19.06.2014 Views

Tana Delta Irrigation Project, Kenya: An Environmental Assessment

Tana Delta Irrigation Project, Kenya: An Environmental Assessment

Tana Delta Irrigation Project, Kenya: An Environmental Assessment

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Rehabilitation of the <strong>Tana</strong> <strong>Delta</strong> <strong>Irrigation</strong> <strong>Project</strong>, <strong>Kenya</strong>: <strong>An</strong> <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong>.<br />

Table 9: Household forest product importance, use, and demand-supply trends<br />

High Collection Increase in<br />

importance frequency HH demand<br />

to HH (weekly) over time?<br />

Benefit to House Hold<br />

(HH)<br />

Increase in<br />

community<br />

demand over<br />

time?<br />

(% HH<br />

agree)<br />

Decrease in<br />

supply of<br />

forest<br />

products?<br />

(% HH)<br />

(% HH agree)<br />

(% HH agree)<br />

Firewood 81 1.5 57 65 12<br />

Other tree products<br />

62 2.2 42 70 12<br />

(building poles, timber,<br />

charcoal)<br />

Grazing 26 5 27 61 11<br />

Medicinal plants 40 1.3 37 40 29<br />

Edible plants 26 1.9 24 26 0<br />

Handicraft materials 36 1.1 31 36 18<br />

Tree seeds/seedlings 0 0 0 0 0<br />

Materials for farming (e.g. 22 1/7 20 29 12<br />

stakes)<br />

Income from sale of<br />

13 4.2 15 18 0<br />

wood products<br />

Spiritual importance 0 - - - -<br />

Historic importance 13 - - - -<br />

Other - - - - -<br />

Highlights:<br />

• The ‘high importance’ products are identified as firewood (81% of households); other<br />

tree products (62%); medicinal plants (40%) and handicraft materials e.g. mats<br />

(36%).<br />

• A significant proportion of households (57, 42, 37,and 31% respectively) surveyed<br />

agreed that household demand for these uses is increasing over time; whilst demand<br />

at a community level was perceived as even greater (70,61, 40 and 36 respectively).<br />

• At the same time, fewer households agree that the availability of ‘high importance’<br />

products is decreasing.<br />

• These findings reinforced by the village focal (both elder and youth) group<br />

discussions, which were unanimous in the agreement that forest resources are<br />

dwindling, that the current use levels are unsustainable, and that the continued<br />

existence of the forest patches is threatened (see below).<br />

(c) Forest patch use by village<br />

The main forest patches used by villages in approximate order of importance, by patch<br />

number, is as follows (please refer to the Botanical study Appendix 6):<br />

• Sailoni village: 65, 46<br />

• Kulesa village: 65, 48, 56, 68, 46, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54<br />

• Bfumbwe village: 66, 68 and the ‘gubani’ forests/woodlands<br />

• Wema village: 68, 56, 57, 53, 54, 55<br />

• Hewani village: 64, 63, 67, 60, 61, 58, 59, 62<br />

• Baandi village: 64 “plus two others not appearing on the map” – one to the north and<br />

one to the west of the village, on the east side of the river.<br />

According to villages, use patterns are determined by (a) proximity to village (b) availability<br />

of/suitability for particular products (c) village boundaries, whereby use by outside villages is<br />

restricted.<br />

No attempt was made to estimate demand/use levels by village due to time constraints,<br />

however, such a study is recommended as a primary step in exploring forest management<br />

further.<br />

Forest Costs<br />

Table 10 depicts household survey findings relating to forest costs. The greatest costs are<br />

crop loss and associated time loss guarding against loss, followed by danger to human life<br />

(from e.g. buffalo, elephant, etc.). The majority of those households surveyed believe that<br />

19

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!