1) Indigenous fruit trees play an important role in reducing vulnerability to food insecurity and poverty during critical seasonal periods for rural households in Zimbabwe and Malawi. 2) While indigenous fruit use cannot lift households out of poverty on its own, conservation of indigenous fruit trees provides food security benefits. 3) The economic viability of conserving and planting indigenous fruit trees depends on local conditions like opportunity costs of land, labor productivity, and proximity to markets. Maintaining semi-wild indigenous fruit trees may be most suitable given current conditions.

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
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
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
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
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
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
Seasonal vulnerability to poverty
and indigenous fruit use in
Zimbabwe

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Vulnerability to poverty by period and IF availability
Source: Mithöfer, Waibel and Akinnifesi, 2006

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
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
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
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
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
Thank you!