CLUSA-NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT



[pic]

Fieldwork: Oct-Nov 1999

Presented back to villages: March 2000

CLUSA Facilitators:

Samuel Simute

Botany Hangombe

Cornelious Nkhata

Litea Minyoi

Doreen Simoonga

Forestry Department personnel:

Enock Muwaya

Kapambwe F.M.

Compiled by:

Cecilia Polansky

CHIULUKIRE LOCAL FOREST VILLAGE FOREST RESOURCES -- CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND 1

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE FOREST AND ITS MANAGEMENT 1

TOPOGRAPHY, VEGETATION, SOILS, CLIMATE 1

LAND TENURE AND USE RIGHTS 2

TRADITIONAL LAND AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION: 2

STATE LAND AND RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FOREST DEPARTMENT: 2

CURRENT MANAGEMENT 3

ORGANIZATION OF VILLAGES INTO GROUPS FOR PURPOSES OF MANAGEMENT AND FACILITATION 3

3. BRIEF SETTLEMENT AND FOREST USE HISTORY OF THE FIVE FOREST VILLAGE GROUPS 5

4. TABLES DESCRIBING VILLAGE POPULATION, LITERACY, OCCUPATIONS, LIVESTOCK 8

TABLE 1. POPULATIONS, LITERACY, AND MIGRATION OF VILLAGES INTERVIEWED 8

AREA 8

TABLE 2. ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES OF VILLAGES AROUND CHIULUKIRE FOREST 9

TABLE 3. LI VESTOCK CLAIMED BY VILLAGES AROUND CHIULUKIRE FOREST 9

5. TABLES DESCRIBING TIMBER, FIREWOOD, CONSTRUCTION, AND CHARCOAL SPECIES, STATUS, AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE FOREST BY VILLAGE AREA 10

TABLE 4. SAWTIMBER SPECIES, RANKING, AND STATUS IN CHIULUKIRE 11

TABLE 5. CHARCOAL SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE 11

TABLE 6. FIREWOOD SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE 12

TABLE 7. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE 12

6. TABLES DESCRIBING NONWOOD FOREST TREE PRODUCTS 13

TABLE 8. FRUIT TREE SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE 13

TABLE 9. HONEY TREE (BEE FORAGE) SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE 14

TABLE 10. FODDER TREE SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE 14

TABLE 11. MEDICINE TREE SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE 15

TABLE 12. WOODCARVING TREE SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE 15

7. TABLES DESCRIBING NONTREE FOREST PRODUCTS 16

TABLE 14. WILDLIFE SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE 16

TABLE 15. WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND IN CHIULUKIRE -- NONRANKED 16

TABLE 16. CATERPILLAR AND INSECT SPECIES FOUND IN CHIULUKIRE -- NONRANKED 17

TABLE 17. MUSHROOM SPECIES FOUND IN CHIULUKIRE -- NONRANKED 17

8. TABLES DESCRIBING NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCT COLLECTION 18

TABLE 18. FRUIT COLLECTION INFORMATION 18

TABLE 19. HONEY COLLECTION INFORMATION 19

TABLE 20. BROOM COLLECTION INFORMATION 19

TABLE 21. MUSHROOM COLLECTION INFORMATION 20

TABLE 22. CATERPILLAR COLLECTION INFORMATION 21

TABLE 23. OTHER FOREST PRODUCT COLLECTION INFORMATION: 22

CLUSA-NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

VILLAGER FOREST RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

FROM FIVE AREAS OF CHIULUKIRE LOCAL FOREST,

EASTERN PROVINCE, ZAMBIA

Fieldwork: Oct.-Nov. 1999

1. BACKGROUND

This is the summary of five reports composed after two weeks of fieldwork was executed by CLUSA facilitators, village informants, and Forest Department personnel around the Chiulukire Local Forest some 20 kilometers north of Katete. The assessment is a first step in moving toward a jointly-managed forest complete with management plan comprised of input from village populations surrounding or within the forest boundary alongside input from Forest Department and other interested parties. The principle is that if the local populations are able to influence and monitor the activities allowed in the forest, then the management plan will be more likely to succeed in the sense of being respected by all stakeholders. It will also succeed for a longer time frame than could be possible if caretakers of the resource are excluded from the management plan’s formulation.

Specifically, the objectives of the Village Resource Assessment (VRA) are:

To open up communication with those who are to assist in writing the management plan foreseen for the year 2000, so that resources can be seen through their eyes.

To apply several published and adapted tools for drawing input about forest resources from those who live closest to them, using techniques that are informal rather than technical in nature.

To encourage people (both villagers and Forest Department) to think about the future of the resources and the concept of sustainable management.

To update 20-plus-year-old government-published topographic maps with correct names and spatial arrangements of roads, villages, and streams.

To gauge the level of participation to be expected from different areas around the forest.

To identify which forest resources are most important to each village area.

To obtain some socio-economic information on each village so that certain needs can be identified, taking the place of a full-blown socio-economic study which could be more costly and time-consuming.

In short, information and maps from the VRA will lead to further discussion and formation of specific user groups later in the year 2000 so that a management plan can be drafted.

Information presented in the following sections was summarized from the following sources:

literature pertaining to the forest and Eastern Province

reports from a combination of interviews of different types conducted in the villages in 1999 (see Annex for methods used in each village)

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE FOREST AND ITS MANAGEMENT

TOPOGRAPHY, VEGETATION, SOILS, CLIMATE

The forest sits on the so-called plateau of Eastern Province with altitudes 900 to 1,200 meters. The landscape is broken by rocky hills especially in the south, where mostly well-forested moderate slopes lead to the higher summits. The vegetation of the hilliest areas are considered basically miombo woodlands dominated by Brachystegias and Julbernardias among others. The northern part of the forest contains some mopane woodland dominated by Colophospermum on gentler slopes. So-called munga woodland is scattered through the forest as well, dominated by the species Acacia, Combretum, Lannea, and others. Soils are mainly brown sandy loam with quartz stones and gravel in the topsoil (researched by D. Nkhata).

Rainfall is quoted from different sources to be between 600 and 1000 millimeters, falling mostly between December and March. Coldest months are June and July (15-18 degrees mean temp.); warmest months are September and October (mean temp. 21-26 degrees).

LAND TENURE AND USE RIGHTS

(Sections from Nkhata, and Simute page 9)

During the colonial era land was divided into Tribal Trust land and Crown land. These are now called Traditional and State land, respectively. The recognition by the traditional chief that control of some lands was being ceded to the Sate happened around 1955 to 1958 depending on the village describing the process, but in some cases the bordering villages did not learn of the Forest Department taking over responsibility for the forest until the 1960s (see Ndelemani report page 16), Kazika page 4, Gaveni page 4, Geleta page 5).

TRADITIONAL LAND AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION:

Traditional land, which is outside the forest boundary and covers 96% of the land in Eastern Province, may be occupied according to customary law without a formal right assigned to the land. Such land is controlled by the traditional chief, in this case Chief Mbangombe, whose palace is not far from Katete. (The Paramount Chief of the Chewa tribe, Yawa Undi, has a village just to the south of the forest. Chief Mbangombe is just below Undi in rank, a senior chief.) Individuals can request certificates of title to land, but if the Senior Chief perceives that granting a title will affect his popularity, it will most likely not be accepted. The Chief has a traditional council which advises on governance and other issues affecting the chiefdom.

The Senior Chief’s Village Headmen are his representatives who are authorized to allocate land locally, resolve disputes, and preside over traditional ceremonies. They also have power to grant permission to cut a tree around the village, where normally this act is forbidden and even punished because such trees are supposed to control wind and water erosion. It is taboo to cut trees and collect mushrooms and fruits from a graveyard.

When local villagers are locked up in a dispute, they begin at the lowest level, the Village Headmen, to attempt to resolve it. If this fails, they take it to a local traditional court called Khonde. Again if it fails they go to the Senior Chief’s Palace, and ultimately to the Paramount Chief for ruling. Beyond this, the conflict goes to the government court of law.

STATE LAND AND RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FOREST DEPARTMENT:

Land management and control i.e. state land is vested in the President of Zambia. The Commission of Lands has responsibility of controlling the land, which in Eastern Province comprises 280,000 hectares or 4%. The Forest Department as well as Education, Health, Agriculture, Water, the Judiciary, Community Development, and Wildlife Departments all fall under the District Administrator’s supervision. The first five entities mentioned are active in Chiulukire Local Forest.

It was pointed out repeatedly in the VRAs that the relationship between the Forest Department and the villages is bad. The wording goes so far as to say that the two are “enemies, that there has been “perpetual hatred” between the Forest Department and local community, and that the Forest Department officers are viewed as “hurdles” to their normal village life and traditional activities.

At least one village states that they are unaware of any written rights they have to products from the forest, but other villages say they know about a written list of products that are legal for them to collect from the forest for home use only. Apparently when the Chiulukire Hills in the south were designated as protected, no local labour was used nor local villages consulted on the location and clearing of the boundary lines. The actual boundary location is not clearly known in some places.

CURRENT MANAGEMENT

There is no management plan for the local forest and few controls over its use are possible because of transportation and personnel issues in the Forest Department. It is generally known that permits are required for non-home use of timber and other products, yet because of the trouble and expense there is some illicit tree felling within the boundary.

Illegally located villages and fields

Some villages have recently been established within the forest boundary, as have agricultural fields both adjacent and not adjacent to villages. Even in 1999, with the entry of CLUSA into the area for agricultural and forest management activities after permission granted through the Chief and the Forest Department, new fields have been cut into otherwise-continuous forest cover. It is not clear how this happened, but rumors came out conversationally in village interviews that some people thought the forest was going to be degazetted, and other people misunderstood the Chief’s admonition to clear no more fields in the forest. Even before these most recent incursions, there have been fields placed inside the boundary in the 1990s simply because no one was there to say it was not allowed. There seems to be more pressure for fertile land on the east side of the forest than the west. The north side, which is heavy into cotton growing, has a good number of tiny villages located within the boundary as well.

Use of fire

One of the principal management problems today is that of fire misuse. Many villages noted that in the past the Village Headman was informed by the chief of the period during which fires could be started to clear grass and to hunt: usually May/June in some parts of the forest and October/November in other parts (grazing areas) to allow fresh grass to grow. This system is no longer in place, and fires that are lit during the hottest driest months of August to October, lit mainly by hunters and children hunting mice, cause unnecessary damage to soil and seedlings. It is said also that fires drive more wildlife away now than before. Only fires close to villages or fields are controlled or snuffed with tree branches.

ORGANIZATION OF VILLAGES INTO GROUPS FOR PURPOSES OF MANAGEMENT AND FACILITATION

For purposes of being served by CLUSA facilitators and for organization into future resource management areas, each village surveyed (along with its neighbors) is assigned to one of five named groups. their names are:

CHINKHOMBE (Nthambwa-Musonda, Tontholani, and neighbors southwest of Chiulukire)

ZINAKA (Ndelemani and neighbors northwest of Chiulukire)

MAGOBO (Kazika and neighbors north of Chiulukire)

MATUNGA (Gaveni, Kazembe, and neighbors east of Chiulukire)

MKAIKA (Agasi, Chipilingo, and neighbors southof Chiulukire)

GOOD VERSUS BAD FOREST

Communities were asked what their perceptions of good and bad forests are. They are summarized in the following box.

One of the most striking related comments was made by one village that views forests as “areas for agricultural expansion.”

What is a good forest?

One which has diverse trees, good soils, and streams with running water, and which is suitable for habitation (Ndelemani)

One with various types of animals, with bamboos which indicate fertile soil, with big grass and a lot of trees, with good crop yields, and with various species of trees and vegetation (Kazika)

One with good availability of trees and tall grass which shows the soil is fertile; a good variety of both tree and animal species, giving a wider choice and several options as to what use it can have; soil which is not rocky as it can’t support vegetation favourably; soils that are well-drained; and terrain which is not too steep (Gaveni)

Forests maintain soil fertility, protect flow of rivers, and provide animal habitat. They provide durable trees that are used to build houses. Undisturbed forests can indicate culturally important burial grounds. Forests are used in the economic sense for hunting, grazing, collection of wood, collection of food, handicraft materials such as for mats and mortars, and utility items such as tool handles and brooms (Geleta)

What is a bad forest?

One in which the grass does not grow, where soils are clayey, where a lot of phingo and mphalankaya grow, and where there are few trees (Kazika)

One without a good number of trees and vegetation cover, without availability of wildlife, grass, and fodder, without a good range of fruit trees, but having a lot of thorn trees and shrubs, and poor soil that cannot support a good cover of vegetation (Gaveni)

3. BRIEF SETTLEMENT AND FOREST USE HISTORY OF THE FIVE FOREST VILLAGE GROUPS

CHINKHOMBE:

These people originally came from Sandure village in Petauke to Sasare area in Katete District in the 1930s. Due to conflicts there they migrated to the present-day Ndelemani in 1939. In 1943 they settled near the Mponda River, and to the present site in 1970.

The village of Tontholani is relatively new; they came in 1978 from Chiwanga village. The ethnic groups are a mixture of Nsenga and Chewa. They are matrilineal.

Chinkhombe settlers that are inside the gazetted forest boundary came from Cholowa village. They came in 1996 after hearing rumours that the forest was going to be degazetted, according to Nthambwa and Tontholani residents.

The distance they state that they walk to collect firewood varies from 500 meters (Cholowa) to 5 kilometers (Chiwanga).

ZINAKA:

Ndelemani first started in 1930. It was followed by the establishment of Chikukula and Mutopa in the 1950s, then Zinaka, Sekani, Kasanka, and Makusi. At the beginning there was a lot of game which was driven out as the number of villages started increasing noticeably in the 1980s. Settlers inside the forest came in 1997 looking for water plus arable land.

Most forest products are collected for sunsistence only. It was noticed that in the 1980s the population of caterpillars dropped as a large part of the forest was sprayed by tsetse fly eradication projects. As for mushrooms, no changes in availability have been noticed so far. The collection of honey and bamboo for baskets has shifted from subsistence to commercial use. At the same time, a decrease in bamboo availability is noted.

The other resource in decline is “choyo” or broom grass, supposedly due to unsustainable harvesting.

The distance that they state they walk to collect firewood varies from 50 meters (Kamkute, inside the forest) to 2 kilometers (Makusi).

MAGOBO:

The first to settle here were in Kazika in 1958. After 15 years, Kazika moved to Matunga area to be closer to school and clinic. In 1989 they came back to the original site. The next year, Mlangali village settled inside the forest in Magobo to seek fertile land to alleviate a hunger problem.

Declines in honey are blamed on the opening up of agricultural fields (it is not clear whether it is only that “bee trees” were overcut, or if cotton pesticides added to the decline). Availability of fruits also has declined, and this is blamed on bad harvesting methods which means cutting the tree down for the fruit. Caterpillars are also reported to be in decline. Again, interesting to note that insect-related forest products are all in decline, perhaps related to cotton chemicals.

This is the only area to have mentioned snails among their nontimber forest products. Regeneration and wildlife availability are perceived as poor due to fire management practices, and a decrease in number of tree species (biodiversity) is noted.

Interviewees stated that Agriculture Department has functioned in both pre- and post-colonial times up to now. Clark Cotton came in 1994, then Sable in 1995, then Cotmark in 1996, then Lonrho in 1997, and now CLUSA in 1999. There have been some less formal institutions such as briefcase dealers and women’s clubs organized by the ruling party.

The distance they state that they walk to collect firewood varies from 10 meters (villages inside forest) to 800 meters (Enock).

MATUNGA:

Kazika and Tambala came to this area first in 1929. Later came Katimbila, Gomani, Sunkhu, Nthambwa. Their village agricultural and other activities took place within forest boundaries after they were designated in 1958 because they hadn’t heard about the new administrative arrangement with the Forest Department until 1967. At that time they abandoned their fields and other activities inside the boundaries.

This trend was reversed starting in 1990 when people slowly started opening fields inside the forest again. The reason given for this is population pressures for more farmland, coupled with poor soil fertility on existing fields due to poor farming practices.

The villagers listed the following tree species as overused and for the reasons explained:

Brachystegia longifolia (Mfendaluzi): Good fiber and bark hives

Mimusops zeyhheri (Mchencha): Cut down to collect fruits

Julbernardia globiflora (Kamphonia) Good firewood

Combretum species (Kalama) Good pole quality

The distance that they state they walk to collect firewood varies from 500 meters (Kazembe) to 2 kilometers (Mkokeza).

MKAIKA:

This area covers a stretch about 7 kilometers long between Agasi and Chipilingo with Kalima, Geleta, Kawaza, and Kanyatula inbetween. The first to be built was Geleta, with settlers from Munyamadzi looking for more agricultural land in the 1940s. Settlers who broke away from Sumbwi came to Agasi around 1946. Chipilingo was founded in 1957 and Kawaza in 1959 with settlers from Nzamani, Chipata, and Chimtanga, Chadiza called by Chief Mban’gombe. Kanyatula and Kalima splintered from Kawaza and Agasi in 1983 and 1994.

The villagers state that they do not need to go as far as the protected forest (4-5 kilometers away) for cultivation, poles and so on because of locally fertile soils and availability of trees. Nonetheless, they report a decrease in quantity and size of the following:

Timber: mulombe, mubaba, chipepe, mgulilondo (Pterocarpus, Albizia versicolor, Faurea spp. , and Afzekua quanzensis)

Building and construction: musanga, nkula, nsungwi (Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia, Afzelia quanzensis?, Oxytenanthera abyssinica, wild bamboo)

The distance that they state they walk to collect firewood varies from 100 to 500 meters.

“The fact that we asked for information about what the villagers knew was novel for them. They were proud and glad to be given the opportunity to share their knowledge.” - Zinaka report, page 23

[pic] Caiphus Phiri – Magpbp

4. TABLES DESCRIBING VILLAGE POPULATION, LITERACY, OCCUPATIONS, LIVESTOCK

Tables 1 through 3 are summaries of information that was collected on a community profile interview sheet at 25 of the approximately 70 villages around the forest. The information is registered by village on CLUSA-produced maps that accompany this report.

The first table summarizes the population represented by the villages that filled out a questionnaire presented by CLUSA facilitators and village resource assistants. The populations given by the villagers themselves do include children, so that a literacy percentage can not be calculated. Migrations are supposed to represent the number of persons leaving or moving into the village each year, while seasonal movement is supposed to indicate the number of persons seeking work elsewhere just for part of the year. Figures with asterisks are subtotals with missing information for that area (for example, a village with some blanks not filled in) for that column.

TABLE 1. POPULATIONS, LITERACY, AND MIGRATION OF VILLAGES INTERVIEWED

|AREA |Population |Households headed by |Number literate |Migration per year/ |

|(No. of villages) |represented | | |seasonal |

| | |Male |Female |Males |Females | |

|Chinkhombe (7) |1148 |202 (78%) |59 (22%) |165 |96 |6 out/ 2 snl |

|Zinaka (11) |775 |178 (86%) |29 (14%) |105 |54 |1 in;2 out/ 2 snl* |

|Magobo (11) |434 |103 (61%) |67 (39%) |47 |24 |5 in;1out/ 1 snl |

|Matunga (11) |1860 |163 (74%) |58 (26%) |74 |34 |5 in/ 4 snl* |

|Mkaika (6) |637 |102 (79%) |27 (21%) |38 |16 |0 / 2 snl |

|TOTAL (46 vill) |4854 |748 |240 |429 |224 |11 in; 9 out; |

| | | | | | |11 snl |

On balance, the migration trends are not changing population much around the forest; however, Chinkhombe is susceptible to emigration and Gaveni to immigration. The number of persons seeking seasonal work elsewhere is very low.

Without knowing the total adult population, it is difficult to estimate the percentage of literacy among school-age and older persons. If the total population of 4854 were divided into family units of 2 parents plus 1 grandparent plus 4 children = 7 persons, of which perhaps 4 are old enough to be literate, then we would expect nearly 3000 to be literate. The actual total is 653, which could then indicate a theoretical level of fewer than 25%.

In each area there are close to twice as many males as females qualifying as literate, even in Magobo (Kazika village area) where 39% of the households are stated to be headed by women.

The next table describes various occupations claimed on the village profile sheet. Virtually all the households represented engaged in farming as one occupation, so farming is not mentioned on the list. The information is also portrayed on the accompanying map in symbol form.

TABLE 2. ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES OF VILLAGES AROUND CHIULUKIRE FOREST

| |NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS | |

|OCCUPATION |CHINKHOMBE |ZINAKA |MAGOBO |MATUNGA |MKAIKA |TOTAL |

|(POPULATION) |1148 |775 |434 |1860 |637 |4854 |

|Sawyer |15 |37 |11 |13 |7 |83 |

|Carpenter |2 |13 |8 |6 |9 |38 |

|Beekeeper |36 |54 |71 |44 |25 |230 |

|Broomtrader |2 |20 |17 |32 |5 |76 |

|Basketwvr |43 |36 |15 |19 |10 |123 |

|Herbalist |1 |5 |0 |13 |2 |21 |

|(Distance to forest |2 to 7 |0 to 6 |2.8 kilometers |1.5 to 3 |3 to 7 | |

|bound.) |kilometers |kilometers | |kilometers |kilometers | |

|Blacksmith |12 |38 |2 |7 |7 |66 |

|Brewer |16 |11 |0 |38 |24 |89 |

|Bricklayer |5 |3 |0 |27 |1 |36 |

|Gardener |0 |0 |9 |28 |34 |71 |

|Grocer |7 |3 |0 |9 |2 |21 |

|Handicraft |19 |24 |0 |10 |26 |79 |

|Potter |1 |11 |0 |16 |9 |37 |

|Other |Radio repair 3 | | |Radio repair 3 |Community worker 1| |

| |Bike repair 1 | | |Bike repair 16 | | |

| |Health worker 1 | | | | | |

It is of interest to focus on those activities that depend on Chiulukire forest cover. Suffice it to say that beekeeping is a big occupation on all sides of the forest but particularly in the west and north (Chinkhombe and Magobo). Sawing, carpentry, and basketweaving are also important in those areas.

Two occupations with further documentation are those of mushroom collectors and broom traders. The market for these are in Katete as well as Chipata; a collection and marketing study was done on these and other nontimber forest products in February 2000.

The following table describes the abundance of livestock recorded on village survey sheets.

TABLE 3. LI VESTOCK CLAIMED BY VILLAGES AROUND CHIULUKIRE FOREST

|Head of: |CHINKHOMBE |ZINAKA |MAGOBO |MATUNGA |MKAIKA |TOTALS |

| |(Pop. 1148) |(Pop. 775) |(Pop. 434) |(Pop. 1860) |(Pop. 637) |(Pop. 4854) |

|Goats |2345 |1655 |539 |220 |461 |5220 |

|Cattle |198 |120 |133 |156 |154 |761 |

|Pigs |162 |69 |56 |146 |143 |576 |

The following were also noted:

Chinkhombe: 50 Guinea fowl and 2 sheep

Zinaka: 7 rabbits

Magobo: 27 Guinea fowl and 30 doves

Matunga: 20 ducks

Chicken populations were not reported consistently from site to site so that information is not available.

Sheep were conspicuously absent in the area; the only reason given in the interview sheets from farmers in Geleta area is that sheep are difficult to buy for rearing purposes.

5. TABLES DESCRIBING TIMBER, FIREWOOD, CONSTRUCTION, AND CHARCOAL SPECIES, STATUS, AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE FOREST BY VILLAGE AREA

The following discussion on “Walk and Talk” and ranking applies to both timber and nontimber products enumerated in the forest area.

Villagers reported on tree uses and importance by interviews conducted inside the forest along walks (the “Walk and Talk” method) and by ranking exercises during which they placed stones beside listed tree species that they considered important to each use. These methods are described in more detail in annex.

The walk and talk delivered information as well as provided an informal way to open communication about forest resource use. The movement of people walking together through fresh air and nature provides a relaxed environment for exchange and draws out ideas that could go undiscovered in a more academic setting.

During the more formal ranking exercises, villagers placed a number of stones beside each tree named as useful for a specific use: the greater the importance of the species to that use, the greater the number of stones placed. Importance was defined by, and broken down into, several criteria that caused one species to be ranked higher than others as it accumulated more total stones rating each criterion.

BASED ON INDIVIDUAL VILLAGE RANKS AND THE NUMBER OF VILLAGES THAT CHOSE THE SPECIES, THE TOP THREE SPECIES IN EACH CATEGORY ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN EACH TABLE THAT FOLLOWS.

The reader will find the following:

- The status of many of the highest-ranked timber species is rare or declining. Sometimes the status conflicts from one area to another.

- The criteria for quality firewood and quality charcoal are similar (few sparks, little ash and smoke, longlasting), as are the highest-ranked species.

It is worth noting that Pericopsis angolensis appears in all of the wood products tables that follow, that it is ranked among the top three for each use, and that at the same time its status is considered by the villagers to be rare.

TABLE 4. SAWTIMBER SPECIES, RANKING, AND STATUS IN CHIULUKIRE

(top 3 species highlighted)

|SPECIES |LOCAL |SOURCE OF |STATUS |RANK |CRITERIA USED FOR TOP RANK (No. 1) |

| |NAMES |INFORMATION | | | |

|Afzelia quanzensis |mgalilondo |Tontholani |rare |4 of 5 |color dk brown, doesn’t split, easy to work |

| |msambafumo |Ntambwa |rare |3 of 4 |durable, saws well, works easy, doesn’t split |

| | |Ndelemani |? |3 of 5 |strong, beautiful, good nailing |

| | |Geleta |declining |- |- |

|Albizia versicolor |mtanga |Ntambwa |common |3 of 4 |durable, saws well, works easy, doesn’t split |

| |mtangatanga |Kazika |? |2 of 5 |doesn’t crack, resists insects, strong, beautiful |

|Burkea africana |kawidzi |Ntambwa |moderate |- |- |

|Diospyros |munchenchansh-umwa,|Gaveni |rare | 2 of 2 |durable, available, easily worked, beautiful, |

|mespiliformis? |mchenja, | | | |straight |

| |muthukuphako | | | | |

|Faurea saligna |chiyele |Geleta |? |3 of 6 |works well, is durable, nice finish |

|Faurea speciosa |chipepe |Tontholani |moderate |3 of 5 |color dk brown, doesn’t split, easy to work |

| | |Ntambwa |moderate |2 of 4 |durable, saws well, works easy, doesn’t split |

| | |Kazika |? |5 of 5 |doesn’t crack, resists insects, strong, beautiful |

| | |Gaveni |rare |- |soft wood for planks |

| | |Geleta |declining |6 of 6 |works well, is durable, nice finish |

|Khaya nyasica |mubaba |Tontholani |rare |5 of 5 |color dk brown, doesn’t split, easy to work |

| |mubawa |Ntambwa |rare |4 of 4 |durable, saws well, works easy, doesn’t split |

| |mbawa |Ndelemani |? |4 of 5 |strong, beautiful, good nailing |

| | |Kazika |common |4 of 5 |doesn’t crack, resists insects, strong, beautiful |

| | |Geleta |declining |2 of 6 |works well, is durable, nice finish |

|Kirkia acuminata |muzumba |Kazika |? |3 of 5 |doesn’t crack, resists insects, strong, beautiful |

|Pericopsis angolensis|mubanga |Ntambwa |rare |2 of 4 |durable, saws well, works easy, doesn’t split |

| |muwanga |Ndelemani |? |2 of 5 |strong, beautiful, good nailing |

| | |Kazika |? |1 of 5 |doesn’t crack, resists insects, strong, beautiful |

| | |Geleta |? |2 of 6 |works well, is durable, nice finish |

|Pterocarpus |mlombe |Tontholani |rare |1 of 5 |color dk brown, doesn’t split, easy to work |

|angolensis |mukwa |Ntambwa |rare |1 of 4 |durable, saws well, works easy, doesn’t split |

| | |Ndelemani |? |1 of 5 |strong, beautiful, good nailing |

| | |Kazika |? |1 of 5 |doesn’t crack, resists insects, strong, beautiful |

| | |Gaveni |? |1 of 2 |durable, available, easily worked, beautiful, |

| | |Geleta |declining |1 of 6 |straight |

| | | | | |works well, is durable, nice finish |

|Pterocarpus |nkula |Ntambwa |rare |- |- |

|chrysothrix | |Geleta |declining |- |- |

|Sclerocarya caffra |msewe |Tontholani |? |2 of 5 |color dk brown, doesn’t split, easy to work |

| |msebe |Ntambwa |? |4 of 4 |durable, saws well, works easy, doesn’t split |

| | |Kazika |common |- |- |

|Terminalia sericea |gonondo |Ndelemani | |5 of 5 |strong, beautiful, good nailing |

| | |Kazika |rare |- |- |

| | |Ntambwa |common |- |- |

|Uapaca kirkiana |musuku |Geleta |? |4 of 6 |works well, is durable, nice finish |

|Uapaca sansibarica |kasokolowe |Geleta |? |5 of 6 |works well, is durable, nice finish |

TABLE 5. CHARCOAL SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE

(top 3 species highlighted)

|SPECIES |LOCAL |SOURCE OF |RANK |CRITERIA USED FOR TOP RANK (No. 1) |

| |NAMES |INFORMATION | | |

|Albizia harveyi |mkalankanga |Ntambwa |4 of 6 |burns well, no smoke, longlasting |

|Brachystegia |mfendaluzi |Tontholani |3 of 4 |burns well, little ash, no sparks (status: moderate)|

|longifolia |mbovu |Ndelemani |5 of 5 |burns hot, little ash, longlasting |

|Burkea africana |kawidzi |Ntambwa |2 of 6 |burns well, no smoke, longlasting |

|Cassia abbreviata |mleza |Tontholani |4 of 4 |burns well, little ash, no sparks |

|Combretum mechowianum|kangolo |Ntambwa |5 of 6 |burns well, no smoke, longlasting |

| |mkute | | | |

|Dalbergia martini |phingo |Ntambwa |4 of 6 |burns well, no smoke, longlasting |

|Julbernardia |kamponi |Tontholani |1 of 4 |burns well, little ash, no sparks |

|globiflora | |Ntambwa |3 of 6 |burns well, no smoke, longlasting |

| | |Ndelemani |2 of 5 |burns hot, little ash, longlasting |

|Julbernardia |mtondo |Ntambwa |3 of 6 |burns well, no smoke, longlasting |

|paniculata | |Ndelemani |3 of 5 |burns hot, little ash, longlasting |

|Pericopsis angolensis|muwanga |Tontholani |2 of 4 |burns well, little ash, no sparks (status: rare) |

| |mubanga |Ntambwa |1 of 6 |burns well, no smoke, longlasting |

| | |Ndelemani |1 of 5 |burns hot, little ash, longlasting |

| | |Gaveni |- |(only ranked for fuel/firewood) |

|Pterocarpus |mbangozi |Ntambwa |3 of 6 |burns well, no smoke, longlasting (status: rare) |

|rotundifolia | | | | |

|Terminalia sericea |ngonondo |Ntambwa |6 of 6 |burns well, no smoke, longlasting |

| |gonondo |Ndelemani |4 of 5 |burns hot, little ash, longlasting |

TABLE 6. FIREWOOD SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE

(top 3 species highlighted)

|SPECIES |LOCAL |SOURCE OF |RANK |CRITERIA USED FOR TOP RANK (No. 1) |

| |NAMES |INFORMATION | | |

|Brachystegia boehmii |mchenga |Tontholani |3 of 4 |burns well, lot of heat, little ash and smoke, easy to |

| | |Kazika |4 of 5 |cut |

| | | | |common, longlasting; little ash, spark, & [nontoxic] |

| | | | |smoke |

|Brachystegia |mfendaluzi |Tontholani |4 of 4 |burns well, lot of heat, little ash and smoke, easy to |

|longifolia |bovu |Ndelemani |6 of 6 |cut |

| | |Geleta |4 of 4 |longlasting, little ash and smoke (bovu smokes) |

| | | | |little smoke and ash, strong fire, easy to cut |

|Brachystegia manga |msumbu |Ndelemani |3 of 6 |longlasting, little ash and smoke |

| | |Geleta |2 of 4 |little smoke and ash, strong fire, easy to cut |

|Brachystegia |msale |Tontholani |3 of 4 |burns well, lot of heat, little ash and smoke, easy to |

|spiciformis |mputi | | |cut |

|Combretum spp. |kalama |Kazika |3 of 5 |common, longlasting; little ash, spark, & [nontoxic] |

| | | | |smoke |

|Julbernardia |kamponi |Tontholani |2 of 4 |burns well, lot of heat, little ash and smoke, easy to |

|globiflora | |Ndelemani |1 of 6 |cut |

| | |Kazika |1 of 5 |longlasting, little ash and smoke |

| | | | |common, longlasting; little ash, spark, & [nontoxic] |

| | | | |smoke |

|Julbernardia |mtondo |Ndelemani |5 of 6 |longlasting, little ash and smoke |

|paniculata |mutondo |Gaveni |1 of 3 |available, longlasting, little ash, smoke not harsh, |

| | |Geleta |1 of 4 |heavy |

| | | | |little smoke and ash, strong fire, easy to cut |

|Lonchocarpus capassa |chimpakasa |Kazika |5 of 5 |common, longlasting; little ash, spark, & [nontoxic] |

| | | | |smoke |

|Pericopsis angolensis|muwanga |Tontholani |2 of 4 |burns well, lot of heat, little ash and smoke, easy to |

| |mubanga |Ndelemani |2 of 6 |cut |

| | |Geleta |3 of 4 |longlasting, little ash and smoke |

| | | | |little smoke and ash, strong fire, easy to cut |

|Piliostigma |msekese |Gaveni |3 of 3 |available, longlasting, little ash, smoke not harsh, |

|thonningii | | | |heavy |

|Pterocarpus |mlombe |Gaveni |2 of 3 |available, longlasting, little ash, smoke not harsh, |

|angolensis |mukwa | | |heavy |

|Pterocarpus |mbangozi |Ndelemani |4 of 6 |longlasting, little ash and smoke |

|rotundifolia | |Kazika |2 of 5 |common, longlasting; little ash, spark, & [nontoxic] |

| | | | |smoke |

TABLE 7. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE

(top 3 species highlighted)

|SPECIES |LOCAL |SOURCE OF |RANK |CRITERIA USED FOR TOP RANK (No. 1) |

| |NAMES |INFORMATION | | |

|Boscia angustifolia? |msuse |Geleta |2 of 5 |durable and large pieces (for construction) |

|Diospyros kirkii |muchelekete |Geleta |4 of 5 |durable and large pieces for construction |

| |muchenjelekete | | | |

|Faurea saligna |chiyele |Geleta |3 of 5 |durable and straight poles |

|Julbernardia |mtondo |Gaveni |1 of 2 |straight, durable, easy to work, termite-resistant poles|

|paniculata |mutondo | | | |

|Parinari |mpundu |Geleta |2 of 5 |durable and straight poles: “splits easily and can be |

|curatellifolia | | | |used |

| | | | |in place of bamboos” (Know Your Trees p. 276) |

|Pericopsis angolensis|muwanga |Geleta |1 of 5 |durable and large pieces (for construction) |

| |mubanga | | | |

|Piliostigma |msekese |Gaveni |2 of 2 |straight, durable, easy to work, termite-resistant poles|

|thonningii | | | | |

|Pterocarpus |mlombe |Geleta |5 of 5 |durable and large pieces for construction; status rare |

|angolensis |mukwa | | | |

|Pterocarpus |nkula |Geleta |4 of 5 |durable and large pieces for construction; status |

|chrysothrix | | | |declining |

|Terminalia sericea |ngonondo |Geleta |1 of 5 |durable and straight poles |

| |gonondo |Geleta |3 of 5 |durable and large pieces (for construction) |

|Uapaca sansibarica |kasokolowe |Geleta |1 of 5 |durable and straight poles |

6. TABLES DESCRIBING NONWOOD FOREST TREE PRODUCTS

TABLE 8. FRUIT TREE SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE

(top 3 species highlighted)

|SPECIES |LOCAL |SOURCE OF |RANK |CRITERIA USED FOR TOP RANK (No. 1) |

| |NAMES |INFORMATION | | |

|Adansonia digitata |mlambe |Tontholani |3 of 6 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

| |baobob |Ntambwa |1 of 9 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

| |mbuyu |Geleta |- |- |

|Annona senegalensis |mpovya |Tontholani |2 of 6 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

| | |Kazika |2 of 5 |available, filling, sweet, medicinal, long season |

|Bridelia cathartica |mkumbya |Ntambwa |3 of 9 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

| |ndola | | | |

|Diospyros |mchenja |Tontholani |1 of 6 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

|mespiliformis |nchenja |Ntambwa |1 of 9 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

| | |Kazika |1 of 5 |available, filling, sweet, medicinal, long season |

| | |Geleta |5 of 9 |taste, satisfaction, used in other dishes |

|Flacourtia indica |nthudza |Tontholani |5 of 6 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

| | |Ntambwa |2 of 9 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

| | |Kazika |2 of 5 |available, filling, sweet, medicinal, long season |

| | |Gaveni |1 of 2 |available, accessible, sweet, filling |

| | |Geleta |4 of 9 |taste, satisfaction, used in other dishes |

|Garcinia huillensis |matatane |Ntambwa |4 of 9 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

|Hexalobus monopetalus|mkanda |Ntambwa |2 of 9 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

| |nchembele | | | |

|Lannea discolor |shaumbu |Tontholani |6 of 6 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

| | |Ntambwa |5 of 9 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

|Lannea katangensis |mbyulu |Tontholani |4 of 6 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

| |mangolobya |Ntambwa |5 of 9 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

| | |Kazika |3 of 5 |available, filling, sweet, medicinal, long season |

|Parinari |mpundu |Geleta |2 of 9 |taste, satisfaction, used in other dishes |

|curatellifolia | | | | |

|Piliostigma |msekese |Gaveni |2 of 2 |available, accessible, sweet, filling |

|thonningii | | | | |

|Strychnos innocua (or|meteme |Geleta |3 of 9 |taste, satisfaction, used in other dishes |

|S.occuloides, | | | | |

|S.spinosa |temya, | | |not eaten, according to Know Your Trees p. 67 |

| |nthemya | | | |

|Uapaca kirkiana |musuku |Geleta |1 of 9 |taste, satisfaction, used in other dishes |

|Ximenia americana |nthengeze |Tontholani |5 of 6 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

| |nthengele |Ntambwa |4 of 9 |sweetness and satisfaction (carbohydrate content) |

| | |Kazika |4 of 5 |available, filling, sweet, medicinal, long season |

Other fruit species listed: mafo, mbulumbushe, muchisu (Geleta);

shaumbu, mbulumbusha, muyandola, makundanchembele, kacele, nkuyu (Kazika);

kacele, mlambe, nthongole, shaumbu, matembola, nkandachombole, dzaye, muchonga,

maliambou, matowa, chitumbulamalo (Ndelemani).

TABLE 9. HONEY TREE (BEE FORAGE) SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE

(top 3 species highlighted)

|SPECIES |LOCAL |SOURCE OF |RANK |CRITERIA USED FOR TOP RANK (No. 1) |

| |NAMES |INFORMATION | | |

|Acacia galpini |mkunku |Ntambwa |5 of 7 |many flowers, big comb |

|Adansonia digitata |mlambe |Ndelemani |4 of 7 |sweetness, flavour |

| |baobob | | | |

|Adenia senensis |mwanya |Tontholani |3 of 7 |sweetness, flavour |

|Afzelia quanzensis |msambamafumu |Tontholani |2 of 7 |sweetness, flavour |

| |mgalilondo | | | |

|Brachystegia |mbovu |Tontholani |4 of 7 |sweetness, flavour |

|longifolia |bovu |Ntambwa |2 of 7 |many flowers, big comb |

| | |Ndelemani |3 of 7 |sweetness, flavour |

|Combretum molle |kalama |Tontholani |1 of 7 |sweetness, flavour |

| |mkalama |Ntambwa |3 of 7 |many flowers, big comb |

| | |Ndelemani |3 of 7 |sweetness, flavour |

| | |Kazika |2 of 5 |available, many flowers, no ill health effects |

|Dalbergiella nyasae |mkanganjovu |Kazika |3 of 5 |available, many flowers, no ill health effects |

|Diplorynchus |mtowa |Tontholani |4 of 7 |sweetness, flavour |

|condylocarpon |mtombozi |Ndelemani |5 of 7 |sweetness, flavour |

|Julbernardia |kamponi |Ntambwa |1 of 7 |many flowers, big comb |

|globiflora | |Kazika |1 of 5 |available, many flowers, no ill health effects |

|Lannea discolor |shaumbu |Kazika |2 of 5 |available, many flowers, no ill health effects |

|Pseudolachnostylis |msolo |Tontholani |4 of 7 |sweetness, flavour |

|maprouneifolia |soyo? |Ndelemani |6 of 7 |sweetness, flavour |

|Pterocarpus |mbangozi |Tontholani |1 of 7 |sweetness, flavour (RECALL STATUS: RARE) |

|rotundifolia | |Ndelemani |1 of 7 |sweetness, flavour |

| | |Kazika |1 of 5 |available, many flowers, no ill health effects |

|Sterculia africana |mlele |Ntambwa |3 of 7 |many flowers, big comb |

|Terminalia sericea |gonondo |Ntambwa |4 of 7 |many flowers, big comb |

| | |Ndelemani |2 of 7 |sweetness, flavour |

TABLE 10. FODDER TREE SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE

(top 3 species highlighted)

|SPECIES |LOCAL |SOURCE OF |RANK |CRITERIA USED FOR TOP RANK (No. 1) |

| |NAMES |INFORMATION | | |

|Acacia albida |mungwi |Kazika |4 of 5 |palatable, available, fattening, soft-leafed, sprout |

| |mujagwe? | | |quickly |

| |mutubetube |Galeta |4 of 7 |palatable |

|Albizia harveyi? |kalumpangal |Geleta |1 of 7 |palatable |

| |mukangala | | | |

|Bauhinia petersiana |mphondo |Kazika |2 of 5 |palatable, available, fattening, soft-leafed, sprout |

| |mpondo | | |quickly |

|Diplorynchus |mtowa |Kazika |1 of 5 |palatable, available, fattening, soft-leafed, sprout |

|condylocarpon |mtombozi | | |quickly |

|Diplorynchus |mtowa |Geleta |5 of 7 |palatable |

|condylocarpon |mtombozi | | | |

|Parinari |mpundu |Geleta |3 of 7 |palatable |

|curatellifolia | | | | |

|Piliostigma |msekese |Kazika |1 of 1 |available, accessible, sprouts well, large leaves |

|thonningii | |Geleta |3 of 7 |palatable |

|Pseudolachnostylis |msolo |Kazika |3 of 5 |palatable, available, fattening, soft-leafed, sprout |

|maprouneifolia |soyo? | | |quickly |

|Strychnos spinosa |chizimbili |Kazika |4 of 5 |palatable, available, fattening, soft-leafed, sprout |

| |mzimbili | | |quickly |

|Swartzia |mchelekete |Geleta |2 of 7 |palatable |

|madagascariensis | | | | |

|Ziziphus abyssinica |tukankhande |Geleta |5 of 7 |palatable |

| |kankande | | | |

TABLE 11. MEDICINE TREE SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE

(top 3 species highlighted)

|SPECIES |LOCAL |SOURCE OF * |RANK |CRITERIA USED FOR TOP RANK (No. 1) |

| |NAMES |INFORMATION | | |

| |shopopela |Geleta |4 of 6 |most commonly passed on to other people |

|Acacia polyacantha? |changaluci |Kazika |3 of 5 |heals quickly many illnesses, available, no side effects|

|Albizia amara? |knkhalamba |Kazika |2 of 5 |heals quickly many illnesses, available, no side effects|

| |mkalanga |Geleta |4 of 6 |most commonly passed on to other people |

|Cassia abbreviata |munyoka |Geleta |3 of 6 |most commonly passed on to other people |

| |nyoka | | | |

|Dalbergiella nyasae |mkanganjovu |Kazika |4 of 5 |heals quickly many illnesses, available, no side effects|

|Diospyros |muthukhupha-ko |Gaveni |3 of 5 |accessible, many illnesses, many parts of tree, abundant|

|mespiliformis? | | | | |

|Flacourtia indica |nthudza |Gaveni |1 of 5 |accessible, many illnesses, many parts of tree, abundant|

|Julbernardia |mtondo |Gaveni |2 of 5 |accessible, many illnesses, many parts of tree, abundant|

|paniculata |mutondo | | | |

|Lannea discolor |mshaumbu |Geleta |3 of 6 |most commonly passed on to other people |

| |shaumbu | | | |

|Piliostigma |msekese |Gaveni |1 of 5 |accessible, many illnesses, many parts of tree, abundant|

|thonningii | | | | |

|Pterocarpus |mlombe |Kazika |1 of 5 |heals quickly many illnesses, available, no side effects|

|angolensis |mukwa |Gaveni |1 of 5 |accessible, many illnesses, many parts of tree, abundant|

|Ziziphus abyssinica |mshabankunzi |Geleta |2 of 6 |most commonly passed on to other people |

|Salix, Ximenia, or |mutunda |Kazika |1 of 5 |heals quickly many illnesses, available, no side effects|

|Brachystegia |mtunda |Geleta |1 of 6 |most commonly passed on to other people |

|taxifolia (tunda)? | | | | |

* Without exception in the VRA reports, it was mentioned that information on medicinal uses of trees was normally paid for, and thus was not so freely given out for the assessment. This may explain the difficulty in finding scientific equivalents for many names of trees given by informants.

TABLE 12. WOODCARVING TREE SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE

|SPECIES |LOCAL |SOURCE OF |RANK |CRITERIA USED FOR TOP RANK (No. 1) |

| |NAMES |INFORMATION | | |

| |mtukumpako |Geleta |1 of 6 |beauty, softness, workability |

|Commiphora mollis |mbwabwa |Geleta |2 of 6 |beauty, softness, workability |

|Faurea saligna |chiyele |Geleta |5 of 6 |beauty, softness, workability |

|Ficus sycomorus |mkuyu |Geleta |4 of 6 |beauty, softness, workability |

|Mopane? |mwavi |Geleta |1 of 6 |beauty, softness, workability |

|Vitex doniana |mfinfya |Geleta |3 of 6 |beauty, softness, workability |

TABLE 13. BARKROPE TREE SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE

|SPECIES |LOCAL |SOURCE OF |RANK |CRITERIA USED FOR TOP RANK (No. 1) |

| |NAMES |INFORMATION | | |

|Brachystegia |mfendaluzi |Geleta |1 of 3 |strength, softness, length of strip |

|longifolia | | | | |

|Brachystegia |“msumbu” – probably|Geleta |2 of 3 |strength, softness, length of strip |

|microphylla or |rather mukongolo | | | |

|glaucescens |p.119 Know Your | | | |

| |Trees | | | |

|Brachystegia |mputi |Geleta |3 of 3 |strength, softness, length of strip |

|spiciformis | | | | |

7. TABLES DESCRIBING NONTREE FOREST PRODUCTS

TABLE 14. WILDLIFE SPECIES AND RANKING IN CHIULUKIRE

|SPECIES |LOCAL |SOURCE OF |RANK |CRITERIA USED FOR TOP RANK (No. 1) |

| |NAMES |INFORMATION | | |

|Hare |kalulu |Kazika |1 of 7 |large populations, |

| | | | |disease-free, |

| | | | |soft meat, |

| | | | |easily killed |

|Duiker |insa |Kazika |2 of 7 | |

|Cane rat |ncenzi |Kazika |3 of 7 | |

| |minkwenele |Kazika |4 of 7 | |

|Mouse |mbeba |Kazika |4 of 7 | |

| |kafindo |Kazika |5 of 7 | |

|Rock-rabbit |mbila |Kazika |6 of 7 | |

| |kapate |Kazika |6 of 7 | |

TABLE 15. WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND IN CHIULUKIRE -- NONRANKED

|SPECIES |LOCAL |SOURCE OF INFORMATION |REMARKS |

| |NAMES | | |

|Hare |kalulu |Ntambwa, Ndelemani, Kazika, Geleta |- Ndelemani claims of many species of wildlife are|

| | | |disputed by some |

| | | |- Gaveni villages gave no lists of animals and |

| | | |birds in forest near them. |

| |gololo |Ntambwa | |

|Mouse |mbeba |Ntambwa, Ndelemani, Kazika | |

|Impala |nswala |Ntambwa, Ndelemani | |

|Waterbuck |nankhodzwe |Ndelemani | |

|Leopard |kambuku |Ndelemani | |

|Antelope | |Ndelemani | |

|Bushbaby |kumundi |Ndelemani | |

|Great galago |changa |Geleta | |

| |kanende |Ntambwa | |

|Gambia rat |nchenzi |Kazika | |

|Baboon |nyani (kolwe) |Kazika | |

| |fututu |Kazika | |

| |chitungu |Kazika | |

| |fundwe |Geleta | |

| |kafundo |Geleta | |

| |pate |Kazika | |

| |nsimba |Kazika | |

| |tomfa |Kazika | |

|Porcupine |nungu |Ntambwa, Ndelemani | |

|Duiker |insa |Ntambwa, Ndelemani, Kazika | |

|Monkeys (vervet) |pusi |Ntambwa, Ndelemani, Geleta | |

|Birds: |nsengu |Ntambwa | |

| |lumbe |Ntambwa | |

| |nyapwele |Ntambwa, Kazika | |

| |njiba |Ntambwa, Kazika | |

| |nkombokokombo |Kazika | |

| |kamutande | | |

| |miyepa | | |

| |mpungu | | |

| |nyamucengo | | |

| |sisi | | |

| |timba | | |

| |solo | | |

| |myuweto | | |

| |mgubani | | |

|Woodpecker |mpeta | | |

| |nkhanga | | |

| |gonkomola | | |

| |kataba | | |

TABLE 16. CATERPILLAR AND INSECT SPECIES FOUND IN CHIULUKIRE -- NONRANKED

|SPECIES OF |LOCAL NAMES |SOURCE OF INFORMATION |

|CATERPILLAR |viyabweyabwe |Kazika |

|“ |matando |Kazika |

|“ |mphalabungu |Kazika: now absent due to 1970s tsetse fly spraying. |

| | |Also found in Geleta. |

|“ |kapale |Kazika, Ntambwa |

|“ |mapala/mapata |Kazika, Ndelemani, Geleta, Ntambwa |

|“ |masase |Kazika, Ndelemani, Geleta, Ntambwa |

|“ |nthowa |Ndelemani, Ntambwa |

|“ |vilungulungo |Ndelemani, Geleta, Ntambwa |

|“ |vitole |Geleta |

|“ |ntowa |Geleta |

|INSECT |chididza (grasshopper) |Ntambwa |

|“ |nyenje |Ntambwa |

|“ |mapata |Ntambwa |

|“ |mzozo |Kazika |

|“ |chinyanyau |“ |

|“ |vinyolo |“ |

|“ |kapuche |“ |

|“ |fuse |“ |

|“ |visenda |“ |

|“ |nkumbu |“ |

|“ |nbwicibwici |“ |

|“ |mgegedule |“ |

|“ |palanzhi |“ |

|“ |vimphuzi |“ |

TABLE 17. MUSHROOM SPECIES FOUND IN CHIULUKIRE -- NONRANKED

| |SPECIES |SOURCE OF INFORMATION |TIME HARVESTED |

|1 |bowa fisi |Ntambwa, Kazika |Feb |

|2 |bowa kombo |Kazika, Geleta |Nov |

|3 |chipindi |Ntambwa, Ndelemani, Kazika, Gaveni, Geleta |Feb-March |

|4 |kachipanda/do |Ntambwa, Ndelemani, Kazika, Geleta |Feb-March |

|5 |kachombo |Ntambwa, Ndelemani |Jan-Feb |

|6 |kalabe labe |Ntambwa, Ndelemani, Kazika, Gaveni, Geleta |Dec-Feb |

|7 |kalimtafu |Ndelemani |Feb-March |

|8 |kanyondola |Ndelemani |Dec-Jan |

|9 |katelela |Ntambwa | |

|10 |kawenze |Ntambwa | |

|11 |lilimilangombo |Ndelemani |Feb-March |

|12 |manda |Ntambwa, Geleta | |

|13 |manyame |Ntambwa, Ndelemani, Kazika, Gaveni |Feb-March |

|14 |ndelemya (zanje) |Ntambwa, Ndelemani, Gaveni, Geleta |Dec-Feb |

|15 |ndovuzababa |Ndelemani |Feb-March |

|16 |ngozi |Ntambwa | |

|17 |nthimbwa |Kazika |Feb-March |

|18 |nyonzwe |Ntambwa, Ndelemani, Kazika, Geleta |Jan/Nov-March |

8. TABLES DESCRIBING NONTIMBER FOREST PRODUCT COLLECTION

These tables are meant to give preliminary ideas of the markets, collection units, collectors, and prices of forest products of Chiulukire. Further study will be made of some markets in the next year.

TABLE 18. FRUIT COLLECTION INFORMATION

(Note: availability of fruit throughout the year, but lack of markets.)

|SOURCE OF | |YEARLY |TIME SPENT |AMOUNT PER TRIP | | | |

|INFORMATION |HARVEST PERIODS |TRIPS PER |PER TRIP |COLLECTED |PRICE PER UNIT |MARKET | |

| | |HOUSEHOLD | | | |PLACE | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |OTHER REMARKS |

|Kazika: | |seve-ral | | |local con- |none (local) |Generalized term “fruits” described as|

|Diospyros |Feb-April | |½ hour |5 kg |sumption | |being collected June through October |

|Gaveni: | | | | | | | |

|Flacourtia |Aug-Jan | | | | | | |

|Ximenia |Aug-Jan |un-known |un-known |just local consump|none |none |None of these are collected for |

|Uapaca |Nov-Jan | | | | | |selling at market. |

|Annona |Nov-Dec | | | | | | |

|Diospyros |Sept-Dec | | | | | | |

|Geleta: | | | | | | | |

|Hexalobus |Jan-Mar | | | | | | |

|Annona | | | | | | | |

|Syzygium | | | | | | |Everyone in village collects fruit, |

| | | | | | | |though not to sell. |

|Strychnos |Jul-Sept | | | | | | |

|Hyphenae | |not |not |local |not given |none |This table shows the diversity of |

|Diospyros | | | | | | |fruits available throughout the year. |

| | |given |given | | | | |

|Flacourtia |Apr-June | | | | | | |

|Parinari | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

|Uapaca |Oct-Nov | | | | | | |

|kirkii | | | | | | | |

|nitida | | | | | | | |

|Baobob | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

|mbulumbushe |not given | | | | | | |

|mandakulumw | | | | | | | |

|kangele | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

TABLE 19. HONEY COLLECTION INFORMATION

| | |No. |TIME SPENT |AMOUNT PER | | | |

| |HARVEST PERIODS |YEARLY |PER TRIP |TRIP COLLECTED|PRICE PER UNIT |MARKET PLACE | |

| | |TRIPS PER| | | | | |

|SOURCE OF | |HOUSEHOLD| | | | | |

|INFORMATION | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |OTHER REMARKS |

|Ntambwa |April-June, | | |15 kg, with |k500 per cup, |local and |Collected by men only, and |

| |Nov-Dec |40 |1 hour |comb |with comb |Katete |at night. |

| | | | | | | |Can be used as payment for casual |

| | | | | | | |work. |

|Ndelemani |April-June, |20 or more|3 hours or |A dish about |k500 per cup |Katete |7 collectors in village |

| |Nov-Dec | |less |20 litres | | | |

|Kazika |May-June | |½ hour a |20 litres per |k500 per 250ml |not listed; |Collected by about ¾ of the village |

| |Nov-Dec |20 |hive |hive | |local |households. |

|Gaveni |April to |not listed|not listed |A bucket |not listed |not listed |Information ad hoc from ladies at a |

| |December | | | | | |well – not sufficient detail |

|Geleta |not listed |not listed|5 hours |20 litre |used for barter |none; local |Collected by “a few men” |

| | | | |bucket | | | |

TABLE 20. BROOM COLLECTION INFORMATION

(Local name sundwe, or Vellosia equisetoides)

| | |No. |TIME SPENT |AMOUNT PER | | | |

| |HARVEST PERIODS |YEARLY |PER TRIP |TRIP COLLECTED|PRICE PER UNIT |MARKET PLACE | |

| | |TRIPS PER| | | | | |

|SOURCE OF | |HOUSEHOLD| | | | | |

|INFORMATION | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |OTHER REMARKS |

|Ntambwa |not listed |not listed|not listed |not listed |Sometimes 500 |Katete, |Collectors are reported to be from |

| | | | | |each |Lusaka, |Matunga. |

| | | | | | |Chipata | |

|Ndelemani |all year |un-known |un-known |un- |k300 per broom |Katete, |Supposedly it is the people from |

| | | | |known | |Chipata, |Tambala exploiting this market. |

| | | | | | |Lusaka, | |

| | | | | | |Copperbelt | |

|Geleta |all year |un-known |un-known |un- |not listed |unknown |Information missing from report. |

| | | | |known | | | |

TABLE 21. MUSHROOM COLLECTION INFORMATION

|SOURCE OF |HARVEST PERIODS |No. |TIME SPENT |AMOUNT PER | | | |

|INFORMATION | |YEARLY |PER TRIP |TRIP COLLECTED|PRICE PER UNIT |MARKET PLACE | |

| | |TRIPS PER | | | | | |

| | |HOUSEHOLD | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |OTHER REMARKS |

|Ntambwa |Dec-March |40 |4 hours |10 kg per |k750 per heap |Katete boma |Collected by all members of household.|

| | | | |person | |and Great East| |

| | | | | | |Rd. | |

|Ndelemani: | | | | | | | |

|ndelemya |Dec-Feb |At least |3 hours at |Fill a |not listed |no local |Collected by almost all households. |

|chipindi |Feb-Mar |twice per |most |winnow-ing | |market | |

|kalabolabo |Dec-Feb |week | |basket | |(implies | |

|manyame |Feb-Mar |during | | | |Katete) | |

|nyonzwe |Jan-Mar |spec-ified| | | | | |

|kachipando |Feb-Mar |month | | | | | |

|kanyendela |Dec-Jan | | | | | | |

|kalimtafu |Feb-Mar | | | | | | |

|lilimilangom. |Feb-Mar | | | | | | |

|ndovuzabab. |Feb-Mar | | | | | | |

|kachombo |Jan-Feb | | | | | | |

|Kazika: | | | | | | | |

|ndelemya |Dec |about 16 |2 hours |7.5 kg |k500 |no local |Collected by about ¾ of the village |

|chipindi |Feb-Mar | | | |per kg |market |households. |

|kalabelabe |Dec | | | | |(implies | |

|bowafisi |Feb | | | | |Katete) | |

|manyame |Feb | | | | | | |

|nyonzwe |Nov-Mar | | | | | | |

|kachipande |Feb | | | | | | |

|nthimbwa |Feb-Mar | | | | | | |

|bowakombo |Nov | | | | | | |

|Gaveni: | | | | | | |Information from ladies at a well – |

|ndelemya |late Jan-Mar |not listed|not listed |not listed |not listed |only local |not very detailed. Facilitator states|

|chipindi |mid Jan- | | | | | |that the only opportunity for women |

| |late Feb | | | | | |living far from forest boundary to use|

|kalabelabe |late Dec- | | | | | |it is “collection of mushroom because |

| |late Mar | | | | | |it is light to carry.” |

|manyame |Dec-Mar | | | | | | |

|Geleta: | | | | | | | |

|ndelemya |Dec-Feb |not listed|6 hours |15 kg |local |none listed |Form indicates that only women are |

|chipindi |Dec-Feb | | | |consump-tion | |collecting, all the women of the |

|kalabelabe |Dec-Feb | | | | | |village. |

|nyonzwe |Jan-Feb | | | | | | |

|kachipando |Dec-Feb | | | | | | |

|wakombo |Nov-Feb | | | | | | |

|nanya |March | | | | | | |

|manda |March | | | | | | |

TABLE 22. CATERPILLAR COLLECTION INFORMATION

(Note: consistency in names, collection times and amounts)

| | |No. YEARLY TRIPS|TIME SPENT|AMOUNT PER TRIP| | | |

| |HARVEST |PER HOUSEHOLD | |COLLECTED |PRICE PER UNIT |MARKET PLACE| |

| |PERIODS | |PER TRIP | | | | |

|SOURCE OF | | | | | | | |

|INFORMATION | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |OTHER REMARKS |

|Ndelemani: | |Up | | | | | |

|nthowa |Nov-Dec |to 3 times |6 hrs |container of |none |none |Collected by nearly all |

|masaso |Feb-Mar |per week | |about 5 litres | | |households. |

|mapala |Jan-Feb | | | | | | |

|vilungulungu |Feb-Mar | | | | | | |

|Kazika: | | | | | | | |

|masose | | | | | | | |

|mapala | | | |20 litres per |none |none |Collected by ¾ of the |

|viyabweyabwe |Dec-Jan |8 |5 hs |person | | |households. |

|matondo | | | | | | | |

|mphalabungu | | | | | | | |

|kapale | | | | | | | |

|Gaveni |Dec-Jan |un-known |un-known |unknown |none |none |“For relish only”, according|

| | | | | | | |to the ladies at the well |

|Geleta: | | | | | | | |

|ntowa |Oct-Nov | | | | | | |

|masase |Dec-Feb |3 times per week|6 hours |about |k500 per cup, |Katete |This is perhaps the area |

|mapala |Feb-Mar | | |10 kg |or for barter | |closest to Katete, and it |

|vilungulungu |Jan-Mar | | | | | |has found a market. |

|vitole |Feb-Mar | | | | | | |

|mpalabungu |Jan-Mar | | | | | | |

TABLE 23. OTHER FOREST PRODUCT COLLECTION INFORMATION:

BAMBOOS, GRASS, SNAILS

|SOURCE OF |HARVEST PERIODS|No. YEARLY |TIME SPENT |AMOUNT PER | |MARKET | |

|INFORMATION | |TRIPS PER |PER TRIP |TRIP |PRICE PER UNIT |PLACE | |

| | |HOUSEHOLD | |COLLECTED | | | |

|BAMBOO | |no data | | |k3500 per basket, | | |

|Ntambwa |no data | |no data |no data |k100 per cane |Katete, |Used for houses, granaries, and |

| | | | | | |local |baskets. |

| | |no data | | |k2500 -k5000 per basket | | |

|Ndelemani |all year | |4 hours |bundle of |or chair, |no data | |

| | | | |10 |k1500 per winnowing basket| |Poor regeneration of natural |

| | | | | | | |bamboos noted. |

|GRASS | | | | | | |Mlaza is the grass used to make |

|Ndelemani |no data |no data |no data |no data |k1800 per hat |no data |baskets and hats, and for house |

| | |“ “ | | |no data | |construction. |

|Gaveni |no data | |“ “ |“ “ | |no data |Facilitator says that mats are an|

| | | | | | | |important element of the economy |

| | | | | | | |in the Gaveni area. |

|SNAILS |

|Kazika was the only village area to report snails (nkhono) as part of the wildlife. It is not clear whether they are consumed locally by |

|people, as they are in other parts of Africa. |

-----------------------

CLUSA-NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

VILLAGER FOREST RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

FROM FIVE AREAS OF CHIULUKIRE LOCAL FOREST,

EASTERN PROVINCE, ZAMBIA

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download