serikali ya mapinduzi zanzibar care tanzania and department

Figure 4.9: Declared uses of the forest products by the respondents from the studied
villages
between the villagers and foresters. They said they wanted to be given at least some
use rights for their basic needs. Interestingly is that, some respondents reported that,
they got promised to be given some alternative areas where they would be obtaining
their basic needs, but this had never been kept since then.
Ngezi forest was also regarded as an important area for cultural activities. Many
(86%) respondents reported some important areas where traditional
prayers/worshiping practices were conducted. The most (75%) common area was
called “Kwa Shariff”. Only few respondents (4%) did not know if there were such
areas in this forest, majority of whom were immigrants. Also, the area was reported to
be useful in terms of plant and animal produce (Appendix 1c and 9c).
As seen above, Ngezi forest is facing large pressure from the community around it.
The main problem is that, majority of people living adjacent to this forest depend on it
for many uses, which is not a new thing to all communities around forests all over the
world (Pimbert and Pretty, 1995). All people around Ngezi appear to use firewood as
source of energy for cooking, and further, depend on it for other important day to day
needs (Figure 4.9). Also the study by Khatibu and Suleiman, (1993) indicated this
severe use of the forest resources especially firewood. They suggested that if Ngezi
forest is really to be protected, and then collection of firewood and poles should be
completely stopped or alternatively be allowed only in limited areas. The idea was
good, but one has to consider the really effect to the surrounding community,
especially under the fact that, the forest appears to be their main source of firewood
and other basic needs for life. Robinson and Redford, (1994); Metcafe, 1995; Adams
and Hulme, 2001 and Brown, (2002), argue that, local communities can contribute to
the conservation of natural systems only if their needs are met. They should be given
user rights of these resources; but in most countries they are seldom recognised.
Studies suggest that, ignoring the dependence of local people on the park resources
for their subsistence needs and emphasizing law enforcement tend to aggravate the
conflict between them and PAs managers (Sharma, 1990). This was also observed in
the interviews undertaken in the study area. The respondents, especially those very
close to the forest appeared unhappy with the management of this forest. They
showed their need to be given some user rights (Table 4.19) of the forest as it was in
the past.
Some respondents in Manda village said that there are people around the forest who
sometimes went to the area just for the purpose of destroying. One in Manda said, that
despite the fact that she never went to destroy the forest, she would never report any
illegal incidence because their village despite it being a way to the forest, when it
came to employment, none of the village members was taken. A similar situation is
said to be common in many developing countries, where around protected areas
people who feel excluded intentionally destroy natural resources (Pimbert and Pretty,
1995). In India, resentment by local people to national parks legislation led to acts of
sabotage and civil disobedience. Villagers set fire to large areas of the protected areas
such as the Kunha National Park of Madhya Pradesh (Gadgil and Guha, 1992).
71