 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Innovating rural markets for a "greener", more food secure Africa | ||||
 |
Home | Visuals | About COMACO | Challenges | Solutions | Results | Products | News | How You Can Help | Partners | Contact Us |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| COMACO Newsletter | ||
|
|
||
 |
||
| Navigation | ||
|
||
|
||
|
Uncategorized
Baseline Analysis of Rural Household Incomes in Luangwa ValleyD.M. Lewis, N. Tembo and P. Nyirenda Introduction Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the African College for CBNRM (ACCBNRM) undertook a survey of household incomes in four game management areas (GMAs) Game management areas serve as buffer zones to Zambia?s national parks and allow a range of legal consumptive wildlife uses to help support income and nutritional needs of local residents living in the GMAs. Management of these uses and their respective benefits are coordinated through Zambia Wildlife Authority under its national programme for community-based wildlife management, referred to as ADMADE. Under the new Wildlife Act of 1999, this programme underwent major transformation by establishing democratically elected community institutions called Community Resource Boards (CRBs) to manage wildlife resources in GMAs. A major component of the community-based management approach of ADMADE is to facilitate household livelihood security through income derived legally from wildlife. While law enforcement efforts are an important deterrence to illegal uses, results from the ADMADE experience show that increased law enforcement comes at a high cost, is unable to control all forms of illegal wildlife use, especially snaring, and often creates social resistance to conservation. Preliminary work in Mwanya area has shown conclusively that relatively low-cost interventions to improve food security will reduce rates of wildlife snaring. Such interventions also build increased opportunities for dialogue and understanding to more actively engage community residents to assist in wildlife production. The challenge for conservation in Zambia is to take this lesson further by eliminating the root causes to illegal wildlife uses and replacing them with alternative livelihood practices that can sustain household needs without degrading the resource. A major part of this challenge is to develop appropriate strategies for promoting household income in ways that will lead to increased wildlife production. The work described in this paper examines income sources and earnings from a random sample of 1065 residents residing in these four GMAs. An analysis of these data offers a set of recommendations for improving household income while reducing possible conflicts that have adverse impacts on wildlife. This paper provides further results to on-going efforts by ZAWA through its ADMADE programme to enhance the role that communities can play in wildlife conservation. Background of geographical area Most of the landscape across this valley floor is characterized as poor to marginal farming soils, except for alluvial deposits that mostly border tributaries to the Luangwa River. This limitation of arable farmland is illustrated in Figure 2.
As demonstrated in Figure 3, areas currently settled in the Luangwa Valley, as based on five selected GMAs, have already exceeded available land areas considered arable. This conclusion emphasizes the importance to use arable farm land efficiently and productively while drawing from such production to help sustain both household income and food security. It also argues the case that non-arable farmland, because of its relatively large area, provides important opportunities for household income through direct use of natural resources, such as wildlife, forest products and fish resources. A major constraint to household income from both natural resources and agricultural production is the lack of easy access to urban markets, due largely to poor roads, a long wet season that limits vehicle movements into the area, and long distances to urban or semi-urban markets. These same constraints also reduce opportunities for education and health care. As a result, most communities in the Valley are disconnected from rural development opportunities that might otherwise reduce potential conflicts with natural resources through more sustained-use practices.
Household income results
From a total list of households residing in each Village Area Group (VAG) sampled in the study, individual households were randomly selected and visited to interview either the household head or first or second wife of the male household head (see Figure 4). The study interviewed a total of 1065 people, of which 651 were males and 414 were females and documented a total of 50 different sources of income. Among the sample of male respondents, the five most common sources were poultry, rice, ground nuts, beer and fish (see Table 1). Individuals who owned or operated grinding mills or small shops earned the highest income. In contrast, poultry ranked 34 in terms of income earned while rice, ground nuts, beer and fish ranked 19, 20, 23, 10, respectively. Cotton and private sector employment earned the highest per capita income (K277,179, K352,460, respectively) for the largest number of respondents sampled (14.8%, 14.0%, respectively). Tourism-related enterprises for selected VAGs (almost exclusively Mukasanga) accounted for most of the employment income. On average, annual income for male respondents was K207,920 and female annual income was K73,623 (see Table 2). Assuming husband and wife both generated income for most households, total household income averaged K281,543 per year (or about $80).
Strategies for increasing rural income and wildlife production
Despite the large number of possible income sources, households on average were limited to 1 to 3 different income sources (see Table 3).
VAG-specific variation in household income The study also examined different VAGs with respect to their relative isolation and proximity to important wildlife resources. These VAGs were typically along the riverine areas of the Luangwa Valley where roads become impassable during the rains, fields are most subject to flooding and crop loss, and both fish and wildlife resources are relatively abundant. These sampled VAGs were Mukasanga, Yakobe, Lukusuzi, Mapamba, and Kanga. Their respective income sources for the top 8 income earning activities are provided below (Table 4). An additional VAG, Chasato, is included as a contrasting example of a VAG having increased access to agro-markets with reduced presence of wildlife resources. The riverine VAG samples showed a typical pattern of dependence on fish for much of household income and to a lesser extent rice and ground nuts. Chickens and beer-making were among the more common ways of making money but their respective income-earning levels were relatively low. Only Mukasanga showed high earnings from private sector employment, which was derived mostly from two different tourist lodges located in this VAG. In this VAG, residents tended not to concentrate on cash crops, suggesting that a community with high income from the private sector tends to reduce its dependence on agricultural activities. Correlated with this influx on cash flow into Mukasanga was the increased importance of trading various consumer commodities brought into the area. In Chasato VAG, residents were much more oriented toward agriculture with well over 50% of the residents earned well above average incomes from different cash crops. Income levels for Chasato residents averaged 2.5 times higher than those riverine areas without tourism income.
Discussion From a random sample of 1065 households in 4 different game management areas in Luangwa composed of 18 different Village Area Groups, annual household income averaged below $100. Except for Chasato, agriculture was important but not a major part of most household?s income earnings. This is due in part to poor farming practices, limited agro-inputs, poor markets for crops, and crop damage from wild animals. Lewis, Tembo and Nyirenda (2001) showed that only 3% of households living in these game management areas use fertilizer but when applied, fertilizer contributed to a three-fold increase in food production. For most VAGs, between 40 and 70% of the households expressed frustration over wild animals and birds as a source of crop loss. Such constraints to increased crop production are likely to limit farming to subsistence as opposed to income generation and may therefore be increasing household dependence on natural resources, such as fish and forest products, for income. It might also be argued that poorly developed agricultural markets reduce incentives for households to become better farmers and this in turn may be contributing to lowered food security in the Luangwa area (see Lewis, Tembo and Nyirenda 2001). Poultry is the most common source of income but its income earning potential was relatively low. In general, chickens are sold in urban or peri-urban markets and poultry producers transport their chickens, as well as fish and other moveable commodities, on bicycles for journeys often lasting two to three days, Producers then have limited time to find or negotiate more favorable markets. Throughout the Valley, the incidence of New Castle?s disease is endemic and severely limits poultry production. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the disease is an annual occurrence and affected households can lose up to 80% of their poultry in a given year. A common complaint expressed my most respondents as an underlying factor to low income was lack of markets or poor market prices. Much of the agricultural production in these VAGs is purchased by a limited number of traders from Lundazi who increase their selling price of these same crops by not less than three-fold. Hence, the primary producer gains the least while undertaking most of the work as well as bearing all the risks of farming in the Valley. Because of household needs for cash to buy school uniforms, pay for medicine, buy domestic essentials and so forth, a farmer may deplete food stocks for cash sales and leave household dependents vulnerable to food shortages. There is substantial anecdotal evidence, especially among rice growers, that this problem does occur. In a related study Lewis, Tembo and Nyirenda (2001, unpub data) found that local hunters in Luangwa frequently use game meat as a source of quick cash or as a commodity to exchange for farm labour. Among the local hunters interviewed in this study, household annual income for local hunters averaged above $300 or about 3 times that of other households in their community and produced 802 kg more food than non-hunters in the same community. Hunters therefore have the distinct advantage of using wildlife as a negotiable though illegal commodity for advancing income from legal, agro-markets. Quite literally, hunters launder illegally obtained wildlife revenue to increase agricultural production and despite poor markets do earn relatively more from their agricultural produce than non-hunter members in the same community. With the important exception of Mukasanga VAG, where tourism offered residents significant income earning opportunities as lodge workers, wildlife ranked very low as a source of legal income for the random sample of respondents interviewed in this study. For a region in renown for its wildlife, this represents a stark contradiction to on-going efforts to promote wildlife conservation through financial incentives that lead to increased wildlife production. Part of this problem is related to policies that govern rights and opportunities to benefit legally from wildlife production, especially by rural communities. This study would also suggest that if financial benefits from wildlife were to reach households, they would need to be appreciable enough to discourage the practice of discounting wildlife through illegal markets to appreciate one?s income from legal agro-markets. Unless such benefits are sought and diversified to enhance rural incomes, current poverty levels found in this study will maintain the perception, at least among non-hunters, that wildlife is a threat to agricultural production and a liability to the well-being of household security. Such perceptions will obviously promote increased use of snares and other forms of illegal hunting. Recommendations This study provides an empirical basis for making several recommendations toward improving rural incomes in Luangwa Valley while also enhancing opportunities for increased conservation of wildlife resources. 1. Food security is a prerequite to cash crop farming and a precondition to sustained wildlife production for rural communities who live with wildlife. Given the poor agricultural markets in the Luangwa Valley and the chronic problem of food shortages many households face, on-going joint efforts by World Food Programme, Wildlife Conservation Society and Project Against Malnutrition to promote sustained food production in Luangwa Valley is an important priority. Specific recommendations include the purchase of local maize to support food-impoverished families with on-going efforts to enhance food security. 2. Promote skills training at the African College for CBNRM at Nyamaluma that will promote increased employment in the wildlife sector. This is especially important now as lodges downscale their dependence on expatriate staff with the expected slow-down in tourism. Community residents, if trained, could help fill this gap. 3. Establish a Community Trading Company to more effectively bulk agro-commodities and market more directly retail buyers. Through such a company, increase information on available markets and technologies for increasing yields and product quality. 4. Promote formal sector employment among local hunters and invest in their continued skills development to reduce dependence on illegal hunting. References Lewis, D.M., Tembo, N., and Nyirenda, P. 2001. Preliminary Report on Luangwa GMA Baseline Survey: Summary on Food Security and Wildlife Depletion Rates. Unpublished paper submitted to Zambia Wildlife Authority by Wildlife Conservation Society. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
in Luangwa Valley in 2001. These areas included Chikwa, Chifunda, Upper Lumimba and Lower Lumimba (see Figure 1) and encompassed five different communities as defined by their local chiefs: Chikwa, Chifunda, Kazembe, Chitungulu and Mwanya. All combined, these five communities represented a total human population of about 18,000 with 8% of the total GMA land area cleared for either settlements or farmland.
 |
 |
 |
| Copyright 2006, COMACO. All rights reserved. Website design by CMS Website Services,LLC. |