name

Crabs
No crabs were collected during the course of the survey. 50

(c) IUCN/David Allen 2006 Photo 19: A mating pair of damselflies on a hand-dug pond by Kisima Mchele lake

(c) IUCN/David Allen 2006 Photo 20: Female of Anax tristis found on Dai Lake, previously unrecorded in Rufiji District

Odonata
Odonata specimens were collected from 10 locations (9 lakes, 2 locations on the Mbaligani River following rain, and 1 site adjacent to the northern terrace of the Rufiji River). 100 specimens were collected, photographed and preserved. No field keys currently exist for East African odonates, and an export permit, required to send the specimens to an expert for identification, was not obtained. However, photographs of the specimens were submitted to an expert (V. Clausnitzer) for identification, and 14 specimens were identified (3 to Genus level, 11 to Species). All identified specimens are of Least Concern according to the IUCN Red List, and, except for A. tristis (a new record for the Rufiji), are common species associated with wetlands in the region. Table 25: Odonata collected from lakes and associated habitats
Family AESHNIDAE COENAGRIONIDAE Species Anax tristis Azuragrion nigridorsum Ceriagrion spp. Ceriagrion glabrum Ischnura senegalensis Lestes uncifer Acisoma panorpoides Brachythemis leucosticta Crocothemis spp. Orthetrum spp. Palpopleura lucia Rhyothemis semihyalina Trithemis annulata Trithemis arteriosa Red List Status LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC

LESTIDAE

51

Findings on the local use and economic value of wetland biodiversity

Many different plants, animals and natural resources are locally harvested from wetlands, and yield economically valuable goods for production and consumption. A high proportion of village households are also engaged in wetland resource harvesting. The assessment identified eight categories of wetland product or harvesting activity, each of which is considered in this chapter: fishing; woodfuel; timber; grasses, reeds and palms; medicinal and aromatic plants; wild food plants; hunting and animal-based foods; wild honey; and clay. This chapter provides detailed information for each about which species and habitats it involves, by whom and when it is carried out, and what its economic value is at household and village levels. It should be noted that in the tables showing the economic value of different wetland resource uses, whereas price and quantity figures have been rounded up to whole numbers, the per household and village total value figures have been worked using the exact data on prices and quantity from survey responses (thus the total may not always exactly equal the product of the frequency of collection, quantity collected and price). The chapter also presents the findings of a contingent valuation study carried out to assess the non-use value of wetlands for local households.

Fishing
Who engages in fishing
Fishing is stated as a major livelihood component for 21% of survey respondents. Men are the primary fishers, and considered the owners of fishing boats and gear. As evidenced by the inventory of household assets (which shows that 21% of households own a canoe, and 28% own fishing nets), a slightly higher proportion of households than stated may in reality engage in occasional fishing activities or in low-level harvesting to supplement household food supplies. Fishing is important to the livelihoods of even those households who do not engage directly in the activity, as a source of household protein or (for a minority of the population) a source of trade, business and cash income. Map 6: Fishing sites in Mtanza-Msona

52

What, where and when people fish

Fishing is carried out both in the Rufiji River and in surrounding lakes (Lake Mtanza is the main fishing ground) and swamp areas (Map 6). About 30 species are fished, with Kumba (Oreochromis urolepis) most frequently caught, and Nguchu or Pangapanga (Labeo coubie), Pele (Citharinus congicus), and Kitoga/ Mbufu (Bagrus orientalis) also common (Hogan and Mwambeso 2004). There is periodic variation in the availability of species. Almost all commonly-caught fish species are found in the Rufiji River (Table 26), however only three species (Oreochromis urolepis, Clarias gariepinus and Bagrus orientalis) are common in lakes throughout the year. Other species are usually found in lakes only during the wet season, after water has flowed from the river into the lakes. There is also a distinct seasonality to when different species are actually fished, which depends on the seasonal availability of fish and the ease of fishing in different locations, as well as on formal or informal rules on when fishing is allowed to take place. For example, since 2000 Lake Mtanza has had a closed season for fisheries for a few months of the year this seems to be well-adhered to, and working effectively (Richmond et al 2002) Only one species (Labeo coubie) is fished equally throughout the year. Most species are fished in certain months, reflecting their availability. Most fishing is carried out between the months of June and December, moderate fishing occurs in March, April and May, while fishing activities are lowest in January and February. The peak fishing season thus corresponds to the time after the long rains, when the main floods are receding. Table 26: Distribution of fish species and seasonality Common species KiSwahili name Nguchu/Pangapang a Kumba Bembe Tungu Nzaba/ Ndundundundu Pua Ngogo Pata Zozo Kasa Pele Bubu Kange Kambale Kamba Mkunga Gingi Mkizi Duvi/uduvi Sasile Kitoga/Mbufu Sombamlungu/ Ndubwi
n.i.: not identified

Scientific name Labeo coubie Oreochromis urolepis n.i. Distichodus petersii n.i n.i Barbus radiatus Opsaridium loveridgei Mormyrus hasselquisti Alestes stulhumanni Citharinus congicus Barbus macrolepis Synodontis fuelleborni Clarias gariepinus Nannaethiops sp. n.i Mormyrus longirostris n.i Distichodus rufigiensis n.i Bagrus orientalis n.i

Distribution Rivers and streams Lakes Rufiji Others

Rice field s

When fished All year

rare rare rare

All year All year Jan-Apr Feb-May Mar-May May-Oct May-Oct May-Dec

rare rare

Jun-Sep Jul-Sep Jul-Sep Jul-Oct JulNov JulNov Jul-Nov Jul-Dec Aug-Nov

rare

Mtanza rare Mtanza wet season

Sept-Nov Sept-Nov Sept-Dec Dec-Mar

53

How people fish

There are three main types of fishing gear utilised by fisherfolk: fish nets (Nyavu), hooks (Ndoano) and baskets constructed from reeds (Kizi). The most common fishing methods are trapping (Kutega) and dragging (Njenje), although a wide variety of techniques are used at different times, in different places, and for different species (Box 4). Villagers fish for both subsistence and trade purposes. Fisherfolk sell their catch in the local market and, often through intermediate traders, in larger markets outside the village, such as in Dar es Salaam. Usually only a small proportion of the catch (10-30%) is sold fresh: the bulk of sales are comprised of dried fish.

54

Box 4: Fishing methods in Mtanza-Msona Kimea (Umbrella shaped net) Kizi The net is constructed in the shape of an umbrella, and thrown into the water from a canoe to enclose fishes within the water. The net has a draw-string, which is pulled to trap the fish. A basket-like structure is constructed using reeds. It is positioned up-side down in the water to enclose fish, in an area enclosed with a fishnet. The kizi is carried by a fisherperson when moving in the water searching for fish. Once signs of fish are seen, the kizi is closed from the top i.e. the base of the basket is a hole through which fishermen check and gets the fish out. Fish hooks are placed in a straight line within the water body and then checked regularly (e.g. after every 30 minutes depending on the abundance of the fish). Nets are placed in open water, near macrophites / breeding grasses. Fish are then chased towards it using sticks.

Koja (Line trapping with hooks) Kuchokoa (Chasing/directing fishes towards the fishnet) Kulowa

Kulowa kwa uzi (Hooks with a long string) Kutega (Trapping) Misakasaka (Creating artificial habitat then using fishnet)

The hook is baited and held with a piece of string tied to a stick. A floating substance indicates whether the fish is feeding on the bait, at which point it is reeled in. As above, but with a very long piece of string. This method is used in the rivers. Fishnets are set in the water using poles and suspenders and left for some time before being checked. An artificial habitat for fish is created using tree branches, and left for up to three months. Fishnets are then placed to enclose the artificial habitats. The branches are removed and the nets are used to drag the fish to the sides of the wetlands where there is no water. The net is spread between two poles and pulled along by two people or from the two end points towards the water shore. The net is dropped into the water, usually shallow, the ends of the nets are held and the net is spread apart. The net is taken to the suitable fishing area and then the two ends are brought together. The net is then pulled from each end while carefully holding the upper and the bottom so as to not lift up the base, whilst bringing the sides together. A net is fitted with heavy stones and dropped into the water and then allowed to move along the river. This is only done in parts of the river where there are no obstacles. The net is set to surround a fishing ground, and then pulled towards the centre of the cycle to collect every fish within the cycle. A fence is created from reeds, with an opening in the middle. In order to filter the fish into traps (similar to a pitfall trap).

Mkoko (Dragging) Naluje (Dragging in shallow water)

Ndatula (Free dragging of net by water) Njenje (Cyclic dragging) Tanga

How much is caught

Fish catch per unit effort varies according to site, gear and methods used (Table 27). Catch per unit effort (CPUE) is generally higher in lakes than in the Rufiji River. While the highest average CPUE in Rufiji River is recorded as 3.6 kg/hour, in lakes figures are consistently above this and reach as high as 20.5 kg/hour. It should however be noted that the two net-based techniques which yield the highest CPUE (Kuchokoa Naluje and Kimea) are illegal, as they are not selective and gather everything. It is more difficult to fish in the river as compared to the lakes, due to two main reasons: the water level is higher in the river, and the process or environment is also harder due to obstacles, currents, wild animals such as crocodiles and hippopotamuses. This is also reflected in the fact that a narrower range of fishing methods is used in the river as compared to lakes. 55

Fishing sites Rufiji River

Fishing gear Fishnet

Mtanza lake

Nyakasewa Makoge Mzambarau Magenge Andemela Luhanzu Mkono Msangazi Kihimbwa

Table 27: Fish catch per unit effort CPUE (kg/hour) Methods Range Average Kutega 1.2-1.7 1.5 Kulowa 1.3-6.0 3.6 Hooks Kulowa kwa uzi 1.0-5.0 3.0 Kutega 0.5-1.0 0.8 Kutega 0.05-0.3 0.2 Njenje 3.3-8.0 5.6 Mkoko 3.3-8.0 5.7 Kimea 8.3-60.0 7.2 Fishnets Naluje 2.0-6.7 4.4 Kizi 0.6-2.5 1.6 Misakasaka 4.6-5.6 5.1 Kutanda 2.0-3.1 2.6 Kutega 0.2-0.8 0.5 Hooks Kutanda 2.1-5.0 3.6 Kutega 0.5-0.8 0.7 Mkoko 3.3-12.0 7.7 Fishnet Njenje 1.3-5.0 3.2 Kimea 5.8-20.0 13.0 Kuchokoa Naluje 8.0-33.0 20.5 Kutega 0.4-1.5 1.0 Hooks Kulowa 0.4-2.0 1.2 Baskets Kizi 1.2-1.7 1.5 Kutega 6.7-10 8.4 Hooks Kulowa 4.2-7.5 6.0 Baskets Kizi 2.0-4.0 3.0

The value of fishing

Fishermen catch an average of just over 1 tonne of fish a year, with an average price across species of TSh 350/kg. Thus fishing is worth an average of TSh 353,612 per user household, and TSh 31.08 million a year for Mtanza-Msona as a whole (Table 28). Table 28: The value of fishing
Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percent of households engaged in fishing Fish catch per year (kg) Price of fish (TSh/kg) Annual value per user household (TSh) 31.08 21% 1,010 350 353,612

56

 IUCN/David Allen 2006

Photo 21: Fisherman on Lake Mtanza

Woodfuel
What is used and by whom
All of the survey respondents collect firewood for domestic cooking and lighting. Firewood collection is carried out primarily by women. The most common species used for firewood are Mlama (Combretum sp.), Mkwala (Markhamia sp.), Mkole (Grewia sp.) and Mkegembe (Dichrostachys sp.). These are sourced from a range of locations, including nearby forests and from trees growing on farms. Firewood collection is almost entirely for subsistence use, mainly for cooking, with only a small proportion sold: mainly to restaurant owners and wealthier households. Only 1% of respondents reported that they produced, used or sold charcoal. However, as charcoal production is illegal, it is likely that the survey under-reports on this activity.

The value of firewood and charcoal

Households typically go into the forest to collect firewood every two or three days, collecting an average of 2 backloads per trip (each backload weighs around 10-15 kg) and spending 2 hours collecting each backload. This translates into a per capita consumption of firewood of just under 500 kg, which accords well with studies carried out in nearby rural areas which show an average consumption of approximately 600 kg (Turpie 2000). The local sale price of firewood is TSh 426/backload, giving an average household value of TSh 132,990 a year and a value for all of Mtanza-Msona Village of TSh 56.92 million a year (Table 30). Table 29: The value of firewood
Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percent of households collecting firewood Number of trips per year Quantity of firewood collected each trip (backloads) Price of firewood (Tsh/backload) Annual value per user household (TSh) 56.92 100% 166 2 426 132,990

Due to the illegality of charcoal production, it was impossible to obtain full information on the either the quantity of extraction or its value. Based on the data that were made available (which, as noted above, are likely to constitute a considerable under-estimate of the real economic value from charcoal production), user households earn an average of TSh 25,200 a year from charcoal, which is worth TSh 0.10 million in total for Mtanza-Msona Village (Table 30). Table 30: The value of charcoal
Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percent of households producing charcoal 0.10 1%

57

Number of trips per year Price of charcoal (TSh/trip) Annual value per user household (TSh)

12 2,100 25,200

IUCN/Yassin Mkwizu 2007

Photo 22: Firewood harvesting

Timber
What is used and by whom
Timber felling is almost exclusively a male occupation. Although there was a low stated participation in timber felling by survey respondents (only 4% admitted to timber harvesting for sale, even on an occasional basis), it is likely that, as in the case of charcoal production, this represents an underestimate due to the illegality of the activity. A recent study of the logging industry in Southern Tanzania, for example, estimates that 20 individuals participate in harvesting timber for the logging industry in Mtanza-Msona, representing 8% of males aged between 19-45 (Milledge et al 2007). Timber is harvested to supply the commercial market outside Mtanza-Msona, including Dar es Salaam and other urban centres. Timber sourced from Mtanza-Msona mainly supplies the furniture-making industry. A wide variety of species are utilised for timber, both locally and commercially (Table 31), with particularly high demands for Mninga (Pterocarpus angolensis), Mkongo (Afzelia quanzensis), Mkenge (Albizia gummifera), Mnangu (Hymenaea verrucosa), Mvule (Milicia excelsa) and Mikuyu (Borassus aethiopium). Focus group interviews reported that over recent years it has become increasingly hard to access the most commercially valuable species of timber in the forests and woodlands around the village, meaning that there has been some shift in harvested species (in particular there was reported to be a shift from Pterocarpus angolensis to Afzelia quanzensis, although the latter is now being depleted at a rapid rate). Table 31: Tree species used for timber
KiSwahili name Mkongo Mkenge/Mkungutanga Mnangu/Mnungu Mvule Mkangazi Mikuyu Mfulu Mngongo Latin name Afzelia quanzensis Albizia gummifera Hymenaea verrucosa Milicia excelsa Khaya anthoteca Borassus aethiopium Vitex doniana Sclerocarya birrea Use Timber, furniture, boats, drums Timber, Boats Timber Timber Timber Boats, chicken huts Boats Boats

In addition to supplying commercial demands, a large proportion of the tools, equipment and household items that are owned by households in Mtanza-Msona are produced from timber gathered in the locality. Houses are constructed primarily out of wood, while beds, beehives, canoes, tables and chairs are made from timber felled from the wetland and forest areas surrounding the village. Thus, even if households are not engaged directly in cutting timber in the locality, most make use of it via the tools and equipment they own. Up to a half of survey respondents stated that they collected timber to construct their house and household items, and it can be reasonably assumed that almost double this amount utilise locally-sourced wood products (even when they do not directly harvest these products themselves, but source from others or from the local market). There are reported to be very high rates of polewood cutting in the forests around the village (Malimbwi 2000). 58

The value of timber

The construction of a normal house with four rooms requires poles (Majengo), rafters (Miamba and Tunguo) and withies (Fito). Around a half of households harvest these products from local forest and woodland areas. In total, the value of wood used for home construction is worth TSh 159,726 per household per year for building poles, TSh 86,941 for withies (long, flexible branches or thin poles used for constructing the frame and roof of houses), and TSh 49.12 million for Mtanza-Msona overall (Table 32). Table 32: The value of wood used for house construction
Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percentage of households collecting poles Number of trips per year Quantity collected per trip (poles) Price of poles (TSh/pole) Annual value per user household (TSh) Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percentage of households collecting withies Number of trips per year Quantity collected per trip (withies) Price of withies (TSh/withy) Annual value per user household (TSh) 30.52 45% 15 12 891 159,726 18.61 50% 15 14 415 86,941

On the basis of listed household assets, those items that are constructed out of locally-sourced wood were identified (including canoes, beehives and furniture), and found to be owned by 96% of respondents. For each item, their market value and lifespan were calculated and used to ascertain an annual value of TSh 10,052 for each user household, or TSh 4.11 million for Mtanza-Msona Village overall (Table 33). Table 33: The value of wood-based assets
Total value of wood assets Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percentage of households owning wood assets Annual value of wood assets per user household (TSh) 4.11 96% 10,052

Due to the illegality of commercial timber harvesting, it was impossible to obtain full information on the either the quantity of extraction or its value. Based on the data that were made available (which, as noted above, are likely to constitute a considerable under-estimate of the real economic value from logging), user households earn an average of TSh 540,000 a year from timber harvesting, which is worth TSh 8.25 million in total for Mtanza-Msona Village (Table 34). Table 34: The value of timber harvesting for sale
Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percentage of households collecting timber for sale Number of trips per year Value of timber (TSh/trip) Annual value per user household (TSh) 8.25 4% 36 15,000 540,000

There are a number of carpentry workshops in the village which utilise locally-sourced wood as their raw materials, mainly producing simple furniture and household utility tools and equipment. These businesses generate some TSh 12.87 million a year earnings from the sale of wood products; deducting the value of raw timber harvested for sale, so as to avoid double-counting (the value of these products is included above) suggests that a net value-added by carpentry activities of TSh 4.62 million a year (Table 35). Table 35: Value-added through the manufacture of timber products
Net value-added Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Value-added through processing (TSh mill/year) Less value of raw material from harvesters (TSh mill/year) 4.62 12.87 - 8.25

59

 IUCN/Yassin Mkwizu 2007

Photo 23: Timber harvesting

Grasses, reeds and palms

What is used and by whom
Grasses, reeds and palms are widely harvested in Mtanza-Msona, for a variety of purposes. They are harvested by both men and women. Grasses are used to make fences by 42% of survey respondents, although it is reported that the spread of cultivation into areas of natural grassland has resulted in a decline in the availability of the resource over recent years. Reeds (Phragmites australis, Matete or Mabuwa) are harvested by 46% of survey respondents for making fences, chicken coops, grain storage containers, mats and for use in house construction. Around a half all respondents (45%) collect palm leaves (from the species Hyphaene coriacea, Milala, Miaa, Mikoche or Mingweta), and three quarters make use of these products for thatching, fencing, and for making hats, bags, baskets, ropes and mats. Summing the use of wild grasses, reeds and gives a total value of TSh 16,541, TSh 8,247 and TSh 26,663 respectively per year for each user household, and TSh 9.67 million for Mtanza-Msona Village overall (Table 36). Table 36: The value of grasses, reeds and palms
Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Number of trips per year Percent of households harvesting grass Quantity collected per trip (bundle) Price of grass (TSh/bundle) Annual value per user household (TSh) Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percentage of households engaged in reeds harvesting Number of trips per year Quantity collected per trip (bundles) Price of reeds (TSh/bundle) Annual value per user household (TSh) Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percentage of households engaged in palm leaf harvesting Quantity harvested (bundles/year) Price of palm leaves (TSh/bundle) Annual value of per user household (TSh) 2.97 15 42% 4 300 16,541 1.61 46% 13 2 325 8,247 5.09 45% 76 350 26,663

The 75% of households who use palm leaves to make various handicraft items generate products worth an average of TSh 49,074 per household per year, or TSh 15.75 million for Mtanza-Msona overall. Netting out the value of raw material gathered by harvesters (the value of these products is included above) suggests that a net value-added by the manufacture of palm leaf products of TSh 10.66 million a year (Table 37). Table 37: Value-added through products manufactured from palm leaves
Net value-added from palm leaf products Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percent of households making palm-leaf products Annual value per user household (TSh) Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Less value of raw material from harvesters (TSh mill/year) 10.66 75% 49,074 15.75 - 5.09

60

 IUCN/David Allen 2006

Photo 24: Hats made from wetland palm species

Medicinal and aromatic plants

What is used and by whom
Seventy one percent of survey respondents collect wild plants to use as medicines. More than twenty plants are commonly used for medicinal purposes, by both men and women, to treat a wide range of diseases and conditions (Table 38). Although most households have a broad familiarity with selected plant-based medicines, detailed knowledge and regular collection of plants is largely the preserve of older members of the community and traditional healers. These experts are reluctant to divulge information about known medicinal species, as it is believed that they will lose the ability to cure and heal if known by many people. Table 38: Commonly-used medicinal plants
Species Mnyalanyala Msisiana Mpakocha Mwegele Mpiugi Mtesatesa Ntonga-ngumba Mingaoka Nyanyapori Mzizimia Mwarubaini (Fotomiasin) Mkandanga Muruka Mtambapanya Mkiafisi Mtetema Unyegele Ukangasa Lwila Mpera Nyalanyala Habitat Floodplain Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Floodplain Floodplain, forest Forest Forest Forest and household fields Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Floodplain Riverbank Riverbank Forest Floodplain Parts used Roots (mizizi) Leaves, roots Leaves, roots Leaves Roots leaves roots leaves roots leaves leaves Leaves, roots n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. Leaves, roots Roots Uses For stomach ache Fever, stomach Nausea, kisunguzungu Kifafa Mucous, diarrhoea Kifafa Stomach ache Fever Stomach ache Fever Headache, stomach, Malaria, abortion Cough n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. Stomach n.i.

Villagers report that there has been an overall decline in the use of plant-based medicines over time. During the 1970s, while there remained no dispensary or health centre in the village, the collection and use of wild 61

plants for medicines was extremely high. During the 1980s and 1990s usage decreased, as the availability of modern drugs and healthcare facilities improved. Recently however there has been an upsurge in the collection of medicinal plants, largely due to a growing and lucrative market and demand in areas outside the village, including Dar es Salaam. Unfortunately, no information was available on the nature or composition of these new markets, or about the species and quantities of plants traded.

The value of medicinal and aromatic plants

Collection of wild plants for medicinal purposes is worth an average of TSh 69,560 a year per user household per year, or TSh 21.27 million for Mtanza-Msona overall (Table 39). Table 39: The value of plant-based medicines
Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) % of households collecting medicines Annual value per user household (TSh) 21.27 71% 69,560

In addition, a variety of plants are harvested for cosmetic products (such as those used as make-up, perfume and toothpaste), and to extract essential oils. Ten percent and 16% of households engage in thee activities respectively, which are worth TSh 13,388 and TSh 9,200 a year for user households, or TSh 1.19 million a year for Mtanza-Msona overall Table 40 and Table 41). Table 40: The value of plants for cosmetics
Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percentage of households engaged in harvesting plants for cosmetics Number of trips per year Quantity collected per trip (units) Price of cosmetics (TSh/unit) Annual value per user household (TSh) 0.56 10% 11 2 850 13,388

Table 41: The value of plants for essential oils

Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percentage of households engaged in harvesting plants for oils Number of trips per year Quantity collected per trip (units) Price of oils (TSh/unit) Annual value per user household (TSh) 0.63 16% 8 3 400 9,200

Wild food plants

What is used and by whom
Households utilise a wide variety of plant species, making use of their fruits, tubers, leaves and seeds for food (Table 42). Around two thirds or more of survey respondents report that they gather wild fruits (67% of respondents) and vegetables (71%), and a quarter harvest stems and leaves from wild plants for home consumption. Women and children most frequently gather wild foods. They are collected primarily for home consumption; very little of the harvest is sold or used to earn cash income. A high proportion of wild foodstuffs are collected from wetland areas, including the flooplain, forests, lakes and grassy waterlogged areas known locally as Njacha. While wild fruits are collected throughout the year (with availability increasing during the wet season), wild vegetables tend to be gathered only during the dry season (when other sources of food are in short supply) or during times of drought, famine or when there is difficulty in accessing food. Overall, wild foods are however more important as a regular component of peoples diets during the wet season (when availability is higher) although it should be noted that they may well have a higher short-term significance when they are used as emergency foods in dry seasons and droughts. It is estimated that about 95% of all household fruit and vegetable food needs are met from wetland resources in the wet season, and around 40% during the dry season. Table 42: Wild food plants
KiSwahili name Mabungo Mpilipili Miyembayemba Mbigizo Scientific name Landolphia kirkii Sorindea madagascariensis n.i. n.i. Parts used Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Comments n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i.

62

KiSwahili name Makoche Tawa Msamalele Mitopetope Furu Mingingo Mgama Micheka Mingweta Mkwaju Zambarau Misada Mipingipingi Mikolekole Maembe Mpikicho Lwila / luida PALM FRUITS Dendego Lulindi / Lunindi Mbalugwe Lumbalwe Rwila Ntago Kingonbokombo Mwage Hombo Mlonge Andarongo Mchicha pori Makangasa (water lily) Lundindi Mlenda Ngandarongo Lilamba Kibange Sunga Mingaoka Mkorontende Korombwani Kitengalwala Tombolombo Kiberege Lende Nyampioko or bintiali Kibange

Scientific name Hyphaene coriacea n.i. n.i. n.i. Vitex doniana n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. Tamarindus indica n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. Flagellaria guineensis n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. Flagellaria guineensis n.i. n.i. Sesbania spp. ?Sesamium angustifolium n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. Corchorus aestuans n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. ?Sesuvium sp. n.i. n.i. Pychostachus reticulata Sesamum angolense n.i. n.i.

Parts used Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Tubers Grain Grain Grain Grain Grain Beans Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves Leaves

Comments n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. Like cassava, used for ugali. Poisonous when raw, so ferment then dry Like wild rice, used for hard porridge during famine season Used during famine season, Like a grass, looks like rice after threshing Wild millet Specially during hunger; for ugali Available in dry season, when preparing fields n.i. Use any time, eat while in fields Like wild ochre; Famine Used during famine Used during famine n.i. Use young shoots; Famine food n.i. Best used in famine n.i. n.i. n.i. Dont eat much of this n.i. n.i. Eat while in village Crawling plant Eaten any time In wet season n.i. n.i. n.i.

The value of wild food plants

Averaging out dry season and wet season collection, user households make an average of 18 trips a year to collect wild vegetables and 16 trips to collect wild fruits, yielding products. This gives a total value for wild food plant collection of TSh 19,572 per year for each user household for vegetables, TSh 35,973 for fruits and TSh 28,250 for wild leaves and stems, totalling TSh 19.24 million for Mtanza-Msona Village overall (Table 43). Table 43: The value of wild food plants
Total value of wild vegetables Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percent of households collecting wild vegetables Number of trips per year Quantity collected each trip (units) Price of wild vegetables (TSh/unit) Annual value of wild vegetables per user household (TSh) Total value of wild fruits Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percent of households collecting wild fruits Number of trips per year Quantity collected each trip (units) 5.91 71% 18 4 246 19,572 10.31 67% 16 1

63

Price of wild fruits (TSh/unit) Annual value of wild fruits per user household (TSh) Total value of wild leaves & stems Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percent of households collecting wild leaves & stems Quantity collected each year (units) Price of wild leaves & stems (TSh/trip) Annual value of wild leaves & stems per user household (TSh)

1,750 35,973 3.02 25% 565 50 28,250

(c) IUCN/David Allen 2006

Photo 25: Leguminous aquatic plant used for food

Hunting and animal-based foods

What is used and by whom
Hunting is almost exclusively a male occupation, although children are sometimes involved in trapping and catching smaller animals. Wild animals are hunted both for food, and as a mechanism for pest control (wild animal damage to crops is a major problem faced by farmers in Mtanza-Msona). Much of the wildlife found in the village migrates into the area from the adjoining Selous Game Reserve. A wide range of birds, mammals and insects are hunted and/or consumed in Mtanza-Msona (Table 44). Impala and buffalo are the most commonly hunted, and preferred, meat species, mainly found in the woodlands surrounding the village. Crocodiles are also hunted, mainly as a form of pest control, as it is the local belief that their meat is poisonous to humans. Monkeys are hunted purely for pest control purposes, and are never eaten. Both crocodiles and baboons are also associated with witchcraft. Table 44: Animals hunted and/or consumed
KiSwahili name Swala Nyati Nyumbu Kiboko Sungura Kongoni Mbalape Pundamilia Kulo/kuro Mbawala Ngiri Nungunungu Nguruwe Ngedere Kima Nyani Mamba Kanga Bata Bata maji Tetere Kwale English Impala Buffalo Wildebeest Hippo Rabbit Hartebeest Sable Zebra Waterbuck Bushbuck Warthog Porcupine Pigs Vervet Monkey Guenon/Sykes' Monkey Baboon Crocodile Guinea fowl Ducks Geese Pigeons & Doves Spur fowl Reason for hunting Food Food Food Food Food Food Food Food Food Food Food / Pest Food Food / Pest Pest Pest Pest Pest Food, feathers Food Food Food Food

64

A relatively small proportion of respondents (15%) admitted being involved in hunting. This figure is likely to underestimate considerably the real situation, as hunting is strictly regulated and requires a licence and the payment of fees in the case of commercial and food hunting, and requires permission and the assistance of a licensed village hunter in the case of problem animal control. A variety of methods are used to hunt wild animals, including the use of traps, snares, spears and dogs. Hunting is aided through regular burning of woodland areas, to reduce understorey vegetation and encourage the production of grasses which attracts grazers such as impala and other antelopes. Burning is particularly frequent between August and November. Whether or not they themselves are directly engaged in hunting, 20% of survey respondents stated that they relied on wild meat during the wet season, increasing to double this amount in the dry season. Wild meat therefore obviously provides an important source of protein to villagers at all times of the year, and especially when other sources of food are scarce. Although it is known to that hunting takes place to supply commercial markets, and for trade outside the immediate area, information about the nature and level of this is not available.

The value of hunting

The 15% of households who are engaged in hunting make an average of 5 hunting trips a year, collecting around 14 kg of meat on each trip. At an average price of TSh 400 per kg, this harvest is worth TSh 26,133 per household per year or TSh 0.03 million for Mtanza-Msona overall.

65

Table 45: The value of hunting

Total value of hunting Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percent of households hunting Number of trips per year Quantity collected per trip (kg) Price of meat (TSh/kg) Annual value per user household (TSh) 0.03 15% 5 14 400 26,133

Insects, primarily grasshoppers (Nsenene), are mainly harvested seasonally for food, often by women and children. This is worth TSh 12,563 per year for the 6% of households who engage in insect harvesting, and TSh 0.34 million for Mtzana-Msona overall (Table 46). Table 46: The value of insects
Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percentage of households engaged in collecting insects Number of trips per year Quantity collected per trip (units) Price of insects (TSh/unit) Annual value per user household (TSh) 0.34 6% 1 12 814 12,563

Wild honey
What is used and by whom
Mtanza-Msona is one of the villages in Rufiji District which participates in a beekeeping project, which aims to increase local income and add value to conservation activities. Sixty four households participate in this project, owning a total of 305 hives. In addition, 7% of village members are engaged in wild honey collection from surrounding forest, wetland and grassland areas, and 5% also harvest beeswax.

The value of wild honey and beeswax

User households gain an average of 9 harvests of wild honey a year. With a market price of TSh 1,500 a litre, and an average harvest of around 13 litres, this gives a value for wild honey collection of TSh 168,286 per year for each user household, and TSh 5.14 million for Mtanza-Msona Village overall (Table 47). Beeswax harvesting is worth an average of TSh 23,467 per household per year, and TSh 0.54 million overall for Mtanza-Msona Village. Table 47: The value of wild honey and beeswax collection
Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percent of households collecting wild honey Number of trips per year Quantity of honey collected per trip (litres) Price of honey (TSh/litre) Annual value per user household (TSh) Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percent of households collecting wax Number of trips per year Quantity of wax collected per trip (units) Price of wax (TSh/trip) Annual value per user household (TSh) 5.14 7% 9 13 1,500 168,286 0.54 5% 4 3 1,833 23,467

Clay
What is used and by whom
Almost every household in Mtanza-Msona uses clay pots for coking and storage. Although women occasionally make their own pots, for the most part they buy them from a small number of professional potters (Wafinyanzi) in the village. These potters collect clay from special areas on riverbanks. The main products made are small pots of 18 cm diameter which are used for frying, medium-sized pots of about 30 cm diameter which are used for cooking, and large water storage containers of about 50 cm depth.

The value of clay

The survey identified two groups of people who harvest clay from riverbanks and wetland areas, including 66

the approximately 46 potters in the village. Twelve percent of households were identified as collecting clay to an average value of TSh 66,715 per household per year, and an additional 9% of households collected clay and made pots worth TSh 14.415 per household per year. In all, for the 21% of user households, clay harvesting is therefore worth some TSh 3.85 million a year to Mtzana-Msona (Table 48). Table 48: The value of clay
Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percent of households collecting clay as raw material for pottery Number of trips per year Quantity collected per trip (units) Price of clay (TSh/unit) Annual value per user household (TSh) Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill) Percent of households collecting clay and making pottery Number of pots made per year Price of pots (TSh/pot) Annual value per user household (TSh) 3.31 12% 19 10 352 66,715 0.54 9% 18 769 14,145

Indirect, option and existence values

Figure 8: The total economic value of wetlands

DIRECT VALUES Production and consumption goods such as:

water, fish, firewood, building poles, thatch, wild foods medicines, crops, pasture, transport, recreation, etc ...

INDIRECT VALUES Ecosystem functions and services such as:

water quality and flow, water storage and recharge, nutrient cycling, flood attenuation, microclimate, etc ...

OPTION VALUES Premium placed on possible future uses or applications, such as:
agricultural, industrial, leisure, pharmaceutical, etc ...

NON-USE VALUES Intrinsic significance of resources and ecosystems in terms of:

cultural value, aesthetic value, heritage value, bequest value, etc ...

From Emerton 1999

In addition to the extractive use of natural resources, wetlands in Mtanza-Msona village yield a wide range of other non-consumptive benefits, including indirect, option and existence values (Figure 8). As these values cannot be gauged by looking at peoples actual behaviour or consumption patterns, a contingent valuation study was carried out as part of the integrated assessment, which aimed to quantify these values via local residents willingness to pay (see above: Survey techniques and data collection methods). The majority of survey respondents indicated their willingness to pay (WTP) to conserve wetlands to secure and preserve indirect (70% of households), option (71%) and bequest (79%) values (Table 49). The amount of WTP was highest for indirect values at an average of TSh 4,686 per household per year, followed by option values at TSh 4,000 a year. Although showing the lowest average WTP (TSh 3,477/hhold/year), the highest proportion of respondents were willing to pay to preserve wetlands for their bequest value: so that they could be used by future generations. This variation in value may be influenced by the high level of resource uses currently being carried out, and probably reflects peoples current time preference and uncertainty about the future, while the variation in percentage WTP may reflect concerns about the livelihood security of their children and grandchildren. The survey indicated a total value for wetland indirect, option and bequest benefits of TSh 3.8 million a year for Mtanza-Msona Village overall. Table 49: Mean maximum willingness to pay for indirect, option and bequest values
Variable Percentage willing to pay to secure this value (% hholds) Indirect value 70% Option value 71% Bequest value 79%

67

Mean maximum willingness to pay per year (TSh/hhold/year) Total value Mtanza-Msona Village (TSh mill/year) Standard deviation Minimum bid (TSh/hhold/year) Maximum bid (TSh/hhold/year) Percentage willing to contribute TSh 32,000 per year Percentage willing to contribute TSh 16,000 per year Percentage willing to contribute TSh 8,000 per year

4,686 1.40 5762.96 200 32,000 0.9 3.6 10

4,000 1.22 5168.38 200 32,000 0.9 1.8 10

3,477 1.18 3911.18 100 20,000 0 1.8 12

Analysis was also made of the factors influencing peoples WTP for wetland conservation for indirect, option and bequest values. Probit model regression results are presented below (Table 50), which indicate the correlation between variations in WTP and various characteristics of the respondent (age, sex and educational level of household head, assets, income, land size and household size), as well as the statistical significance of this correlation. This analysis found that more cash-rich households, larger landholders, older respondents and smaller-sized households are willing to pay significantly more for wetlands conservation. Although not significant, results show some indication of increased willingness to pay for households with greater asset levels, higher education levels and among male household heads. Table 50: Probit regression results for WTP for conservation of the Mtanza-Msona wetlands
Number of observations = Prob > chi2 = Log likelihood = Pseudo R2 = Variable 1 Log of age of household head 2 Log of assets 3 Sex of household head 4 Log of Income 5 Land size 6 Household size 7 Education of household head 8 _cons ***, **, * indicate 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels 112 0.0043 -40.674729 0.2024 Coefficients 1.549*** 0.261 0.487 0.462* 0.304** -0.091* 0.120 0.864

Std. Err. 0.602 0.196 0.434 0.139 0.136 0.056 0.272 2.569

Z -2.570 1.330 -1.120 3.320 2.230 -1.650 0.440 0.340

68

Conclusions: the livelihood and economic value of Mtanza-Msonas wetland biodiversity

This chapter draws together the findings of the assessment on the status and trends of Mtanza-Msonas biodiversity, livelihoods and economic values. It summarises local engagement in wetland resource use and the value of this use, and describes how these dependencies vary according to household wealth status. On the basis of this information, the chapter identifies the ways in which wetland products contribute to social wellbeing and positive livelihood outcomes in the village. Detailed data tables and figures on the economic value of wetland activities and resources are presented at the end of this report (see Annex 7: Value of and participation in wetland activities).

Household participation in wetland activities

Almost all of the households in Mtanza-Msona Village use a variety of wetland resources in support of their day-to-day livelihoods. According to survey responses, every household engages in at least one wetland activity, with each carrying out an average of 7 activities. The majority of households (60%) engage in between 6 and 8 wetland activities, 86% engage in 5 or more activities, and 99% in 3 or more activities (Figure 9, Annex Table 77). A small, but notable, minority(5%) carry out more than 10 activities. Figure 9: Rate of engagement in wetland activities
100% % of hholds 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 or more 3 or more 5 or more 7 or more 9 or more Number of w etland activities > 10 100% 99% 86% 55% 15%

5%

Figure 10: Summary of household participation in wetland activities

100% 80% % hholds 60% 40% 20% 0% Firewood (100%) Wood tools (96%) Palm products (75%) Medicinal plants (71%) Wild vegetables (71%) Wild fruits (67%) Roofing poles (50%) Reeds (46%) Building poles (45%) Palms (45%) Grass (42%) Leaves & stems (25%) Fishing (21%) Essential oils (16%) Hunting (15%) Clay (12%) Plant cosmetics (10%) Clay pottery (9%) Wild honey (7%) Insects (6%) Beeswax (5%) Timber for sale (4%) Charcoal (1%)

Participation rates vary between types of wetland use (Figure 10, Annex Table 78). By far the commonest activities, carried out by the vast majority of households (around three quarters) are the collection of firewood (all households), plant-based medicines and wild vegetables from the wetland, as well as the harvesting of products to make tools, mats, baskets and ropes. Approximately half collect wild fruits and obtain materials for house construction (roofing poles, building poles, grass, reeds and palms). We can thus conclude that wetland resources form a major source of domestic energy, shelter, medicines and food for most of the people in the village. 69

The primary dependence would thus appear to be on wetland resources to supply basic household needs. Fishing is carried out by around a fifth of households, while a smaller proportion (15% or less) also engage in wetland activities that are carried out primarily to generate income (such as collecting clay for pottery, harvesting of wild honey, timber felling for sale, and charcoal production).

The economic value of wetland resource use

Wetland resource use generates significant values for user households (Figure 11, Annex Table 78). The majority of activities are worth at least TSh 25,000 a year for those who engage in them. Timber harvesting for sale, fishing, and the collection of wild honey, building poles and firewood are particularly lucrative activities, all generating average annual values in excess of TSh 100,000 for users. It should be noted that these figures refer to the annual value of wetland use for those households who are carrying out a particular activity. They cannot be summed to give a single average value per household, as not all households carry out all activities. Taking account the varying combination of activities that different households engage in, the average annual value of wetland use computed across the harvesters of primary products6, is TSh 499,836 per household. Figure 11: Summary of the value of wetland products and activities to user households
Timber for sale Fishing Wild honey Building poles Firew ood Roofing poles Plant-based medicines Clay Palm products Wild fruits Wild leaves & stems Palms Hunting Charcoal Beesw ax Wild vegetables Grass Clay pottery Plant-based cosmetics Insects Wood-based tools Plant-based essential oils Reeds 0 540 354 168 160 133 87 70 67 49 36 28 27 26 25 23 20 17 14 13 13 10 9 8 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Average TSh '000/hhold/year

For Mtanza-Msona Village as a whole (taking into account the proportions of households engaged in different activities, average values per user, and adding in the value-added from processing of primary products) the total value of wetland resource use for all households in Mtanza-Msona Village is TSh 226 million per year, TSh 528,353 per household or TSh 123,571 per capita (Table 51).

Excluding value-added from processing and production.

70

Table 51: The value of wetland resources to Mtanza-Msona Village

Timber Woodfuel Fishing Medicinal & aromatic plants Grasses, reeds & palms Wild food plants Wild honey & beeswax Clay Hunting & animal-based foods All products Value Mtanza-Msona (TSh mill/year) 66.11 57.02 31.08 22.46 20.33 19.24 5.68 3.85 0.36 226.14 Per household value, whole village (TSh/year) 72,617 133,215 154,453 47,502 52,479 44,957 846 13,278 9,007 528,353 Per capita value, whole village (TSh/year) 36,124 31,156 16,984 12,274 11,110 10,515 3,105 2,106 198 123,571

Wood-based products are most important in value terms at the village level, together contributing 53% of the total (Figure 12). The major proportion (28%) of wetland value is composed of timber (including harvesting for both home use and sale) and woodfuel (25%). The high figures reflect the large proportion of households engaging in these activities. Fishing, harvesting of medicinal and aromatic plants, grasses, palms and leaves, and wild food plant collection all contribute significantly to the wetland resource value (around 10% each), and the collection of wild honey and beeswax, clay, hunting and animal-based foods together account for around 5% of the total. Figure 12: Contribution of different wetland products and activities to total value
Total value for Mtanza-Msona Village TSh 226 mill/year Timber 28% Hunting & animalbased foods 0.2% Fishing 14% Medicinal & aromatic plants 10% Grasses, reeds & palms 9% Clay 2% Wild food plants 9% Wild honey & beesw ax 3%

Woodfuel 25%

Wealth, poverty and wetland dependence

Both the type and the level of wetland activities shows some variation according to household socioeconomic status. On average, the richest and the poorest engage in a slightly wider range of wetlands activities than other households (Table 52). Table 52: Average number of wetlands activities by household wealth category
Category of household All hholds Richest Richer Poorer Poorest Average no. of wetland activities 6.71 7.18 6.64 6.29 6.75

There is a similar and high level of engagement, regardless of the wealth of the household, in the collection of firewood, wild vegetables and roofing poles, and the use of wood-based tools (Figure 13, Annex Table 79). Participation in some other wetland activities appear to vary, depending on household wealth category. A markedly higher proportion of the richest and the poorest households are engaged in reed collection and fishing. Rates of participation rise as poverty status increases for the collection of palms, wild leaves and stems, plant-based essential oils and clay. The converse is true (as household wealth increases, so do participation rates) for the manufacture of palm leaf products, collection of plant-based medicines, building poles, grass, insects, beeswax and timber for sale, and for hunting (none of the poorest households are engaged in the last three activities). 71

The varying levels of engagement in different wetland activities reflect a number of motivations and drivers. The fact that poorest households tend carry out a relatively wide range of wetland activities mirrors the more general pattern of their livelihoods being diversified across a multiple sources at different times, so as to spread risk and maximise on available opportunities available to generate income and subsistence. The participation of the poorest in wetland activities is however most often focused on meeting basic needs (they find it harder to access and afford non-wetland commodities), and on relatively lower-value activities (which require little investment, specialised equipment or knowledge to carry out). In contrast, richer households tend to engage in a wide range of wetland activities because they can afford the labour, time and equipment to do so; the activities they carry out are often concentrated at the higher end of the value scale, and tend to incorporate a larger number of resources harvested for income-generation or sale. Figure 13: Engagement in and income from wetland activities by household wealth category
Firew ood Wood-based tools Palm products Wild vegetables Plant-based medicines Wild fruits Roofing poles Reeds Palms Building poles Grass Wild leaves & stems Fishing Plant-based essential oils Hunting Clay Plant-based cosmetics Clay pottery Wild honey Insects Beesw ax Timber for sale Charcoal 0% 25% 50% Poorest Poorer Richer Richest

75%

100%

Proportion of hholds participating

72

Building poles Firew ood Roofing poles Plant-based medicines Clay Palm products Wood-based tools Wild fruits Wild leaves & stems Palms Charcoal Beesw ax Wild vegetables Grass Poorest Clay pottery Reeds 0 50 100 Poorer Richer Richest

150

TSh '000/hhold/year
Note: Value figures exclude timber, fishing, hunting, cosmetics, insects, essential oils and honey, as survey responses do not permit comparison across wealth categories.

Looking at the variation in the average user value of wetland use for different wealth categories shows that although there are some differences, the margin of difference is not great: households with different socioeconomic status generate similar average annual values from wetland use (Table 53). Values are however slightly higher for the richest as compared to other households on average 20% more than richer households, and around 10% higher than that accruing to poorer and the poorest households. Table 53: Average wetlands value by household wealth category
Category of household All users Richest Richer Poorer Poorest Total value of wetland use (TSh/hhold/year) 499,836 548,898 489,127 464,983 496,338

These differences may, again, reflect the fact that richer households tend to access a wider range of higher73

value wetland products, while the poorest are more engaged in relatively low-value activities to supply their basic needs. In terms of the absolute worth of individual wetlands activities (Figure 13, Annex Table 80), average per household values are similar, and high, for the collection of roofing poles and wild vegetables. The average value of medicines and wild leaves and stems (a common emergency food, and alternative to purchased vegetables) was much higher for the poorest households and much lower for the richest. The richest showed very high average value, and the poorest very low, for the manufacture of palm products (an activity which is carried out primarily to generate income). Both the richest and the poorest show much lower values for building poles, reeds and fuelwood than other households, perhaps reflecting a greater ability to purchase energy sources and building materials (for the richest) and a relatively lower use of cooking energy and ownership of smaller and lower-quality houses (for the poorest).

How wetlands contribute to social wellbeing and positive livelihood outcomes

Peoples occupations
The survey shows that most people in Mtanza-Msona are primarily occupied with activities which depend directly or indirectly on wetland goods and services. Agriculture, the mainstay of local occupations, is tied intimately to the dynamics and ecology of the floodplain ecosystem, and a high proportion of other stated main occupations are based on the utilisation of wetland products. These stated occupations which rely directly on natural resources include fishing, firewood selling, collection of reeds and grasses, and other activities such as charcoal production, hunting and wild foods collection (Table 54). Table 54: Main stated occupations of households Occupation Cash crop cultivation Food crop cultivation Poultry keeping Fishing Paid employment Firewood selling Tailoring Reed / grass collection Other (including charcoal production, hunting, wild food collection) % of hh 98% 88% 25% 17% 7% 5% 3% 3% 3% Directly dependent on natural ecosystems and wild species Many are directly dependent on natural ecosystems and wild species Directly dependent on forest ecosystems and wild species Directly dependent on wetland ecosystems and wild species Link to natural ecosystems Waterflow and hydrological regime provide the soil moisture, nutrients and fertility required for cultivation

Household and village economies

The absolute value of wetland resource use in Mtanza-Msona is high at TSh 226 million per year or TSh 123,571 per capita across the whole village, and an average of TSh 499,836 for each harvester household. However looking only at the immediate value of use, and focusing only on those households who engage directly in harvesting raw products, understates massively the overall economic importance of wetland resources in Mtanza-Msona. In order to gauge more accurately the contribution of wetlands to the economy, it is also necessary to consider their broader linkages and multiplier effects. Many more people than harvesters alone use, consume and depend on wetland products (which may be made or collected by others) to generate or support their sources of subsistence, income and employment. Within the household economy, the impact and contribution of wetland resource use is large in relative as well as absolute terms. On a per capita basis, the market value of wetland resources is equivalent to just over $107 or 37% of GDP7 and in reality its contribution is far higher than this in a poor rural area such as Mtanza-Msona, where per capita national income lies well below national average (it is estimated that 34% of the population in Rufiji District live below the poverty line (RAWG 2006), and the incidence of poverty is likely to actually exceed this rate in a remote rural area such as Mtanza-Msona). It is important to note that this figure of $107 is not a value that can be directly transferred to other countries. For international readers, it is useful to consider the value of wetland resource use in Mtanza-Msona in terms of their own income
7

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is the sum of value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes (less subsidies) not included in the valuation of output. Tanzanias GDP is estimated at US$ 288 (UNDP 2006).

74

levels; these figures from Tanzania are equivalent to annual values of at least $15,000 in the United States8 or 7,000 in the United Kingdom9. A comparison of the value of wetland resources with other sources of production, consumption and basic needs underlines their role and importance in the household and village economy especially for the poor. Although the average value of wetland products harvested decreases in absolute terms for poorer households (see above), their relative importance to overall livelihoods is far higher. Looking at three basic indicators: the total value of household production for home consumption and sale, healthcare and medicines, and food and nutrition, shows that wetland products make a staggering contribution to household welfare, and save considerable expenditures on purchased alternatives. On average, wetland products are worth almost as much again as all other sources of farm production 10 and off-farm income11 for user households (Table 55). As household wealth decreases so the relative importance of wetland products increases becoming almost 8 times as valuable as other sources of production and income for the poorest households (Figure 14). The value of plant-based medicines is almost 7 times as high as average annual medical expenditures on purchased drugs and modern treatment, rising to just under 15 times as high for the poorest households (Table 56, Figure 15). The wide range of wild foods harvested from wetlands is more than 3 times as much a households average annual expenditures on food from the market, and more than 14 times as much for the poorest households (Table 57, Figure 16)). Table 55: Total wetland value as compared to other sources of household production and income
Category of household All users Richest Richer Poorer Poorest Computed value of wetland resources (TSh/hhold/year) 499,836 548,898 489,127 464,983 496,338 Farm production and non-wetland off-farm income (Tsh/hhold/year) 592,186 1,269,156 609,554 425,606 64,427 Relative value of wetland 84% 43% 80% 109% 770%

Table 56: The value of medicinal plants as compared to household medical expenditures
Category of household All users Richest Richer Poorer Poorest Value of plantbased medicines (TSh/hhold/year) 69,560 19,819 62,777 15,740 177,602 Medical expenditure (Tsh/hhold/year) 10,621 13,643 8,321 8,286 12,232 Relative value of wetland 655% 145% 754% 190% 1452%

Table 57: The value of wild foods as compared to household expenditures on food
Category of household All users Richest Richer Poorer Poorest Value of wild foods (TSh/hhold/year)12 131,355 176,786 64,597 120,729 163,309 Food expenditure (Tsh/hhold/year) 41,344 70,643 64,607 18,643 11,482 Relative value of wetland 318% 250% 100% 648% 1422%

8 9

Per capita GDP $39,883 (UNDP 2006). Per capita GDP $35,485 (UNDP 2006). Including both crops and livestock, and incorporating the value of home-consumed production as well as sales. Excluding income from wetland products.

10 11 12

Computer value, as includes multiple products and thus combined average value per household takes into account variation in participation between user households.

75

Figure 14: Contribution of wetland resources to household production and income by wealth group
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% All users Richest Richer Poorer Poorest 46% 30% 45% 52% 89%

Figure 15: Contribution of wetland resources to value of household medicines by wealth group
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% All users Richest Poorest 87% 59% 94%

Figure 16: Contribution of wetland resources to household food value by wealth group
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% All users Richest Poorest 76% 93% 71%

Human wellbeing
Taking into account these high economic values and rates of participation in wetland activities, and in the light of basic human needs and aspirations in the context of Mtanza-Msona, we can see that wetlands make a significant and tangible contribution to achieving positive livelihood outcomes across the village, especially for poorer and more vulnerable groups. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) presents a useful framework for assessing the ways in which wetland ecosystem services are linked to human wellbeing in Mtanza-Msona, including their contribution to security, basic material for a good life, health, good social relations, and freedom of choice and action (Figure 17). It should be noted that this assessment focuses almost entirely on provisioning services as defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; the other attributes and functions associated with Mtanza-Msonas wetlands, including supporting (such as their nutrient cycling and primary production value), regulating (including local climatic regulation, flood attenuation, maintenance of water qualities and supplies) and cultural (including sacred and spiritual sites, local heritage and bequest) services also make an immense contribution to local wellbeing and positive livelihood outcomes. 76

Figure 17: Ecosystem services and human wellbeing

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES CONSTITUENTS OF WELL-BEING

Provisioning Provisioning Food Food Fresh water Fresh water Woodand fibre Wood and fibre Fuel Fuel

Security Security Personal safety Personal safety Secure resource access Secure resource access Security from disasters Security from disasters Basic material for good life Basic material for good life Adequate livelihoods Adequate livelihoods Sufficient nutritious food Sufficient nutritious food Shelter Shelter Access to goods Access to goods Health Health Strength Strength Feeling well Feeling well Access to clean air & water Access to clean air & water Good social relations Good social relations Social cohesion Social cohesion Mutual respect Mutual respect Ability to help others Ability to help others

The focus of the assessment

Supporting Supporting Nutrient cycling Nutrient cycling Soil formation Soil formation Primary production Primary production

Regulating Regulating Climate regulation Climate regulation Flood regulation Flood regulation Disease prevention Disease prevention Waterpurification Water purification Cultural Cultural Aesthetic Aesthetic Spiritual Spiritual Educational Educational Recreational Recreational

Opportunity to be able Opportunity to be able to achieve what an to achieve what an individual values individual values being and doing being and doing

Freedom of choice Freedom of choice and action and action

Life on earth - biodiversity

From Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005

Previous sections of this report have described the contribution that wetland products make to fulfilling basic human needs in Mtanza-Msona, including providing a major (and for some households the only) source of energy, medicines, housing materials, food, equipment and tools, and cash income (Figure 18). What is notable is that not only do such provisioning services generate direct inputs for human production and consumption, but they also help the local population to achieve the conditions that are required for an acceptable standard of life, such as adequate health, nutrition, shelter and economic productivity. Wetlands underpin the quality and security of peoples livelihoods and improve their living circumstances, especially for the poor. Wetlands provide basic materials and products which households in Mtanza-Msona (especially the poorest) are frequently otherwise unable to access. A large proportion of households cannot afford to purchase bricks, tiles and manufactured building materials to construct their houses. With no connection to the national grid, and high kerosene prices, woodfuel is for many the only available source of energy. As people face low and highly variable crop yields, and have little disposable cash income to purchase food, wild plants and animals provide an important supplement to household nutrition. Since there are few (and, to many, expensive) healthcare facilities in the village and its surrounds, plant-based medicines provide a vital source of drugs for much of the population. It should however be underlined that wetlands may in some cases also be a preferred source of products: use is not based only on a lack of available or affordable alternatives. For example, lack of cash for drugs and poor healthcare facilities is one reason that people harvest medicinal plants. However, in many instances, traditional remedies are preferred, as they are considered to be more efficacious than modern drugs. Figure 18: The contribution of wetland products to fulfilling basic human needs Equipme Cash Wetland activity or product Health Nutrition Energy Shelter nt & tools income Fishing Woodfuel Timber Grasses, reeds & palms Medicinal & aromatic plants Wild food plants Hunting & animal-based foods Wild honey & beeswax Clay 77

Opportunities to generate income and subsistence remain very limited for the majority of the population in Mtanza-Msona. Because of the wide range of products they yield, wetlands play an important role in helping to diversify peoples livelihoods, and increase the number of sources of income and subsistence available to them. These benefits are particularly important in the light of the vulnerability context within which all households in the village operate, and which particularly affects the livelihoods of the poorest. People survive in a highly risky and uncertain environment, where there are many recurrent and periodic shocks, stresses and emergencies such as droughts, floods and crop failure. Wetland resources provide important safety nets and coping mechanisms to even out fluctuations in the availability of food, cash and other needs, and yield emergency supplies of these products when other sources fail.

78

Management implications: conserving wetlands for sustainable livelihoods

Understanding Mtanza-Msona wetlands in the context of national and local-level environmental management processes
The Tanzania Wildlife Policy of 2007 emphasises that wetlands should fall under the administration and management of Local Government. At the same time, the current domestic policy of Devolution by Decentralisation lays strong emphasis on working through District Councils and empowering Village Governments. Local Governments across the country are in the process of planning for decentralised natural resource management under the Environment Management Act, including the preparation of District and Village Environmental Management Plans. The findings of the current study lend strong support to this process: in particular the inclusion of wetland resources into local-level environmental planning, and the promotion of decentralised natural resource management and participatory wetland management at the local level. The Wetlands Unit of the Wildlife Division, District Wetlands Focal Points and Village Government as well as the local populations who use and manage wetlands and their component resources all have a key role to play in this process. The study has demonstrated the critical importance of Mtanza-Msona wetlands in conservation, livelihood and economic terms. It documents important information, and provides a convincing argument, for continued implementation of the Village Environmental Management Plan. This ongoing local-level planning process offers a key opportunity to operationalise current national policies of decentralised and participatory environmental management, and the inclusion of wetlands as a key part of District and Village development and environmental planning. The study also points to the need to find ways to ensure not just that effective mechanisms are found to promote Village Environmental Management Planning within the larger context of District-wide development and natural resource management processes, but also that concrete tools are developed and utilised to ensure that local wetlands management in Mtanza-Msona is sustainable, equitable and effective in both conservation and development terms. It has shown that while there are many wetland goods and services upon which people depend, mechanisms for active resource management are only just beginning to emerge.

Making the economic and development case for village wetland conservation
If the wetlands of Mtanza-Msona are to be accorded a greater priority in Rufiji District development and environmental planning processes, and local-level management is to be further institutionalised as a mechanism for achieving both conservation and development goals, then there is clearly a need to demonstrate that there are tangible benefits in investing in the sustainable management and use of wetlands. The biodiversity of the freshwater habitats within the Mtanza-Msona village undoubtedly contributes significantly to local livelihoods, especially to poorer households, with positive impacts on human wellbeing. Biodiversity is a natural asset, which if managed sustainably and used wisely, can yield a long-term flow of benefits in perpetuity. But if depleted or used unsustainably this stock of natural capital is run down, which incurs long-term costs not just to Mtanza-Msona village (and especially the poorest groups within it), but also at local, national and even global scales. The findings of this study however raise questions as to the ecological and biological sustainability of the high levels of wetland use in Mtanza-Msona. Several of Mtanza-Msonas wetland species which are of critical local, national and international importance show signs of vulnerability or threat (Table 58). At the same time, there are indications of a worrying decline in the overall integrity and status of the wetland habitats which are found in the village. The depletion of species from the local habitats through overexploitation is illustrated by the status of the most valuable timber trees, with most of the harvestable stock of species removed from the forests in the village (including the Forest Reserve), and it is reported that there is no commercially harvestable timber remaining in the forests of Mtanza-Msona (Malimbwi 2000). Whilst none of the commonly utilised timber species are threatened at a global scale, several, such as Mpingo Dalbergia melanoxylon, are now scarce in Tanzania, and may be threatened at a regional scale. Similarly, Kachinga Hydrocynus vittatus, is a fish that once common within the Rufiji floodplain, and was considered a high value fish due to its large size and taste (anon., pers. com.). The fish stocks within Lake Mtanza in particular have been depleted (Richmond et al., 2002), leading to efforts by the local community 79

(Hogan and Mwambeso 2004) to conserve stocks through the introduction of closed seasons for fishing within the lake, and the banning of some fishing gears. Table 58: Total number of species, number of threatened species, and level of unassessed species for each group included in the Mtanza-Msona survey
Taxon Total species Threatened Aneurans 13 0 Odontata 11 0 Fishes 22 1 NT, 1 DD Mammals 16 2 VU, 6 CD Crabs 2 0 Birds 49 1 NT Plants* 444 2 DD, 3 NT, 13 VU, 2 EN * Plant figures based on species list for the Rufiji District (Doody and Hamerlynck, 2003) Percentage Not Evaluated (% NE) 0 0 37 0 0 95

A range of threats to the wetland biodiversity and habitats, of Mtanza-Msonas wetlands have been found to exist, ranging from the over-exploitation of species (by both villagers and outsiders), through habitat clearance and degradation, to the knock-on effects of water pollution, changing waterflows and the introduction of alien invasive species. As this study has shown, loss of these important species and habitats is far more than simply a biological or ecological concern, but impacts directly on local livelihoods and economic indicators especially for the poorest and most vulnerable groups in Mtanza-Msona Village.

IUCN/Yassin Mkwizu 2007 Photo 26: Rubbish dumped in woodland area close to the village

IUCN/Gita Kasthala 2007 Photo 27: Infestations of the invasive species Pistia stratiotes on Lake Kihimbwa

Providing local-level incentives for wetland conservation

The Village Environmental Management Plan itself, alongside the gazettment and development of a management plan for Mtanza-Msona North Village Forest Reserve, provide extremely important mechanisms for operationalising decentralised natural resource management. In addition, a number of tools have emerged, and are being used, for local-level wetlands conservation and to support the achievement of the goals laid out in these management plans. Examples include efforts by the local community to conserve stocks through the introduction of closed seasons for fishing within the lake, and the banning of some fishing gears (Hogan and Mwambeso 2004). Some work has also been undertaken in Lake Mtanza using brushwood parks to promote fish harvests and protect fish through the provision of breeding habitat, food and predator refuges stocks (Richmond et al., 2002). It is however clear that, given high levels of local dependence on wetland lands and resources, in combination with a range of external pressures (such as timber harvesting and hunting), these regulations and controls stand little chance of success unless they are enforced effectively. This in turn depends on there being adequate and tangible local returns from undertaking conservation. In many instances there is currently perceived to be a high opportunity cost to wetlands conservation in terms of the restrictions placed on unsustainable land and resource uses. In the face of immediate and urgent needs for income, food, energy, shelter and other basic requirements, and the lack of alternative sources of these products, this is 80

seen as a cost that village members are unwilling, and economically unable, to bear despite the long-term livelihood costs of not doing so, and the long-term economic gains from conserving wetlands and using them sustainably. A key finding from this study is therefore to underline the need to find ways of offsetting these local opportunity costs, and generating sufficient concrete benefits from conservation that can outweigh them and act as positive incentives for wetland conservation and sustainable use. To date such efforts remain extremely limited, although some attempts have been made to find ways of ensuring that conservation yields tangible benefits at the local level. For example, as part of their tourism strategy, the village has set up a campsite, aiming to entice tourists to Mtanza-Msona, and are planning to apply for a wild animal hunting quota and later perhaps Wildlife Management Area status for the forest reserves (Hogan and Mwambeso 2002). If the wetlands of Mtanza-Msona are to be conserved over the long-term, in support of local District and national development processes and in line with the goals set out in National, District and Village environmental management planning, such efforts and success stories need to be further expanded through the establishment of a suite of activities and measures which together balance the perceived local costs and losses associated with conservation, and generate sufficient alternative and sustainable sources of the goods and services upon which local livelihoods depend and local population require for their economic and human wellbeing.

81

References
Bernacsek G.M. (1980) Freshwater fisheries and industry in the Rufiji River basin, Tanzania: The prospects for coexistence, in Kapetsky J.M., (1980) Seminar on River Basin Management, CIFO Technical paper No. 8, Blantyre, Malawi, 810 December 1980, Blantyre, Malawi, FAO, Rome. Clarke, G.P. and Dickinson, A. (1995) Coastal Forest Research Programme. Status reports for 11 coastal forests in Coast region, Tanzania. Frontier Tanzania, Technical Report No. 17. Clausnitzer, V. (2006) Dragonflies (Odonata) of Rufiji District, Tanzania, with new records for Tanzania, Journal of East African Natural History 95(2): 139162. Clausnitzer, V. and Jodicke, R. (2004) Guardians of the watershed. Global Status of dragonflies: critical species, threats and conservation. International Journal of Odontology 7. Clarke, G.P. and Dickinson, A. (1995) Coastal Forest Research Programme. Status reports for 11 coastal forests in Coast region, Tanzania. Frontier Tanzania, Technical Report No. 17. Daget, J., Gosse, J.-P. & Thys van den Audenaerde, D.F.E. (eds.) (1984) Check-list of the freshwater fishes of Africa (CLOFFA), ORSTOM, Paris. Darwall, W., Emerton, L., Allison, E., McIvor, A. and C. Bambaradeniya (2007) A Draft Toolkit for Integrated Wetland Assessment. Freshwater Biodiversity Assessment Programme, World Conservation Union (IUCN), Cambridge Darwall, W., Smith, K., Lowe, T. and Vi, J.-C. (2005) The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in Eastern Africa. IUCN SSC Freshwater Biodiversity Assessment Programme. World Conservation Union (IUCN), Gland and Cambridge. Dery BB, Otsyina R, Ng'atigwa C, eds. (1999). Indigenous knowledge of medicinal trees and setting priorities for their domestication in Shinyanga Region, Tanzania. Nairobi: International Centre tor Agricultural Research. DFID (1999) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets, UK Department for International Development, London. Dobson, M. (2004) Freshwater crabs in Africa. Freshwater Forum 21: 326. Doody, K. and Hamerlynck, O. (2003) Biodiversity of Rufiji District A Summary. Rufiji Environmental Management Project, IUCN Tanzania Country Office, Dar es Salaam. EC-FAO (1999) Non-Wood Forest Products In Tanzania. EC/FAO ACP Data collection project technical report - AFDCA/TN/11 Series title: Forestry Statistics and Data Collection. FAO, Rome. Eccles, D.H. (1992) Field Guide to the Fresh Water Fishes of Tanzania. United Nations Development Programme Project URT/87/016. Emerton, L., (1999) A Toolkit for Valuing Wetlands in Eastern Africa. IUCN, Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi. Frontier (-) Ruvu Forest Report. Accessed on 20/2/2008 at: www.frontierpublications.co.uk/reports/Tanzania/Forest/CoastalForest1989-1994/FTER111Ruvu.pdf Hogan, R. and Mwambeso, P. A (2004) Mtanza-Msona Village. Our Village Environmental Management Plan-An Account of How We Drew It Up And Are Implementing It. Rufiji Environmental Management Project, IUCN Tanzania Country Office, Dar es Salaam. Hogan, R., Mwambeso, P., Chirwa, E., Chande, M., Nandi R. and Mmbaga, N. (2000) We are all poor here: Some Socio-economic Observations on Rufiji Floodplain and Delta. Technical Report No. 3. Rufiji Environmental Management Project, IUCN Tanzania Country Office, Dar es Salaam. Howell, K.M., Msuya, C.A. and Kihaule, P.M. (2000) A preliminary biodiversity (fauna) assessment of the Rufiji floodplain and Delta. REMP Technical report No.9., IUCN Tanzania Country Office, Dar es Salaam. Karanja, F. and Hamerlynck, O. (compilers) (2000) Land Use / Cover Maps for Rufiji District, 4 Pilot Villages & Updated Topographic Sheets (within REMPs Project Area). Technical report No. 13, REMP, IUCN, Dar es Salaam. Koffa, S.N., Msanga, H.P., Baconguis, S.R, and Maximillian, J.R. (2003) Treecrops, small scale farmers conservation and sustainable development in Rufiji District, Tanzania. Technical Report No. 19, REMP, IUCN Tanzania Country Office, Dar es Salaam. Malimbwi, R. (2000) An Inventory Report of the Principal Timber Resources of the Miombo and Riverine Woodlands and Forests of Rufiji District. Technical Report No. 12. Rufiji Environmental Management Project, IUCN Tanzania Country Office, Dar es Salaam. Meroka, P. (-) Common Property Institutions and Relations of Power: The case of Rufiji. Unpublished 82

presentation. Meroka, P. (2006) New Lessons for Collective Action: Institutional Change of Common Pool Resource (CPR) Management in the Rufiji Floodplain, Coast Region, Tanzania. Paper presented at IASCP Europe Regional Meeting Building the European Commons: from Open Fields to Open Source, Brescia. Milledge, S.A.H., Gelvas, I. K. and Ahrends, A. (2007). Forestry, Governance and National Development: Lessons Learned from a Logging Boom in Southern Tanzania. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa / Tanzania Development Partners Group / Ministry of Natural Resources of Tourism, Dar es Salaam Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC. Mlingwa C.O.F. and Manyanza D.N. (eds.) (1999) New Wildlife Research Agenda in Tanzania. Proceedings of the Workshop Held in Arusha, Tanzania, October 13-14, 1999. Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI). Mwasumbi, L. B., Suleiman, H. O. and Lyaruu, V. M (2000) A Preliminary Biodiversity.(Flora) Assessment of Selected Forests of the Rufiji Floodplain. Technical report No. 10, IUCN East Africa, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania RAWG (2006) Tanzania Poverty and Human Development Report. (2005). Research and Analysis Working Group, Poverty Eradication Division, Ministry of Planning, Economy and Empowerment, Dar es Salaam. Reed, S.K. and Cumberlidge, N. (2006) Taxonomy and biogeography of the freshwater crabs of Tanzania, East Africa (Brachyura: Potamoidea: Potamonautidae, Platythelphusidae, Deckeniidae), Zootaxa 1262: 1139. Richmond, M., Wilson, J., Mgaya, Y.and L. Le Vay. (2002) An Analysis of Smallholder Opportunities in Fisheries, Coastal and Related Enterprises in the Floodplain and Delta Areas of the Rufiji River, Tanzania, Technical Report No. 25. Rufiji Environmental Management Project, IUCN Tanzania Country Office, Dar es Salaam. Ruffo CK, Birnie A, Tengns B. (2002). Edible wild plants of Tanzania. RELMA Technical Handbook Series 27. Nairobi, Kenya: Regional Land Management Unit (RELMA), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. Turpie T. (2000) The Use and Value of Natural Resources of the Rufiji Floodplain and Delta, Tanzania. Technical report No. 17. Rufiji Environmental Management Project, IUCN Tanzania Country Office, Dar es Salaam. UNDP. (2006). Human Development Report.. Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis. United Nations Development Programme, New York. Vainio-Mattila, K. (2000) Wild vegetables used by the Sambaa in the Usambara Mountains, NE Tanzania. Ann. Bot. Fennici 37: 57-67. West, K., Brown, D., Michel, E., Todd, J., Kiza, J.-M. and Clabaugh, J. (2003) Guide to the gastropods of Lake Tanganyika, Tanzania. Centre for African Wetlands, Accra. West, K., Cohen, A. and Baron, M. (1991). Morphology and behaviour of crabs and gastropods from Lake Tanganyika, Tanzania: Implications for lacustrine predator-prey coevolution. Evolution 45: 589607. WWF (2003) Statement accessed on 11 March 2008 at : http://www.iisd.ca/sd/3wwf/sdvol82num8.html

83

Annex 1: By-laws to protect the natural forests and the environment of Mtanza-Msona Village
(Translated from KiSwahili, as presented in Hogan and Mwambeso 2004)

By-laws to protect the natural forests and the environment of Mtanza-Msona Village
Local Government Act (Village Governments) Number 7 of 1982, Created under Section 120 (1) Number 163 A. Name: These laws are called Laws for the Protection of the Native Forests and the Conservation of the Environment of Mtanza-Msona Village. B. Date: These laws will become operational on 14th August 2003. C. Meanings: In these laws: Village area/s means all the area within the village boundaries of Mtanza-Msona. Reserved Forests, Means all forested areas within the village. Village Government Means the government of the village of Mtanza-Msona as directed by the Village Assembly. Chairperson means the chairperson of the Village Government Council of Mtanza-Msona. Executive Officer means the Village Executive Officer of Mtanza-Msona Village. Sub-village means a part of Mtanza-Msona Village designated as a sub-village. Sub-village Chairperson means a person who has been given the responsibility of chairing a subvillage of Mtanza-Msona. Environment and Natural Resources Committee means the committee which has been established and chosen by the Village Assembly to deal with all issues relating to the environment and natural resources of Mtanza-Msona village. Villager means anyone who has registered themselves with the Village Government as a resident of Mtanza-Msona Village. Village means Mtanza-Msona Village. Law Number I: Laws and Sustainable use of Forests, Woodlands and Wooded Grasslands In all forests of Mtanza-Msona Village: The village policy is to set boundaries and protect forever our forests and woodlands for the benefit of future generations. The policy stipulates that an adequate area of land covered with forests in order to continuously produce soil fertility, to protect water sources and to have forest product supplies now and in the future. We will promote the sustainable use of forest products and promote training in forest technologies so that we have enough village forest experts. Finally the Village will spread information about forests and make sure that the villagers of now and the future properly understand the importance of forests to our lives. While the Village Government is promoting its forest policy, trees will continue to be harvested. The village will therefore have to select specific valuable trees as mother seed trees and protect them completely for future stock .The species included are Mninga (Pterocarpus angolensis), Mkongo (Afzelia quanzensis), Mpingo (Dalbergia melanoxylon) and Mndundu. This policy divides the forest into two types, conserved and use forests. Conserved Village Forests exist in order to take care of and conserve animals, birds, insects other creatures, their habitats and special places of biodiversity within these forests. Use forests consist of all the other forests and woodlands which are available for villager uses.

84

Conserved Forest Laws: Law Number 1(A) Anyone who does the following in the forest without a recognised license or a permit from the Village Government will be an offender under this law: 1. Cut trees, pull out trees, set fires or damage any of the forest resources. 2. Clear any area for cultivation or other activity. 3. Initiate an area for timber sawing into planks or any other activity. 4. Take over or live in any area of the forest. 5. Build a house, a fence or a compound. 6. To herd livestock, or to allow livestock to enter or to pass through. 7. To collect honey or wax, to set hives on any tree with the intention of harvesting honey or wax. 8. To make a road, track, waterway, fence or to block a waterway. 9. To cover or harm a tree stem by any means. 10. To damage, change or move or peg, fence or put up any signs relating to the forest. Law Number 1(B) Whoever is seen in or near the conserved forest bearing a tool which could be used for cutting or chipping a forest product and has signs of intentions to commit an offence will be dealt with under this law. Laws for the non-conserved forests: This section of the law is to protect and care for these forests and woodlands. Law Number 2(A) Anyone who, without a license or permit fells, cuts, damages or removes trees or parts of trees for commercial purposes will be an offender under this law. If the person is a villager who does the following, they are exempted: 1. They fell the tree for a domestic use such as carving, making furniture or tools for their enterprises 2. For the preparation of charcoal for cooking and ironing at their own home. 3. The person will not be an offender if they harvest fruits from the non-conserved area or if they collect medicines for health reasons without damaging the tree. Law Number 2(B) Anyone who, without a license or permit of any kind, fells, cuts, damages or removes a tree which has been conserved in the area which is non-conserved will be an offender under this law. Law Number 3(A) A. Whoever is found in the non-conserved forest which has been set aside for beekeeping will be considered an offender. B. This person will not be an offender if they have an important need like cutting Hyphenae spp. palms or searching for fuelwood or medicines. Provision of Licenses: Law Number 4(A) The Village Executive Officer on behalf of the Village Government Council will issue licences in respect of forests and every licence will have an attached fee. Law Number 4(B) The Village government can rescind a licence if it sees that the licensee has broken or intends to break these village forest by-laws.

85

Licensing Rules: Law Number 5 A. A license lasts for 30 days only from the day of issue B. The duration of a license can be increased by 15 days for special reasons by extra payment of 10% of the original fee. C. The license gives no right to use shoots, branches or top parts of a tree. D. No fees can be returned in the case of a felled tree problem. E. The license holder may only fell the tree permitted. F. The license holder will have to pay for any tree felled in error. G. The resource must be removed within seven days of the expiry of the license. Law Number 6 Whoever, without a license or permit, receives or is bearing forest products which were acquired by illegal means will be an offender under this law. Penalties and Fines A. Whoever is found to have offended under these laws will be fined Tsh 40,000 or will have their booty or equipment confiscated or both. Except if the offence is specially defined here below: 1. Set wildfires in the forest 2. Damage a conserved tree such as by peeling/stripping the bark, burning the tree or cutting the branches. B. Whoever has been given the responsibility by the Village Government and fails to carry out their responsibilities under these laws will be required to explain and will have the right to defend themselves before the Village Government and the Village Environment Committee. C. Whoever disrespects the requirement to pay a fine or refuses to pay it or give up their booty and equipment or who repeats offences regularly will be taken to court and be required to answer charges in respect of the offence. N.B. Conserved forests: A. The whole area north of the Rufiji River including Msangazi River, Dai, Tanda to Mbeyeke and Zilizili B. All the area from Mtalula River to Mwama River. South of the River Rufiji including Mbuga, Stafani, Ngohe Forest, Manduta Forest. Law Number II: Fishing Section A of the By-law Law Number 1: Areas Zoned The special areas, which are zoned, are: Lakes: Mtanza, Nyakasewa, Makoge, Magenge, Mtandia and all other fishing areas together with the part of the Rufiji River which is within the village of Mtanza-Msona. Explanations: These lakes are the resources of the village of Mtanza-Msona. Nobody will be permitted to build a temporary or permanent house in these areas. These areas can be used for the purposes of fishing, domestic water collection, washing clothes, bathing, and other important tasks of the resident villagers such as spirit worship, crocodile and hippopotamus harvest. These lakes will be closed for four months each year (Mtanza: 01 March to 30 June; Makoge: 01 July-31 October) and there will be fees to pay by each fisher as per the decision of the Village Assembly. Rules: A. Nobody is permitted to fish in the following lakes during the closed periods of four months Mtanza: 01 March 30 June and Makoge: 01 July-31 October. B. All fishers who wish to fish must pay fees, which will be levied by the Village Government or the Village Environment Committee. C. Before beginning fishing, a fisher or fishers must see the Mtanza-Msona Village Environment Committee 86

and pay an entry fee. D. No fisher may use nets of mesh sizes of 2 inch or 1.25 inches, but they are allowed to use 2.5 inch to 5 inch and over. E. It is forbidden for any fisher to use the following fishing methods: 1. Cast net (kimea or kimisa) 2. Shark nets or any net which has 3 or more extensions 3. Any poison in the lakes or the Rufiji River 4. No fisher is permitted to cut or remove plants from the water except for collecting vegetable leaves or to remove weeds, which could harm the fishery. F. It is forbidden for anyone to use dynamite or poison. G. It is forbidden for someone to use another persons license. Anyone charged with issuing licenses can rescind, change any license or permit for the following reasons: If the permit holder breaks the rules or the guidelines described with the license. A permit holder who has been found to have offended or cheated against these rules.

H. During the closed periods, bathing and water collection are permitted in the lakes. I. Anyone caught with fishing gear at the lake during the closed period will have committed an offence. J. No one is permitted to have their canoe afloat on a closed lake, except for emergencies. K. It is forbidden to set-up more than two camps on any lake and every camp must have a toilet. The camps will be set up by the social committee advised by the Village Environment Committee. L. It is forbidden to throw litter into the lakes. For example rocks, trees or plastic bags. Each camp must have a rubbish pit. M. Every fishing canoe must be registered. It is forbidden to use an unregistered canoe. N. The lakes will be closed as follows Mtanza: 01 March - 30 June and Makoge: 01 July - 31 October. Offences and Penalties A. Whoever breaks the laws mentioned above will be considered as an offender. B. Whoever is proven guilty of an offence will be penalized as follows: 1. For the first offence Tsh 500 or confiscation of gear or both. 2. For a second or subsequent offence a fine of Tsh 1,000 and confiscation of gear such as nets, canoe, knife, panga and other equipment or both. 3. More than three offences - the offender will be brought to court. C. Whoever is given a penalty and defaults will be fined Tsh 500 for the first offence and if they continue to offend they will be fined Tsh 1,000 on the third default will have to defend themselves to the Village Government. Law Number III: Agriculture and Livestock-Keeping i. Agriculture A. Areas for close cultivation B. Individual fields Rules: The Village Government will designate zones for cultivation. The Village Governments allocation of fields to the prospective cultivators. A. Close cultivation areas (Mashamba ya bega kwa bega): 1. Villagers will be given individual plots in a communal area to make it easier for protection of crops in this big area. 2. There will be an upper limit to the size of a field given to each villager by the Village Government. 3. Crops should be food, commercial and treecrops, which are appropriate for the areas land and climate. B. Individual fields 1. Villagers will be given individual plots in a communal area to make it easier for protection of crops 87

in this big area. 2. There will be an upper limit to the size of a field given to each villager by the Village Government. 3. Crops should be food, commercial and treecrops which are appropriate for the areas land and climate. Arrangements: Whoever fails to cultivate for two years without good reason can have the field confiscated by the Village Government and allocated to another villager. A person who emigrates can sell their field under the supervision of the Village Government. Cultivation must not take place within 50 metres of a river or lakes course. Digging of channels or other courses from water sources for irrigation or other uses without permission of the proper officer is forbidden. Irrigation can be done by using pumps or by using watering buckets or cans. Any villager over 18 years of age has a right to a field for cultivation. Every household should plant 10 or more trees per year in order to protect the environment.

ii. Livestock-Keeping A. Modern livestock-keeping B. Traditional livestock-keeping Arrangements/rules for improving livestock-keeping in the village: There should be a regular census for calculating the livestock types and numbers. Treatment and preventative immunizations should be done as necessary for animal health. Special grazing areas should be designated for cattle and goats in order to avoid unnecessary damage and crop destruction. Anyone who introduces livestock or takes them out of the village should have a Village Government permit in order to avoid spreading diseases like Newcastle disease. The keeping of wild birds is subject to permission of the Village Government. Bird species include pigeons, doves, Chiriku, Visiesie, Guinea fowl and Egyptian geese.

Penalties/Fines A. Whoever has been found to offend under this law will be fined Tsh 500 for the first offence, the second Tsh 1,000 except for the following offences: 1. Leaving livestock to wander and cause damage to a field (the field owner will be paid compensation) 2. Neglecting to immunize livestock and spreading disease. 3. Whoever digs channels from rivers or lakes and disturbs other users/uses will be an offender. There may be damage caused to others and to the resource. B. Whoever (a leader) is given responsibilities by the Village Government and fails to carry them out under these laws will be fined Tsh 5,000 for the first offence, Tsh 10,000 for the second offence and will be taken before the village environment committee and the Village Government. On a third offence they will be removed from office. C. Whoever disrespects or refuses to pay a fine or who repeatedly offends will be taken to court and be penalized as appropriate for their offence. Law Number IV: Wild animals The aim of the following explanation is to outline the important rules, which ensure the conservation and sustainable use of wild animals in the village. Basically it outlines what is not permitted and what is needed in order to succeed in avoiding offences and to be sustainable users. Rules A. It is forbidden for anyone to come into the village lands and hunt wild animals, or to set-up a camp without a permit from the Village Government. 88

B. It is forbidden for anyone to cultivate or keep livestock in the wild animal management area. Penalties/Fines Whoever is found to have offended under these laws will be fined as follows: A. A cultivator or livestock-keeper will be fined Tsh 20,000 for the first offence. For the second offence they will be taken to court. B. A hunter will be fined Tsh 45,000 and will have all their equipment confiscated on the first offence. For a second offence they will be taken to court. Prepared by the Village Government of Mtanza-Msona, Rufiji and discussed and approved by the Village Assembly Meeting of 01 July 2001. Signature of Village Chairman .................................................... Signature of Village Executive Officer ........................................ Discussed and passed by the Rufiji District Council on 14 August 2003 Signature of Rufiji District Council Chairman ............................. Signature of District Executive Director ........................................

89

Annex 2: Forest management plan for Mtanza-Msona North Village Forest Reserve
(Translated from the legally-recognised KiSwahili version, as presented in Hogan and Mwambeso 2004)

Management Plan For Mtanza-Msona North Village Forest Reserve

I. Background This village forest reserve management plan is an abstraction from the Mtanza-Msona Village Environment Management Plan, 2000 (VEMP). The VEMP was prepared by a village planning team which was appointed by the Village Assembly. The VEMP is approved by the Village Assembly and is being implemented by the Village Government. The main objective of this plan is the protection and sustainable utilization of the natural resources and environment within the village boundaries. This village forest reserve management plan covers the woodlands and forests north of the Rufiji River which lie in Mtanza-Msona Village. II. Brief Description of Forest, Wildlife and the Community Forests Most of village forests are found to the north of the Rufiji River, which flows through the village in a WestEast direction. The vegetation in this area is of mixed types, which comprise bushland, grassland (tall and short grasses), coastal forest, woodland and swamps. The forests in this area formerly had a large stock of timber species, including Mkongo (Afzelia quanzensis), Mpingo (Dalbergia melanyxolon), Mpangapanga (Milletia struchmanii), and Mtondo (Julbernadia globiflora). However most of the harvestable stock of these species has been removed. They have been harvested by timber merchants from outside the village, mainly illegally. The proposed village forest reserve was earmarked during the Village Environment Planning process. Wild Animals Forests in this village provide a good habitat for wildlife particularly during the dry season when the animals are searching for water. On both sides of the river there a several lakes (permanent) and water holes which serve as water sources for those animals. The animal population in the south of the village seems to be higher than that of the northern part. This can be explained by the fact that on the north, hunting activities have been more common due to poor management and treatment of the area on an open access basis. Under the new Village Environment Management Plan, the village has appointed and trained village natural resource scouts who are monitoring and controlling hunting activities. Aquatic Resources and Fisheries Lakes, water holes, and the Rufiji River provide good habitats for fish, hippopotamus and crocodiles. The majority of the community members fish the lakes on a subsistence basis. Until recently fishing was done freely without licences or permits. As part of the Village Environment Management Plan, there is an initiative to control fishing activities. It is in the initial stages of implementation and has included closure of one large lake and the enforcement of mesh size regulations. The Community The village of Mtanza-Msona has a population of approximately 1,744 people in 455 households. Their main economic activities are agriculture (subsistence farming), fishing, small business and hunting. Agriculture by hand-hoe is carried out south of the river. The yields from agriculture seldom supply enough food and cash to meet all the household needs. Therefore the natural resources are the first recourse in times of shortage of cash or food. Fishing seems to be the main cash earning activity in the village. The benefits of hunting and logging are mainly gained by outsiders and very little income is generated from them in the village itself. Although some carpentry work is carried out it is only a minor economic activity. Salaried employment is limited to government staff e.g. teachers. There are several committees under the Village Government including the Village Environment Committee (VEC), which was formed by the Village Assembly in September 2000. It has 12 Members, 4 women and 8 men. The Village Government and committee members have received training in natural resource planning and management both on site and at institutions such as Community Based Natural Resources Training Centre (CBNRTC), at Likuyu Sekamaganga. They have also made study visits to other communities and projects who are implementing Community Based Natural Resource Management. All the committees are working under the Village Government. III. Objective of the Village Forest Reserve Management Plan 90

The main aim of this Village Forest Reserve Management Plan is to protect and maintain the habitat of wildlife and ensure sustainable use of forest resources. Specific objectives are: Maintain the diversity of the plant and animal species and the habitats which are present. Protect the wild animal habitat in this forest. Control illegal timber harvesting. Practice sustainable use of the forest resources, including wild animals, food plants, medicinal plants, fungi, bees, bee products, palm leaves and wood.

IV. Management of Village Forest Reserve The Village Environment Committee (VEC), under the supervision of the Village Government, is the main implementer of this plan. Village Natural Resource Scouts are appointed and trained by the Village Government (supported by REMP) and report to the VEC. The scouts are responsible for monitoring the forest condition including vegetation changes and presence and movement of animals and birds. They are also responsible for patrolling the area and apprehending offenders. The Scout Patrol Leader ensures that the scouts do their work as planned. V. Forest Boundaries and Zones Boundaries West: To the West the forest has boundaries with Mibuyu Saba village, Mbaligani farms, and part of Kokola woodland. North: to the north the forest is delimited by Kihimbwa River. East: To the East the forest is bounded by Mtanza-Vikumburu roja, and Kisima farming area. South: To the south the boundary is with Kitope forest and Mbaligani road. Zones The VFR can be divided in the following zones: A. Grassland and swamps- Fishing and Grazing Zone B. Woodland - Utilisation zone C. Bushland zone D. Forests zone Grassland zone - Fishing and Grazing Zone This is called bawe; area occupied by grasses and a few acacia trees. It is a waterlogged area during the rainy season. It occurs on the northern part of village forest reserve at a point where the Kihimbwa River starts. There are several small areas of this type in the middle of VFR. It forms a good grazing area during the early part of the dry season. Seasonal lakes are for seasonal fishing. Woodland zone - Utilisation zone This covers the largest part of the VFR. It can be divided into two woodland types. One comprises short trees e.g. Kokola, and the second group comprises tall trees such as Mkongo and Mtondo. No trees of timber size are available here at present. Trees will be selected for future timber harvesting, for immediate domestic use and for other purposes. Bushland zone - Utilisation zone This is known as hungo. This type of vegetation is mainly found in the southern part of VFR at Kitope. Here polecutting, medicinal use and thatching materials are obtained. Forest zone - Conservation zone This zone is situated on the middle of the VFR. It comprise of Tanda, Dai and Zilizili forests. These are the areas where you can feel a sense of the true forest. Trees are tall and the canopy is closed. This forms a good resting place for big mammals during the dry season. It will be protected completely. The only uses permitted will be worshipping, medicine collection and research. VI. Protection In order to make sure that the village forest reserve is well-protected against offenders, the following will be done: A. Education and awareness-raising will be done so that the whole society understands the aim and objectives of the village forest reserve. 91

B. Patrols will be conducted regularly. C. Early burning will be introduced to the areas with high frequency of fire occurrence. D. Village by-laws will be formulated and enforced in this Village Forest Reserve and all forests within the village boundary. E. Patrolling stations will be established in areas which are highly encroached and at entry points used by illegal loggers and hunters. F. Coordination of patrols in cooperation with Selous Game Reserve will be strengthened. G. The VEC will seek technical advice from the DFO etc. VII. Records The following records shall be kept and used in monitoring and evaluation of this management plan: A patrol book will be used to record the following: Illegal incidences such as wild fires, pitsawing, carcasses, traps, hunters, fishers, palm harvesters, new roads, etc. Animals seen (species, number, age class, breeding herd or bachelor herd, location) Trees and other plants seen (species, commercial value, age, number, flowering/fruiting, regenerations, location, dbh/ht).

All minutes of meetings relating to village forests will be recorded. A fine book, receipt book and permit book will be kept. VIII. Reporting The Village Environment Committee (VEC) shall report the progress of the VFR to the Village Assembly every three months. The VEC will report to the Village Council every month and make recommendations to them for decisions regarding the VFR. Also the VEC will send reports of incidences and seek advice from the DFO as necessary. IX. Rules Use and protection rules: All members of the village are responsible for guarding the VFR. All requests for licenses will be submitted to the Village Council for approval. In Zones II and III, in order to cut live trees for domestic uses, the villager should obtain a permit which indicates how much, where, when and what species to be harvested. It is not allowed to light fires in the vegetation inside the VFR. It is not allowed to collect honey by use of fire or by tree felling. The following areas are totally protected except for worshipping, study and collecting medicine for domestic use only. These are Zilizili, Dai and Tanda.

X. Offences and Fines Any unauthorised person who wears a scout uniform and introduces him/herself as a forest guard will be acting against the rules. Any person bearing forest produce without a permit will be acting against the rules. Any person who acts against the rules on section IX and X will be liable to a fine of Tsh 40,000 , except for fire and reserved trees the offender will be treated according to the destruction s/he has made. Any person who fails to fulfill her/his duty assigned by the Village Government will be fined a total of Tsh 5,000. All fines paid will be receipted.

XI. Financial Managment The VEC treasurer will be the responsible person to receive, record and keep all money accrued from fines, permits issued, and royalties. He/she will be responsible to present financial reports at any time required by the Village Environment Committee, the Village Council or the Village Assembly. If s/he fails to do so, s/he will be suspended from duty and if mismanagement of funds has occurred s/he shall be sent to court by the 92

VEO or the Village Chairperson under Village Council. XII. Forest Development The following actions have been carried out in order to develop the Village Forest Reserve: The forest has been zoned for different uses and management options. The VFR has been surveyed, demarcated and mapped. The process of registration/gazettement of the VFR at district and national levels is underway.

XIII. Monitoring The following indicators will be used to determine the success of managing the forest: Rate of illegal incidences. Number of wild animals. Types of Vegetation changes. Presence of indicator animals and/or birds. Regeneration of vegetation on hunting/logging roads and paths. Participation of community members in implementing the plan.

93

Annex 3: Household questionnaire

Questionnaire No. ____________________ Name of Respondent___________________ Name of Interviewer______________________ Date_________________________ Checked by :____________________________ Date__________________________ SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 1. Are you the head of the household? (Respondent) 01 Yes____ 02 No_____

2. How many persons are there in your household (i.e. persons that live here with you and share this households resources? Male ____. Female______ 3. How old are you (i.e. age of the respondent): __________ years. 4. Where were you born? Check appropriate 01 Same village 02 Same ward different village 03 Same district different ward [ 04 Same region different district 05 Other regions [ [ ] [ [ ] ] ] ]

5. If not born in this village when did you start living in this village? (Year)_________ 6. How many household members left home to seek for employment elsewhere? Male _____. Female _____ 7. Please provide a list of all members of the households and relevant information on each from the table below

No

Name of Household member

Relation to household head A1

sex; 1= male; 2= female

Age (Years )

Place of birthA2

Years lived in the village

Reason for moving into village-A3

Marital Status A4

Religi on A5

Educati on A6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A1 =1= Head, 2= Spouse, 3= son4= daughter, 5=Brother, 6=Sister, 7= Father, 8= Mother, 9= 0ther family, 10=Housemate (not family, 11=other (not family)

94

A2 =1= Same village, 2=same ward different village, 3=same district different ward, 4=same region different district, 5=other regions, A3 =1= Search for work, 2=search for farm land, 3=search for grazing land, 4=followed family, 5= married into the village, 6=other (specify------A4 =1= Single, 2=married monogamy, 3=married polygamy, 4=divorced/separated, 5=widow. A5 =1= Catholic, 2=protestant, 3=Muslim, 4=others A6 =1= None, 2=Primary complete, 4=Primary Ongoing, 4=Primary incomplete, 5=O-Level complete, 6=O-level ongoing, 7= O-level incomplete, 8=A-Level complete, 9=A-level ongoing, 10=A-level incomplete, 11=college, 12=university, 13=others.
8. Give reasons for the mentioned primary and secondary incomplete members of the household ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ SECTION B: ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES 9. During this season, what is your household members main economic activities? Tick for the appropriate answer.

Activity 01 Crop Farming -Cash crop -Food crops 02 mining/quarrying 03 burning charcoal 04 business/shop 05 pole cutting 06 Hunting 07 Paid Employee -Government -Parastatal -NGO 08. Plant products harvested -palms, -reeds, -grasses, -wild food plants -medical plants 09. Others

Tick

Activity 10 livestock keeping -Dairy cattle -Local cattle - Sheep/Goats - Poultry 11 firewood selling 12 logging timber 13 tailoring 14 Fishing 15 Tourism 16 Not active -Too old/retire -Disabled -Sick

Tick

SECTION C: EXTRACTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES FROM THE WETLANDS

95

10. Now, I would like to ask you some questions about your households collection of wood and other products from the wetland

1 During the last 12 months, did your household ever collect any [] from the village commons/forest lands? 1= Yes, 2=No

2 How often did members of your household make a trip to collect [] in the last 12 months year? Number of trips per month

3 On an average trip, how long did it take to walk to the area where members of your household usually went to collect [.]? One way travel time. Minutes

4 On an average trip, how long did it take to collect [] once you were at the area? Minutes

5 On an average trip, how many [] did your household collect? Quanti ty Value (Tshs)

6 On average, how much [] did your household sell of the total collected from wetland? Quantity Value (Tshs)

7 How much [] did you buy from other households in the village or from the market? Quantity Value

Firewood (bundle) Wood for charcoal making poles Wood for timber/logs Medicine Wild fruits Cosmetics CODES FOR COLUMN 6 AND 7: 1=Basket 2=heaps 3=Litres, 4=number of pieces of logs/timber, 5= Kilograms, 6=bundle, 7=50kgSack, 8=100 kg sack,9=20 Lt bucket (debe) CODES FOR COLUMN 2: 1=once per week, 2=two-three times per week, 3=four five times per week, 4=everyday per week, 5=once after two weeks, 6=once after three weeks, 7=once per month, 8=other 1 Essential oils Withies Thatching grasses Clay for pottery Mushroom Insects Honey Wax Wild meat Minerals Dyes Reeds [matete] 96 2 Number of trips per month 3 Minutes 4 Minutes 5 Quantity Value (Tshs) 6 Quantity Value (Tshs) 7 Quantity Value

CODES FOR COLUMN 6 AND 7: 1=Basket 2=heaps [rundo] 3=Litres, 4=number of pieces of logs/timber, 5= Kilograms, 6=bundle[fungu], 7=50kgSack, 8=100 kg sack, 9=20 Lt bucket(debe) CODES FOR COLUMN 2: 1=once per week, 2=two-three times per week, 3=four five times per week, 4=everyday per week, 5=once after two weeks, 6=once after three weeks, 7=once per month, 8=others..
11. (a) Is there any restriction with regard to the access and use of the village wetland resources? [1]Yes _____ [2] No______ 11. (b)If yes, what are the restrictions?

SECTION D; LAND OWNED AND FARMED BY THE HOUSEHOLD 12. During the last year did your household owned and farm any land? [1]Yes_____[2 ]No____

97

13. Please indicate each plot of land belonging to your household, public, cultivated or left fallow in the last season

(a) Plot code

(b) What is the area of each plot in acres?

(c) What is the type of crop in each plot? 1=maize,2=rice 3=simsim,4=coconut 5=tomatoe,6=banana 7=others

(d) What is the type of soil on each plot? 1=Red. 2=Mixed 3=Black. 4=Rocky

(e) Is this plot largely flat or sloped? 1=Flat, 2=slight slop, 3=moderate flat, 4=steep slope

(f) Is this plot even or undulating? 1=Even, 2=weak undulation 3=strong undulation

(g) Before the last, two season, were there any land improvements e.g. terracing, soil bunds on this plot? 1=yes, 2=no

(h) Did this plot have any such improvements 5 yeas ago? 1=yes 2=no 0=dont know

PLOT CODE 1=Belonging to you and cultivated, 02=belongs to you and left fallow, 3=Public cultivated
SECTION E: CROPS PRODUCTION 14. Please give details on the crops grown, amount harvested in this year [2006], and the amount of this that was sold: Please also note which of these crops were irrigated. Quantity planned for units Quantity sold/to be sold Unit Crop type Acre Quantity produced units household consumption Rice Maize Beans Simsim Cassava Pumpkins Water melons Cowpeas Green Peas Pigeon Peas Onions Tomatoes Green vegetables Sweet potatoes Sugar cane Coconut Cashew nut Mango Banana Pawpaw Other crops UNIT CODE: 1=100kg sack [gunia]; 2=50kg sack [kiroba]; 3=pishi [15 pishi =100 kg sack]; 4=Kometi [4 kometi =1 pishi]; 5=others

Unit price

98

SECTION F: LIVESTOCK, POULTRY AND OTHER FARM ANIMALS 15. Does your household own Livestock, Poultry or Other farm animals? [1]Yes ______ 2]No_____ 1 Type Cattle (calf) cattle(adult) cattle (pregnant) 2. Bulls 3. Goat(milk) 3. Goat(meet) 4. Sheep 5. Pigs 6. pork 6. Oxen 7. Donkey 8. Chicken 9. Other (specify) SECTION G: OWN LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS 16. Fill in the table for the livestock products you use and sold 1Dry season (June to Non) Own use (Units/year) Amount Milk Meat (slaughtering) b1.cattle 2. Goat 1. Beef mutton mushbon 4. chicken 5. Eggs 6. Other (specify) 7. Wool 8. Leather 9. Other (specify______) 2 Quantity sold(Units/yr) Amount 2 Number currently owned 3 Number born over last 12 months 4 Number of animals lost, stolen, killed by disease/prey etc. over last 12 months 5 Number purchased over last 12 months 6 Purchase price (per animal) 7 Number sold over last 12 months 8 Sale price (per animal ) 9 Number of months that animals graze on Communal land own land open land

Value

Value

Other products

99

SECTION H: FISHING 17. How many people in your household are engaged in fishing as full-time, part time, or occasional fisher, or employed to work as a fisher?

Category

Number in household

Days fishing per month

Where (site) CODE 1

What is the dominant vegetation in the site

Full time Part-time Occasional Employed CODE: 1=Rufiji River; 2=Mtalula River; 3=Kihimbwa River; 4=Msangazi River; 5=Mtanza Lake; 6; Magange lake; 7=Nyakasemwa ; 8=Others
18. What are the types and quantities of fish obtained by your household per month during dry season?

Type of fish (species) Kumba Nguchu Pele Kitoga/Mbufu Kasa Kambale Tungu Gingi Ndobe Kange Mkunga

Site

Quantity

Price (per unit)

19. Does anyone in this household buy fish to trade? [1]Yes______[2] No_____ Where do you sell? __________________ Please, give details: (TABLE)

Type of fish Kumba Nguchu Pele Kitoga/Mbufu Kasa Kambale Tungu Gingi

Amount traded per year

Average difference between buying and selling price per kg (or other specified units)

Cost per year (transport, processing, packaging, etc)

100

Ndobe Kange Mkunga

101

SECTION I: WOOD PRODUCTS HARVESTING (TIMBER, POLES) 20. Please tell how much of these products were harvested or produced by this household in the past last 12 month

Type of product

Total amount harvested/produced by the household in 1 year.

Amount sold

Price per unit

Logs (Magogo) Poles (borit, fito) Withis (fito) Timber (mbao) Firewood (kuni) Charcoal (Mkaa) CODE: 1=Heaps (rundo) 2=Number of pieces of logs/timber, 3=Bundles [fungu]
What are your annual costs in harvesting these? ______________________________________ Value Added To Timber 21. Does anyone in the household make furniture, carvings, or any other products from wood? 1Yes____2 No ___ Please give details:

Product

Made from [Type of tree]

Quantity made in the last 12 month

Quantity sold

Price per product

SECTION J: HONEY 22. Does this household have any beehives? 1Yes___2No____ If Yes, how many? _______________________ 23. Does anyone in the household collect wild honey? 1Yes____2No____ 24. How many honey-collecting trips were made in the last year? ________________ 25. How much honey was collected in the last year? _________________ 26. How much of this was sold? _______________ At what price per unit? _________________ SECTION K: HUNTING - ANIMALS & BIRDS 27. What animals or birds have members of this household hunted in the last year, and how many (small ones as well as big ones)? Please give details:

Species Sungura Digidigi Wild pig [nguruwe] Ndezi Swala Quail [kwale]

Quantity hunted ( units)

Quantity sold (units)

Selling price (units)

102

103

SECTION L: REEDS [MATETE], PAPYRUS AND GRASSES, PALM LEAVES 28. Please tell how many bundles of reeds, papyrus and grasses were collected by this household in the last year? How much of this was sold?, And What is the price of a bundle?

Bundles harvested (give size) Reeds Papyrus Grasses Palm leaves-ukindu Palm leaves-miaa/milala Palm leaves-other species

Bundles sold (size)

Price/bundle

Value Added To Plant Products 29. Does anyone in the household make mats, baskets or any other products from reeds, papyrus, grasses or palm leaves? 1Yes____2No___ Please give details

Products Mats[mikeka] Baskets Others

Made from

Quantity made in the last year

Quantity sold

Price per product

What equipment does this household have for making these products? i.e. needle and knife _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION M: FOOD AND MEDICINAL PLANTS 30. Does this household harvest wild plants for medicinal use? 1Yes___2No___ 31. What quantity of wild vegetables does this household use in a normal week? _________________________ Please, give details on quantities harvested and sold:

Type of the product Medicinal plants (madawa) Medicinal bark (magamba) For food: Leaves and stems (majani na shina) For food: Roots (mizizi) Fruits (matunda) Type of drink Palm wine Soft drink Beer

Amount harvested per year (units)

Amount sold

Price per unit

32. Has this household made any drinks, such as palm wine, soft drinks, beer in the last year? 1Yes___2No____

Made from

Quantity made

Amount sold

Price

104

Others, 1.2.3.-

105

SECTION N: CLAY 33. Does anyone in this household collect clay to make pottery? 1Yes___2 No___ 34. How many pots did your household made in the last 12 month? _____________ 35. How many of these were sold? ____________________ 36. What is the price per pot? ____________________ SECTION O: HOUSEHOLD MARKETING CHANNELS 37. Please identify the market channels your household use for each of the products listed below operativesGovernment centers (co Exchange within village

Urban Markets

Agricultural products Livestock Products (live animals, milk, meats, hides) Poultry products (live chicken, Eggs, meat) Fish Crafts Fruits Fuel Wood Charcoal Logs/Timber Other (specify) SECTION P: ENERGY USE 38. What kind(s) of fuel do you use for cooking? Check all that apply

Biogas stove

Rice shaff

electricity

Kerosene

Firewood

charcoal

Others (specify

Type

1.

2.

ID Rank CODE: Rank: 1= most used, then 2, 3 etc.

106

Not Applicable

Repaying loan

Local Markets

middlemen

At home

NGOs

Others

39. How many times do your household cook per day _____1= twice,2= thrice,3=four times, 4= other(specifiy..

107

SECTION Q: HOUSEHOLD ASSETS OWNERSHIP 40. Does your household own any of the following? Mark x if not

Item/Asset 1.Panga 2. Hand hoe(Jembe) 3. Axes(shoka) 4.Sickle (mundu) 5. chairs 6. tables 7.beds 8. mosquito nets 9. Iron (charcoal or electric) 10. Radio 11. Motor cycle 12. Bicycle 13. Boat/canoe(mtumbwi) 14. Livestock(cattle) 15. Livestock (goats&sheep) 16. Poultry (chicken, duck) 17. Houses 18.Fishing net & other equipments 19. sewing machine 20. buckets (20lt) 21. Beehives 22. Video 23. Spraying machine 24. Farm/Land 25. Wells
SECTION R: WATER COLLECTION

How many [ ] does your household own? {NUMBER}.

If you wanted to sell [ ] today, how much money would you receive for it? Tshs.

41. Now I would like to ask you some questions about water use in your household

108

Did your household ever collect any water from [ ]source in the past? Yes 1, No 2

Which source of water do you use? (Check all that apply)

What is the distance from water sources

What part of the water you use do you get from each source: (00) None, (01) 1-25%, (02) 26-75% (about half), (03) 51-75%, (04) 76-100%(all or almost all) : Enumerators please ensure that the column total is about 100% 8.4 wet 8.5 Dry season season

8.6 Amount of water that you use from each source(no. of 20L buckets per day or litres per day (Tshs/m3)

8.7 Amount that you pay per unit: (pay nothing (0), Tshs/20L buckets (please specify)

8.8 Total amount that you spend on water from this source: Pay nothing (0), Tshs per day or Tshs per month (please specify)

8.9 Amount of time your household spends collecting water: minutes/day (including walking to/fro, waiting time filling)

1) Private connections to piped water in house 2) Yard tap (shared connection) 3) Own source (specify)____________(well, borehole) 4) Village well 5) Water Vendors (specify)__ tanker, handcart, other) 6) Rivers and streams 7) Spring 8) Other; Specify TOTAL

100%

100%

42. In the above table, you indicated that your household typically uses about ____________ 20L buckets or ________ liters per day. 43. Does this include all uses such as drinking, cooking, washing clothes and dishes, toilet use etc.? ____ (01) Yes, _____ (02) No 43.a If no, How much does your household consume for all uses___________20L buckets/day [1 20L bucket=20 liters] 44. What is the primary method you use to treat your water? [Do not prompt] ________________ (01) None ________________ (02) Boiling ________________ (03) Filtering ________________ (04) Setting ________________ (05) Chemical treatment ________________ (06) other, specify_____________ SECTION S: FOOD SECURITY 45. How many meals does your household usually have per day? Number [________] 46. In the past 30 days, has your household ever had fewer meals than this usual number? 1. Yes [____] 2. No [____] 47. If Yes, How many days did the household consume the following? Meat [_____] Fish [_____] Eggs [_____] Milk/Dairy production [_____] Beans/Legume types [_____]

109

48. On average how many month in the last 12 month did your household had problems of satisfying the food needs of the household? One month .1 Three month...2 Six month...3 [____] Nine month4 Twelve month........5 49. How do you compare the overall economic situation of the household with one year ago? Much worse now ..1 A little worse now 2 Same .3 A little better now ....4 [_____] Much better now ..5 Dont know ..6 50. How do you compare the overall economic situation of the Mtanza-Msona community with one year ago? Much worse now ..1 A little worse now 2 Same .3 A little better now ....4 [_____] Much better now ..5 Dont know ..6 51. How does this household compare with others in Mtanza-Msona community? Much worse now ...1 A little worse now .2 Same ..3 A little better now .....4 [_____] Much better now ...5 Dont know ...6 SECTION T: CRISES AND COPING STRATEGIES 52. What kind of crisis and coping strategy you have experienced in last 12 months?

CRISIS Flood/ excess rain Drought River bank erosion Poor production Shortage of food Illness Death of household member Arrest of household member Loss of job Boarder conflict

Tick

Strategy code(you can put more than one code)

COPING STRATEGY Loan from neighbors/relatives Loan from Money Lender Loan from NGO Grain loan from kin Cash/cereal loan from merchants Loan from bank Farmland leased out Sold household productive assets Sold farmland Sold labor

code 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

110

CRISIS Conflict inter/intra community Loss of livestock/poultry Accident of HH members from wild animals Boat/canoe sinking Others (specify)

Tick

Strategy code(you can put more than one code)

COPING STRATEGY Occupation change Taken famine foods Permanently migrated Sold crops at a low price Sold cows/bullock/ small animals Others (Specify

code 11 12 13 14 15

SECTION U: HOUSEHOLD MEMBERSHIP IN LOCAL INSTITUTIONS 53. Does any member of this house has membership or affiliation with any of the following

Affiliation type Affiliation with political party Membership in Union/Parish Membership in the committees of school Membership in mosque/madrassa Membership in SACCOS Membership in village court Membership in NGOs/CBO groups Participation in community festival Old age pension membership Other associations (driver, labour, etc, Member of different govt. organizations [TASAF] Member of Village government(environment, finance, Health etc)

Men(Number)

Women(number)

54. If not, what are the limiting factors?. Mention all appropriate ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SECTION V: HOUSEHOLD SOURCE OF INCOME 55. Which is the households main source of cash income? 1. Sales of cash crops 2. Sales of livestock 3. Sales of food crops [ [ [ What is the amount on average per year? ] Tshs.______________________ ] Tshs.______________________ ] Tshs.______________________

111

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11.
12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17.
18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Sales of vegetables Sales of livestock products Sales of charcoal Sales of timber/poles Sales of firewood Sales of medicinal plants Sales of wild fruits Sales of wild vegetables Sales of honey Sales of edible insects Sales of crafts Sale of withies Sales of thatching grasses Fishing Wild meat Mushrooms Business income Wage or salaries Other causal cash earning Cash remittances

[ [ [ [ [ [

[ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] [ ] ] ] [ [ [ [ [ ] [ ] [ ] ] ] ]

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________ Tshs.______________________

112

SECTION W: HOUSEHOLD ACCESSIBILITY TO FINANCIAL RESOURCES 56. Does any member of this household operate a saving or current account ___(1)yes, ___(2)No 57. [a]. Does any member of this household access a loan during the last 12 month? ___(1)yes, ____(2)No [b]. If yes, which source (code) ________ and what amount Tshs._____________ CODE OF SOURCES: 01=bank loan, 02=NGO, 03=SACCOSS, 04=friend/family member, 05=others_________________ 59. What problems are associated with credit facility to your household? ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60. [a]. If credits are available to you, will you be interest to borrow? Yes ( ) No ( ) [b]. If yes, for what purpose? (code)___________ and what amount Tshs.________________ 1= to use as capital for the current activities, 2= start new activity? (Specify) 3= supplement food, 4= support education, 5= others, specify. SECTION X: HOUSEHOLD FUTURE ASPIRATIONS 61. What options do you think will be adopted by your household to increase level of income? 01 02.. 03. 04.. 05. 06. 07. 08. SECTION W; Household Expenditure Pattern on Durable Items and Other Services 62. Has any member of the household made any purchase of any of the following during the last 12 months?

Name of Item/service purchased Furniture(Chairs,table,bed) Clothing and footwear Medical care Education(school fees etc) Transport Taxes,fines, payment of debt Fishing equipments

Total cost (Tshs)

Amount paid in last 12 months(Tshs.)

Balance to be paid (Tshs)

113

Name of Item/service purchased farming equipments Telephone and postage Cultural ceremony (marriage ,etc) Contributions to the village government Contribution to regions and other organizations Hiring fishing equipments Hiring farming equipments Food

Total cost (Tshs)

Amount paid in last 12 months(Tshs.)

Balance to be paid (Tshs)

SECTION Y: CVM QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MTANZA-MSONA VILLAGE WETLAND CONSERVATION Wetlands are known to provide a lot of goods and services to communities living around them from time immemorial. The benefits derived from these wetlands differ according to the nature and composition of biodiversity existing in a particular wetland. In the Rufiji floodplains of Mtanza-Msona village wetlands (Lake Mtanza, Nyakasewa, Magenge, Makoge, Mtandia, Magoga, Andemela, Kibuyu, Mshamu, Ngohe, Mzambarawe and Mwama including River Rufiji, Mtalula, Msangazi, and their surrounding areas) there are numerous benefits that people draw from these wetland for their livelihoods and which account significantly to their daily needs of food and other needs. Some of the wetland benefits are enjoyed directly while others are indirectly enjoyed. The directly enjoyed benefits from the wetlands include the marketed and non-marketed goods. The non-marketed goods and services include the following

1. 2. 3. 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14

GOODS Direct Values Birds of different types (edible and non) Wild Animals (meat) Grasshoppers (senene) Grass for roofing and weaving Grass for grazing Edible Ants Thatching grasses Grasses for animal feeding Wild fruits Spiritual/cultural ceremonial places Mushrooms Medicinal plants(leaves, roots) Plants to chase away harmful wild animals

tick

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

FUNCTIONS Indirect Values Flood control Habitat (flora and Fauna) Sequestration Water retention(water catchment) Microclimate regulation Underground recharge Storm protection Water purification Soil erosion control Others (specify)

In addition, wetlands provide benefits indirectly that supports the direct benefits. The indirect benefits from the wetlands include the flood control, habitat (flora and Fauna), Carbon sequestration, water retention (water catchment), microclimate regulation, underground recharge, storm protection, water purification, and soil erosion control Qn. 1) Are you aware of these benefits? 1) yes 2) no

114

Qn.2) Do you enjoy these benefits from Mtanza-Msona wetland? 1) yes 2) no Despite all these benefits, the environmental integrity and status of these wetlands are increasingly threatened by indiscriminate use and sometimes abuse leading to their degradation, something that may result into these benefits disappearing forever. Qn. 3)Do you agree with this observation? 1) yes 2) no Bearing in mind that the wetlands are important to you in your everyday needs, its disappearance together with the goods and services it provides will have a negative impact on your households livelihoods. 4. As a stakeholder and a beneficiary of goods and services supplied by the Mtanza-Msona wetlands, do you think the wetlands are worth conserving? 01) Yes 02) No If the plan to stop degradation and enhance conservation is established involving the village government in collaboration with villagers, relevant government departments as well as some active local NGOs to manage the wetlands and carry out activities such as 1. Conservation of the wetland so that it continues to provide its important goods and services 2. Monitoring and planning for the sustainable utilization of the wetland 3. Rehabilitation of the wetland by carrying out various activities including tree planting, The wetlands will continue providing goods and services from which we enjoy. These benefits could be direct or indirect as mentioned above. 5. In order to facilitate conservation of these wetlands so as to sustain the services and benefits they offer to you, would you be willing to contribute toward this goal? 01) Yes 02) No 6. Whom would you prefer to collect your contribution? a). The local government (District officers?) b). The village government (VEO or WEO?) c). Established fund board at the village d). Other, (specify)_______________________________________ e). Don't know 7. Where would you like the collection to be done? 01) In the village 02) Go to pay at the district 03) Others A. Direct Benefits 1) For the direct benefits of wetlands that do not have market price, would you be willing to contribute some amount of money per year for conservation and implementing the above plans/activities? a). Yes (Go to question 2) b). No (Go to question 6) c). Dont Know (Go to question .6) 2) If yes would you be willing to contribute Tshs 16,000/= per year? a. Yes (Go to question 3) b. No (Go to Question 4) c. Don't know (Go to Question 4) 3) Suppose your household would have to contribute Tshs 32,000/= per year, would you be willing to contribute this amount? a). Yes (Go to Question 5) b). No (Go to question 5)

115

c). dont know (Go to question 5) 4) Suppose your household would have to contribute Tshs 8,000/= per year for conservation, would you be willing to contribute this amount? a). Yes b). No (Go to 5) c). Dont know (Go to 5) 5) What is the maximum amount that you are willing to contribute for conservation of wetlands for its direct benefits per year? Tshs _________

6)

a] What is the reason that you are unwilling to contribute for conservation? Please mark the box next to any of the listed reasons relevant to the respondent. You may cross more than one. 1. Can't afford to pay 2. Don't believe that conservation is necessary 3. Don't consider my responsibility to pay for conservation 4. Believe that general taxes should cover the cost of conservation 5. I did not have enough information to enable me place a Tshs. value for conserving the wetland 6. I did not want to place a Tshs value for conserving the wetland 7. I disagree with paying money into a fund 8. The wetland is worth nothing to me so I did not want to pay anything 9. The government should be solely responsible for protecting and conserving the wetland 10. I could not afford to pay anything 11. Other (please specify)_______________________

b] Which of these best describes your household decision? a) Willing to pay, but not able b) Able, but not willing to pay c) Not able, not willing to pay d) Others (specify) ______________________ B. Indirect values 1) By caring out the above-mentioned activities/plans the wetlands functions from which, people derives indirectly, the benefits would also be available. Would you be willing to contribute some amount per year for conservation of wetlands for these functions? a). Yes (Go to question 2) b). No (Go to question 6) c). Dont Know (Go to question .6) 2) If yes would you be willing to contribute Tshs 16,000/= per year? a. Yes (Go to question 3) b. No (Go to Question 4) c. Don't know (Go to Question 4) 3) Suppose your household would have to contribute Tshs 32,000/= per year, would you be willing to contribute this amount? a). Yes (Go to Question 5) b). No (Go to question 5) c). dont know (Go to question 5) 4) Suppose your household would have to contribute Tshs 8,000/= per year for conservation, would you be willing to contribute this amount? a). Yes b). No (Go to 5) c). Dont know (Go to 5)

116

5) What is the maximum amount that you are willing to contribute for conservation of wetlands for its functions per year? Tshs _________

6)

a] What is the reason that you are unwilling to contribute for conservation? Please mark the box next to any of the listed reasons relevant to the respondent. You may cross more than one. 1. Can't afford to pay 2. Don't believe that conservation is necessary 3. Don't consider my responsibility to pay for conservation 4. Believe that general taxes should cover the cost of conservation 5. I did not have enough information to enable me place a Tshs. value for conserving the wetland 6. I did not want to place a Tshs value for conserving the wetland 7. I disagree with paying money into a fund 8. The wetland is worth nothing to me so I did not want to pay anything 9. The government should be solely responsible for protecting and conserving the wetland 10. I could not afford to pay anything 11. Other (please specify)_______________________

b] Which of these best describes your household decision? a) Willing to pay, but not able b) Able, but not willing to pay c) Not able, not willing to pay d) Others (specify) ______________________ C. Option use value 1) Further more, conservation activities/plans mentioned above would make the wetland resources available for future use of the present generation (kizazi hiki). Would you be willing to contribute for that? a). Yes (Go to question 2) b). No (Go to question 6) c). Dont Know (Go to question .6) 2) If yes would you be willing to contribute Tshs 16,000/= per year? a. Yes (Go to question 3) b. No (Go to Question 4) c. Don't know (Go to Question 4) 3) Suppose your household would have to contribute Tshs 32,000/= per year, would you be willing to contribute this amount? a). Yes (Go to Question 5) b). No (Go to question 5) c). dont know (Go to question 5) 4) Suppose your household would have to contribute Tshs 8,000/= per year for conservation, would you be willing to contribute this amount? a). Yes b). No (Go to 5) c). Dont know (Go to 5) 5) What is the maximum amount that you are willing to contribute for conservation of wetlands for future use of the current generation per year? Tshs _________ a] What is the reason that you are unwilling to contribute for conservation? Please mark the box next to any of the listed reasons relevant to the respondent. You may cross more than one. 1. Can't afford to pay 2. Don't believe that conservation is necessary 3. Don't consider my responsibility to pay for conservation 4. Believe that general taxes should cover the cost of conservation

6)

117

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

I did not have enough information to enable me place a Tshs. value for conserving the wetland I did not want to place a Tshs value for conserving the wetland I disagree with paying money into a fund The wetland is worth nothing to me so I did not want to pay anything The government should be solely responsible for protecting and conserving the wetland I could not afford to pay anything Other (please specify)_______________________

b]. Which of these best describes your household decision? a) Willing to pay, but not able b) Able, but not willing to pay c) Not able, not willing to pay d) Others (specify) ______________________ D. Bequest value Finally yet importantly, the benefits you enjoy currently could also be made available to the coming generation if conservation plans and activities are implemented. Would you be willing to contribute for conservation of the wetlands future generation? a). Yes (Go to question 2) b). No (Go to question 6) c). Dont Know (Go to question .6) 2) If yes would you be willing to contribute Tshs 16,000/= per year? a. Yes (Go to question 3) b. No (Go to Question 4) c. Don't know (Go to Question 4) 3) Suppose your household would have to contribute Tshs 32,000/= per year, would you be willing to contribute this amount? a). Yes (Go to Question 5) b). No (Go to question 5) c). dont know (Go to question 5) 4) Suppose your household would have to contribute Tshs 8,000/= per year for conservation, would you be willing to contribute this amount? a). Yes b). No (Go to 5) c). Dont know (Go to 5) 5) What is the maximum amount that you are willing to contribute for conservation of wetlands for future generation per year? Tshs _________

1)

6)

a].What is the reason that you are unwilling to contribute for conservation? Please mark the box next to any of the listed reasons relevant to the respondent. You may cross more than one. 1. Can't afford to pay 2. Don't believe that conservation is necessary 3. Don't consider my responsibility to pay for conservation 4. Believe that general taxes should cover the cost of conservation 5. I did not have enough information to enable me place a Tshs. value for conserving the wetland 6. I did not want to place a Tshs value for conserving the wetland 7. I disagree with paying money into a fund 8. The wetland is worth nothing to me so I did not want to pay anything 9. The government should be solely responsible for protecting and conserving the wetland

118

10. I could not afford to pay anything 11. Other (please specify)_______________________ b]. Which of these best describes your household decision? a) Willing to pay, but not able b) Able, but not willing to pay c) Not able, not willing to pay d) Others (specify) ______________________ 7) If you are willing to contribute for conservation, what would you forego to achieve this? a) Drinks, b) Food c) Clothing d) Others (specify) . 8) Whom would you prefer to undertake the conservation activities? a). The local government b). The village government c). Villagers d). Villagers with their local government and NGOs and CBOs (i.e. all stakeholders) e). Other, (specify)_______________________________________ d). Don't know

119

Annex 4: Data tables from the household survey

Annex Table 59: Origin of survey respondents Origin Same village Same ward different village Same district different Ward Same region different district Other Regions Percent 90.2% 3.6% 2.7% 0.9% 2.7%

Annex Table 60: Education levels of respondents by gender Male % Fenale % Total % None educated 26.8 10.7 37.5 Primary incomplete 6.3 2.7 8.9 Primary complete 41.1 8.9 50.0 Tertiary education 3.6 3.6 Total 77.7 22.3 100.0 Annex Table 61: Prevalence of disease Number of cases Type of disease 2001 2002 2004 Malaria 1,287 1,045 1,650 Diarrhoea 191 235 279 Intestinal worms 61 111 56 Pneumonia 159 18 44 Eye infection 184 104 179 Ear infection 11 49 40 Skin infection 110 158 156 Asthma 72 62 56 Cardiovascular Disease 37 0 6 Urinary tract infection 50 3 33 Anaemia 160 43 61 Schistosomiasis 2 0 5 Annex Table 62: Mosquito net ownership Number of % nets hholds 0 18.8% 1 17.0% 2 28.6% 3 19.6% 4 8.0% 5 3.6% 6 2.7% 7 0.9% 8 0.9% Annex Table 63: Distribution of land between households
Size of land (acres) 0-2.0 2.1-4.0 4.1-6.0 6.1-8.0 8.1-10.0 > 10 Total % hholds 35% 38% 13% 5% 5% 3% 100%

120

Annex Table 64: Households experiencing food shortage over the past year
Period of food shortage 1 month 3 months 6 months 9 months 12 months % of hholds 2.7 17.9 37.5 28.6 13.4

Annex Table 65: Household wealth ranking by hamlet Wealth distribution (%) Total Hamlet Households poor middle Bizi 158 75 25 Mtanza 92 88 12 Mturuma 117 75 25 Msiga 61 75 25 Total 428 77.8% 22.2%

total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

121

Annex 5: Seasonal calendars

Annex Table 66: Seasonal activities calendar
Season Eating vegetables from the farm Eating wild vegetables Eating wild fruits Selling food Buying food Cultivating across the river Eating crops in the field Eating stored crops Time with alot of activities Time where people celebrate alot People engage in handicraft production People make pots Time spent on poultry raising People engage in business Key

Jan VULI

Feb

Mar MASIKA

Apr

May

Jun KIPUPWE

Jul

Aug

Sep Oct KIANGAZI

Nov VULI

Dec

High

Very little

Little

Average

Very high Oct FP Ha Nov Dec FP Pl

Annex Table 67: Crop cultivation calendar

Feb Mar Rice Pl Maize (Vuli) Pl We Maize (Mlawo) Maize (Masika) FP Pl Sesame (Simsim) FP Pl Beans (Kunde) Pumpkins (Maboga Mlawo) Wild tomato (Nzwese) Tomato (Nyanya) Cabbage (Kabichi) Local spinach (Mchicha) Onions (Vitunguu) Capsicums (PIlipili hoho) Aubergine (Bilinganyi) African eggplant (Nyanya chungu) Watermelon (Tikiti maji) Okra (Bamia) Key FP Farm Preparation Pl Jan Apr We Ha FP/Pl We We Ha Ha FP/Pl Ha FP/Pl Ha Available throughout Pl Ha Pl Ha Takes three weeks: can be grown after every harvest May Jun Ha Jul Aug Sep

FP FP

Are grown any time after the floods have ended

Planting

We

Weeding

Ha

Harvesting

122

Annex Table 68: Availability of wild vegetables and grains

English name Vegetables KiSwahili name Mwage Mchicha pori (Bwasi) Ndewele Sunga Mwanganyinyi Andalongo Hombomgunda (Mlenda) Wenzabele Kibange Mhonzi Hombokikuya Kitakochahenza Ramba Mbalugwe Lunindi Kinyamanda Kinyanzeke Nyegele Bugibugi Months of availability and use 5-6 5-7 5-7 5-7 5-7 4-10 3-4 4-6 5-7 5-7 3-5 3-5 3-5 n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. n.i. Availability now compared to the past Little High Little High Little High High Little Little Little Little Little High High High High High Little Little Use now compared to the past Little More More Little More Little More More Little Little Little Little More More More Little Little Little Little

Grains

123

Annex 6: Species lists for Mtanza-Msona

Annex Table 69: Amphibian species in Rufiji District, reported by Doody and Hamerlynck (2003)
All species reported are Least Concern. It is likely that this list does not accurately represent the amphibian fauna in the Mtana-Msona wetlands, as wetland habitats were undersurveyed in the original literature sources IUCN Red Family Species Common name Distribution List Arthroleptidae Arthroleptis stenodactylus Common Squeaker Widespread LC Bufonidae Arthroleptis xenodactyloides Bufo gutturalis Bufo lindneri Mertensophryne micranotis Stephopaedes loveridgei Hemisus marmoratus Afrixalus brachycnemis Afrixalus fornasinii Hyperolius mitchelli Hyperolius nasutus Hyperolius parkeri Hyperolius tuberilinguis Kassina senegalensis Leptopelis argenteus Leptopelis flavomaculatus Microhylidae Pipidae Ranidae Breviceps mossambicus Xenopus muelleri Hildebrandtia ornata Phrynobatrachus acridoides Phrynobatrachus mababiensis Ptychadena anchietae Ptychadena mascareniensis Afrana angolensis Rhacophoridae Chiromantis xerampelina Dwarf Squeaker Guttural Toad Widespread LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC Widespread Widespread Widespread, coastal Widespread Widespread Widespread Widespread, forest Widespread Widespread Widespread Widespread Widespread Widespread Widespread Widespread Widespread LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC

Hemisidae Hyperoliidae

Loveridge's Earless Toad Mottled Shovel-snouted Frog Marbled Snout-burrower Golden Leaf-folding Frog Short-legged Spiny Reed Frog Fornasini's Leaf-folding Frog Fornasini's Spiny Reed Frog Mitchell's Reed Frog Gunther's Sharp-nosed Reed Frog Long Reed Frog Parker's Reed Frog Tinker Reed Frog Bubbling Kassina Senegal Kassina Silvery Tree Frog Yellow-spotted Tree Frog Mozambique Rain Frog Muller's Clawed Frog Hildebrandt's Burrowing Frog Ornate Frog East African Puddle Frog Eastern Puddle Frog Common Puddle Frog Mababe Puddle Frog Savanna Ridged Frog Anchieta's Ridged Frog Mascarene Ridged Frog Dusky-throated Rana Angola River Frog Grey Foam-nest Tree Frog Grey Tree Frog Mud-dwelling Caecilian

Widespread Widespread

Caecilidae Schistometopum gregorii Source: Doody and Hamerlynck, 2003.

Annex Table 70: Fish species present within the Rufiji District (Doody and Hamerlynck 2003)
Additional species (*) extracted from the IUCN freshwater biodiversity assessment (IUCN 2006). This is likely to be an incomplete inventory of freshwater biodiversity, as survey effort has been low and often focused on exploited species Family PROTOPTERIDAE ANGUILLIDAE MORMYRIDAE Species Protopterus aethiopicus Anguilla bicolour bicolour* Mormyrus longirostris Mormyrus hasselquisti Petrocephalus steindachneri Marcusenius livingstonii* Petrocephalus catostoma Barbus macrolepis Barbus radiatus Labeo congoro Labeo cylindricus Labeo coubi Opsaridium loveridgei Distichodus petersii Distichodus rufigiensis Nannaethiops sp. English name African Lungfish Eel Eastern bottlenose mormyrid Churchill KiSwahili name Kamongo Mpanda Ntachi Red List NE LC NE NE NE LC NE NT NE LC NE NE LC VU LC -

CYPRINIDAE

Redeye barb Purple labeo Redeye labeo

Dagaa Ningo, Ningwe

DISTICHODONTIDAE

Tungu

124

Family ALESTIDAE

Species

Brycinus affinis Brycinus imberi Brycinus jacksonii Alestes stuhlmanni Hemigrammopetersius barnardi Hydrocynus vittatus Petersius conserialis BAGRIDAE Bagrus docmak Bagrus gariepinus* Bagrus orientalis Clarotes laticeps SCHILBEIDAE Pareutropius longifilis Schilbe mystus Schilbe moebiusii AMPHILIIDAE Amphilius uranoscopus CLARIDAE Clarias gariepinus CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea aquatica* MOCHOKIDAE Synodontis fuelleborni Synodontis rukwaensis Synodontus maculipina* Synodontis matthesi Synodontis rufigiensis POECILIIDAE Aplocheilichthys kongoranensis NOTHOBRANCHIIDAE Nothobranchius eggersi Nothobranchius foerschi Nothobranchius kirki Nothobranchius melanospilus MASTACEMBELIDAE Mastacembelus frenatus CICHLIDAE Oreochromis urolepis urolepis* ELEOTRIDAE Eleotris fusca GOBIIDAE Glossogobius giuris Favonigobius reichei MEGALOPIDAE Megalops cyprinoides CITHARININAE Citharinus congicus Source: Doody and Hamerlynck, 2003; IUCN Red List, 2007

English name Redfin robber Spot tail Victoria robber Barnard's robber Tiger Fish Semutundu

KiSwahili name Kasa, Ngacha Bembe, Beme Soga, Osoga Kasa, Ngacha Kachinga Kasa, Ngacha Kibogobogo Katoga, Kitoga

Widehead catfish African butter catfish Common mountain catfish North African catfish Fuelleborn's squeaker Lake Rukwa squeaker Mtanda

Kambale Konge, Ngonje Ngonje, Ngogo

Nyanyandu Kongoro lampeye Annual Fish Redfin notho Blackspotted nothobranch Longtail spiny eel Rufiji tilapia Dusky sleeper Tank goby Indo-Pacific tropical sand goby Indo-Pacific tarpon

Cheche Pele, Mbarami

Red List LC LC EN LC LC NE LC NE NE LC NE LC VU LC NE NE LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC VU LC LC NE LC NE NE NT NE DD

Annex Table 71: Bird species list for the Mtanza-Msona wetlands
Family Accipitradae Species Haliaeetus vocifer Stephanoaetus coronatus Terathopius ecaudatus Trigonoceps occipitalis Polyboroides typus Melierax metabates Alcedo cristata Ceryle rudis Megaceryle maxima Halcyon albiventris Halcyon senegalensis Alopochen aegyptiacus Dendrocygna viduata Anhinga rufa Cypsiurus parvus Ardea cinerea Ardea purpurea Ixobrychus sturmii Ardeola ralloides Mesophoyx intermedia Casmerodius albus Egretta garzetta Ardeola rufiventris Ardea goliath Egretta dimorpha Bucorvus cafer Ceratogymna bucinator Tockus alboterminatus English name African fish Eagle Crowned Eagle Bateleur White-headed Vulture African Harrier Hawk Dark Chanting Goshawk Malachite Kingfisher Pied Kingfisher Giant Kingfisher Brown-hooded Kingfisher Woodland Kingfisher Egyptian goose White-faced Whistling Duck African Darter Palm Swift Grey Heron Purple Heron Dwarf Bittern Common Squacco Heron Intermediate Egret Great Egret Little Egret Rufus-bellied Heron Goliath Heron Dimorphic Egret Ground Hornbill Trumpeter Hornbill Crowned Hornbill Red List LC LC LC VU LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC Field Literature Review2 survey1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Alcedinidae Cerylidae Halcyonidae Halcyonidae Anatidae Anhingidae Apodidae Ardeidae

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Bucerotidae

Yes Yes Yes

125

Family Charadriidae

Species Vanellus albiceps Pluvialis squatarola Vanellus armatus Anastomus lamelligerus Mycteria ibis Leptoptilos crumeniferus Apalis flavigularis Camaroptera brachyura Patagioenas goodsoni Treron calvus Turtur chalcospilos Coracias caudat Upupa epops Centropus superciliosus Centropus superciliosus Dicrurus adsimilis Estrilda astrild Pytilia melba Falco cuvierii Glareola pratincola Hirundo abyssinica Hirundo daurica Riparia riparia Actophilornis africanus Rynchops flavirostris Laniarius aethiopicus Malaconotus sulfureopectus Prionops retzii Merops bullockoides Merops hirundineus Merops albicollis Merops orientalis Merops oreobates Terpsiphone paradisi Trochocercus cyanomelas Motacilla aguimp Cossypha natalensis Melaenornis fischeri Tauraco hartlaubi Hedydipna collaris Nectarinia bifasciata Nectarinia olivacea Agelastes niger Guttera pucherani Pelecanus rufescens Pelecanus onocrotalus Phoeniculus purpureus Campethera nivosa Batis soror Ploceus spp. Ploceus xanthopterus Agapornis spp. Poicephalus robustus Chlorocichla flaviventris Nicator spp. Phyllastrephus fischeri Gallinula angulata Pogoniulus leucomystax

English name White-headed Lapwing Grey Plover Blacksmith Lapwing African Openbill Stork Yellow-billed Stork Marabou Stork Yellow-throated Apalis Grey-backed Camaroptera Dusky Pigeon African Green-pigeon Emerald-spotted wood Dove Lilac-breasted Roller Hoopoe White-browed Coucal Burchells Coucal Fork-tailed Drongo Common Waxbill Green-winged Pytilia African Hobby Collared Pratincole Lesser Striped Swallow Red-rumped Swallow Sand Martin African Jacana African Skimmer Tropical boubou Sulphur-breasted Bushshrike Retz's Helmetshrike White-fronted Bee-eater Swallow-tailed Bee-eater White-throated Bee-eater Little Green Bee-eater Cinnamon-chested Bee-eater Asian Paradise-flycatcher African Crested-flycatcher African pied Wagtail Red-capped Robin-chat White-eyed Slaty Flycatcher Hartlaub's Turaco Collared Sunbird Purple-banded Sunbird Olive Sunbird Black Guineafowl Crested Guinea fowl Pink-backed Pelican White Pelican Green Wood-hoopoe Buff-spotted Woodpecker Pale Batis Dark backed weaver Southern Brown-throated Weaver Lovebirds spp. Brown-necked Parrot Yellow-bellied Greenbul [3 species - all LC] Fischer's Greenbul Lesser Moorhen Moustached green Tinkerbird

Red List LC LC LC LC LC LC EN LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC

Field Literature Review2 survey1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ciconiidae

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Cisticolidae Columbidae

Coraciidae Coraciiformes Cuculidae Dicruridae Estrildidae Falconidae Glareolidae Hirundinidae

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Jacanidae Laridae Malaconotidae

Meropidae

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Monarchidae Motacillidae Muscicapidae Musophagidae Nectariniidae

Yes

Numididae Pelecanidae Phoeniculidae Picidae Platysteiridae Ploceidae Psittacidae Pycnonotidae Pycnonotidae Rallidae Ramphastidae

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

126

Family Scolopacidae

Species

English name

Red List

Field Literature Review2 survey1 Yes Yes

Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper LC Tringa nebularia Greenshank LC Tringa ochropus Green Sandpiper LC Yes Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper LC Yes Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank LC Yes Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper LC Yes Scopidae Scopus umbretta Hammerkop LC Yes Strigidae Strix woodfordii African wood Owl LC Threskiornithidae Bostrychia hagedash Hadada Ibis LC Yes Platalea alba African Spoonbill LC Yes Threskiornis aethiopicus Sacred Ibis LC Yes Trogonidae Apaloderma narina Narina Trogon LC Zosteropidae Zosterops luteus Yellow White-eye LC Source: 1. Darwin field survey, 2007. 2. Doody & Hamerlynck, 2003. Note: IUCN Red List categories: LC Least Concern, NT Near Threatened, VU Vulnerable, EN - Endangered. Data compiled from the Darwin fieldwork and from the literature

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Annex Table 72: Mammals present within the Mtanza-Msona wetlands

Family Bovidae Species Aepyceros melampus Alcelaphus buselaphus Cephalophus harveyi Cephalophus monticola Connochaetes taurinus Hippotragus niger Kobus ellipsiprymnus Neotragus moschatus Sylvicapra grimmia Syncerus caffer Tragelaphus scriptus Cercopithecus albogularis Cercopithecus mitis Chlorocebus pygerythrus Colobus angolensis Papio cynocephalus Crocodylus niloticus Loxodonta africana Equus quagga Panthera leo Panthera pardus Galagoides zanzibaricus Otolemur crassicaudatus Otolemur garnetti Bdeogale crassicauda Hippopotamus amphibius Athererus africanus Petrodromus tetradactylus Rhynchocyon petersi English name Impala Hartebeest Harveys Duiker** Blue Duiker Wildebeest Sable Waterbuck Suni Bush / Common Duiker African Buffalo Bushbuck Sykes Monkey Blue Monkey Vervet Monkey Black and White Colobus Baboon Crocodile Elephant Zebra Lion Leopard Zanzibar Galago Brown Greater Galago Northern Greater Galago Bushy-tailed Mongoose Hippo African Brush-tailed Porcupine Four toed elephant Shrew Local name Swala Kongoni Red List Status1 CD CD CD LC CD CD CD CD LC CD LC LC LC LC LC LC LC VU LC VU LC NT LC LC LC VU LC LC Literature Review Village survey Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Nyumbu Mbalape Kulo/kuro

Cercopithecidae

Nyati Mbawala Kima Ngedere Nyani

Crocodylidae Elephantidae Equidae Felidae Galagidae

Pundamilia

Galagidae Herpestidae Hippopotamidae Hystricidae Macroscelididae

Kiboko Nungunungu

Black and Rufous Elephant VU Yes Shrew Manidae Manis temmenikii Ground Pangolin NT Yes Orycteropodidae Orycteropus afer Aardvark LC Yes Sciuridae Heliosciurus undulatus Zanj sun squirrel DD Yes Suidae Phacochoerus africanus Warthog Ngiri LC Yes Potamochoerus Bush pig Nguruwe LC Yes Yes larvatus Viverridae Genneta spp. Gennet LC/DD2 Yes Notes: 1. IUCN Red List categories. LC Least Concern; CD Conservation Dependent; DD Data Deficient; NT Near Threatened; VU Vulnerable. 2. Several species of Genet are present in Tanzania; all are LC or DD. Sources: Darwin Field Survey 2006-7; Doody and Hamerlynck 2003; IUCN Red List 2007 Compiled from the Darwin field survey and doody and Hamerlynck (2003)

127

Annex Table 73: Dragonflies recorded from the Rufiji region (from Clausnitzer, 2006) with their Red List status
Swamp Forest Brachystegia Forest Ruhoi River Rufiji River Dry Forest Rufiji floodplain x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Red List Status Lakes

Family

Species

Lestidae

Pseudostigmatidae Protoneurididae Coenagrionidae

Caloptergygidae Chlorocyphidae Gomphidae

Aeshnidae

Corduliidae

Lestes ictericus Lestes tridens Lestes uncifer Coryphagrion grandis Elattoneura glauca Aciagrion gracile Africallagma subtile Agriocnemis exilis Agriocnemis gratiosa Azuragrion nigridorsum Ceriagrion glabrum Ceriagrion kordofanicum Ceriagrion mourae Ceriagrion suave Ischnura senegalensis Pseudagrion acaciae Pseudagrion commoniae Pseudagrion lindicum Pseudagrion massaicum Pseudagrion sublacteum Teinobasis alluaudi Phaon iridipennis Platycypha caligata Ictinogomphus ferox Paragomphus genei Paragomphus magnus Paragomphus sabicus Anax imperator Anax ephippiger Anax speratus Gynacantha immaculifrons Gynacantha manderica Gynacantha usambarica Gynacantha villosa Phyllomacromia spec

LC LC LC VU LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC DD LC LC LC LC LC LC LC EN LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC DD LC NT ? LC LC

x x x x x

128

Swamp Forest

Brachystegia Forest

Ruhoi River

Rufiji River

Dry Forest

Family

Species

Acisoma panorpoides LC LC Brachythemis leucosticta Chalcostephia flavifrons LC Crocothemis divisa LC x LC Crocothemis erythraea LC Crocothemis sanguinolenta x LC Diplacodes lefebvrii NT x Hadrothemis scabrifrons LC Hemistigma albipunctata x Nesciothemis farinosum LC x Olpogastra fuelleborni LC LC Olpogastra lugubris x Orthetrum abbotti LC x Orthetrum chrysostigma LC x x x LC Orthetrum julia falsum LC Orthetrum machadoi LC Orthetrum stemmale x x Orthetrum trinacria LC Palpopleura deceptor LC LC Palpopleura lucia x x Palpopleura portia LC x x x Pantala flavescens LC x x x LC Philonomon luminans x LC Rhyothemis semihyalina x x LC x Tetrathemis polleni x EN Thermochoria jeanneli x x LC Trapezostigma basilaris x x Trithemis arteriosa LC x Trithemis aconita LC x LC Trithemis annulata Trithemis furva LC x Trithemis kirbyi LC LC Urothemis assignata x Urothemis edwardsii LC Note: LC Least Concern, NT Near Threatened, VU Vulnerable, EN Endangered; DD Data Deficient. Source: Clustnitzer, 2006.

Libellulidae

x x x x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Annex Table 74: Reptiles (other than snakes) recorded in Rufiji District. Extracted from Doody and Hamerlynck (2003)
Family Agamidae Amphisbaenidae Chamaeleonidae Species Acanthocercus atricollis Agama mossambica Loveridgea ionidesi Chamaeleo dilepis Chamaeleo melleri Rhampholeon brachyurus Rhampholeon brevicaudatus Chelonia mydas Crocodylus niloticus Cnemaspis uzungwae Hemidactylus mabouia Hemidactylus platycephalus Lygodactylus broadleyi Lygodactylus capensis grotei Lygodactylus luteopicturatus Lygodactylus viscatus Pachydactylus turneri Gerrhosaurus flavigularis Gerrhosaurus major Gerrhosaurus nigrolineatus English name Blue-headed Tree Agama Mozambique Agama Liwale Round-snouted Worm Lizard Flapneck Chameleon Giant One-horned Chameleon Beardless Pygmy-Chameleon Bearded Pygmy-Chameleon / Short-tailed Pygmy-Chameleon Green Turtle Nile Crocodile Udzungwa Forest Gecko Tropical House Gecko Tree Gecko Broadley's Dwarf Gecko Grote's Cape Dwarf Gecko Yellow-headed Dwarf Gecko Copal Dwarf Gecko Turner's Thick-toed Gecko Yellow-throated Plated Lizard Rough-scaled Plated Lizard Black-lined Plated Lizard Red List status NE NE NE NE NE NE NE EN LC NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

Cheloniidae Crocodylidae Gekkonidae

Gerrhosauridae

129

Rufiji floodplain x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Red List Status

Lakes

Family Lacertidae

Species

English name Striped Keel-bellied Lizard Blue-bellied Gliding Lizard Mozambique Rough-scaled Lizard Johnston's / Malawi Long-tailed Lizard Boulenger's Scrub Lizard Peter's Writhing Skink Boulenger's Skink Speckle-lipped Skink Grass-top Skink/Long-tailed Skink Tree Skink Five-lined Skink Striped Skink Variable Skink Loveridge's Limbless Skink Wahlberg's Snake-eyed Skink Four-toed Fossorial Skink Leopard Tortoise East African Serrated Hinged Terrapin Zambezi Soft-shelled Turtle White-throated Savanna Monitor-Lizard Nile Monitor Lizard

Gastropholis vittata Holaspis guentheri Ichnotropis squamulosa Latastia johnstonii Nucras boulengeri Scincidae Lygosoma afrum Mabuya boulengeri Mabuya maculilabris Mabuya megalura Mabuya planifrons Mabuya quinquetaeniata Mabuya striata Mabuya varia Melanoseps loveridgei Panaspis wahlbergi Sepsina tetradactyla Testudinidae Geochelone pardalis Pelusios sinuatus Trionychidae Cycloderma frenatum Varanidae Varanus albigularis Varanus niloticus Source: Doody and Hamerlynck, 2003.

Red List status NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NT NE NE

Annex Table 75: Snakes recorded in the Rufiji District. Adapted from Doody and Hamerlynck (2003).
Family Amblyodipsas Species English name Red List status Amblyodipsas katangensis subsp. ionidesi Ionides' Purple-Glossed Snake NE Aparallactus capensis Cape Centipede Eater NE Aparallactus guentheri Black Centipede Eater NE Aparallactus werneri Usambara Centipede Eater NE Atractaspis bibroni subsp. bibroni Bibron's Burrowing Asp NE Chilorhinophis butleri Butler's Two-headed Snake NE Boidae Python natalensis Southern African Python NE Colubridae Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia White-lipped Snake NE Crotaphopeltis tornieri Tornier's Cat Snake NE Dasypeltis medici Rufous Egg-eater NE Dasypeltis scabra Common /Rhombic Egg-eater NE Dipsadoboa flavida subsp. broadleyi Cross-barred Tree Snake NE Dispholidus typus Boomslang NE Hemirhagerrhis nototaenia Bark Snake NE Lamprophis fuliginosus Brown House Snake NE Lycophidion capense Cape Wolf Snake NE Mehelya capensis Cape File Snake NE Mehelya nyassae Dwarf File Snake NE Meizodon semiornatus Semiornate Snake NE Natriciteres olivacea Olive Marsh Snake NE Philothamnus hoplogaster South-Eastern Green Snake NE Philothamnus macrops Usambara Green Snake NE Philothamnus punctatus Spotted Green Snake NE Prosymna ambigua subsp. stuhlmanni East African Shovel-Snout Snake NE Psammophis angolensis Dwarf Sand Snake NE Psammophis phillipsii subsp. mossambicus Olive Grass Racer NE Psammophis subtaeniatus subsp. sudanensis Northern Stripe-bellied Sand Snake NE Psammophylax tritaeniatus Southern Striped Skaapsteker NE Rhamphiophis oxyrhynchus subsp. rostratus Rufous Beaked Snake NE Telescopus semiannulatus Tiger Snake NE Thelotornis capensis Eastern Vine / Twig Snake NE Elapidae Dendroaspis angusticeps Green Mamba NE Dendroaspis polylepis Black Mamba NE Elapsoidea semiannulata NE Naja melanoleuca Forest Cobra NE Naja mossambica Mozambique Spitting Cobra NE Naja nigricollis subsp. nigricollis Black-necked Spitting Cobra NE Leptotyphlopidae Leptotyphlops longicaudus Long-tailed Worm Snake NE Leptotyphlops macrops Large-eyed Worm Snake NE Leptotyphlops scutifrons Peter's Thread Snake NE Typhlopoidae Rhinotyphlops schlegelii schlegelii Schlegel's Giant Blind Snake NE Typhlops rondoensis Rondo Plateau Blind Snake NE Viperidae Bitis arietans Puff Adder NE Bitis gabonica subsp. gabonica Gaboon Viper NE Causus defilippii Snouted Night Adder NE Source: Doody and Hamerlynch, 2003; Species taxonomy reviewed according to http://www.catalogueoflife.org, accessed on 3/3/2008.

130

131

Annex Table 76: Plant species present in Riufiji District, Tanzania, from Doody and Hamerlynck (2003)
Family ACANTHACEAE Species Asystasia gangetica (L.) T. Anders Blepharis maderaspatensis (L.) Roth. Dicliptera sp. Isoglossa lacteal Dracaena deremensis Engl. Dracaena usambarensis Engl. Sagittaria guayanensis Achyranthes aspera L. Psilotricum scleranthum Thw. Anacardium occidentale L. Lannea antiscorbitica (Hiern) Engl. Lannea humilis Lannea schweinfurthii (Engl) Ozoroa insignis Del. Rhus natalensis Sclerocarya birrea (A. Rich.) Hochst. Sorindeia madagascariensis DC. Annona senegalensis Pers. Artabotrys brachypetalus Benth. Asteranthus lutea Vollesen Cleistochlamys kirkii (Benth.) Oliv. Isolona heinsii Engl. & Diels Lettowianthus stellatus Diels Monanthotaxis buchananii (Engl.) Verdc. Monodora grandidieri Monodora junodii Engl. & Diels Ophrypetalum odoratum Diels Polyalthia tanganyikensis Vollesen Uvaria acuminata Oliv. Uvaria kirkii Uvariodendron gorgonis Verdc. Xylopia odoratissima Oliv. Xylopia parviflora (A. Rich.) Benth. Chlorophytum sp. nov. Carissa edulis Dicyophleba lucida Diplorhynchus condylocarpon (Muell. Arg.) Pichon Landophia kirkii Dyeri Rauvolfia mombasiana Stapf Saba comorensis (Bojer) Pichon Sapium armatum Pax & K. Schum. Schizozygia coffaeoides (Bojer) Baill. Strophanthus courmontii Franch. Tabernaemontana elegans Stapf. Voacanga africana Voacanga thouarsii Stapf Holarrhena pubescens (Burch. Ham.) Wall Pistia stratiotes Stylochiton natalensis Schott Cussonia zimmermannii Harms Polyscias stuhlmannii Phoenix reclinata Harrisonia abyssinica Oliv. Mondia ecornuta Bullock Asparagus racemosus Avicennia marina (Forsks.) Vierh. Crassocephalum rubens (Jacq.) S. Moore Elephantopus scaber L. Azolla africana Balanites maughamii Sprague Balanites wilsoniana Dawe & Sprague Barringtonia racemosa (L.) Spreng. Red List status Endemic status NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE VU CF End NE NE CF End NE NE CF End NE CF End NE CF End NE VU CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE

AGAVACEAE ALISMATACEAE AMARANTHACEAE

ANNONACEAE

ANTHERICACEAE APOCYNACEAE

APOLACEAE ARACEAE ARACEAE ARALIACEAE ARECACEAE ASCLEPIADIACEAE ASPARAGACEAE ASTERACEAE

AZOLLACEAE BALANITACEAE BARRINGTONIACEAE

132

Family BIGNONIACEAE

BOMBACACEAE

BURSERACEAE

CAESALPINACEAE

CAPPARACEAE

CELASTRACEAE

CERATOPHYLLACEAE CHARACEAE CHRYSOPHYLLACEAE COMBRETACEAE

COMMELINACEAE

Species Fernandoa magnifica Seem Kigelia africana (Lam.) Benth. Markhamia acuminata (Klotzsch.) K. Schum. Markhamia lutea (Benth.) K. Schum. Markhamia obtusifolia (Bak.) Sprague Stereospermum kunthianum Cham. Adansonia digitata Bombax rhodognaphalon K. Schum. Cordia faulkenerae Verdc. Cordia goetzii Ehretia cymosa Thonn. Commiphora eminii Engl. Commiphora serrata Engl. Commiphora zanzibarica (Baill.) Engl. Commiphora zimmermannii (Engl.) Gillett Afzelia quanzensis Welw. Baikiaea ghesquireana J. Leonard Bauhinia tomentosa L. Brachystegia bussei Brachystegia microphylla Harms Brachystegia sp. Brachystegia spiciformis Benth. Bussea eggelingii Cassia abbreviata Oliv. Cassia burttii Baker f. Cassia petersiana (Bolle) Lock Cassia sp. (Exotic) Cassia zambesiaca Oliver Cordyla africana Lour. Cynometra sp. Cynometra suahiliensis Cynometra webberi Bak.f Dialium holtzii Harms Hymenaea verrucosa Gaert. Isoberlinia scheffleri (Harmns) Greenway Julbernardia globiflora Piliostigma thonningii Swartzia madagascariensis Tamarindus indica L. Tessmannia densiflora Harms Boscia salsifolia Capparis sepiaris L. Maerua kirkii (Oliv.) F. white Maerua triphylla A. Rich. Thylachium africana Lour. Elaeodendron schlechterina Elaeodendron schweinfurthianum (Loes.) Loes. Loesneriella africana Maytenus acuminata Maytenus putterlickioides Maytenus undatus Mystroxylon aethiopicum (Thunb.) Loes. Salacia leptoclada Tul. Salacia madagascariensis (Lam.) DC. Ceratophyllum demersum Chara sp. Parinari curatellifolia Benth. Combretum adenogonium A. Rich. Combretum molle G. Don. Combretum pentagonum Laws. Combretum zeyheri Sond. Pteleopis myrtifolia (Laws.) Engl. Diels Pteleopsis apetala Vollesen Terminalia sericea DC. Aneilema aequinoctiale (P. Beauv.) Kunth. Commelina benghalensis L.

Red List status Endemic status NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE CF End NE NE NE NE CF End NE CF End NE NE EN CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE CF End NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE NE CF End VU CF End NE VU CF End NE NE NE CF End NE EN CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE

133

Family COMPOSITAE CONNARACEAE

CYPERACEAE

DICHAPETALACEAE

DILLENIACEAE EBENACEAE

ERYTHROXYLACEAE

Species Ageratum conyzoides Bidens pilosa Agelaea setulosa Schellenb. Byrsocarpus orientalis Ellipanthus hemandradenioides Brenan Rourea orientalis Baill. Cyperus alopeculoides Cyperus articulatus Cyperus denudatus Cyperus difformis Cyperus digitatus Cyperus esculentus Cyperus exaltatus Retz. Cyperus longus Kyllinga nemoralis Mariscus hemisphaericus (Boeck.) C.B. Cl. Scirus sp. Dichapetalum aneranium Bret. Dichapetalum edule Dichapetalum ruhlandii Dichapetalum stuhlmannii Engl. Tetracera litoralis Gilg. Diospyros kabuyeana F. White Diospyros loureireana Diospyros mespiliformis DC. Diospyros squarrosa Klotzsch Diospyros usambarensis F. White Diospyros verrucosa Hiern Diospyros zombensis (B.L. Burtt.) F. White Euclea divinorum Erythroxylum emarginatum Thonn.

Red List status Endemic status NE NE NE CF End NE NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE CF End NE NE NE CF End NE CF End NE CF End NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE

134

Family EUPHORBIACEAE

FABACEAE

FLACOURTIACEAE

Species Antidesma venosum Tul. Bridelia atroridis Mull. Arg. Bridelia cathartica Bertol.f. Croton macrostachyus Del. Croton sylvaticus Hochst. Drypetes arguta (Muell. Arg.) Hutch. Drypetes natalensis (Harv.) Hutch. Drypetes reticulata Pax Drypetes sp. Euphorbia candelabrum Kotschy Euphorbia nyikae Pax & Burret Euphorbia scarlatina Flueggea virosa Baill. Mallotus oppositifolius (Geisel.) Mull. Arg. Margaritaria discoidea (Baill.) Webster Milbraedia carpinifolia (Pax) Hutch. Phyllanthus amarus Schum. & Thonn. Phyllanthus leucanthus Pax Phyllanthus nummulariifolius Poir. Phyllanthus reticulatus Poir Phyllanthus rhizomatosus A.R. Sm. Phyllanthus sp. Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia Pax Ricinodendron heudelotii (Baill.) Pierre Spirostachys africana Sond. Synadenium sp. Tragia brevipes Tragia furialis Prain Acalypha gillmannii A. R. Smith Acalypha neptunica Muell. Arg. Alchornea laxiflora (Benth.) Pax. & Hoffm. Alchornea sp.(Kitwana) Antidesma venosum Tul. Bridelia micrantha (Hochst.) Baill. Croton pseudopulchellus Pax Croton sylvaticus Hochst. Euphorbia usambarensis Pax Sapium ellipticum (Krauss) Pax Suregada zanzibariensis Baill Abrus precatorius L. Baphia kirkii Bak. Crotolaria goodiiformis Vatke Dalbergia melanoxylon Guill. & Perr. Erythrina melanacantha Erythrina sacleuxii Hua Lonchocarpus capassa Roffe Millettia stuhlmannii Taub. Xerroderis stuhlmannii (Taub.) Mend. & Souza Bivinia jalbertii Tul. Caloncoba welwitschii (Oliv.) Gilg. Casearia gladiformis Flacourtia indica Lindackeria bukobensis Gilg Oncoba spinosa Forssk. Scolopia rhamniphylla Gilg Tetracera boiviniana Baill. Xylotheca tettensis (Klotzsch) Saintpaulia ionantha H. Wendl.

Red List status Endemic status NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE VU CF End NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE VU CF End NE NT NE VU CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End VU CF End NE CF End

135

Family GRAMINEAE

HYMENOCARDIACEAE ICACINACEAE IXONANTHACEAE LABIATAE LINACEAE LOGANIACEAE

LORANTHACEAE MALIPIGHIACEAE MALVACEAE MELASTOMATACEAE MELIACEAE

MENISPERMACEAE

MIMOSACEAE

MONTINIACEAE

Species Cynodon dactylon Digitaria abyssinica Digitaria gymnostachya Pilg Echinochloa stagnina Pennisetum purpureum Phragmites mauritianus Setaria megaphylla (Steud.) Th. Dur. & Schinz Voscia cuspidata Garcinia buchananii Bak. Garcinia livingstonii T Anders Harungana madagascariensis Poir Psorosperum febrifugum Spach Vismia orientalis Engl. Hymenocardia ulmoides Oliv. Apodytes dimidiata Phyllocosmus lemaireanus (De Wild. & Th. Dur.) T Hoslundia opposita Tinnea sp. Hugonia castaneifolia Engl. Strophanthus kombe Oliv. Strychnos henningsii Gilg Strychnos madagascariensis Poir Strychnos panganensis Gilg Strychnos spinosa Agelanthus longipes Loranthus sp. Acridocarpus alopecuras Sprague Gardenis ternifolia ssp. jovis tonantis Hibiscus surattensis L. Memecylon sansibaricum Taub. Bersama abyssinica (Sim.) Verdc. Khaya anthotheca (Welw.) C. DC. Trichilia dregeana Trichilia emetica Vahl Turraea nilotica Kotschy & Peyr. Xylocarpus granatum Koen. Albertisia undulata (Hiern) Forman. Cissampelos pareila Triclisia sacleuxii (Pierre) Diels Acacia adenocalyx Brenan & Exell Acacia nigrescens Oliv. Acacia nilotica (L.) Del. Acacia robusta Burch. Acacia sieberana DC. Acacia tortilis Albizia adianthifolia Albizia glaberrima (Schum. & Thonn.) Benth. Albizia gummifera Albizia harveyi Fourn Albizia petersiana (Bolle) Oliv. Albizia seyal Albizia versicolor Oliv. Amblygonocarpus andongensis (Oliv.) Exell & Torre Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight & Arn. Mimosa pigra Neptunia oleraceae Newtonia buchananii (Bak.) Gilb. & Bout. Newtonia paucijuga (Harms) Brenan Parkia filicoidea Oliv. Grevea eggelingii Milne Redh.

Red List status Endemic status NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE VU CF End NE NE NE CF End

136

Family MORACEAE

MYRTACEAE NYMPHACEAE OCHNACEAE OCHNACEAE ONAGOLACEAE ORCHIDACEAE PALMACEAE PAPILIONACEAE

PASSIFLORACEAE

POACEAE

RHAMNACEAE RHIZOPHORACEAE

Species Ficus bussei Mildbr. Ficus lingua De Wild. & Th. Dur. Ficus natalensis (Miq.) Hochst. Ficus scassellattii Pamp. Ficus sycomorus L. Ficus thonningii Maclura africana (Bureau) Corner Milicia excelsa (Welw.) C.C. Berg Streblus usambarensis (Engl.) C.C. Berg Eugenia capensis (Eckl. & Zeyh.) Sond. Syzygium guineense Nymphaea capensis Nymphaea lotus L Ochna holstii Engl. Ochna mossambicensis K1. Olax pentandra Sleumer Ludwigia stolonifera Microcoelia exilis Lindl. Microcoelia megalorrhiza Borassus aethiopum Mart Hyphaene compressa H. Wendl. Craibia zimmermannii (Harns) Dunn. Dalbergia nitidula Dalbergia obovata E. Meyer Derris trifoliata Desmodium velutinum Millettia bussei Harms Millettia impressa Harms X Pterocarpus angolensis Pterocarpus tinctorius Welw. Adenia dolichosiphon Harms Adenia schlibenii Basananthe lanceolata (Engl.) De Wilde Schlechterina mitostemmatoides Harms Digitaria milanjiana (Rendle) Stapf Hemarthria natans Stapf Hyparrhenia filipendula (Hochst.) Stapf Leptochloa chinensis (l.) Nees Panicum comorense Mez Panicum laticomum Nees Panicum maximum Jacq. Panicum peteri Panicum trichocladum K. Schum. Setaria homonyma (Steud) Chiov. Sporobolus pyramidalis P. Beauv. Vetiveria nigritana (Benth.) Stapf . Ziziphus mucronata Ziziphus pubescens Oliv. Bruguiera gymnorrhiza (L.) Lam Cassipourea euryoides Alston Cassipourea malosana (Bak.) Alston Ceriops tagal (Perr) C.B. Rob. Rhizophora mucronata Lam.

Red List status Endemic status NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NT NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE CF End NE CITES II CF End CITES II NE NE NE NE NE NE NE VU NE NT NE NE CF End NE CF End NE NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE

137

Family RUBIACEAE

RUTACEAE

SALVADORACEAE SALVINIACEAE SAPINDACEAE

Species Burttdavya nyasica Hoyle Caturanegan spinosa (Thunb.) Tirven Chazaliella abrupta (Hiern) Petit & Verdc. Crossopteryx febrifuga (G. Don.) Benth. Gardenia transvenulosa Verdc. Lamprothamnus zanguebaricus Hiern Leptactina oxyloba K. Schum. Leptactina platyphylla (Hiern) Wernhi Oldenlandia lancifolia (Schumach.) DC. Oxyanthus pyriformis (Hochst.) Skeels Oxyanthus speciosus Pavetta holstii Pavetta refractifolia K. Schum. Pavetta sp. Pentas bussei K. Krause Polysphaeria dischistocalyx Brenan Polysphaeria multiflora Hiern Psychotria goetzei Psychotria lauracea (K. Schum.) Petit. Psychotria punctata Vatke Pyrostria bibracteata (Bak.) Cavaco Rothmannia macrosiphon (Engl.) Bridson Rothmannia ravae (Chiov.) Brids. Rytigynia binata (K. Schum.) Robyns Rytigynia decussata (K. Schum.) Robyns Caturanegan spinosa (Thunb.) Tirven Chazaliella abrupta (Hiern) Petit & Verdc. Crossopteryx febrifuga (G. Don.) Benth. Gardenia ternifolia Schum. & Thonn. Gardenia ternifolia ssp. jovis tonantis Keetia zanzibarica (Klotzsch) Brids Oxyanthus zanguebaricus Brids. Polysphaeria multiflora Hiern Rothmannia manganjae (Hiern.) Keay Rytigynia pergracilis Verdc. Rytigynia uhligii Spermacoce sinensis (Klotzsch) Hiern Tapiphyllum burnettii Tennant Tarenna drummondii Brids. Tarenna supra axittaris (Hamsley) Bremek. Tricalysia ovalifolia Hiern Tricalysia pallens Hiern. Tricalysia sp. nov. Vangueria infausta Burch. Vangueria madagascariensis Gmel. Vangueria randii S. Moore Clausena anisata (Willd.) Benth. Teclea simplicifolia Zanthoxylum chalybeum Engl. Zanthoxylum holtizianum (Engl.) Waterm. Zanthoxylum lindense (Engl.) Kokwaro Dobera loranthifolia (Warb.) Harms Salvinia auriculata Allophylus abyssinicus (Hochst.) Radlk. Allophylus africanus P. Beav. Aporrhiza paniculata Radlk. Blighia unijugata Baker Deinbollia borbonica Scherffi Haplocoelopsis africana F.O. Davies Haplocoelum inoploeum Radlk. Haplocoelum mombasense Lepisanthes senegalensis (Poir.) Leenh. Majidea zanguebarica Oliv. Paulinia pinnata L

Red List status Endemic status NE CF End NE NE NE NE CF End NE CF End NE CF End NE CF End NE NE NE NE TZ End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE VU CF End NE CF End VU CF End NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE VU CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE VU CF End VU CF End NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE DD NE CF End NE NE NE NE

138

Species Chrysophyllum gorungosanum Engleraphyton malagalismontanum (Sond) Pennigton Inhambanella henriquensii (Engl. & Warb.) Dubard Manilkara discolor Manilkara sansibarensis (Engl.) Dubard Mimusopsis fruticosa Mimusopsis riparia Pouteria alnifolia (Bak.) Robert SONNERATIACEAE Sonneratia alba Sm. SPHENOCLEACEAE Sphenoclea zeylanica STERCULIACEAE Byttneria glabra K Schum Cola clavata Mast Cola discoglypremnophylla Brenan & Jones Cola microcarpa Brenan Dombeya cincinnata K. Schum. Dombeya rotundifolia Heritiera littoralis Dryland. Nesogordonia holtzii (Engl.) Capuron Sterculia africana (Lour.) Fiori Sterculia appendiculata K. Schum. Sterculia quinqueloba (Garcke) K. Schum. Strychnos sp. THYMELACEAE Carpodiptera africana Mast. Synaptolepis kirkii Oliv. F CF End TILIACEAE Gossypioides kirkii (Mast.) Hutch. Grewia bicolor Juss. Grewia conocarpa K. Schum. Grewia forbesii Mast. Grewia goetzeana K. Schum. Grewia holstii Burret. Grewia lepidopetala Garcke Grewia microcarpa K. Schum. Grewia monticola Sond. Grewia trichocarpa Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq. TYPHACEAE Typha capensis UMBELLIFERAE Tetrapleura tetraptera (Schumach. & Thonn) Taub. VERBENACEAE Clerodendrum cephalanthum Oliv. Clerodendrum myricoides (Hochst.) Vatke Lippia javanica (Burm.f.)Spreng. Premna sp. Vitex buchananii Gurke Vitex doniana Sweet Vitex mombassae Vitex payos VIOLACEAE Rinorea angustifolia (Thon.) Baill. Rinorea elliptica (Oliv.) Kuntze Rinorea sp. A. FTEA Rinorea welwitschii (Oliv.) Kuntze. ZINGIBERACEAE Afromomum orientale Source: Doody and Hamerlynk, 2003.

Family SAPOTACEAE

Red List status Endemic status NE NE NE CF End NE NE CF End NE NE TZ End NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE CF End NE CF End NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE CF End NE NE NE CF End NE CF End NE NE NE CF End NE CF End DD CF End NE CF End NE CF End NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE CF End NE NE NE CF End

139

Annex 7: Value of and participation in wetland activities

Annex Table 77: Rate of engagement in wetland activities
No activities 1 activity 2 activities 3 activities 4 activities 5 activities 6 activities 7 activities 8 activities 9 activities 10 activities 11 activities 12 activities 13 activities 14 activities 15 activities Total % hholds 1% 0% 6% 7% 11% 20% 18% 22% 10% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 100%

Annex Table 78: Proportion of households engaging in wetland activities, and value of use
Ranked by participation Wetland activity or resource Firewood Wood-based tools Palm products Wild vegetables Plant-based medicines Wild fruits Roofing poles Reeds Palms Building poles Grass Wild leaves & stems Fishing Plant-based essential oils Hunting Clay Plant-based cosmetics Clay pottery Wild honey Insects Beeswax Timber for sale Charcoal % hholds 100% 96% 75% 71% 71% 67% 50% 46% 45% 45% 42% 25% 21% 16% 15% 12% 10% 9% 7% 6% 5% 4% 1% Value for user hhold (TSh/year) 132,990 10,052 49,074 19,572 69,560 35,973 86,941 8,247 26,663 159,726 16,541 28,250 353,612 9,200 26,133 66,715 13,388 14,145 168,286 12,563 23,467 540,000 25,200 Ranked by value Wetland activity or resource Timber for sale Fishing Wild honey Building poles Firewood Roofing poles Plant-based medicines Clay Palm products Wild fruits Wild leaves & stems Palms Hunting Charcoal Beeswax Wild vegetables Grass Clay pottery Plant-based cosmetics Insects Wood-based tools Plant-based essential oils Reeds % hholds 4% 21% 7% 45% 100% 50% 71% 12% 75% 67% 25% 45% 15% 1% 5% 71% 42% 9% 10% 6% 96% 16% 46% Value for user hhold (TSh/year) 540,000 353,612 168,286 159,726 132,990 86,941 69,560 66,715 49,074 35,973 28,250 26,663 26,133 25,200 23,467 19,572 16,541 14,145 13,388 12,563 10,052 9,200 8,247

140

Annex Table 79: Engagement in wetland activities by household wealth category (% of hholds)
Firewood Wood-based tools Palm products Plant-based medicines Wild vegetables Wild fruits Roofing poles Reeds Building poles Palms Grass Wild leaves & stems Fishing Plant-based essential oils Hunting Clay Plant-based cosmetics Clay pottery Wild honey Insects Beeswax Timber for sale Charcoal All users 100% 96% 75% 71% 71% 67% 50% 46% 45% 45% 42% 25% 21% 16% 15% 12% 10% 9% 7% 6% 5% 4% 1% Richest 100% 96% 79% 82% 71% 50% 43% 50% 46% 36% 57% 21% 29% 11% 7% 7% 14% 14% 14% 11% 11% 7% 0% Richer 100% 96% 75% 71% 64% 82% 57% 32% 57% 39% 36% 25% 4% 18% 7% 11% 0% 14% 4% 7% 7% 4% 4% Poorer 100% 100% 79% 68% 71% 50% 46% 36% 39% 54% 43% 25% 21% 14% 4% 11% 14% 4% 7% 4% 4% 4% 0% Poorest 100% 89% 68% 64% 75% 86% 54% 64% 36% 50% 32% 29% 50% 21% 0% 18% 11% 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0%

Annex Table 80: Value of wetland activities by household wealth category (TSh/year)
All users Richest Richer Poorer Poorest Timber for sale 540,000 540,000[*] 540,000[*] 540,000[*] Fishing 353,612 360,189 353,612[*] 369,068 348,497 Wild honey 168,286 224,750 10,500 30,000 168,286[*] Building poles 159,726 39,398 162,831 114,434 54,122 Firewood 132,990 129,167 158,786 146,955 99,365 Roofing poles 86,941 93,391 82,231 84,123 84,628 Plant-based medicines 69,560 19,819 62,777 15,740 177,602 Clay 66,715 17,550 126,296 46,385 61,763 Palm products 49,074 85,481 20,510 58,155 29,833 Wild fruits 35,973 45,333 35,419 31,644 33,113 Wild leaves & stems 28,250 22,542 18,864 15,457 51,938 Palms 26,663 67,970 9,768 19,973 17,600 Hunting 26,133 1,200 26,133[*] 26,133[*] Charcoal 25,200 25,200 Beeswax 23,467 16,000 33,750 7,500 Wild vegetables 19,572 18,044 17,825 22,262 18,744 Grass 16,541 20,503 15,893 12,875 14,157 Clay pottery 14,145 11,825 17,813 20,000 2,306 Plant-based cosmetics 13,388 14,000 13,388[*] 13,388[*] Insects 12,563 10,500 23,200 5,000 12,563[*] Wood-based tools 10,052 16,733 11,509 9,671 1,688 Plant-based essential oils 9,200 9,200[*] 14,700 1,000 9,200[*] Reeds 8,247 5,688 11,130 10,442 8,100 Note: for items marked [*], in the absence of sufficient survey responses about quantity and/or price for that activity and category of household, user value has been computed by applying the average value for all user households.

141

Annex 8: Geo-reference data

Annex Table 81: Georeferencing of Mtanza-Msona Village households involved in the survey
No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Name BIZI hamlet Hasara Nyangalilo Omari Mazela Iddi Hassani Omary Mwegelo Mohamed Mtange Abdala Kisokola Juma Fimbo Zainabu Mapande Athumani Mpandule Abraham Luhando Zaina Rasi Salumu Mgane Juma Makangira Alfani Mgane Semeni Adilema Saidi Nyamtondo Hassan Ndete Mohamed A. Mtambo Zaria Rajabu Mkunduge Shida Mkenda Salumu Luhando Zamda Mbonde Haruna Gese Halfan Magenge Hassan Ngondo Hidila Mazera Omari Salum Gese Ally Katundu Moshi Mswamwili Mohamed Magenge Halfani Mazela Ally Seif Mbiteheni Addiona Mirandu Mwajuma M. Hausi Siwema Mkunduge Niachieni Yumba Hamisi Kirungi Juma Nindi Kidawa A. Ambangulu MTURUMA Hamlet Sudi Mohamed Nduli Mwajuma H. Mnyali Rashidi Issa Mpitu Masengo Kopa Moshi Mohamed Nduli Bakari Hapendeki Wambanguru Athumani Salum Mpitu Juma Salum Kopa Hasan Wingi Amiri Samata Hadija Salum Kopa Hassan Mohamed Mpondelwa Hashim Mpitu Musa Mpitu Asha Njiamoja Ramathani kalime Athumani Samata Seif Dihenga Bakari Rashidi Wastara Samata Salehe Samata Siwazuri Mangita Salehe Mtambo Abrahiman Funge Rashidi Mtambo Mwangaza Sule Bakari Amiri Kopa Omari Mtolea 1st reading 0427812 0427388 0427916 0426152 0428121 0427615 0427332 0427895 0426847 0428343 0428060 0427680 0427787 0427564 0427802 0428333 0428220 0427501 0427578 0428074 0428107 0427866 0427448 0427707 0428105 0427497 0427341 0427832 0427863 0427742 0427881 0427911 0427730 0427707 0427758 0427491 0427419 0422880 0427849 0427118 0427547 0425454 0427336 0427034 0427755 0427236 0427279 0425996 0427252 0427316 0427673 0427640 0428133 0427492 0426571 0427526 0427085 0425616 0427302 0428107 0427057 0427402 0427255 0427398 0427642 0427400 0427352 2nd reading 9133623 9133664 9133434 9132655 9133457 9133558 9131929 9133597 9132341 9133470 9133463 9133639 9133544 9133661 9133485 9133474 9133451 9133658 9133677 9133462 9132165 9133524 9133683 9133496 9131928 9133666 9133588 9133495 9133683 9133496 9133678 9133474 9133640 9133687 9133568 9133521 9133689 9133663 9133662 9133815 9133788 9132238 9133792 9133816 9133670 9133806 9133800 9132598 9133836 9133792 9133772 9133765 9133603 9133811 9132279 9133812 9133709 9132279 9133824 9131991 9133816 9133811 9133799 9133811 9133794 9133793 9133821

142

No 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Name Mohamed Shamte Kopa Faida Hassan Mkundi Salum Tuliani MSIGA Hamlet Salum Ndengenyu Issa Wamba Sabari Hasan Ndugu Wagilasi Salum Zowo Salum Gubika Amiri Seif Mbaya Still Kitambulio Bibie Mota Abdulrahiman Ngwele Athuman Mgomi Sharifa Athumani Zamlata Luando Nuru Mbembe Adam Kulinani Musa Mbaya Hamisi Matua MTANZA Hamlet Athumani Sererani Musa Mtowo Hamisa Mgonza Athumani Kulinani Salum Wingi Abdalah Mtowo Zena Mafugalo Ramadhani Ally Ismail Lusonzo Seif Macho Shaha Gawagani Juma Mgonza Habiba Fikiri Bi Moshi Mstafa Mwiga Chakupewa Mohamed Macho Hamisi Wingi Tausi malilima Nyamagenge Wasagala Tatu Kirungi Saidi Alife Haruna Athumani Issa Mgonza(Ponda) Asha Mgomi Moshi Makasamala

1st reading 0427320 0427860 0427272 0430622 0430536 0430710 0430730 0430869 0430506 0432650 0430606 0430418 0430885 0426373 0430379 0430565 0430653 0430292 0432756 0430696 0430307 0430296 0430120 0430219 0430306 0430231 0429892 0430299 0430230 0429953 0429976 0430163 0430393 0430299 0430073 0429953 0429913 0429892 0430336 0430255 0430233 0429961 0426456 0430385 0430155

2nd reading 9133791 9133658 9133676 9133662 9133620 9133840 9133856 9133919 9133751 9131350 9133637 9133699 9133761 9142664 9133768 9133775 9133672 9133860 9131448 9133832 9133662 9133627 9133617 9133634 9133630 9133630 9133514 9133642 9133708 9133682 9133389 9133616 9133705 9133042 9133749 9133682 9133673 9133637 9133697 9133780 9133750 9133696 9142525 9133796 9133732

Annex Table 82: Georeferencing of Mtanza-Msona Village facilities and landmarks

No 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Facility MTANZA Mtanza Borehole Mtanza primary School Mtanza Dispensary Godown (warehouse) Mtanza-Water tank Mosque MSONA Village office Msona primary school Market place Water place (river) Borehole (New)-1 Borehole (New)-2 1st reading 0430134 0430461 0430321 0430295 0430243 0430273 0427841 0427986 0427724 0427441 0427691 0427752 2nd reading 9133517 9133833 9133849 9133770 9133801 9133674 9133605 9133592 9133679 9133410 9133602 9133824

143

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) brings together States, government agencies, and a diverse range of non-governmental organizations in a unique partnership. As a Union of members, IUCN seeks to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable. http: //www.iucn.org

The goal of the project Strengthening Pro-Poor Wetland Conservation Using Integrated Biodiversity, Livelihood and Economic Assessment is that pro-poor approaches to the conservation and sustainable use of threatened wetlands are strengthened through improved capacity, awareness and information on the biodiversity, economic and livelihood value of aquatic ecosystems. Working at the global level and at field sites in Cambodia and Tanzania, the project aims to develop and apply integrated assessment methods that can generate planning and decision-support information to pro-poor approaches to wetland conservation.