Of the more than 350,000 hectares of land now occupied by restored or newly established ngitili, roughly half is owned by groups and half by individuals. Communal enclosures average 164 hectares in size, while individual plots average 2.3 hectares (Kaale et al. 2003:9; Barrow and Mlenge 2004:1).
While the impressive speed of ngitili-based reforestation has been apparent for several years, its impact on people’s livelihoods and income has only recently been quantified. A major study by a ten-person task force, launched by the Tanzanian government and IUCN in 2004 and directed by Prof. Monela, combined detailed field research among 240 households in 12 villages with market surveys and other data analysis to quantify the HASHI project’s benefits (Monela 2005).
The task force estimated the cash value of benefits from ngitili in Shinyanga at US$14 per person per month—significantly higher than the average monthly spending per person in rural Tanzania, of US$8.50 (Monela et al 2004:6). Of the 16 natural products commonly harvested from ngitili, fuelwood, timber, and medicinal plants were found to be of greatest economic value to households. Other valuable outputs included fodder, thatch-grass for roofing, and wild foods such as bush meat, fruit, vegetables, and honey (Monela et al. 2004:54-56). (See “Table 2: Money grows on trees: Value of ngitili products used by households in Bukombe District, Shinyanga, 2004”.)
In surveyed villages, up to 64 percent of households reported that they were better off due to the benefits derived from ngitili. The task force, headed by Professor Monela, concluded that ngitili restoration “demonstrates the importance of tree-based natural resources to the economies of local people” and offers “a significant income source to supplement agriculture to diversify livelihoods in Shinyanga region” (Monela et al. 2004:7,16).
The study also documented the ripple effect of these economic benefits in people’s lives. Maintaining ngitili has enabled some villagers—mainly through sales of timber and other wood products—to pay school fees, purchase new farm equipment, and hire agricultural labor. Income generated by communal ngitili has been used to build classrooms, village offices, and healthcare centers. One farmer, ‘Jim’ of Seseko village, reported how he had been able to send his son to secondary school and his daughter to university in Dar es Salaam. “My ngitili assists me …I fatten my cattle there and therefore they fetch a good price. Then I use the money to educate my children” (Monela et al. 2004:91).
The new abundance of fruits, vegetables, and edible insects has also improved local health, while easy access to thatched grass has improved housing. Raised water tables due to soil conservation have increased water supplies within villages.
The study also confirms that villagers, particularly women, are saving considerable time by no longer having to walk long distances for fuelwood, fodder, and thatch. (See “Table 1: Improving livlihoods through ngitili: Key findings”.) This frees men and women to concentrate on other income-generating activities while also fostering improved child care and school attendance (Monela et al 2004:108). “I now only spend 20 minutes collecting fuel wood. In the past I spent 2-4 hours,” reported one Sukuma woman who harvests branches from the family ngitili (Barrow and Mlenge 2004:2).
According to Edmund Barrow, Coordinator of Forest and Dryland Conservation and Social Policy at IUCN’s Eastern Africa office, the task force findings “demonstrate that natural resource assets are significantly more important in terms of livelihood security and economic benefits than is generally assumed.” There are useful lessons to be drawn, he argues, both by Tanzania’s government and other comparable countries. “At a time when conservation is increasingly being asked to justify itself in the context of the Millennium Development Goals, the HASHI experience offers detailed insights into the reasons for considering biodiversity conservation as a key component of livelihood security and poverty reduction” (Barrow 2005b; Barrow and Mlenge 2004:1).
