View/Open - Sokoine University of Agriculture

Table 40: Forest environmental incomes by income groups (USD), KilosaDistrict, Tanzania, 2010ForestenvironmentalresourcePoor(N = 60)Income(USD)%totalMedium(N =60)Income(USD)%totalLess poor(N = 60)Income %(USD) totalTotal(N =180)Income(USD)%totalCharcoal* 5,33 18 48,45 53 722,23 86 258,67 81(29)(166)(1683)(1025)Firewood* 23,20 77 32,37 36 47,56 6 34,58 11(12)(27)(71)(46)Poles and timber* 1,65 5 9,63 11 64,75 8 25,35 8(8)(61)(239)(145)NTFPs 0 0 0,18 0 0,9 0 0,36 0(0)(1)(4)(3)Total 30,19 100 90,64 100 835,45 100 318,76 100N = 180, * indicates significantly difference between income groups (p < 0.05), Standard deviation inbracketsCharcoal is the resource which makes up most of the total forest environmentalincome, and whereas the lowest income group has little to no involvement in thisactivity (3%), only 18% of the income falls within this group. However, many lesspoor households are engaged in charcoal production (38%) and contribute to as muchas 86% of their environmental income. The same tendencies are seen with poles andtimber. This fact is very interesting as it is often described as a last choice where it isthe poorest people which venture into the forest to create some income, howeveraccording to our numbers it is in fact dominated completely by those with the mostincome. It is however important to remember that generally and regardless of wealthgroup all within our study area were very poor and even the least poor category lieonly slightly above one dollar a day.Firewood on the other hand is by far the most important forest product for those withleast income, accounting for 77% of their total forest environmental income, andalthough only representing 6% for the least poor they still collect on average the mostfirewood out off all, in fact almost twice as much as the middle and low incomegroup. One reason for this might be the fact that much firewood is also used for otherincome generating activities, such as brewing local alcohol or brick making.For NTFP, we see that the income from such was small compared to other forest uses.However, we must here refer back to activities, which showed that most household200