Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Mithoefer iftpovertyzw regionalsustainableusebiodiversityws2006


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Mithoefer iftpovertyzw regionalsustainableusebiodiversityws2006

  1. 1. 1 Paper presented at the African Regional Workshop on Sustainable Use, Nairobi, December 12-15, 2006 Indigenous fruit use in Zimbabwe and Malawi Dagmar Mithöfer World Agroforestry Centre & University of Hannover F. Akinnifesi, L. Fiedler, T. Kruse, D. Mithöfer, T. Ramadhani, E. Schmidt, H. Waibel
  2. 2. 2 Background Poverty incidence high in the rural areas of Zimbabwe, vulnerabilty to poverty may be even more serious High degree of seasonality of production and income Although they are a small share in total annual income indigenous fruits (IF) are important source of food and income during crisis time Fruits mostly collected from wild and semi wild trees Fruits consumed widely by rural and urban population
  3. 3. 3 U -1 -1 .k Average consumption [Fruits AEQ day ] irk ia na (M ,n 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 U on .k -p irk ea ia k) na U (M .k irk ,p ia ea na k) (T R A, St pe ry ak ch ) no St s ry sp .( ch M no ) s sp .( P. TR cu A) ra te Source: Mithöfer and Waibel, 2003 Men's consumption P. llif ol cu ia ra (M te llif ) ol ia (T R Av A) oc ad o (M ) M Women's consumption an go (M M ) an go (T R A) G ua va (M G ) Fruit consumption by gender ua va Children's consumption (T R A) Pe ac h (T R A)
  4. 4. 4 Policies regarding fruit use Not formally regulated or licensed (not enforced, Matose, 2006) Use/ sale of fruits from planted trees under the by- laws on plantations (Moyo, 2000) People are not supposed to shake IFs from trees (54%) and/ or harvest green IFs (61%) (Policy Maker Survey, Ramadhani 2002) In resettlement areas higher number of institutions/ leaders responsible for implementing regulations than in communal areas (Policy Maker Survey Ramadhani, 2002)
  5. 5. 5 Marketing of IFs In Murehwa marketing of the fruits started in ‘97, initially ‘hidden’, has steadily increased since then Ramadhani, 2002: Fruits and trees are highly valued, consumers support marketing of IFs Consumers are willing to pay double of the current price Consumers prefer small brown fruits of U. kirkiana Informal marketing, no product differentiation
  6. 6. 6 Marketing of IFs Problem in increasing commercialization: user rights need to be addressed (Ramadhani, 2002) From public to open access resource due to increased rivalry with unclear rules over ownership and use (Ramadhani, 2002) Increased competition over the fruits results in non- sustainable harvesting techniques Traditional leaders revert back to traditional rules and taboos, however does not work in resettled communities
  7. 7. 7 Seasonal vulnerability to poverty and indigenous fruit use in Zimbabwe
  8. 8. 8 Uapaca kirkiana Zambia Mashonaland Mashonaland Central West Research Harare Mashonaland sites East Mozambique Manicaland Matebeleland Midlands North Matebeleland Masvingo Botswana South Strychnos cocculoides South Africa
  9. 9. 9 IF and maize harvest Maize Murehwa Takawira harvest No consumption Main meal Snack No consumption Main meal Snack Uapaca kirkiana Normal 3.6 0.0 95.9 0.0 1.2 98.8 Bumper 1.4 0.0 98.6 0.0 1.2 98.8 Disaster 0.5 0.9 98.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Strychnos sp. Normal 22.6 0.5 76.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 Bumper 21.7 0.5 77.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 Disaster 22.2 0.9 76.9 0.0 34.1 65.9 Parinari curatellifolia Normal 32.1 0.5 67.4 1.2 1.2 97.6 Bumper 31.7 0.5 67.9 2.4 1.2 96.3 Disaster 31.7 0.5 67.9 1.2 72.0 26.8 Source: Mithöfer and Waibel, 2003
  10. 10. 10 Objectives 1) To assess the contribution of indigenous fruit trees towards reducing vulnerability to food insecurity and income poverty. 2) To add a seasonal dimension to the vulnerability concept. 3) To provide an empirical example of vulnerability measurement using a stochastic model of household income.
  11. 11. 11 Definition of Vulnerability Vu(m, PL) = 1 − [(1 − P( Hitn < PL)) * ... * (1 − P( Hitn+m < PL))] With: Vu vulnerability P probability PL poverty line m,t periods, time Hi household income n household
  12. 12. 12 Household income A ~n ~n ~ n ~ n ~ n ~ n Him = Him−1 − Exm−1 − Com−1 − S Fm−1 + ∑ GM am + I C m n a =1 with Him household income of period m m period (about monthly length) n household Ex expenditure, e.g. soap, oil, paraffin Co consumption at minimum food requirements SF school fees GM gross margin a... A activities , e.g. agriculture, livestock keeping IC additional sources of cash, e.g. informal loans
  13. 13. 13 Data collection Selection of 20 households of Takawira Resettlement Area Socioeconomic data on assets, farm size, household members, age structure, gender From August 1999 - August 2000 monthly monitoring of revenues, costs, and labour inputs, consumption
  14. 14. 14 Average and standard deviation of gross margins of household enterprises by period Remittances Off-farm 4000 Horticulture Agriculture Livestock Exotic fruit trees Indigenous fruit trees ZWD AEQ-1 Period-1 2000 0 -2000 De c eb rc h ril Ma y e Ju l y - -F Ma Ap Jun - ug Jan b- rch - p ril - y- un e A Fe Ma A Ma J Source: Mithöfer, Waibel and Akinnifesi, 2006
  15. 15. 15 Simulation model Fit distributions to sample data of income generating enterprises of the households. Simulation of household income over m periods under various risk reducing strategies. Indentification of critical food and consumption income periods.
  16. 16. 16 Simulation model Draws Remittances Horticulture Off-farm Agriculture Livestock EFT IFT Model Calculation of 25000 Replications HH Income Income smoothing Cumulative Probability mechanisms: Distribution of HH Income a) enhanced IF use, 1 0.8 0.6 b) informal loans. 0.4 0.2 0 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
  17. 17. 17 Vulnerability to poverty by period and IF availability Source: Mithöfer, Waibel and Akinnifesi, 2006
  18. 18. 18 In-situ conservation of IFT Zimbabwe Malawi Opportunity costs of Opportunity costs of land: 0 US$ land: 92 US$/ha (maize (at research site) production foregone) Labour productivity 5.8- Labour productivity: 1.7 10 US$/ day US$/ day Income share: 1.2%- Income share: 4.1% (U. 4.5% (U. kirkiana only) kirkiana only) Source: Mithöfer and Waibel, 2003 Source: Fiedler, 2005
  19. 19. 19 IFT conservation via planting of domesticated trees Zimbabwe Malawi Minimum improvement: Minimum improvement: fruit production after fruit production after two years & four years without increased collection further improvements costs or increased yield or combination thereof Source: Mithöfer, Wesseler and Waibel, 2006 Source: Fiedler, 2005
  20. 20. 20 Conservation of semi-wild indigenous trees Zimbabwe Malawi Indigenous fruit trees Indigenous fruit trees preserved on-farm: 24 preserved on-farm: 4-9 Factors increasing likelihood of conserving indigenous trees: + RESPON, FRUIT - ITCASH, CWR, EDUC Source: Mithöfer, 2005 Source: Kruse, 2006
  21. 21. 21 Conclusions Vulnerability to poverty is seasonal. Poverty reduction measures need to target critical periods rather than annual income. IFT can reduce vulnerability to poverty during the critical period. Conservation of IFTs useful from food security point of view. Under current conditions IF use cannot lift rural households out of poverty.
  22. 22. 22 Conclusions Market-based incentives may exist for IFT biodiversty conservation. Policy framework, responsibilities not clear (ZW). IFT planting currently not economically viable in ZW, but may be viable in MW due to differing conditions: e.g. population pressure, deforestation rate, agricultural intensification, etc. Planting and conservation supplementary activities: Depending on alternative income sources, opportunity cost of land and labour, proximity to markets, etc.
  23. 23. 23 Thank you!