Not everyone is benefiting equally from ngitili restoration, however. Land use patterns in the region are strongly influenced by Sukuma traditions, with women controlling low-income crops while men control higher-earning livestock and cash crops. The task force found this culture persisting with ngitili restoration, with married women rarely owning individual ngitili or having a meaningful say in their management (Monela et al 2004: 92). On the other hand, all women have access to communal ngitili, a right and resource which has helped them acquire essential household needs such as fuelwood, thatch, and food, and to save time on chores. “Women are better off as a result of ngitili revival, despite patriarchal systems, due to their increased access to forest products,” argues Professor Monela, the task force chairman (Monela 2005).
Better-off households are also capturing a bigger slice of benefits from reforestation measures than poorer families. The task force reported that differences in land and cattle ownership were the most obvious indicators regarding the scale of benefits reaped, and noted that well-off people were buying additional land from poorer households, thus exacerbating local inequity (Monela et al. 2004:92-93). At the other end of the scale, the poorest households cannot afford individual ngitili, although they are entitled to harvest products from communal enclosures, sometimes for a fee.
One impoverished woman, from Mwamnemha village, explained her predicament to a task force researcher: “I do not have a ngitili because I do not have money, nor cattle to allow me to buy land. I therefore purchase some of my needs from ngitili. If I want to purchase grass for thatching I have to pay 200 shillings [US$ 0.20] per bundle. If I want land for cultivation, I have to rent a piece for 12,000 shillings per acre. I am sometimes given these products free of charge, but this is very rare” (Monela et al. 2004:92).
Despite such problems, there have also been improvements for the poorest. The task force found that ngitili were being “used as one of the strategies through which some communities indirectly cushion the vulnerability of households classified as poor…those of the elderly, widows, and households with no assets.” Most communities surveyed included families with no cattle as those in need of help, even if they had some land. The task force reported that each village they visited either lent oxen to plough the fields of cattle-less households, or allowed these households free use of products from communal ngitili. In the village of Seseko, poor households were required to reciprocate by feeding the neighbors who plowed their fields (Monela et al. 2004:95).
Acknowledging the benefits gap between richer and poorer households, the task force warned that additional strategies would be required to prevent social conflicts from erupting and to ensure the long-term sustainability of ngitili. In particular, its report concludes, local institutions should make every effort to “enable people to hold on to land resources so that they can maintain ngitili and enjoy its products” (Monela et al. 2004:110).
