Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism Forestry and Beekeeping Division Conservation and Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests Project.
Forest condition assessment in the Eastern
Arc Mountain Forests of Tanzania
Forestry and Beekeeping Division.
P.O. Box 426, DAR-ES-SALAAM.
Telephone (+255) 022 2126844 or 2130091
Email:
[email protected]
NOVEMBER, 2005
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report
Acknowledgements
The preparation of this forest condition assessment for the conservation of the Eastern Arc
Mountains was commissioned by the Forestry and Beekeeping Division (FBD) through the
Conservation and Management of Eastern Arc Mountain Forests (CMEAMF) and financed by
the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP). This work was carried out by staff and other experts engaged by the Sokoine
University of Agriculture (SUA) through FORCONSULT. The Forestry and Beekeeping
Division is grateful to the FORCONSULT Team comprised of Prof. S.S. Madoffe and P.K.T.
Munishi for the good work done.
In particular, the Team was provided with assistance in the field by thirteen district field
officers who deserve special thanks for their hard work: G. Mramboah and O.Hamisi
(Mwanga district),J. Mboya (Same), J. Titu (Lushoto), Mumwi D. Mkonda (Korogwe), J.
Mkukutika and M. J. Mwarabu (Muheza), Mrinji E. Chesie (Kilindi), Nshare S. James and
Lufyaki Julianao (Mufindi), Kiungo Yobu (Kilolo), Shango M. Edwin (Ulanga), Ruffo David
(Kilombero), Towo F. James (Kilosa), and Kauzeni K. Naomi and Servinus Shirima
(Mvomero). Special thanks to TFCG who were involved in data collection and summarization
in the Nguru South landscape. Prof. R.C. Ishengoma, Prof. R.P.C. Temu, L. Lulandala and
A.G. Mugasha, P. Gillah and Dr. N. Burgess are thanked for their useful editorial comments.
Also the management of the Forestry and Beekeeping Division is very grateful and
acknowledges the cooperation and assistance received from the village government leaders
and the villagers as a whole around the twenty-six forests during the time of the survey.
Finally the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism highly appreciates the financial
support that was received from GEF through UNDP. This enabled this invaluable work to
be completed and will significantly contribute to achieving sustainable conservation of the
Eastern Arc Mountain forests.
Suggested citation:
Forestry and Beekeeping Division (2005). Forest condition assessment of the Eastern Arc
Mountains Forests of Tanzania. Compiled by Madoffe, S.S. and P.K.T. Munishi for
Conservation and Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests, Forestry and
Beekeeping Division, Dar es Salaam.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Conservation and Management of the Eastern
Arc Mountain Forests Project
P.O. Box 289
Morogoro
Tanzania
Tel. 023 261 3082
Email: [email protected]
www.easternarc.or.tz
FORCONSULT
Fauclty of Forestry and Nature Conservation
Sokoine University of Agriculture
P.O.Box 3013
Morogoro
Tanzania
i
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report
Executive Summary
In recent years, sustainable forest management and biodiversity conservation have become
major concerns worldwide. Forest management and conservation objectives can vary from
non-managed forests on public lands to complete protection and preservation in government
reserves. Conservation objectives can be compromised by animals, weather, people, climate
change, forest insects and disease, air pollution, fire, poor harvesting techniques, invasive
alien species, under story cultivation and forest land conversion.
The forests of the Eastern Arc Mountains (EAM) are undergoing an accelerated rate of
destruction (Madoffe et al. 2005) and there is an urgent need for documentation of the
problem, if changes are to be reversed or the degradation process slowed (Madoffe et. al.
2000). Additionally, little work has been conducted to identify the agents causing the
changes, evaluate their relative importance or to suggest ways to mitigate their impact. The
Government’s main obligation is to manage this important ecosystem sustainably.
The Eastern Arc Strategy is a component of the Project ‘Conservation and Management of
the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests’ (CMEAMF) aiming at sustainable management of the
EAM. The main objective of the Eastern Arc Strategy Component is to improve the
conservation status of the EAM through the development and implementation of an
integrated conservation strategy for biodiversity conservation and water supply.
As a part of measuring impact, the project is establishing a number of baseline surveys that
can be repeated (either as a whole or in part) to measure change over the lifespan of the
project, and in the future by the Forestry and Beekeeping Division. One of the fundamental
parts of this baseline is that of assessing the condition of the forests, the threats facing the
forests, and the effectiveness of management of the forests.
The objectives of the present study as stipulated in the Terms of Reference were therefore
to:
-
Assess the levels of disturbance,
Identify the types and intensity of threats, and
Determine the management effectiveness of a sample of more than 100 Eastern Arc
forests across the 14 Districts covering the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania.
Twenty-six (26) forested areas grouped into North and South blocks were selected for this
work. In the North, the following sites were considered: Mramba and Kiverenge in Mwanga
district, Chambogo and Vumari in Same district, Mkusu and Mazumbai in Lushoto district,
Ambangulu and Bombo West in Korogwe district, Nilo and Mtai in Muheza district and Nguru
North and Kilindi in Kilindi district. In the South the reserves surveyed were Ihang’ana and
Idewa in Mufindi district, Kising’a-Lugalo and Kitonga in Kilolo district, Mselezi and Nambiga
in Ulanga district, Iyondo and Ihanga in Kilombero district, Ukwiva and North Mamiwa in
Kilosa district, Kanga and Nguru South in Mvomero district and Mang’aliza and Mafwemero
in Mpwapwa district.
The methodology used for forest condition assessment was a modified version of that
previously used by Frontier-Tanzania in other forest areas within the Eastern Arc forests.
Disturbance was assessed in a series of plots of 50 m long and 10 m wide along transect
lines located systematically from a randomly chosen starting point on the forest edge. The
starting point and direction of each transect line was recorded using a GPS (georeferenced)
and a compass respectively to allow these transects be relocated in future. The end of each
transect line was also recorded (georeferenced) for the same purpose. The level of
disturbance was assessed as the number of standing, dead or cut trees and poles.
ii
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report
An assessment of threats was undertaken along the disturbance transects, either along
random walks in the forests or along existing paths within the forest. Through these walks, all
direct threats to the biodiversity of the forests, which were present and observed during the
survey, were identified. At least three and up to a maximum of five threats were identified for
each forest. The threats were then ranked based on specific criteria and a final Threat
Reduction Assessment (TRA) Index was computed (based on methodology developed by
the Biodiversity Support Program).
Management effectiveness assessments for each site were completed in the office and used
the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) management effectiveness tracking tool.
The foresters with strong knowledge of the target forest conducted the assessment as part of
a capacity building process.
Forest ownership were categorized as private (two forests), local government (LGFR) (three)
proposed forests (two) and central government (CGFR) (19 forests). All the forests were
disturbed, threatened and had some management problems that varied in magnitude.
Privately owned forests were the least disturbed followed by the central government forest
reserves and the most disturbed were the proposed forest reserves and the local
government forest reserves. Presence of new cut trees and poles in most forests indicated
that tree/pole cutting is still prevalent in the EAM forests in spite of continued efforts of the
government and NGOs to ban the action. It was also established that cutting of poles and
trees was more prevalent on the edge of the forest due to ease of access. The level of
disturbance could contribute to the natural death of trees and consequently loss of
biodiversity.
A total of 10 major threats were recorded in the study forests. All of them were both forest
edge and forest interior threats except mining which occurred as a forest interior threat in
Ambangulu, Nilo, Mtai, Nguru North, Kilindi and Mselezi forests and hunting which occurred
in Mazumbai, Idewa, Ihang’ana, Nambiga, Ukwiva and North Mamiwa forests. Mining is a
new threat to most of these forests and it could be extended to other forests if immediate and
corrective measures are not taken. Fire was the most dominant threat followed by tree/pole
cutting and grazing. The former occurred in all forests except Ambangulu and Mazumbai,
tree/pole cutting in 18 forests and grazing in 17 forests. Encroachment for settlement and
farming, illegal timber harvesting and firewood collection were also recorded in most forests.
The overall Threat Reduction Assessment (TRA) index ranged from 26.3% for Kitonga
proposed forest to 71.4% for Ambangulu private forest. The higher the TRA percentage, the
lower the threats and vice versa. The TRA for most study forests (14) ranged between 30%
and 39% indicating that most forests are highly threatened. Five forests namely: Mramba,
Chambogo, Vumari, Nilo and Nguru North were in the range between 40% and 50%, five
below 30% (Kitonga, Iyondo, Mangaliza, Mafwomera and North Mamiwa) and only two
above 50% (Mazumbai and Ambangulu). Analysis of variance revealed significant
differences in TRA% between the four categories of forests. Proposed forest reserves and
the local government forests were the most threatened followed by the central government
forest reserves. Privetly owned forests were the least threatened. There was no significant
difference in TRA% between forest interior and forest edge for the four categories of the
forests.
Management effectiveness for most of the forests (20 forests) ranged between 31% and 45%
(average). Only Mazumbai and Ambangulu forests (privately owned) were well managed with
management effectiveness of above 50%. Conversely, Nguru North, Kitonga, Mselezi and
Ukwiva were poorly (15% – 30%) managed. There was no forest in the very poor
management category (<15%). Analysis of variance for the management effectiveness
(percentage) revealed that there was significant difference between the four forest
iii
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report
categories. Private forests are better managed than the other three categories. Kitonga
proposed Forest reserve (FR) was the worst in the overall management effectiveness score.
Mkusu, Kisinga-Lugalo, Mtai and Nilo CGFRs appear to be better managed than other
forests in that category perhaps due to direct and indirect external interventions.
Management could therefore be improved through improved funding from the government or
external sources and change of the existing management structure.
Out of the 30 main issues used to evaluate the management effectiveness by the Tracking
Tool, 11 issues were considered key to the management of the EAM forests and the rest of
the issues are considered as supplementary to the key issues. These major issues include
legal status, management planning, regularity of work plan, staff numbers and training,
current budget (budgeting), education and awareness, participation and input by the local
communities, condition assessment, access to the forest, and monitoring and evaluation.
Conservation interventions executed by different Institutions are key to reduced disturbance
and threats in some forest reserves. Experience from Mkusu, Mtai and Kisinga-Lugalo
however, shows that conservation initiatives are not sustainable without donor funding. On
the other hand, experience from Mwanga and Mufindi shows that traditional Institutions could
contribute in reducing forest threats, particularly fire.
The following recommendations are made based on the current study and learned
experience from other studies:
- Use the current and previous related forest condition data to get things done on the
ground. Areas and the existing threats should be prioritized according to their
importance and fire problems should be treated with urgency.
- Identify and map conservation hot spot areas (areas with high biodiversity values and
endemism and which are profoundly threatened by neighbouring communities) for
iimmediate interventions.
- Conservation education should be intensified in heavily threatened areas.
- Cultural/indigenous values should be harmonized with the modern conservation
techniques in order to optimize the output. The Mwanga and Mufindi model could be
used.
- Capacity building and conservation funds should be improved / intensified to enable
forest officers and the communities to perform forest condition assessment and other
conservation programmes and report the same to the relevant authorities.
- All conservation initiatives by the government (Central and District), NGOs and
Community Based Organizations (CBOs) must be registered and their activities
scrutinized to avoid unnecessary duplication of activities.
- Successful models of PFM and related conservation initiatives must be considered for
introduction to new areas.
- In JFM and PFM programmes benefit sharing by different stakeholders must be clear
and transparent.
- The Government initiatives on poverty alleviation should be an agenda for action in
the conservation of hot spot areas. These initiatives should emphasize livelihood
strategies, which reduce dependence on the natural forests.
iv
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. ii
Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ ix
1.0
Introduction..................................................................................................................1
1.1
The Eastern Arc Mountain Forests of Tanzania .......................................................1
1.2
Policy Environment ..................................................................................................3
1.3
Forest Management in Tanzania .............................................................................3
1.4
Conservation and Management initiatives in the EAM .............................................4
1.5
Forest condition paradigm .......................................................................................6
1.5.1 Forest disturbance ................................................................................................6
1.5.2 Forest threat .........................................................................................................6
1.5.3 Management effectiveness...................................................................................7
1.6
2.0
Objectives of the work ..............................................................................................7
Study Area....................................................................................................................9
2.1
Kilimanjaro region....................................................................................................9
2.1.1 Mwanga district....................................................................................................9
2.1.2 Same district .........................................................................................................9
2.2
Tanga region ..........................................................................................................10
2.2.1 Lushoto district....................................................................................................10
2.2.2 Korogwe district .................................................................................................10
2.2.3 Muheza district...................................................................................................11
2.2.4 Kilindi district.......................................................................................................11
2.3
Iringa region...........................................................................................................12
2.3.1 Mufindi district....................................................................................................12
2.3.2 Kilolo District ......................................................................................................12
2.4
Dodoma region .......................................................................................................12
2.4. 1 Mpwapwa district ................................................................................................12
2.5
Morogoro region ....................................................................................................13
2.5.1 Ulanga district ....................................................................................................13
2.5.2 Kilombero district ................................................................................................13
2.5.3 Kilosa district.......................................................................................................14
2.5.4 Mvomero district ................................................................................................14
3.0
Methodology ...............................................................................................................18
3.1
Disturbance Assessment ........................................................................................18
3.1.1 Details of Methods ..............................................................................................18
3.1.2 Information recorded at each sampling point......................................................18
3.2
Threat reduction assessment .................................................................................19
3.3
Management Effectiveness ....................................................................................19
4.0
4.1
Results........................................................................................................................21
Forest disturbance and threats ...............................................................................21
v
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report
4.2
Management effectiveness.....................................................................................28
4.3
Detailed analysis of forest disturbance and threats by individual forest .................33
4.3.1 Kiverenge proposed forest reserve - Mwanga district ........................................33
4.3.2 Mramba Forest Reserve - Mwanga district............................................................34
4.3.3 Chambogo forest reserve - Same district ...........................................................35
4.3.4 Vumari forest reserve - Same district ....................................................................37
4.3.5 Mkusu forest reserve - Lushoto district..................................................................38
4.3.6 Mazumbai private forest - Lushoto District .........................................................39
4.3.7 Bombo West forest reserve - Korogwe district ......................................................40
4.3.8 Ambangulu private forest - Korogwe district..........................................................41
4.3.9 Nilo forest reserve - Muheza district..........................................................................42
4.3.10 Mtai forest reserve - Muheza district ...................................................................43
4.3.11 Nguru North forest reserve - Kilindi district..........................................................44
4.3.12 Kilindi forest reserve - Kilindi district....................................................................45
4.3.13
Idewa forest reserve - Mufindi district .............................................................46
4.3.14 Ihang’ana forest reserve - Mufindi district............................................................47
4.3.15 Kisinga-Lugalo forest reserve - Kilolo district ......................................................48
4. 3.16 Kitonga proposed forest reserve ........................................................................50
4.3.17 Mselezi forest reserve - Ulanga district ...............................................................51
4.3.18 Nambiga forest reserve - Ulanga district .............................................................52
4.3.19 Iyondo forest reserve - Kilombero district ............................................................53
4.3.20 Ihanga forest reserve...........................................................................................54
4.3.21 Mang’alisa forest reserve - Mpwapwa district......................................................55
4.3.22 Mafwomera forest reserve- Mpwapwa district .....................................................56
4.3.23 Ukwiva forest reserve - Kilosa district..................................................................57
4.3.24 Mamiwa-Kisara North forest reserve - Kilosa district...........................................58
4.3.25 Kanga forest reserve - Mvomero district..............................................................59
4.3.26 Nguru South forest reserve - Mvomero district....................................................63
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................65
5.1 Conclusions..................................................................................................................65
5.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................66
References .............................................................................................................................67
Appendix I: TOR for the Forest Condition Assessment for the EAM of Tanzania..................70
Introduction.............................................................................................................................70
Expected Products .................................................................................................................71
Appendix II: Itinerary for Forest Condition Assessment Assignment for the EAM Forests ....73
Appendix III: Description of the study forests ......................................................................75
1. Kilimanjaro region...........................................................................................................75
1.1 Mwanga district.........................................................................................................75
1.2 Same district.............................................................................................................75
2. Tanga region ..................................................................................................................75
2.1 Lushoto district .........................................................................................................75
2.2 Korogwe district ........................................................................................................76
2.3 Muheza district .........................................................................................................76
2.4 Kilindi district.............................................................................................................77
vi
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report
3. Iringa region ...................................................................................................................78
3.1 Mufindi district...........................................................................................................78
3.2 Kilolo district .............................................................................................................78
4. Dodoma region...............................................................................................................78
4.1 Mpwapwa district ......................................................................................................78
5. Morogoro region .............................................................................................................79
5.1 Ulanga district...........................................................................................................79
5.2 Kilombero district ......................................................................................................79
5.3 Kilosa district ............................................................................................................79
5.4 Mvomero district .......................................................................................................80
Appendix IV: Forest disturbance in the Eastern Arc Mountain forests of Tanzania ...............81
Appendix V: Threat Reduction Assessment of 26 forests in the Eastern Arc Mountain forests
of Tanzania...........................................................................................................................101
Appendix VI: Management effectiveness in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania ..........117
List of Tables
Table 1 The level of disturbance for different forest categories in the Eastern Arc Mountain
forests of Tanzania .........................................................................................................22
Table 2 the major threats and TRA% (in ascending order) reocrded in the EAM forests of
Tanzania.........................................................................................................................26
Table 3 Ranking of the main forest threats in terms of frequency of occureances in the 26
studied EAM forests of Tanzania....................................................................................28
Table 4 Management effectiveness score (by percentage) of 26 studied forests in the EAM
forets of Tanzania...........................................................................................................29
Table 5 Selected critical management issues for the EAM forests of Tanzania ....................32
Table 6 Summary of human disturbance transects in Kiverenge FR .....................................33
Table 7 Forest threats in Kiverenge FR .................................................................................34
Table 8 Summary of human disturbance transect in Mramba FR..........................................35
Table 9 Forest threats in Mramba FR ....................................................................................35
Table 10 Summary of human disturbance transects in Chambogo FR..................................36
Table 11 Forest threats in Chambogo FR ..............................................................................36
Table 12 summary of human disturbance transects in Vumari FR ........................................37
Table 13 Forest threas in Vumari FR .....................................................................................37
Table 14 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mkusu FR.........................................38
Table 15 Forest threats to Mkusu FR.....................................................................................38
Table 16 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mzumbai FR.....................................39
Table 17 Forests threats in Mzumbai FR ...............................................................................40
Table 18 Summary of human disturbnce transects in Bombo West FR.................................40
Table 19 Forest threats in Bombo West FR ...........................................................................41
Table 20 Summary of human disturbance transects in Ambangulu private forest .................41
Table 21 Forest threats in Ambangulu private forest .............................................................42
Table 22 Summary of human disturbance transects in Nilo FR .............................................42
Table 23 Forest threats in Nilo FR .........................................................................................43
Table 24 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mtai FR ............................................43
Table 25 Forest threats in Mtai FR.........................................................................................44
Table 26 Summary of human disturbance transects in Nguru North FR................................45
Table 27 Forest threats in Nguru North FR ............................................................................45
Table 28 Summary of human disturbance transects in Kilindi FR..........................................46
vii
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report
Table 29 Forest threats in Kilindi FR ......................................................................................46
Table 30 Summary of human disturbance transects in Idewa FR..........................................47
Table 31 Forest threats in Idewa FR ......................................................................................47
Table 32 summary of human disturbance transects in Ihang'ana FR ....................................48
Table 33 Forest threats in Ihang'ana FR ................................................................................48
Table 34 Summary of human disturbance transects in Kisinga-Lugalo FR ...........................49
Table 35 Forest threats in Kisinga-Lugalo FR........................................................................49
Table 36 Summary of human disturbance transects in Kitonga FR .......................................50
Table 37 Forest threats in Kitonga FR ...................................................................................50
Table 38 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mselezi FR .......................................51
Table 39 Forest threats in Mselezi FR ...................................................................................52
Table 40 Summary of human disturbance transects in Nambiga...........................................52
Table 41 Forest threats in Nambiga FR .................................................................................53
Table 42 Summary of human disturbance transects in Lyondo FR .......................................53
Table 43 Forest threats in Lyondo FR....................................................................................54
Table 44 Summary of human disturbance transects in Ihanga FR ........................................54
Table 45 forest threats in Ihanga FR......................................................................................55
Table 46 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mang’alisa FR ..................................55
Table 47 Forest threats in Mang’alisa FR ..............................................................................56
Table 48 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mafwomera FR ................................57
Table 49 Forest threats in Mafwomera FR.............................................................................57
Table 50 Summary of human disturbance transects in Ukwiva FR........................................58
Table 51 Forest threats in Ukwiva FR ....................................................................................58
Table 52 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mamiwa-Kisara North FR.................59
Table 53 Forest threats in Mamiwa-Kisara North FR .............................................................59
Table 54 Summary of human disturbance transects in Kanga FR.........................................60
Table 55 Forest threats in Kanga FR .....................................................................................62
Table 56 Summary of human disturbance transects in Nguru South FR ...............................63
Table 57 Forest threats in Nguru South FR ...........................................................................63
List of Figures
Figure 1 Location of the Eastern Arc Mountain forests of Tanzania ........................................2
Figure 2 Location of study forests in the Northern zone, Kilimanjaro and Tanga regions ......16
Figure 3 Location of study forest reserves in the Southern zone, Iringa, Morogoro and
dodoma regions..............................................................................................................17
Figure 4 A plot for disturbance analysis .................................................................................18
Figure 5 Mean number of cut trees per ha in Proposed forests (n=2), Private forests (n=2),
LGFR (n=3) and CGFR (n=19) in the EAM forests of Tanzania.....................................24
Figure 6 Mean number of poles per ha in Proposed forest (n=2), Private forest (n=2), LGFR
(n=3) and CGFR (n=19) in the EAM forests of Tanzania ...............................................24
Figure 7 TRA% for the Proposed forests (n=2), Private forests (n=2), LGFR (n=3) and CGFR
(n=19) in the EAM forests of Tanzania...........................................................................25
Figure 8 Mean score (%) of management effectiveness for the Proposed forests (n=2),
Private forests (n=2), LGFR (n=3) and CGFR (n=19) in the EAM forests of Tanzania ..29
Figure 9 Illegal charcoal transportation in Kanga FR, Mvomero district (top) and below is a
confiscated bicycle used in illegal charcoal transportation .............................................61
Figure 10 Illegal banana and cardamon farming in Kanga FR, Mvomero district ..................62
Figure 11 Pitsawing along transect number 4 in Nguru South FR, Mvomero district.............64
viii
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report
Acronyms
AHI
asl
CBFM
CBO
CHILLA
CGFR
CMEAMF
DFO
DNRA
DNRMP
EAM
ELCT
EUCAMP
FBD
FE
FI
FR
GEF
HIMA
IUCN
JFM
KVTC
LGFR
MEMA
MNRT
NBD
NFP
NGO
NRBZMP
PFM
PFs
PFRs
PORALG
SECAP
SUA
TANAPA
TaTEDO
TFAP
TFCMP
TIP
TRA
UDSM
UNDP
WCPA
African Highland Initiatives
Above sea level
Community Based Forest Management
Community Based Organization
Gathering of Reputed Elders
Central Government Forest reserve
Conservation and Management of Eastern Arc Mountain Forests
District Forest Officer
District Natural Resources Advisor
District Natural Resources Management Program
Eastern Arc Mountains
Evangelist Churches of Tanzania
East Usambara Conservation Area Management Program
Forestry and Beekeeping Division
Forest exteriour
Forest interior
Forest reserve
Global Environmental Facility
Hifadhi Mazingira (“Soil Conservation”)
International Union on Conservation of Nature
Joint Forest Management
Kilombero Valley Teak Company
Local Government Forest reserve
“Matumizi Endelevu ya Mali Asili”
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism
National Biodiveristy database
National Forest Programme
Non Governmental Organization
Natural Resources and Buffer Zone Management Zone
Participatory Forest Management
Private Forests
Proposed Forest Reserves
Presidents Office, Regional Administration and Local Government
Soil Erosion Control and Agroforestry Program
Sokoine University of Agriculture
Tanzania National Parks
Tanzania Traditional Energy Development Organization
Tanzania Forest Action Program
Tanzania Forest Conservation Management Program
Tropical Irrigation Project
Threat Reduction Assessment
University of Dar es Salaam
United Nations Development Programme
World Commission on Protected Areas
ix
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report - Introduction
1.0
1.1
Introduction
The Eastern Arc Mountain Forests of Tanzania
Tanzania is one of the countries in Africa endowed with vast natural resources, which include
forests and woodlands. One of the richest areas in forest resource includes the Eastern Arc
Mountains (EAM) and the coastal forests. The Eastern Arc Mountains are a chain of ancient
crystalline mountains (between 360,000 and 534,000 ha of forests), which run from the Taita
Hills in Southeast Kenya to the Makambako Gap just to the southwest of the Udzungwa
Mountains in Tanzania (Mittermeier et al., 1998; Myers et al., 2000, Mbilinyi et al. 2005)
(Figure 1). They are blanketed with montane forests that have been isolated from other
ecosystems for millions of years – with some taxa showing links that go back 30 or more
million years. These remaining fragments of forests are islands (Lovett, 1989) of moist
climate surrounded on all sides by semiarid lands; consequently, these mountains support
high levels of plant diversity and endemism. Much of the original forests have been
converted to agricultural crop production (Mrema and Nummelin, 1998; Zilihona et al., 1998;
Newmark 1998 and 2002; Munishi et al., 2002).
The EAM comprise only 0.1 percent of tropical Africa's land area yet contains a startling 13
percent of the entire continent's vascular plants. Over 25% (800 species) of the Eastern Arc
plant species are endemic while 60% of all Tanzania endemic plants occur in the EAM
(Rodgers, 1993; Hamilton and Mwasha, 1989). Nine endemic primate species, like the
critically endangered Highland Mangabey (Lophocebus kipunji), and the African violets
(Saintpaulia spp.) are among the region's best known species. These mountains are major
national, regional and local sources of water for agricultural, hydropower and industrial use, a
wide array of forest products and agricultural production. In November 1997, the Second
International Conference on the EAM concluded that this unique ecosystem was undergoing
an accelerated rate of destruction and that there was an urgent need for documentation of
the problem if changes were to be made to reverse or slow the process (Burgess et al.,
1998). Additionally, little work is being done to identify the agents causing the changes,
evaluate their relative importance, or to suggest ways to mitigate their impact.
These forests have been under continuous exploitative human pressure for at least 2,000
years (Schmidt, 1989). Until recently, especially before the last 50 years (Kikula, 1989), this
pressure was sustainable in some parts. However, the growing human population in the area
is leading to increased pressure on the remaining natural forests and represents the main
threat to their survival. It has placed greater demand on the resources of the ecosystem to
provide food, fuel wood, hydropower, clean water and other forest products. This has caused
serious conflicts between the use of the ecosystem by the local people to meet these
requirements and the sustainability of the forest resource. Other conservation challenges
include: the effects of animals, weather, people, climate change, mining, forest insect and
disease-causing pests, air pollution, fire, poor harvesting techniques, exotics and/or invasive
plant species, under-story cultivation and forest land conversion. These factors have also, in
recent years, compromised efforts towards forest sustainability and biodiversity conservation
causing great concerns among government authorities, and local and international
researchers and conservation agents.
1
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report - Introduction
Figure 1 Location of the Eastern Arc Mountain forests of Tanzania
2
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report - Introduction
1.2
Policy Environment
The first National Forest Policy of Tanzania was put forward in 1953 and reviewed in 1963 to
detail the manner in which the forest and tree resources would be managed sustainably to
meet the needs and desires of the society and the nation. Over the past three decades the
perspectives on the role of the forest for the society have changed and broadened
considerably as a consequence of social, economic, environmental, cultural and political
changes. On the other hand there has been a relentless pressure on the forest resources
arising from the ever-increasing demand for fuel wood, fodder, timber and demand of
forestland for other uses. In 1988 the government of Tanzania initiated the preparation of the
Tanzania Forestry Action Plan (TFAP), which was completed in 1989 and adopted by the
government as a basis for the development of the forestry sector (MNRT, 1994). The
challenge to manage Tanzania’s forest resources as a national heritage on an integrated and
sustainable basis to optimise their environmental, economic, social and cultural values
remains as pressing as ever. Between 1992 and 1994 the TFAP was revised, including the
assessment of policy related issues, because of the macro and socio-economic policy
reforms implemented in the country. In addition, as a result of the international forest-related
discussion initiated by the 1992 UNCED conference in Rio the process to develop a new
forest policy document was initiated with involvement of relevant stakeholders based on an
analysis of the ecological and economic needs of the country and availability of human and
other resources. This policy was been formulated in a comprehensive way to cover all forests
regardless of ownership or administration and includes trees on farmlands. The overall goal
of this new national forest policy (MNRT, 1998) is to enhance the contribution of the forest
sector to sustainable development of Tanzania and the conservation and management of her
natural resources for the benefit of the present and future generations.
The objectives of the sector based on the overall goal of the policy are as follows:
• Ensure sustained supply of forest products and services by maintaining sufficient forest
area under effective management;
• Increased employment and foreign exchange earnings through sustainable forest based
industrial development and trade;
• Ensure ecosystem stability through conservation of forest biodiversity, water catchments
and soil fertility; and
• Enhanced national capacity to manage and develop the forest sector in collaboration with
other stakeholders.
Based on the above objectives four policy areas were identified and relevant policy issues
and policy statements discussed. These issues include; forest management, forest based
industries and products, ecosystem conservation and management and institutions and
human resources.
1.3
Forest Management in Tanzania
Forest Management in Tanzania aims at practical application of scientific, technical and
economic principles to achieve sustainability in forest production. The implementation of the
government forest policy therefore has been and is aimed at achieving sustained yield of the
products and benefits that are available from all types of managed forests. The sustained
yield principle applies to all main forest types in Tanzania that include montane forests,
lowland forests, coastal forests, woodlands, mangroves, bush lands and thickets and swamp
forests. Other types include a number of plantations composed of various exotic tree species
- mainly pines, eucalyptus, cypress and teak.
There has been a growing concern amongst forest professionals and the public that many
forest areas in Tanzania are not achieving the objectives for which they were established.
3
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report - Introduction
This has been mainly due to negative human impacts such as deforestation and loss of
forest biodiversity resulting from unsustainable utilization. One response by the governments
to this concern has been an emphasis on the need to reduce the negative impacts and
increase the effectiveness of managing forest areas in the country to ensure maximum
contribution of the forests to local livelihoods.
Natural forest management in Tanzania has progressively become a problem and
sustainable management is restrained by shortages of staff and financial resources for
implementation of the necessary forest management activities. An initiative by the
government in the late 1980s and early 1990s leading to the formation of a Tanzania
Forestry Action Plan (TFAP) (MNRT, 1994) and recent reforms under the National Forest
Programme (NFP) (MNRT, 2001) seek to rectify and improve this situation. Through some of
its components such as Participatory Forest Management (PFM) (MNRT, 2003) and the
Eastern Arc Strategy “Conservation and Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests
(CMEAMF), the Tanzania Forest Conservation and Management Programme (TFCMP)
offers a considerable hope for rectifying forest management issues in Tanzania.
The implementation of the 1998 forest policy and the 2001 National Forest Programme aims
at sustainable utilization of natural forests within the framework of the meeting the basic
needs of people living near the forests for improved livelihoods and poverty reduction (NFP,
2001). Other aims include sustainable harvesting regimes, maintenance and improvement of
catchment water regulation, nutrient recycling and regulation of other essential ecological
processes and maintenance of biological diversity within the framework mentioned above.
Some of the issues to be resolved while meeting the requirements of sustained use include
regulation of utilization and logging in catchment forests to maintain and improve catchments
functioning and reduce negative impacts on water resources. In this case, zoning of the
catchment forests for various uses has been introduced and aims at different objectives and
management applications for each zone. Land use planning and its implementation in areas
with high ecological and socio-economic value is also being undertaken.
Traditional forest management has a tendency to concentrate on natural forests as a source
of wood products only, with some forests classified for catchment protection and
environmental functions. The management of catchment forests would concentrate on the
efficient use of climate, soil and vegetation resources to influence beneficially the rainfallrunoff relationship in terms of time-volume distribution of water quantity, water quality and
soil water storage. The present critical state of some natural forests as to the sustainability of
yields of products and benefits has offered many scenarios for consideration in sustainable
forest management in Tanzania (MNRT, 1998). Such scenarios have included promoting
timber products from selected indigenous and exotic tree species grown in plantations on
unreserved lands, community forestry and urban woodlots / fuel wood plantations to relieve
utilization pressure on natural woodlands allowing them to maintain a composition conducive
to other multi-purpose uses.
1.4
Conservation and Management initiatives in the EAM
In recent years, forest sustainability and biodiversity conservation have become major
concerns worldwide. There is an expectation that forests are healthy and sustainable when
biotic and abiotic influences do not threaten the attainment of conservation objectives now or
in the future. Forest management and conservation objectives can vary from non-managed
forests on public lands through very intensively managed community-based forests to
complete protection and preservation. Conservation objectives can be compromised by
animals, weather, people, climate change, forest insect and disease-causing agents, air
4
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report - Introduction
pollution, fire, poor harvesting techniques, exotics and/or invasive plant species, under storey
cultivation and forest land conversion.
The Eastern Arc Mountains contain more than 150 reserves of various types with different
management objectives. The majority of the reserves are under the management of the
Forestry and Beekeeping Division through the central government ‘catchment forestry
section. This includes almost all the high biodiversity value forests that have critical water
catchment functions. Other forests are under the authority of the District Council as Local
Authority forest reserves and as Village Forest reserves under the village government. Two
additional forest areas are located within national parks under the authority of TANAPA –
large areas of forests and woodlands of the Udzungwa Mountains national park and a tiny
area of forest (Malundwe) within the huge expanse of woodland habitats within the Mikumi
national park. Some other forest areas remain on private land, for example in the tea estates
like Ambangulu and in the Mazumbai research forest in the West Usambara Mountains.
The EAM forests are heavily threatened and there is an urgent need for documentation of the
problem if changes are to be reversed or the degradation process slowed. Additionally, little
work has been done to identify the agents causing the changes, evaluate their relative
importance, or to suggest ways to mitigate their impact. The Government’s main obligation is
to manage this important ecosystem sustainably. In spite of some successful conservation
programs in some areas, one of the main management problems in the EAM is the lack of a
coherent strategy for the conservation and wise use of these areas. Additionally there are a
number of issues that contribute to the problem. For example, there is a complex and
uncoordinated administration and institutional framework for forest management in Tanzania.
Three parallel administrative structures control forest resources from central, regional and
local governments. Responsibilities rest on different ministries e.g. Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism (MNRT) and Presidents Office Regional Administration and Local
Governments (POLARG). Traditionally there has been a general lack of ability or will to
involve all stakeholders (especially local people) in managing these forest resources.
Further problems involve conflicts of interest over forests and land use, lack of capacity,
resources, and poor governance and lack of equity at many levels within societies (including
corruption). The relationship between poverty and population growth is another serious
problem as are the available policy mechanisms, which do not allow the forest-adjacent
communities to use the forest and obtain much benefit from it. Successful implementation of
forest management approaches in these mountains would allow the country to meet its
obligations towards the global efforts for biodiversity conservation.
Until both the rural people and government agencies can see and understand what is happening,
there is little incentive to implement corrective actions. The top-down approach, which
marginalized the communities, has failed in many parts of the EAM and for the last five years
substantial reforms have taken place in the forest sector in Tanzania following the adoption of the
National Forest Policy (MNRT, 1998). The reforms have been geared towards the
operationalization of different components of the policy in order to facilitate its implementation.
These institutional changes helped to attract new action in the management of forest resources.
The government in collaboration with international institutions are implementing approaches such
as Participatory Forest Management (PFM). Participatory Forest Management is a strategy to
achieve sustainable forest management by encouraging the management or co-management of
forest and woodland resources by the communities living close to them. Surveys conducted in
2003 and 2004 showed that there are more than 60 conservation agencies working in the EAM,
and most of them involving the local communities (Madoffe et al., 2002). A preliminary survey
shos that PFM has potential in conserving and managing this ecosystem if the benefits are
equitably shared amongst the concerned stakeholders (Munishi et al., 2002). However, more
efforts are needed to create awareness amongst different stakeholders.
5
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report - Introduction
In order to initiate, implement and ensure efficient and adequate participation in PFM, reliable
information must be available to determine the status and trend of the forest conditions, to assist
in planning and identifying the areas where changes are most needed. Human and financial
resources must be made available to deal with these problems. The success of the PFM will
however, depend on fair cost benefit sharing between the government on the one hand and the
local communities on the other hand. Such an approach is likely to be a big market based
incentive towards sustainable forest management (Munishi et al., 2002).
It is therefore from this background that the current work on forest management and forest
condition assessment has been undertaken.
1.5
Forest condition paradigm
In order to measure forest condition changes, a number of baseline surveys must be
established that can be repeated either as a whole or in part. A linked set of issues forms
one of the fundamental parts of this baseline, that of assessing forest disturbance, threats
facing the forest, and effectiveness of the management of the forest.
1.5.1 Forest disturbance
Forest disturbance can be seen as a discrete force that causes significant change in
structure and/or composition of the forest through natural events such as fire, flood, wind or
earthquake; mortality caused by insects or disease outbreaks; or by human-caused events
such as the harvest of a forest. In forests, larger disturbances generally favour colonizing
(often non-native) species, while smaller disturbances favour competitive native species.
Typically, diversity in the landscape is greater with disturbances at infrequent intervals. Small
but frequent disturbances create high diversity at the stand or ecosystem level.
Human interference on the Eastern Arc mountain forests may date back to more than 2,000
years (Schmidt, 1989). The impacts were probably severe as early as the Early Iron Age.
However, the most serious degradation in most parts of the Eastern Arc forests has
undoubtedly taken place in the second half of the 20th century (Kalaghe et al., 1988; Hamilton
and Mwasha, 1989; Bjondalein, 1992). The major types of human impacts and intrusions on
the Eastern Arc mountain forests especially at household level include cultivation and
grazing, general consequences of increasing population pressure, small-scale logging,
collection of firewood and non wood forest products, charcoal burning and in some cases
mineral exploitation (Bjondalein, 1992; Munishi and Temu, 1992; Munishi et al., 2002). Such
impacts on the forest resources may result in a decline in forest area, deterioration of forest
structure, species composition, gene pool resources and ecological functions of the forest
such as hydrology (Munishi et al., 2002). In order to capture the level of disturbance over a
long period, Frontier-Tanzania initiated a number of baseline forest disturbance surveys in
the Eastern Arc Mountain forests, using systematic survey methodologies, field observations
and causal collections to quantify anthropogenic threats (Doggart et al., 1999; Beharrell
2002; Frontier-Tanzania, 2002a,b; Frontier-Tanzania, 2005a,b; Doggart et al., 2005).
1.5.2 Forest threat
Only a few of the protected areas are immune from one type of threat or another and many
are vulnerable to a range of them. Threats vary from those posed by inappropriate
government policies to illegal activities such as poaching and encroachment. Forest threats
cause impacts within the reserve such as biodiversity loss and outside the forests such as
water reduction. Both internal and external forest threats need to be addressed because they
have an impact on the attainment of management objectives.
6
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report - Introduction
1.5.3 Management effectiveness
The purpose of management is to achieve objectives, and the extent to which management
objectives are achieved should be the principal measure used in assessing management
performance. To maximise the potential of protected areas, and improve management
processes, we need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their management and
the threats that they face. In the last few years, various methodologies for assessing
management effectiveness of protected areas have been developed and tested around the
world. It is clear that the existence of a wide range of situations and needs require different
methods of assessment (IUCN, 2000). The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA)
has therefore developed a ‘framework’ for assessment. The WCPA framework aims both to
provide some overall guidance in the development of assessment systems and to encourage
standards for assessment and reporting. The WCPA framework is based on the idea that
good protected area management follows a process that has six distinct stages, or elements:
context (existing values and threats), planning, inputs, processes (as result of management
actions), outputs (products and services) and outcomes / impacts.
The approach facilitates a range of responses to threats and deficiencies in management,
from site-based actions to broad political and policy review. It advocates that managers can
use the evaluation results to improve ongoing management through adaptive management to
influence policy to improve protected area systems, provide accountability to, and raise
awareness of civil societies. The assessment of management effectiveness of the protected
area must be preceded with background information on biological and cultural significance of
the area, the threat it faces and its vulnerability to these threats. Assessment of
management effectiveness should include both issues within and/or beyond the control of
individual managers. Globally very few protected areas have implemented comprehensive
protected area evaluation systems.
The findings of management effectiveness evaluations can be used to help managers
improve ongoing management of protected areas through adaptive management; influence
policy to improve protected area systems and management arrangements; and to provide
accountability and raise awareness. It is, however, clear that there are strict limitations on
what it can achieve, it should not for example be regarded as an independent assessment, or
as the sole basis for adaptive management. It is limited in terms of allowing comparison
between sites. The scoring system, if applied at all, will be most useful for tracking progress
over time in one site or a closely related group of sites. Furthermore, it is limited in its ability
to allow a detailed evaluation of outcomes.
1.6
Objectives of the work
The dispersed forest blocks in the EAM are under a range of administration, conservation
and management regimes, human patterns, and land-use practices. These factors contribute
significantly to the complexity of threats and their root causes, which will diminish the
biological diversity of the forests. In particular, the conservation of the EAMs biodiversity and
catchment values has often come into conflict with a desire for shorter-term exploitation of
the Arc’s economic values (mainly land and timber).
To solve these problems reliable baseline information must be available to determine the
forest condition (disturbance, threat and management effectiveness) to assist in planning and
identifying the areas where more conservation and management efforts are needed. Human
and financial resources must be made available to deal with the problems. The small amount
of government financial resources that is available for conservation in Tanzania has
historically been spent on high profile sites like the Serengeti ecosystem and Ngorogoro
Crater Conservation Area. However, recent trends bode well for the future of conservation in
the country. The UNDP/GEF programmes have full support of the Government and are
7
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report - Introduction
working towards the development and implementation of an integrated conservation strategy
for the biodiversity conservation and water supply in Tanzania’s Eastern Arc Mountain
forests. It is therefore from this background that work on forest management and forest condition
assessment was facilitated by the project ‘Conservation and Management of the Eastern Arc
Mountains Forests’.
The objectives of this study as stipulated in the Terms of Reference (Appendix I) were to:
•
•
•
Assess the levels of disturbance within a sample of more than 100 Eastern Arc forests
across the 14 districts covering the Eastern Arc Mountain;
Identify the types and intensity of threats facing a sample of more than 100 Eastern Arc
forests across the 14 districts covering the Eastern Arc Mountains;
Determine the management effectiveness of a sample of more than 100 Eastern Arc
forests across the 14 districts covering the Eastern Arc Mountains.
The itinerary of the work is in Appendix II.
8
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Study Area
2.0
Study Area
The study was conducted in fourteen districts in five regions namely Kilimanjaro (Mwanga
and Same districts), Tanga (Lushoto, Korogwe, Muheza and Kilindi districts), Morogoro
(Ulanga, Kilombero, Kilosa and Mvomero districts), Iringa (Mufindi and Kilolo districts) and
Dodoma (Mpwapwa district). Twenty-six forest reserves (Figure 2 and Figure 3) were
surveyed and their vegetation and main threats are briefly discussed below according to
Lovett and Pócs (1993), Velthein and Kijazi (2002), www.easternarc.or.tz (2005) and field
observations from this work. Further information of these forests is in Appendix III. The area
given for most of the forests has declined in the past 20 years (www.easternarc.org, 2004,
Madoffe et al., 2005).
2.1
Kilimanjaro region
2.1.1 Mwanga district
i) Mramba forest reserve
The reserve is covered in part by a dry montane forest. The major part is dry woodland and
thicket with extensive areas of rocky outcrop. Albizia sp., Newtonia buchananii and
Podocarpus sp. are present in the dry montane forest whilst in the dry woodland Combretum
spp., Commiphora sp. and Dodonaea viscosa scrub exist.
Building poles, firewood and charcoal are harvested from the woodlands. Cultivation extends
up to the forest boundary and fires occasionally enter the reserve. Livestock are grazed in
parts of the forest reserve and hunting of small mammals is common.
ii) Kiverenge proposed forest reserve
Kiverenge proposed forest reserve has a predominantly dry woodland and thicket with
grasses and dry montane forest on the peak. Dry woodland tree species include Acacia spp.,
Combretum spp., Croton spp., Euphorbia spp. and Dalbergia melanoxylon. The dry montane
forest comprises Brachylaena huillensis, Calodendrum capense, Gnidia latifolia, Olea
capense and Synadenium grantii.
Encroachment for cultivation, pole cutting, firewood collection grazing, bush fire and charcoal
burning are the major threats.
2.1.2 Same district
i) Chambogo forest reserve
The vegetation is mainly of dry forest type with semi desert conditions on the lower slopes
from 900 - 1100 m asl (above sea level) supporting bushland. Above 1100 m asl there is a
gradual transition to secondary wooded grassland and open woodland. Dry deciduous forest
occurs at 1200 m asl with dry montane forests at 1400 m asl around the Manga village
enclave. Montane forest occurs at the ridge summit above 1400 m asl at Manga village. In
the bushland zone, dominant tree species are Acacia mellifera and other Acacia spp.,
Commiphora spp. and Terminalia sp. bushes. In the woodland zone Combretum molle,
Ozoroa reticulata, Ormocarpum kirkii and Terminalia sp. are common. The dry montane
forest contains Brachylaena huillensis, Calodendrum capense, Catha edulis, Croton
megalocarpus, Diospyros natalensis, Euphorbia nyikae, Euphorbia quadrangularis, Olea
capensis and Teclea simplicifolia. In the montane forest Newtonia buchananii is an emergent
with Podocarpus latifolia and Ekebergia capensis.
Encroachment for cultivation, building poles and firewood cutting, grazing, charcoal burning,
and fire are the main problems.
9
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Study Area
ii) Vumari forest reserve
The vegetation in Vumari FR is predominantly dry forest with bushland dominating the lower
slopes. The upper altitude is dominanted by wooded grassland and open woodlands. Several
villages surround the reserve and pole cutting and grazing are the main threats to the
reserve.
2.2
Tanga region
2.2.1 Lushoto district
i) Mkusu forest reserve
Mkusu FR is part of Magamba FR, Lushoto district with the main objective of the reserve
being conservation and management of East Africa camphor (Ocotea usambarensis). Other
objectives include water catchment and biodiversity conservation. This reserve is also rich in
Juniperus procera. The main threats to the reserve include encroachment, illegal timber
harvest and grazing.
ii) Mazumbai private forest
Sokoine Univeristy of Agriculture owns Mazumbai forest. It is mostly submontane forest (800
- 1600m asl) and is in remarkably good condition with huge Ocotea usambarensis and
Newtonia sp. trees. The canopy is around 30m with emergents of 40-50m. The forests of
Mazumbai are home to the endemic frog Arthroleptis tanneri as well as at least 11 Eastern
Arc Mountain forests endemic vertebrate species. The most dominant tree species in the
Mazumbai forest reserve include Ocotea usambarensis, Syzygium guineense, Parinari
excelsa, Newtonia buchananii, Dicranolepis usambarica, Agauria salicifolia, Isoberlinia
scheffleri, Sorindeia usambarensis, Drypetes usambarica, Allanblackia stuhlmannii,
Pachystela msolo and Aningeria adolf-friederci (Munishi, 2001). Several villages surround
Mazumbai forest reserve and the main threat is animal poaching and collection of medicinal
plants.
2.2.2 Korogwe district
i) Ambangulu private forest
Ambangulu forest is within Ambangulu tea estate land. The forest is rich in biodiversity and
rather similar to that of the East Usambara mountains around Amani and can be defined as
submontane forest with montane forest on the highest ridges. The occurrence of lowland
forest species such as Afrosersalisia cerasifera and Milicia excelsa, together with the EAM
forest endemic Cephalosphaera usambarensis, define submontane forest, whereas montane
forest is indicated by the occurrence of Ocotea usambarensis at an altitude of 1360 m asl.
Secondary and drier forest species such as Cussonia spicata, Harungana madagascariensis
and Rauvolfia caffra occur on the forest edge at 1230 m asl. Deep in the forest are banana
groves, said to be places of refuge in the past. More recently, forests disturbance results
from logging of Entandrophragma, Isoberlinia and Newtonia sp. Parinari excelsa is not
logged because its wood clogs the saws. Attempts to replant Newtonia failed because its
long taproot made transplanting difficult, but the introduced Maesopsis eminii grows well and
is readily dispersed by hornbills. The main human impact in Ambangulu is encroachment and
illegal pole cutting.
ii) Bombo West forest reserve
The vegetation in Bombo West FR is grassy, pyric climax, open woodland with extensive
areas of Brachylaena huillensis thicket. The woodlands are composed of tall trees and tree
clumps of Acacia spp., Grewia spp. and Sterculia africana. The thickets are composed of
dense scrub dominated by Brachylaena huillensis with Adenium obesum, Croton sp.,
Cymomera sp., Euphorbia sp., Strychnos sp., Teclea sp. and Uvaria sp.
10
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Study Area
The reserve was created to protect the Brachylaena huillensis stocks and has relatively low
catchment value. Major human impacts and threats include Brachylaena harvesting, grazing,
firewood collection and fire that greatly affects the grassland.
2.2.3 Muheza district
i) Nilo Forest reserve
Nilo FR has six endangered species, 31 vulnerable species and 45 near threatened species
according to the National Biodiversity Data base (NBD) UDSM (1997) and IUCN 2000
categories. The vegetation in Nilo FR is distributed as follows: dense submontane forest
1,671 ha (28.5 %), cultivation under submontane forest 1,738 ha (29.6 %), dense lowland
forest 1,190 (20.3 %), poorly stocked forests 356 ha (6.1 %), cultivation under lowland forest
336 ha (5.7 %), bush 170 ha (2.9 %), peasant cultivation 372 ha (6.3%), barren land 37 ha
(0.6 %), and settlement 2.0 ha (0.0 %). The main species include Cepahlocephaera
usambariensis, Funtumia africana, Raurolfia cafra, Tabernaemontana spp., Greenwayi
odondron suaveolens and Commiphora africana. Like many of the EAM forests Nilo is
threatened with timber exploitation, grazing and annual fires.
ii) Mtai forest reserve
The majority of the forest in Mtai can be classified as “dense lowland forest” (84%) occurring
up to 850 m asl. About 10% is “dense submontane forest” and the rest mostly poorly stocked
and degraded lowland forests. A biodiversity survey was conducted in Mtai in 1997 and
again in 2001. The Mtai reserve contains at least 271 species of vascular plants, 31 species
of mammals, 94 species of birds, 34 species of reptiles, 27 species of amphibians, 55
species of butterflies, and 33 species of molluscs. More than half of the plant species are
forest dependent – seven of them endemic to the Usambara Mountains. In terms of fauna,
Mtai is home to one critically endangered, four endangered and 20 vulnerable species,
according to IUCN categories (IUCN 2002).
The main timber genera include Cephalosphaera, Newtonia, and Isoberlinia, which occur in
large quantities. Antiaris, Beilschmedia, Khaya, Maesopsis and Milicia are also present but
they occur in smaller quantities.
Main human impacts include fire, mining and grazing.
2.2.4 Kilindi district
i) Nguru North forest reserve
Woodland vegetation covers the western foothills up to 1400 m asl altitude. Lowland forest
occurs at lower altitude on the eastern side while submontane forest occurs above from 1400
- 1500 m asl altitude. Woodland tree species include Brachystegia spp., Julbernardia
globiflora, Pterocarpus angolensis, Combretum molle, Bridelia micrantha, Dombeya
rotundifolia, Cussonia arborea and Canthium sp. Lowland species include Khaya anthotheca
and Milicia excelsa. Submontane forest species include Newtonia buchananii as a canopy
tree with Albizia gummifera, A. schimperiana, Cylicomorpha parviflora, Pterocarpus sp.,
Bersama abyssinica, and Myrianthus holstii. The main human impacts in this reserve include
fire, mining and grazing.
ii) Kilindi forest reserve
The western leeward side supports woodland and scrub on the steeper slopes and ridges
with riverine to submontane forest in the valley and around the base of the hills. Evergreen
riverine forest also occurs and is dominated by Albizia versicolor, Antiaris toxicaria,
Diospyros sp., Grewia sp. Malacantha alnifolia, Milicia excelsa, Pterocarpus sp., Sterculia
appendiculata and Tabernamontana ventricosa. The third stratum, which is dominanted in
the eastern side, is the lowland rain forest where Newtonia buchananii and
Entandrophragma excelsum are emergents. Other species include Parkia filicoides,
11
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Study Area
Allanblackia stuhlmannii, Aningeria adolfi-friedericii, Bequaertiodendron natalense,
Cylicomorpha parviflora, Diospyros sp. and Pachystela msolo. Water from the eastern side
feeds into the Msiri and Kilindi rivers. On the western side, ground water originating in the
forest is used for irrigated rice fields of Tamota prison. Kilindi is threatened by fire, mining
and grazing.
2.3
Iringa region
2.3.1 Mufindi district
i) Idewa forest reserve
The vegetation is montane forest type with canopy tree species such as Parinari excelsa,
Polycias fulva, Ocotea usambarensis, Bridelia micrantha, Rapanaea rhododendroides
among others. Threats to the forest include fires, especially on the forest edge, pole cutting,
firewood collection and to some extent timber harvesting though this has greatly been
reduced.
ii) Ihang’ana forest reserve
Ihang’ana FR is covered by montane vegetation with canopy trees being Parinari excelsa,
Cussonia arborea and Syzygium guineense. Threats to the forest include fires especially on
the forest edge, pole cutting, firewood collection and to some extent timber harvesting.
2.3.2 Kilolo District
i) Kisinga-Lugalo forest reserve
The vegetation in Kisinga-Lugalo is montane forest type with some parts covered by highland
grasslands. The montane forest tree species include Parinari excelsa, Cussonia arborea,
Maesa lanceolata, Podocarpus sp. Syzygium guineense, S. cordatum, Zanthoxylum
chalibeum, Rapanaea rhododendroides, Polycias fulva, Ficus sp., Cassipourea sp.,
Macaranga kilimandscharica and Bridelia micrantha. The reserve is one of the major sources
of the Ruaha river catchment. Among the major threats include encroachment for cultivation
especially on valley bottoms, forest interior fires (originating from local honey harvesting
activities), and forest edge fire originating mainly from farmlands. Bamboo harvesting for
preparation of tomato transportation containers (baskets) is also a big threat.
ii) Kitonga proposed forest reserve
The major part of Kitonga proposed FR is miombo woodland vegetation on the lower slopes
with montane vegetation on the top of the ridges. The woodland species include Julbernardia
globiflora, Combretum zeyheri, C. molle, Albizia harveyi, Pterocarpus angolensis and
Bauhinia sp. On the montane forest Entandrophragma sp. has been reported. The forest is a
catchment to several streams that feed into the Ruaha river. Threats to the forest include
timber harvesting, charcoal burning, firewood collection and pole cutting.
2.4
Dodoma region
2.4. 1 Mpwapwa district
i) Mang’aliza forest reserve
The largest patch of montane forest is in the south of the plateau and is surrounded by
miombo and agricultural land.
The primary threat to Mang’aliza is clearance for agricultural land. Other threats include fire
and hunting. The clearance of the forest is causing both a loss of total available habitat and
the fragmentation of the remaining forest. Hunting pressure is high in the forest and hunters
have noticed a decline in some wildlife species, for example buffalo.
12
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Study Area
ii) Mafwomera forest reserve
Mafwomera is dominantly montane forest with miombo woodlands on the lower altitude.
Podocarpus sp. is being harvested from the ridge top. Syzygium spp. are also being
removed. Many young men from Mbuga are involved in this trade. People are also hunting
within the reserve using pitfall traps and metal leg hold traps.
2.5
Morogoro region
2.5.1 Ulanga district
i) Mselezi forest reserve
Two main natural vegetation types can be distinguished within the reserve, riverine lowland
forest at the bottom of the Mselezi stream and a semi evergreen drier type on the rocky
valley slopes.
Canopy trees in the lowland forest include Bombax rhodognaphalon, Erythrophleum
suaveolens, Khaya anthotheca, Milicia excelsa, Parkia filicoidea and Treculia africana. The
lower canopy is dominated by Dombeya amaniensis with Psychotria lauraceae, Sorindeia
madagascariensis, Tricalysia microphylla and Vangueria madagascariensis. In the dry
lowland forest Khaya anthotheca, and Pterocarpus sp. are dominant with Albizia gummifera,
and Trema orientalis among other species.
Encroachment for small-scale farming, logging, fire and mining are among the major threats
in this reserve.
ii) Nambiga forest reserve
The main vegetation in Nambiga FR is that of a lowland ground water forest with a mixture of
forest and woodland species. Lowland ground water forest species include Albizia sp.
Bombax rhodognaphalon, Borassus sp., Combretum molle, Khaya anthotheca,
Lettowianthus stellatus, Milicia excelsa, Piliostigma thonningii, Sterculia appendiculata,
Trema orientalis, Terminalia sambesiaca, and Trilepisium madagascariensis.
Logging, encroachment for cultivation and teak planting especially on the forest edge near
Iragua village are threats to the reserve.
2.5.2 Kilombero district
i) Iyondo forest reserve
Iyondo forest is a relatively undisturbed lowland forest with canopy trees composed of Khaya
anthotheca, Milicia excelsa and Pterocarpus mildbraedii. Patches of swampy grassland
occur. Iyondo is threatened with encroachment, fire and timber exploitation particularly M.
excelsa. The reserve covers the lower part of the Ruipa, Ichiwchiwa, Iyondo and Mgeta river
catchments, which flow into the Kilombero river.
ii) Ihanga forest reserve
The forest has been greatly impacted by human influences with some settlements inside the
forest necessitating boundary re-survey as a solution to the problem.
13
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Study Area
2.5.3 Kilosa district
i) Ukwiva forest reserve
Ukwiva FR can be classified into: woodland, riverine forest and dry montane forest.
Woodland species include Acacia sp., Brachystegia boehmii, Diplorynchus condylocarpon,
Kigelia africana, Pterocarpus angolensis, Vitex sp., and Brachystegia microphylla. Riverine
forest contains Khaya anthotheca and Milicia excelsa. Dry montane forests are dominated by
Macaranga kilimandscharica. Other tree species include Agauria salicifolia, Aphloia
theiformis, Bridelia micrantha, Catha edulis, Diospyros whyteana, Halleria lucida, Maesa
lanceolata, Maytenus acuminata, Nuxia congesta, Parinari excelsa, Polycias fulva,
Rapanaea melanophloeus and Xymalos monospora.
The eastern escarpment of the reserve is mostly grassland on the upper slopes becoming
woodland on the lower slopes. The upland plateau is covered by secondary dry montane
forest. Riverine forests follow the watercourses.
The forest is heavily encroached for settlement and farming. Other human threats include
timber extraction and fire.
ii) North Mamiwa forest reserve
The ridge is largely covered by forest with moist forests on the wetter eastern side. Heaths
occur on the summits with upper montane forest. Montane forest and dry montane forest
occur on the lower slopes. The drier south and southwest slopes of the whole ridge are
covered by dry evergreen forest bushes and wooded grasslands. All these vegetation types
contain a number of species associated to them including but not limited to Erica arborea,
Phillipia usambarensis, Berberis holstii and Tecomaria capensis in the heath. In the upper
montane forest, the dominant species are Balthazaria schliebenii, Cussonia lukwangulensis,
Garcinia volkensii, Ocotea usambarensis and Podocarpus latifolius. Cussonia spicata,
Dombeya burgessiae, Clerodendron sp. and Macaranga capense occur in the montane
forest, while Afrosersalisia cerasifera, Albizia gummifera, Allanblackia stuhlmannii and
Syzygium guineense occur in the dry submontane forest. Acacia sp., Albizia versicolor,
Anona senegalensis and Dombeya rotundifolia are dominant in the wooded grasslands.
Heavy logging has been a major threat to the forest. Other threats include fire and
encroachment for cultivation.
2.5.4 Mvomero district
i) Kanga forest reserve
The vegetation is a wide range of forest types from lowland to submontane, montane and
upper montane on the wetter eastern side. Woodlands occur in the drier areas in the foothills
and on western side from 380 - 600 m asl. Woodland species include Annona senegalensis,
Brachystegia boehmii, B. microphylla, B. spiciformis, Diplorhynchus condilocarpon,
Julbernardia globiflora among others. Lowland forest species include Afrosersalisia
cerasifera, Antiaris toxicaria, Bequaeritiodendron natalense, Cola greenwayii, Cola
stelecantha, Milicia excelsa, Parinari excelsa. Submontane forest species include but are not
limited to Allanblackia stuhlmannii, Leptonychia usambarensis, Myrianthus holstii,
Macaranga capensis, Newtonia buchanani and Parinari excelsa. Montane forest species
include Agauria salicifolia, Aphloia theiformis, Cryptocaria liebertiana, Ilex mitis, Maesa
lanceolata and Myrica salicifolia.
The forest is relatively undisturbed probably due to traditional value restrictions. In spite of
this, there is some encroachment, timber extraction and fire.
14
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Study Area
ii) Nguru South forest reserve
The reserve comprises of a wide range of vegetation types resulting from a wide range of
topographic and climatic features and soil conditions. Lowland rain forest occurs in valleys of
the eastern slopes between 300 - 900 m asl. Submontane forest covers large areas in the
eastern valleys between 900 - 1400 m asl, with fragments on the western slopes at 1400 1500 m asl. Montane forest occurs between 1400 and 1800 m asl with mossy covered upper
montane forest at higher altitudes and a drier montane forest on the western side at 1600 2000 m asl. Lowland forest species include Bombax rhodognaphalon, Cephalosphaera
usambarensis, Erythrophleum suaveolons, Parkia filicoidea, Tetrapleura tetraptera and
Uapaca paludosa in the upper canopy. The lower canopy is composed of Memecylon
erythranthum, Dicranolepis usambarica and Mesogyne insignis. The dominant trees in the
submontane forest include Allanblackia stuhlmannii, Beilschemiedia kweo, Cephalosphaera
usambarensis, Hrysophylum gorungosanum, Cylicomorpha parviflora. Drypetes reticulata,
Entandrophragma excelsum, Isoberlinia shefflerii and Myrianthus holstii. Montane forest
species include Allanblackia uluguruensis, Aningeria adolfi-friedercii, Bequaertiodendron
natalense, Chrysophyllum gorungosanum, Ocotea usambarensis and Agauria salicifolia. In
the upper montane forest Balthazaria schliebernii, Garcinia volkensii, Ocotea usmbarensis,
Podocarpus milanjianus, and Schefflera myrianthus are the major tree species. Species of
the dry montane forests include Allophyllus pervillei, Bridelia brideliifolia, Drypetes reticulata,
Flacourtia indica, Leptonychia usambarensis, Musaenda microdonta, Parinari excelsa and
Podocarpus latifolia. Erica arborea and Philipia usambarica form heath vegetation as small
stands on exposed rocky ridges with shallow soils.
15
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Study Area
Figure 2 Location of study forests in the Northern zone, Kilimanjaro and Tanga regions
16
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Study Area
Figure 3 Location of study forest reserves in the Southern zone, Iringa, Morogoro and dodoma
regions
Note that the results for the Uluguru forests are contained in a separate report produced by FrontierTanzania (2005a,b).
17
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Methodology
3.0
Methodology
3.1
Disturbance Assessment
The methodology used for the forest condition assessment was a modified version of that
previously used by Frontier-Tanzania in other forest areas within the Eastern Arc (FrontierTanzania 2002b). The same pattern of transect lay out was adopted but with between
transect distance being 200 m instead of 900 m. Limitation of time and funding necessitated
this modification.
3.1.1 Details of Methods
Disturbance was assessed in a series of plots of 50 m long and 10 m wide along transect
lines located systematically (oriented east – west) from a randomly chosen starting point on
the forest edge or a path within the forest (Figure 4). The starting point and direction of each
transect line was recorded using a GPS (georeferenced) and a compass respectively to
allow transects to be relocated in the future. The end of each transect line was also recorded
(georeferenced) for the same purpose.
The level of disturbance through the forest was assessed by the number of standing, dead or
cut trees and poles along the 10 m wide strip transect (5 m on either side of the 50 m
transect). Trees were defined as all standing woody plants with straight stems of at least 3 m
and with a diameter at breast height (dbh) over 15 cm. Poles/saplings were defined as all
standing woody plants with straight trunks of at least 2 m in length and with a dbh of 5 - 15
cm.
A team of four people was used for the transect method (one recorder, two chainmen and
two walkers, one on each side of the strip). The data were recorded separately for each 50m
transect section, to permit a variety of analysis later.
50 m
5m
Transect Line
5m
Figure 4 A plot for disturbance analysis
3.1.2 Information recorded at each sampling point
For every tree and pole/sapling along the transect, the following were recorded:
• Number of live trees (or live poles/saplings).
• Number of naturally dead trees (or naturally dead poles/saplings)
• Number of new cut trees (or new cut poles/saplings) - in this case the cut should still be
fresh and not blackened.
• Number of old cut trees (or old cut poles/saplings) – in this case the cut should have
blackened.
Fallen trees, branches and woody plants with a diameter smaller than 5 cm were not
included.
18
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Methodology
3.2
Threat reduction assessment
In this assessment threats were assessed along the disturbance transects, along random
walks in the forests and along existing paths within the forest. Through these walks, the
survey team identified all direct threats to the biodiversity of the forests, which were present
and observed during the survey. At least three and up to a maximum of five threats were
identified for each forest
Each threat was ranked based on three criteria:
a) area (the percentage of the habitats in the site that the threat will affect if it occurs),
b) intensity (the impact of the threat within a micro-site - will the threat completely
destroy the habitat in a small locality, or will it only cause minor changes?) and
c) urgency (the immediacy of the threat - will the threat occur in the near future or in so
many years in the future?).
If there are four threats, the highest ranked threat for each criterion receives a score of four,
and the lowest ranked threat receives a score of one.
The scores across all three criteria were added up to get a total ranking for each threat. The
degree to which each threat reduction has been met was determined, based on what was
defined as "100% threat met" for each threat and forest.
The raw score for each threat was calculated through multiplying the total ranking by the
degree to which threat reduction has been met (previous step)
The final threat reduction index score was calculated by adding up the raw scores for all
threats, dividing by the sum of the total rankings and multiplying by 100 to get the Threat
Reduction Assessment (TRA) index. Threat Reduction Index indicates the extent to which
the threats have been reduced to a target conservation area because of project
interventions. The TRA approach requires the project team to agree upon a standard field
methodology for each forest.
3.3
Management Effectiveness
The Management effectiveness assessment was conducted using the World Commission on
Protected Areas (WCPA) management effectiveness tracking tool (IUCN, 2002). It was done
using the following stages:
The survey team completed the tracking tool for each forest by filling in two sections, which
were:
Datasheet Section, which contains detailed key information on the site, its characteristics and
management objectives, and includes an overview of WWF / World Bank involvement.
Assessment Form Section, which includes the following three distinct sections (Appendix VI).
i)
The main part of the assessment form (questions and scores) containing a series of
30 questions that were answered by assigning a simple score ranging between 0
(poor) to 3 (excellent).
ii)
The comments box next to each question, which allowed qualitative judgments to be
justified by explaining why they were made, and ranged from personal opinion to
reference documents.
19
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Methodology
iii)
For each question, long-term management needs were identified to further relevant
adaptive management of the forests.
A final total score was calculated as a percentage of scores from those questions that were
relevant to a particular forest.
20
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
4.0
Results
4.1
Forest disturbance and threats
Detailed levels of forest disturbance for individual forest reserve are given in Appendix IV. On
average all the forests were disturbed but to varying degrees. Although the sample sizes
were not even in the four categories of forests i.e. Proposed Forests (PFRs, n = 2), Private
Forests (PFs, n = 2), Local Government Forest Reserves (LGFRs, n = 3) and Central
Government Forest Reserves (CGFRs, n = 19), the differences in disturbance levels are
striking (Table 1, Figure 5 and Figure 6).
Results for the cut trees showed that there were significant differences (F = 4.21, df = 25, p =
0.0075) between the four categories of the forests and it appears that PFs are the least
disturbed followed by CGFRs and the worst were the PFRs and LGFRs. On the other hand,
there were also significant differences (F = 7.17, df = 25, p = 0.0002) in pole extraction
between the four categories of forest; it appears that pole extraction was worst in the LGFRs
followed by the PFRs, while PFs and CGFRs had the least pole extraction.
Detailed types and intensity of threats facing each study forest are given in Appendix V.
Forest threats were categorised into forest edge and forest interior in order to capture the
impact of different threats experienced in various locations. Table 2 shows the major and the
highest ranked threats recorded for each study forest. The overall TRA ranged from 26.3%
for proposed Kitonga forest reserve to 71.4% for Ambangulu private forest. The lower the
TRA percentage, the higher the threats and vice versa. TRA for most study forests (14)
ranged between 30% and 39%. Five forests were in a range between 40% and 50%,
(Mramba, Chambogo, Vumari, Nilo and Nguru North), five below 30% (Kitonga, Iyondo,
Mangaliza, Mafwomera and North Mamiwa) and only two above 50% (Mazumbai and
Ambangulu). On average private forests were less threatened and both LGFRs and
proposed forest reserves were the most threatened categories (Figure 7). Mean TRA
percentages were compared statistically between the four categories of forests, there was a
strong significant difference (F = 14.5, df = 25, p = 0.005) between these groups. Considering
mean TRA percentage for the interior and edge threats, no significant difference (t = 2.06, df
= 25, p = 0.198) was recorded.
Ten main threats were identified in all the forests (Table 3). All of them were both forest edge
and forest interior threats except mining which occurred as an entirely forest interior threat in
Ambangulu, Nilo, Mtai, Nguru North, Kilindi and Mselezi forest reserves, and hunting which
occurred in Mazumbai, Idewa, Ihang’ana, Nambiga, Ukwiva and North Mamiwa forest
reserves. Fire and pole cutting appear to be the most dominant threat followed by grazing.
Fire as a forest edge threat occurred in 25 out of the 26 study forests and in 14 forests as a
forest interior threat. Pole cutting occurred in 18 forests as a forest edge threat and 17
forests as a forest interior threat. Conversely medicinal plant collection occurred only in one
forest as a forest edge threat and three forests as forest interior threat. Other threats, which
were forest specific included Bamboo and Cussonia extraction, honey collection, trailing,
stone extraction and grass cutting.
21
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Average new
cut per ha
Average old
cut per ha
Average
dead per ha
Average live
per ha
Total no.
sampled
Average new
cut per ha
Average old
cut per ha
Average
dead per ha
Average live
per ha
Total no.
sampled
Forest sites
Total area of
transect (ha)
Table 1 The level of disturbance for different forest categories in the Eastern Arc Mountain forests of Tanzania
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOREST RESERVES
Trees
3
1197
346.7
Mramba
Trees
5.45
2476
343.3
Chambogo
Trees
4.75
1813
311.8
Mkusu
Trees
3.5
1596
289.1
Bombo West
Trees
6.1
2579
381.8
Nilo
Trees
3.2
1473
400
Mtai
Trees
11.9
3720
283.7
Nguru N
Trees
5
2397
430.2
Kilindi
Trees
3.05
2285
570.2
Ihang'ana
Trees
8.7
3741
322.6
Kisinga L
Trees
2.3
724
240
Mselezi
Trees
1.05
462
304.8
Nambiga
Trees
9.5
4149
322.5
Iyondo
Trees
5.05
1029
144.4
Mangalisa
Trees
3.3
2497
548.2
Mafwomero
Trees
9.7
3611
307.6
Ukwiva
3.9
2369
433.3
Mamiwa-Kisara Trees
Trees
4.25
1182
206.1
Kanga
Trees
9.55
1105
87.5
Nguru S
103
40405
330.2
Sub total
42.7
23.5
18.1
27.1
12
25
25.7
47
77.4
94.8
47.4
110
103
41
180
57.2
147
30.8
5
58.6
7
81.7
47.6
135
26.6
34
2.9
0.8
91.5
11.7
21.7
25.7
10.8
17.2
28.2
7.3
27.4
39.3
18.7
33.4
2
5.9
4.2
4.3
2.5
0.6
0.3
1.4
10.2
0.8
5.6
0
0.3
1.2
0
0.1
0
1.9
4.4
2.41
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
Poles
2362
3586
2282
1497
1787
1927
3484
2764
2447
3299
673
518
5167
796
2312
2543
2302
854
1443
42043
693.3
494.9
408.2
335.1
244.1
554
271.4
528.2
621.6
333.4
226.1
407.6
490.1
113.3
586.1
237.8
474.6
159.3
111.4
383.7
56.7
14.1
3.2
17.7
0.3
5
18.2
22.4
56.1
28
30.4
70.5
46
15
68.5
21.2
74.9
16.2
11.8
30.3
31.7
135
54.3
72.9
44.1
40
2
1.8
111
16.9
36.1
15.2
7.5
29.1
43.3
3.1
40.3
24.9
24.7
38.6
5.7
14.3
14.7
2
4.4
2.5
1.1
0.4
14.1
0.8
0
0
0.3
0.2
2.7
0
0.5
0.5
3.1
3.54
PROPOSED FORESTS
Trees
Kiverenge
Trees
Kitonga
Sub total
34
7.5
20.8
53
109
81.1
2.1
4.6
3.35
Poles
Poles
893
848
1741
292
200.3
246.2
15
6.6
10.8
59
70.2
64.6
7.1
1
4.05
2.4
3.05
5.45
659
830
1489
185
150.8
167.9
22
LOCAL GOVBERNMENT FOREST RESERVES
Trees
0.85
889
858.8
Idewa
Trees
3.5
867
134.6
Ihanga
Trees
2
937
306.5
Vumari
6.35
2693
433.3
Sub total
PRIVATE FORESTS
Trees
1.3
885
580
Mazumbai
Trees
0.8
315
362.5
Ambangulu
2.1
1200
471.3
Sub total
117
45787
8852
GRAND TOTAL
4.5
1761.1
340.5
MEAN/FOREST
Average new
cut per ha
Average old
cut per ha
Average dead
per ha
Average live
per ha
Total no.
sampled
Average new
cut per ha
Average old
cut per ha
Average dead
per ha
Average live
per ha
Total no.
sampled
Forest sites
Total area of
transect (ha)
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
104
11.4
119
77.8
83.5
95.4
119
99.1
0
6.3
1.5
2.6
Poles
Poles
Poles
729
1258
1558
3545
664.7
242
678
528.2
47.1
2
79.5
42.9
140
109
79.5
109
0.9
6.6
4.5
4
101
20
60.4
1510
58.1
0
7.5
3.75
1103
42.4
0
3.8
1.9
64
2.5
Poles
Poles
1042
633
1675
49004
1885
781.5
707.5
744.5
10857
417.6
20
10
15
757
29.1
0
71.3
35.7
1262
48.5
0
2.5
1.25
90
3.5
.
23
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Figure 5 Mean number of cut trees per ha in Proposed forests (n=2), Private forests (n=2),
LGFR (n=3) and CGFR (n=19) in the EAM forests of Tanzania
Figure 6 Mean number of poles per ha in Proposed forest (n=2), Private forest (n=2), LGFR
(n=3) and CGFR (n=19) in the EAM forests of Tanzania
24
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Figure 7 TRA% for the Proposed forests (n=2), Private forests (n=2), LGFR (n=3) and CGFR
(n=19) in the EAM forests of Tanzania
25
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 2 the major threats and TRA% (in ascending order) reocrded in the EAM forests of Tanzania
MAJOR THREATS
FOREST
Tree/Pole
RESERVES
Encroachme
nt
Fire
E
I
E
I
√
√
Kitonga
√
North Mamiwa
√
Iyondo
√
Mangaliza
√
Mafwomera
√
Mselezi
√
Idewa
√
Kanga
√
Ihanga
√
Bombo West
√
√
√
Ukwi√a
√
√
√
Kisinga Lugalo
√
√
Mkusu
√
√
Ihang'ana
√
√
√
Nguru South
√
√
√
√
Kilindi
√
√
√
Ki√erenge
√
Mtai
√
√
Nambiga
√
√
√umari
√
√
Chambogo
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Nilo
Nguru North
√
Mramba
√
√
√
√
√
I
E
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
28.1
√
√
√
28.2
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
I
√
Wood
Mining
E
E
I
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
27.0
28.5
30.1
√
30.8
31.4
√
31.8
√
√
35.1
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
37.4
37.8
√
38.3
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
39.7
√
√
41.1
√
√
43.1
√
43.4
√
44.4
√
√
√
√
√
38.5
39.1
√
√
√
36.8
37.0
√
√
√
√
√
Threats 2
I
√
√
√
E
√
√
√
√
I
32.0
√
√
E
TRA%
√
√
√
√
I
√
√
√
√
√
√
E
√
√
√
I
Collection
√
√
√
√
E
Hunting
26.3
√
√
I
Plants
√
√
√
E
√
√
√
I
Burning
1
E
I
Mazumbai
Ambangulu
Overall
E
√
√
Honey
Harvest
√
√
Medicinal
Cutting
√
√
Fire
Grazing
√
√
Charcoal
Others
√
√
Timber
45.9
66.8
71.4
Fire
Firewood/grazing
Firewood
Fire
Fire
Firewood
Fire
Encroachment
Tree/pole
Grazing
Illegal logging
Grazing
Fire
Encroachment
Tree/pole
Fire
Grazing
Fire
Tree/poles
Fire
Grazing
Fire
Fire
Pole
Firewood
Grazing
26
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
1
Others include: External trailing in Mramba and Kiverenge, External stone extraction and grass cutting in Chambogo and Vumari respectively and internal Baboo abd
Cussonia cutting in Kisinga Lugalo.
2
Highest ranked threat according to raw score. For each FR, E = Forest Edge (Exterior) and I = Forest Interior.
27
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 3 Ranking of the main forest threats in terms of frequency of occureances in the 26
studied EAM forests of Tanzania
Threat
Fire
Pole cutting
Encroachment
Grazing
Illegal timber harvest
Firewood collection
Charcoal burning
Mining
Hunting
Medicinal plants
4.2
Frequency of occurrence
Edge
Interior
25
14
18
17
17
10
17
8
7
14
17
4
4
6
6
5
1
3
Mean
Ranking
19.5
17.5
13.5
12.5
10.5
10.5
5.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
Management effectiveness
An evaluation of the management effectiveness in the Eastern Arc Mountain forests is being
conducted for the first time, to provide the basis for the monitoring programme. The
framework presented here gives the key desired outcomes of management (derived from the
management objectives) together with a range of performance areas and indicators that
could provide evidence about extent of achievement of each desired outcome. The final
scores (calculated as percentage) from those questions that were relevant to a particular FR
is given in Appendix VII. The higher the percentage scores the more effective (strong) is the
management and vice versa.
The management effectiveness for most of the forests (18) was between 31% and 45%
(Table 4). This indicates that these forests are not well managed and therefore they stand a
chance of loosing their status (biodiversity conservation and catchment values) if the
situation is not arrested. Only Mazumbai and Ambangulu forests (privately owned) were well
managed with management effectiveness score of over 50%. Conversely, one PFR
(Kitonga), one LGFR (Ihanga) and three CGFR (Ukwiva, Nguru North and Mselezi) were
poorly managed (15%–30%). Inaccessibility and lack of resources (human and financial)
could have contributed to poor management. There was no forest falling within the very
poorly managed category.
Analysis of variance carried out to compare the management effectiveness (percentage)
between the four categories of FRs showed that there was significant difference (F = 15.92,
df = 3, p = 0.005) between the four forest categories. It appears that private forests are better
managed than the other three categories and that the proposed forests are the worst
managed areas (Figure 8).
28
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 4 Management effectiveness score (by percentage) of 26 studied forests in the EAM
forets of Tanzania
District
Mwanga
Same
Lushoto
Korogwe
Muheza
Kilindi
Mufindi
Kilolo
Ulanga
Kilombero
Mpwapwa
Kilosa
Mvomero
Forest reserve
Mramba
Kiverenge
Chambogo
Vumari
Mkusu
Mazumbai
Ambangulu
Bombo West
Nilo
Mtai
Nguru North
Kilindi
Idewa
Ihang’ana
Kisinga-Lugalo
Kitonga
Mselezi
Nambiga
Iyondo
Ihanga
Mangalisa
Mafwomera
Ukwiva
Mamiwa-Kisara
Kanga
Nguru South
Ownership
CG
Proposed
CG
LG
CG
Private
Private
CG
CG
CG
CG
CG
LG
CG
CG
Proposed
CG
CG
CG
LG
CG
CG
CG
CG
CG
CG
Percentage score3
33
36
39
33
40
74
51
31
44
45
29
33
38
32
39
27
29
31
33
30
35
33
27
32
33
35
3
Rank (%): <15% = Very poor, 15%–30% = Poor, 31%–45% = Average, 46%–60% = Good and >60%
= Very good.
Figure 8 Mean score (%) of management effectiveness for the Proposed forests (n=2), Private
forests (n=2), LGFR (n=3) and CGFR (n=19) in the EAM forests of Tanzania
29
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Out of the 30 (thirty) main issues used to evaluate the management effectiveness by the
tracking tool, this study showed that 11 (eleven) issues were key to the management (Table
5). The rest of the issues are considered as supportive to the key issues. Details of the
issues and criteria for scoring are given in Appendix VI. Summarised below is the status for
the study forests. The numbers in parentheses (0 = poor, 1 = good, 2 = very good and 3 =
excellent) indicate the scores.
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
Legal status: All the forests studied are gazetted except Kitonga and Kiverenge,
which are in the process of being gazetted (2). This status has some
management limitations to the relevant authorities. The local communities can
take advantage of this to carry out various activities such as forest encroachment
and grazing. This can result in the development of agricultural enclaves within the
forest, such as the case of Kiverenge FR.
Management plan: a forest reserve management plan is an important tool for
short and long term forest management activities. Unfortunately almost all forests
did not have a management plan (0) a situation that means that most activities
happen on an irregular or ad hoc basis. Management plans for Mramba forest
reserve is under preparation (1) under the facilitation of NORAD. On the other,
hand a total of five FRs, namely Idewa, Ihang’ana, Mselezi, Iyondo and Ihanga,
are proposed for the PFM programme and this would be useful as a point of
comparison in terms of management effectiveness in the future.
Regular work plan: regular work plans give the management an opportunity to
monitor and accomplish certain operations within a given period. Most forests do
not have regular work plans (0) except Mazumbai, Chambogo, Mkusu, Mtai and
Vumari forest reserves. The difference in these forests is that most or all
prescribed activities are accomplished in Mazumbai (3), most of them are not
finished in Chambogo and Mkusu (2) and activities are not monitored against
planed targets in Mtai and Vumari (1).
Staff numbers and training: in order to execute management activities such as
planning, monitoring etc successfully, sufficient and well-trained staff are needed.
All the study forests have some staff tied to them but differed in numbers and
level of training. All forests have either inadequate number of staff (1) or below
optimum level (2). On the other hand, training of staff was either low relative to the
needs of the protected area (1) or the training was adequate but could be further
improved to fully achieve the objectives of the management (2).
Current budget: availability of funds and financial management ensures execution
of planned activities. With exception of Ambangulu and Mazumbai forests, which
had a reasonable budget (2), the rest had either no budget (0) or it was
inadequate for basic management needs (1). This scenario by itself explains why
the forests are poorly managed.
Education and awareness: conservation education and awareness creation to the
local communities adjacent to the forest is considered an important tool for forest
management and conservation (FBD 2001). All the FRs had some limited and ad
hoc education and awareness programmes (1) except Idewa, Mangaliza and
Mafwomera forest reserves (0).
Input by the local communities: involving local communities in decision-making
motivates conservation because the communities will feel that the forest belongs
to them (FBD 2001, Forconsult 2003). Local communities adjacent to Idewa,
Ihang’ana, Mtai and Vumari forests directly contribute to some decisions relating
to the management (2). The rest of the forests either don’t involve the local
communities (0) or the communities have some discussions relating to the
management but do not have direct involvement in the resulting decisions (1).
Condition assessment: one of the main management objectives in the EAM
forests is to ensure that biological diversity is adequately conserved. It is only
Ambangulu and Mazumbai forests whose biodiversity and ecological values are
30
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
ix)
x)
predominantly intact (3). Conversely, the biodiversity and ecological values of
Bombo West, Ihanga, Mafwomera, Mangaliza, and Ukwiva forests have been
severely degraded (0). The rest of the forests have either some of their
biodiversity and ecological values severely degraded (1) or some biodiversity and
ecological values partially degraded but the most important values have not been
significantly impacted (2).
Access assessment: access to the forest encourages destruction of varying
magnitude and one way of reducing this is through the issuing of permits,
patrolling and monitoring. The existing protection systems for Kanga, Kilindi,
Nguru North, Nguru South and Mselezi forests are ineffective in controlling access
use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives (0). The rest are
either partially effective (1) or moderately effective (2). On the contrary,
Mazumbai forest has protection systems, which are largely effective (3).
Monitoring and evaluation: monitoring and evaluation ensures that management
obstacles are discovered and solution sought promptly. Unfortunately, all the
study forests did not have good monitoring and evaluation systems; instead some
ad hoc monitoring and evaluation with no overall strategy and/or regular collection
of results was done (1).
31
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 5 Selected critical management issues for the EAM forests of Tanzania
4
3
1
0
1
2
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
0
0
2
1
0
3
0
0
2
1
1
3
0
0
1
2
1
3
0
0
2
1
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
3
3
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
0
1
2
2
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
0
1
1
2
2
3
0
0
2
1
2
3
0
0
1
1
1
3
0
2
1
1
1
3
0
0
1
1
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
3
0
0
2
2
0
3
0
0
2
2
1
3
0
0
2
2
1
3
0
0
2
1
1
3
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
8 Input of local communities
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
9 Condition assessment
10 Access assessment
11 Monitoring & evaluation
3
2
1
0
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
0
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
0
2
1
2
2
1
Nilo
Vumari
3
0
2
1
1
1
SCORES4
3
3 3
0
0 0
0
0 3
1
1 2
2
1 1
1
1 2
ISSUE
1 Legal status
2 Management plan
3 Regular work plan
4 Staff numbers
5 Staff training
6 Current budget
7 Education & awareness
Ukwiva
Mselezi
Nambiga
Nguru North
Mtai
Nguvu South
Mramba
Mazumbai
Mkusu
Mangaliza
Mamiwa
Mafwomera
Kiverenge
Kitonga
Kisinga
Kilindi
Kanga
Iyondo
Ihanga
Ihang'ana
Idewa
Chambogo
Bombo West
Ambangulu
FOREST RESERVES
Scores: 0 = poor, 1= average, 2 = good and 3 = excellent
32
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
4.3
Detailed analysis of forest disturbance and threats by individual forest
Below is a brief explanation of the status (forest disturbance and threats) of individual forest
reserves. The linkage between the forest condition and conservation initiatives by the
Government, NGOs and local communities is also given.
4.3.1
Kiverenge proposed forest reserve - Mwanga district
Forest disturbance
Three villages namely Soffe, Kiverenge and Ngulu surround Kiverenge forest reserve
(proposed for gazettment). The community adjacent to this reserve depend on the forest for
building poles and fuel wood, fodder for animal feeding, medicines and fruits. The interior
part of the reserve has limited accessibility due to steep and rocky terrain. Limited source of
poles and firewood in the neighbourhood compel the local communities to exploit the forest.
Furthermore, the clan forests, which surround Kiverenge forest reserve, are prohibited from
exploitation. The forest has been proposed for gazettment, several boundary re-surveys
have been done between 1977 and 2002 by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism,
and people may be taking advantage of the slow pace of this process to exploit the forest
resources. Two transects with a total of length of 2,400 m were established in the northern
part of the reserve and a total of 659 trees and 893 poles were surveyed. Out of these stems,
445 (68%) trees and 700 (78%) poles were alive (Table 6). Tree and pole extraction was
fairly high. Old cut stems composed of 53 trees per ha and 59 poles per ha while new cut
stems comprised of two and seven trees and poles per ha respectively. A total of 82 (12%)
trees and 35 (4%) poles were identified as dead. Some trees could not extract enough soil
nutrients and water due to extensive rocks and this situation could be responsible for tree
mortality. In addition to seeing several goats and cattle in the survey, livestock related
disturbances (trampling, browsing and tree debarking) were also regular.
Table 6 Summary of human disturbance transects in Kiverenge FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut
% of
total
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut
% of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Trees
2400
2.4
659
445
(68)
185
82
(12)
34
127
(19)
53
5 (1)
2.1
Poles
2400
2.4
893
700
(78)
292
35
(4)
15
141
(16)
59
17
(2)
7.1
Forest threats
Grazing and pole cutting on the lower part (forest edge) of the reserve appear to be the most
serious threats in Kiverenge FR (Table 7). The forest edge is also threatened by fire, which is
mostly caused deliberately by herdsmen or accidentally from villagers’ farms. Forest interior
(upper part of the forest) fires are rare or non-existent due in part to the traditions and taboos
of the Pare people towards natural forests. People living in the lower part of the forests have
mixed cultures. The interior part of the forest is threatened by sandalwood (Osyris tenuifolia)
root digging, which appears to have a very lucrative market within and outside Mwanga
district. Interior forest accessibility has restricted most pole cutting to the forest exterior.
Grazing in both locations was rampant and several heads of livestock were seen grazing
freely in the forest during the survey.
33
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 7 Forest threats in Kiverenge FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Tree/poles cutting
Grazing
Root digging
Tree/pole cutting
Grazing
Fire (accidental/intentional)
Trailing
Raw Score
1.5
2.1
2.4
6.0
3.6
3.85
2.5
1.6
11.6
17.6
% Threat met
30
30
40
TRA %
33.3%
40
35
50
40
41.4%
37.3%
NB: FI1 First threat in the forest interior, FI2 =Second threat in the forest interior etc and FE1 = First threat in
forest edge etc. This will apply to all forest threat tables.
Conservation Initiatives
The Mwanga District Forest Office has conducted some conservation education to most of
the forest adjacent villages. A Joint Forest Management (JFM) approach was introduced in
Mwanga District in 1998 but it is yet to be introduced in Kiverenge. The catchment forest
project has been involved in activities related to forest management inside the forest reserve
for many years, while the Traditional Irrigation Project (TIP), Tanzania Forest Action Plan
(TFAP), North Pare and Natural Resources and Buffer Zone Management Zone
Development Programme (NRBZDP) have been involved in activities related to environment
conservation outside the reserve. Other conservation interventions include CHILLA Group
(elder group) who educate young people on good forest management practices, village
government leaders who provide extension to the community on sustainable use of forests
and KAHOKO Group and Kiverenge Primary School who own tree nurseries.
4.3.2 Mramba Forest Reserve - Mwanga district
Forest disturbance
Mramba forest reserve is under Central Government ownership and is surrounded by highly
populated villages in Ugweno ward (Eastern side). The restricted access to the clan forest in
Ugweno ward forces some people to conduct illegal activities in the forest reserve.
Cutting of building poles, firewood collection and charcoal burning are chronic problems in
the lower drier parts and areas adjacent to the forests. A total of 1195 trees and 2362 poles
were surveyed along four transect lines with a total length of 3,000 m (Table 8). There were
1040 and 2080 live trees and poles respectively. An average of 7 trees/ha and 32 poles/ha
composed the old cut stems while new cut stems accounted for 2 trees and 6 poles per ha.
10.7% and 7.2% of the trees were found dead naturally. These high rates of mortality could
be due to shallowness of the soils and steep slope in some parts of the reserve. Livestock
routes were common in the lower part of the reserve while in transect two there was an
abandoned farm. This was dominated with Dodonea visicosa in spite of formerly being
planted with Grevellia robusta and Albizia sp. Most of the animal sheds and houses on the
eastern side of the reserve are constructed from illegally cut trees and poles from the
reserve. The relatively low number of cut trees and poles could be due in part to the
availability of an alternative source of forest products from the agroforestry plots, private
woodlots and community education particularly in the Ugweno ward. Part of the reserve is
used as a sacred area and this could have some impact on the level of disturbance.
34
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 8 Summary of human disturbance transect in Mramba FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Trees
3,000
3
Poles
3,000
3
Old
cut %
of
total
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
1197
1040
(87.0)
346.7
128
(10.7)
42.7
21
(1.8)
7
6
(0.5)
2
2362
2080
(88.1)
693.3
170
(7.2)
56.7
95
(4.0)
31.7
17
(0.7)
5.7
Forest threats
Pole cutting appears to be the most serious threat to both forest edge and forest interior
(Table 9). Poles are widely used for building houses and livestock enclosures. The problem
appears to be more serious along the boundary due to easiness of accessibility. Other
threats that need attention include grazing, fire and root digging, particularly of sandal wood
(Osyris tenuifolia) which has very lucrative market within and outside Mwanga district. Most
fires in Mramba are set deliberately by herdsmen. Forest fires are very rare due in part to
local traditions and taboos, which place a lot of respect upon natural forests (DFO, pers.
comm.). This tradition is however being marginalized due to modernization and a reduced
number of elders in the neighbourhood. Although path networks appear to be a minor threat,
it is the central source of soil erosion. People use the paths to traverse between Kifaru ward
in the lowland and Ugweno ward in the upper mountain. The paths between these two wards
also exacerbate pole / tree cutting.
Table 9 Forest threats in Mramba FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Poles cutting
Grazing
Root digging
Pole cutting
Grazing
Fire (accidental)
Paths
Raw Score
4.9
2.25
1.6
8.75
3.85
3.2
2.8
2.5
12.35
21.1
% Threat met
50
45
40
TRA %
48.6%
35
40
70
50
44.1%
45.9%
Conservation initiatives
A JFM approach was introduced in Mwanga District in 1998 but it is yet to be introduced in
Mramba. The catchment forest project has been involved in activities related to forest
management inside the forest reserve for a long time, while the TIP, NRBZDP and TFAP
North Pare have been involved in activities related to environmental conservation outside the
reserve.
4.3.3
Chambogo forest reserve - Same district
Forest disturbance
Chambogo forest like most forests of the EAM faces serious exploitation from the adjacent
communities. Mwembe ward in the south of the reserve appears to be the main beneficiary
of the forest resources. Cutting of building poles, charcoal burning and firewood collection
are common activities in this forest. Most of these activities are conducted on the forest
edge. Human related disturbances like charcoal burning and grazing were very common.
35
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Pole-constructed cattle sheds were observed adjacent to the reserve as evidence of human
related disturbances. There were also abandoned agricultural fields, an indication of
encroachment. During the survey a total of 2476 trees and 3586 poles were surveyed along
three transect lines with a total length of 5,450m (Table 10). Out of these 76% of trees and
75% of poles were found alive. Although new cut stems composed of 6 trees and 14 poles
per ha, the higher percentage of old cut trees (82 per ha) and 135 poles per ha shows that
tree and pole extraction is fairly high in this reserve. Tree and pole mortality was very low,
5.2% (5 trees per ha) and 2.1% (14 poles per ha) perhaps due to well developed soils in the
study area.
Table 10 Summary of human disturbance transects in Chambogo FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
5,450
5.45
Poles
5,450
5.45
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
2476
1871
(75.6)
343.3
128
(5.2)
23.5
445
(18)
81.7
32
(1.3)
5.9
3586
2697
(75.2)
494.9
77
(2.1)
14.1
734
(20.5)
134.7
78
(2.2)
14.3
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Forest threats
Small-scale peasantry and livestock keeping surround Chambogo FR. Land scarcity makes
most livestock keepers graze the entire reserve (Table 11). This problem is more serious in
the open wood / forest edge. Charcoal burning and accidental fire are also posing serious
threats to the forest edge. The survey identified >40 charcoal kilns (17 being fresh) and
several heads of livestock were also seen feeding in the forest particularly in the northern
open woodland areas.
Table 11 Forest threats in Chambogo FR
Forest
location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
FE5
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Grazing
Charcoal burning
Fire (accidental)
Grazing
Fire (accidental)
Charcoal burning
Stone collection
Encroachment
Raw Score
% Threat met
3.6
2.7
2.7
9.0
5.5
4.2
3.6
1.6
2.4
17.3
26.3
40
45
30
TRA
%
37.5
50
30
45
40
40
46.8
43.1
Conservation initiatives
There have been several conservation interventions in Chambogo FR by different institutions
notably, Tanzania Traditional Energy Development Organization (TaTEDO), TIP, Roman
Catholic Church Same, ELCT / Pare Diocese and VECO. The proposed JFM programme
could further reduce the illegal tree / pole cutting. Lack of transport and funds have been
hampering the district catchment / forest offices access to this reserve. The survey revealed
that these officers have not been in the reserve for the last five years (DFO, pers. comm.
2005).
36
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
4.3.4 Vumari forest reserve - Same district
Forest disturbance
A total of 937 trees and 1558 poles were surveyed along 2,000 m of transect lines (Table
12). Live woody plants comprised 65.4% trees, 87% poles while 9% trees and 2.2% poles
were dead. The high numbers of live poles recorded indicate that Vumari forest might be
regenerating from previous cutting. Tree and pole extraction was fairly high. A total of 118.5
trees/ha and 79.5 poles/ha composed the old cut stems while new cut stems composed of
1.5 trees/ha and 4.5 poles/ha. This reserve is adjacent to Same town where a number of
charcoal, building / fencing poles and fire wood dealers get their resources.
Table 12 summary of human disturbance transects in Vumari FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
sampled
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Trees
2,000
2
937
613
(65.4)
306.5
84
(9.0)
118.5
237
(25.3)
118.5
3
(0.3)
1.5
Poles
2,000
2
1558
1356
(87.0)
678
34
(2.2)
79.5
159
(10.2)
79.5
9
(0.6)
4.5
Old
cut %
of
total
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut
% of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Forest threats
Vumari forest like Chambogo borders livestock keepers’ villages on the eastern and western
sides. Traditionally most of the villagers graze in the forest and fire has been used to hasten
grass growth. Fire is the most serious threat for the entire forest (Table 13). Fire is usually set
in the forest edges and occasionally it escapes to the interior part of the forest. Other minor
sources of fire include escape from farms. Grazing and illegal tree / pole cutting are also a
threat to the forest. The latter is used in town for fencing while some villagers use the
material for construction of houses and animal enclosures.
Table 13 Forest threats in Vumari FR
Forest
location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Fire (accidental)
Grazing
Tree/pole cutting
Fire (accidental
Grazing
Tree/pole cutting
Grass cutting
Raw Score
% Threat met
2.8
2.4
2.0
7.2
7.5
3.15
2.1
1.4
14.15
21.35
40
40
40
TRA
%
40.0
50
35
35
35
35
42.9
41.1
Conservation Initiatives
Some conservation interventions have been undertaken in Vumari; amongst them being TIP,
SAIPRO, Roman Catholic Church Same, ELCT / Pare Diocese and VECO. Issuing charcoal
burning and pole-cutting licences by the district council have also contributed to the reduced
destruction recorded. The district council is currently conducting regular patrols of the forest.
37
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
4.3.5 Mkusu forest reserve - Lushoto district
Forest disturbance
Mkusu forest reserve is bordered by Lushoto town on the southern side and highly populated
communities around the rest of the reserve. A total of 1813 trees and 2282 poles were
surveyed in five transect lines with a total length of 4,750m (Table 14). Out of these 1481
(81.7%) trees were found alive similarly 1939 (85%) poles. Tree and pole extraction was
fairly high in this reserve. Old cut trees composed of 48 trees per ha and 54 poles per ha
while new cut stems composed of 4 and 15 trees and poles per ha respectively. A total of 86
(5%) trees and 15 (1%) poles were naturally dead. Scarcity of land and forest resources (fuel
wood, building and fencing poles and timber) has compelled most people to exploit the forest
for their livelihood. Although the trend shows a reduced disturbance for the last five years,
some areas in the forest were heavily cut (DFO, pers. comm.). Other human related
disturbances were seen in the forest. One old pit-sawing site was seen along transect line
number 3 and the Ocotea usambarensis (East Africa camphor) was the main logged tree.
Other signs of human disturbance included footpaths, encroachment and livestock routes.
Table 14 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mkusu FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
47500
4.75
Poles
47500
4.75
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
1813
1481
(81.7)
311.8
86
(4.7)
18.1
226
(12.5)
47.6
20
(1.1)
4.2
2282
1939
(85)
408.2
15
(0.7)
3.2
258
(11.3)
54.3
70
(3.1)
14.7
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Forest threats
Densely populated agrarian villages surround most of Mkusu FR. The use of fire to reduce
residues during shamba preparation has been implicated as one of the main sources of
forest edge fires. Occasionally this is exacerbated by drought. Illegal harvesting of Ocotea
usambarensis is the greatest forest interior problem in Mkusu (Table 15). Although harvest
and trading of this tree is strictly prohibited, some people harvest it during the night or use
armed gangsters to protect themselves during harvesting. About 500m of border trees
(Eucalyptus sp.) were cleared illegally. Grazing and encroachment are other threats facing
the reserve and the latter is taking advantage of an unclear forest boundary in some parts. In
transect two and four, four fresh charcoal kilns were seen.
Table 15 Forest threats to Mkusu FR
Forest
location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Timber harvesting
Grazing
Charcoal burning
Tree/pole cutting
Fire (accidental)
Grazing
Encroachment
Raw Score
% Threat met
2.8
2.7
1.8
7.3
1.6
4.0
2.1
3.15
10.85
18.15
40
45
30
TRA
%
38.4
40
40
30
35
36.1
37.0
38
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Conservation initiatives
Several conservation interventions have been operational in this area, the most important
being Soil Erosion Conservation and Agroforestry Project (SECAP), TIP, Africa Highland
Initiatives (AHI), NRMBZDP, and District Natural Resources Management Programme
(DNRMP). Most of these projects have been advocating agroforestry practices and improved
agricultural production with the ultimate goal of reducing pressure on the natural forests. The
district and Magamba FR have also intensified patrols and occasionally the police force has
been used to drive out some illegal loggers from the reserve.
4.3.6
Mazumbai private forest - Lushoto District
Forest disturbance
Highly populated villages in the eastern and southern parts surround Mazumbai forest.
These communities have small and unproductive agricultural plots and the forest has
potential to improve their livelihood. In spite of that it appears that tree cutting is highly
restricted and controlled (Table 16). A total of three transect lines covering a distance of
1,300 m were surveyed. From these transects, a total of 885 trees and 1042 poles were
surveyed and out of these 85.2% trees and 97.5% poles were found alive. Conversely,
14.8% trees and 2.5% poles died naturally. Most of these deaths are associated with tree /
pole age and/or pests (diseases, insects, vines, etc). There were no old or new cut trees or
poles along these transects. In spite of that, two old cut trees were recorded adjacent to the
transect showing that Mazumbai was one of the least disturbed forests in the EAM. Iversen
(1991) made similar observations. The management has highly committed forest guards and
most communities are aware and accept conservation initiatives taken by the forest
management. One animal pit trap, a few dug tree roots and bark striping were the only
human related disturbances identified.
Table 16 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mzumbai FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
sampled
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut
% of
total
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut
% of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Trees
1,300
1.3
885
754
(85.2)
580
131
(14.8)
100.8
0
0
0
0
Poles
1,300
1.3
1042
1016
(97.5)
781.5
26
(2.5)
20
0
0
0
0
Forest threats
Wildlife poaching particularly wild pig and firewood collection are the most serious problems
in Mazumbai (Table 17). Pitfall traps or string traps are widely used for catching animals.
Trap construction and animal trapping destroy the biodiversity of the reserve. Although
Mazumbai is well patrolled, scarcity of firewood in the neighbouring villages compels people
to invade the forest for the resources. Collection of medicinal plants through debarking,
clipping of twigs and uprooting by traditional healers is also another threat within the reserve.
Although the major threats have been reduced significantly, the forest edge appears to be
more threatened than the forest interior.
39
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 17 Forests threats in Mzumbai FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Hunting
Medicinal plants
Raw Score
4.8
2.4
7.2
3.75
2.4
6.15
13.35
Firewood collection
Medicinal plants
% Threat met
80
80
TRA %
80.0
75
60
60.0
66.8
Conservation initiatives
The continued patrol from dedicated and motivated guards assists conservation and
management of the forest. Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), who owns the forest, has
a regular management budget of TAS 8.5 mi per annum. Public education to the
neighbouring villages and good working relations also contribute to the forest conservation.
Increased forest resources and improved livelihood through SECAP initiatives could have
reduced pressure on the forest.
4.3.7 Bombo West forest reserve - Korogwe district
Forest disturbance
Most villagers around Bombo West forest reserve are poor and they depend very much on
the forest for firewood, charcoal, timber, poles and non-wood forest products. Further
destruction comes from the extraction of Brachylaena huillensis for charcoal and
woodcarving by Kenyans. Some abandoned Brachylaena huillensis off cuts and about six old
charcoal kilns were seen along the transect lines. A total of 1596 trees and 1497 poles were
surveyed along two transects with a total length of about 3,500m (Table 18). A total of 27
trees per ha and 18 poles per ha were found dead through natural means. Most of these
dead trees were adjacent to old charcoal kilns. 135 trees per ha and 73 poles per ha have
been cut in the last few years. These rates show that trees and poles are heavily extracted
from this reserve. The new cut stems composed of 4 trees per ha and 2 poles per ha. Human
related disturbances included charcoal burning and encroachment.
Table 18 Summary of human disturbnce transects in Bombo West FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
3,500
3.5
Poles
3,500
3.5
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
1596
1012
(63.4)
289.1
95
(6.0)
27.1
474
29.7)
135.4
15
(0.9)
4.3
1497
1173
(78.4)
335.1
62
(4.1)
17.7
255
(17.0)
72.9
7
(0.5)
2
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Forest threats
Most open wooded exterior areas of the reserve have been invaded by large herds of
livestock and pasture management by fire has created even a more serious and complex
problem. Occasionally this exterior forest fire escape and cause some serious problems
inside the reserve. Other threats include charcoal burning and tree / pole cutting. Tree / pole
cutting (mostly Brachylaena huillensis) and the charcoal business is organized by some
villagers in collaboration with some people from Kenya.
40
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 19 Forest threats in Bombo West FR
Forest
location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Raw Score
% Threat met
2.0
1.2
2.1
5.3
2.75
3.2
1.5
2.5
9.95
15.25
25
40
30
Charcoal burning
Tree/pole cutting
Fire (accidental)
Fire (intentional)
Grazing
Tree/pole cutting
Encroachment
TRA
%
29.4
25
40
25
50
33.2
31.8
Conservation initiatives
There are no external conservation initiatives in Bombo West FR. The District forest officers
however visit and patrol the forest at least once every month (DFO, pers. comm., 2005).
Representatives from the forest adjacent village governments are usually invited to
participate in the patrol and through these collaborative conservation initiatives, messages
reach some villagers.
4.3.8 Ambangulu private forest - Korogwe district
Forest disturbance
The survey was conducted in two transect lines of about 800 m long where a total of 315
trees and 633 poles were surveyed (Table 20). A total of 8 trees per ha and 71 poles per ha
composed the old cut stems while new cut stems comprised 4 trees per ha and 3 poles per
ha. This was a very low extraction rate compared to, for example, Bombo West FR. About
5% (16 stems) of the trees and 1% (8 stems) of the poles were naturally dead, probably
because of competition for nutrients and sunlight. The live tree and pole stock was quite
high. One small abandoned mining pit was seen on the eastern part of the reserve. Another
human related disturbance was encroachment on the south eastern corner of the forest.
Table 20 Summary of human disturbance transects in Ambangulu private forest
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
800
0.8
Poles
800
0.8
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
315
290
(92.1)
362.5
16
(5.1)
20
633
566
(89.4)
707.5
8
(1.3)
10
Old
cut %
of
total
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
6
(1.9)
7.5
3 (1)
3.8
57
(9.0)
71.3
2
(0.3)
2.5
Forest threats
Grazing and gold mining are the most serious threats in the forest edge and forest interior
respectively (Table 21). Land scarcity experienced by the neighbouring villages is
responsible for the former while the latter is a new development and people from different
parts of the region are involved. Mineral exploitation is a recent problem in some parts of the
EAM. The forest is also encroached for agricultural purposes and in some places this goes
deep in the forest. More recently logging of Entandrophragma, Isoberlinia and Newtonia
(Lovett 1991) is causing some threat to the forest.
41
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 21 Forest threats in Ambangulu private forest
Forest location
Direct threat
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
Sub-total
Total
Encroachment
Timber harvest
Mining
Raw Score
% Threat met
4.5
2.4
6.4
13.3
3.9
2.8
6.7
20.0
75
60
80
Grazing
Encroachment
TRA
%
73.9
65
70
67.0
71.4
Conservation initiatives
There is a regular forest management budget, which facilitates some regular patrol. In spite
of this, the officer in charge could not reveal the figures to us. Most of the tea estate workers
come from the forest neighbouring villages. This opportunity makes the people feel more
attached to the forest (“sense of place”) and as a result facilitate in forest conservation
activities such as extending awareness to their relatives and/or neighbours. In addition,
regulations set down by their employers prohibit them from any illegal forest activity.
4.3.9 Nilo forest reserve - Muheza district
Forest disturbance
Nilo forest like most Eastern Arc Mountain forests is not immune from human disturbance.
Two bundles of firewood in transect three and livestock routes in transect one and two were
some of the identified human related disturbances within the reserve. Pole and timber
extraction was recorded along all transect lines (Table 22). During the survey 2579 trees and
1787 poles were surveyed in four transects covering about 6,100 m. The surveys showed
that 27 trees per ha and 3 trees per ha formed old and new cut stems respectively compared
to 44 poles per ha and 4 poles per ha for the new cut stems. The average cut percentage
given here shows that poles are extracted more than trees, probably due to high demand for
building poles from the adjacent villages. Conversely, Beharrell et al. (2002) recorded 10 cut
trees per ha and 29 cut poles per ha. The increase in timber / pole extraction in Nilo forest
after 2002 could be due to the phasing out of East Usambara Conservation Area and
Management Programme (EUCAMP) initiatives. Dead stems composed of 73 trees (3% and
1.2 stems/ha) and 2 poles (0.1% and 0.03 stems/ha), which is perhaps not a threat to the
forest.
Table 22 Summary of human disturbance transects in Nilo FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
6,100
6.1
Poles
6,100
6.1
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
2579
2329
(90.3)
381.8
73
(2.8)
12
162
(6.3)
26.6
15
(0.6)
2.5
1787
1489
(83.3)
244.1
2
(0.1)
0.3
269
(15.1)
44.1
27
(1.5)
4.4
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Forest threats
Forest edge fire, which appears to be the most serious threat, is caused accidentally during
farm preparation or by herdsmen or loggers (Table 23). In another study, fire was also seen
as a serious problem in Nilo (Frontier 2002b). Large burnt areas were observed during the
42
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
survey as well as fresh fires. Although illegal timber harvesting is a threat to the entire forest,
it is recorded as the most serious problem in the forest interior. Other threats recorded
include firewood collection, grazing and gold mining.
Table 23 Forest threats in Nilo FR
Forest
location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
FE5
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Raw score
%Threat Met
2.4
2.8
2.1
7.3
1.5
2.45
6.3
4.0
3.2
17.45
24.75
30
35
35
Mining – gold
Timber harvest
Fire (Accidental)
Tree/pole cutting
Grazing
Fire (accidental)
Firewood collection
Timber harvest
TRA%
40.6
25
35
45
40
40
44.7
43.4
Conservation initiatives
Nilo forest reserve was a beneficiary of the EUCAMP initiatives from 1989 – 2002. Although
this project is phased out, conservation awareness is still effective amongst some people.
Sporadic patrol conducted by the Tanga Catchment project officers could also have some
impact.
4.3.10 Mtai forest reserve - Muheza district
Forest disturbance
A total of 1473 trees and 1773 poles were counted along four transects with a total length of
3,200 m (Table 24). Old cut trees accounted for 7.5% (110 trees) of the trees and 6.7% of
the poles (129 poles). Conversely, only 2 trees (0.1%) and 8 poles (0.4%) were identified as
new cuts. In 1999, the number of cut trees per ha and cut poles per ha was 13 and 76
respectively (Doggart et al. 1999) compared to 35 trees per ha and 43 poles per ha found in
this study. Although there was increased tree cutting per ha from 1999 to 2005, the low rate
of cut poles could perhaps be due to availability of poles from individual farm forests, which
were established from 1990 under FINNIDA funding. The increased tree cutting could be due
to laxity in patrol after the phasing out of FINNIDA funding. The majority of the cut trees and
poles were recorded on the eastern part of the reserve as earlier recorded by Doggart et al.
(1999). The percentage of dead trees was higher than dead poles and they represented
5.5% (81 trees) and 0.9% (17 poles) respectively of all the surveyed stems. In transect three
and five some gaps associated with human disturbance were identified. There were signs of
fire incidences and excessive livestock trampling. Human paths were also common in the
surveyed area.
Table 24 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mtai FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
3,200
3.2
Poles
3,200
3.2
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
1473
1280
(86.9)
400
81
(5.5)
25
110
(7.5)
34
2
(0.1)
0.6
1927
1773
(92)
554
17
(0.9)
5
129
(6.7)
40
8
(0.4)
2.5
Old
cut %
of
total
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
43
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Forest threats
Mtai FR is very vulnerable to fire (Table 25) due the nature of agricultural and mining
activities conducted by the communities around the forest. Most people use fire to clear trash
in their farms and/or to hasten grass growth for their livestock. Small-scale miners are also
implicated in the setting of fires in the forest. Tree and poles are commonly used for house
construction and some are sold in Tanga town.
Table 25 Forest threats in Mtai FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Fire (accidental)
Tree/poles cutting
Mining
Fire (accidental)
Grazing
Firewood collection
Tree/pole cutting
Raw Score
4.0
1.75
1.6
7.35
4.8
2.0
1.8
2.45
% Threat met
50
35
40
TRA %
43.2
40
40
30
35
11.05
18.4
36.8
39.1
Conservation initiatives
The EUCAMP conservation interventions done between 1989 and 2002 may have
contributed to the low level of disturbance recorded here. Mtai was selected in 1999 as a
pilot for JFM in EUCAMP because of its problems of illegal uses of fire in the past (Veltheim
and Kijazi, 2002). Local communities have been involved in forest management as casual
labourers in boundary planting and clearing, forest fire fighting and patrolling (Veltheim and
Kijazi, 2002). In some cases, they played a role as informers to reveal offences and
offenders. Although this project is phased out, conservation awareness is still effective
amongst some people. Sporadic patrol conducted by the Tanga Catchment project officers
could also have some impact.
4.3.11 Nguru North forest reserve - Kilindi district
Forest disturbance
A total of 3720 trees and 3484 poles were surveyed along eight transects covering about
11,900 m (Table 26). Tree and pole extraction was very low in this reserve as only 0.9% (34
stems) of the trees and 0.7% (24 stems) of the poles were identified as old cuts while only 4
trees (0.4%) and 13 poles (0.4%) were recorded as new cuts. Some of the trees and poles
are cut by Maasai cattle herders for the construction of animal sheds while others are sold in
the local market. This reserve is buffered from most surrounding villages by large areas of
general lands, which are reasonably stocked with forest resources (trees, poles and grass), a
situation which has assisted in reducing forest disturbance. Some parts of the reserve are
used as sacred forest, which denies access to the local communities. Dead trees composed
306 trees (8%) and 217 poles (6%). In transect number seven, there were signs of an
abandoned mining pit while signs of cattle grazing were common in all transects.
44
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 26 Summary of human disturbance transects in Nguru North FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Trees
11,900
11.9
Poles
11,900
11.9
Old
cut %
of
total
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
3720
3376
(90.8)
283.7
306
(8.2)
25.7
34
(0.9)
2.9
4
90.4)
0.3
3484
3230
(92.7)
271.4
217
(6.2)
18.2
24
(0.7)
2
13
(0.4)
1.1
Forest threats
The forest edge of Nguru North is vulnerable to fire due to the nature of vegetation (open
wood land / grass cover) and human activities, especially grazing and farming in areas /
villages surrounding the reserve (Table 27). Occasionally the human caused forest exterior
fires escape to the interior part of the forest although accidental fires could occur in the forest
interior. Furthermore, hunters, honey collectors and occasionally herdsmen cause accidental
interior fires. Some farmers have even encroached into the reserve. In recent years, gold and
gem stone mining in the interior of the forest have become a big threat to the forest.
Table 27 Forest threats in Nguru North FR
Forest
location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Mining
Fire (accidental)
Tree/pole cutting
Grazing
Fire (intentional)
Encroachment
Raw Score
% Threat met
3.5
2.4
2.5
8.4
1.2
3.15
2.8
7.15
15.55
50
40
50
TRA
%
46.7
40
45
40
42.1
44.4
Conservation initiatives
There are very few organized and coordinated forest conservation activities by the central or
district governments in Nguru North due to lack of funds. Inconsistent forest visits and patrols
by the district and regional forest officers have a minor impact in conservation.
4.3.12 Kilindi forest reserve - Kilindi district
Forest disturbance
A total of 2397 trees and 2764 poles were surveyed in four transects covering a length of
5,000m (Table 28). Out of these, 2151 (89.7%) trees were alive, 235 (9.8%) dead, 0.8 and
1.4 trees per ha composed old cut and new cut trees respectively. On the other hand
2641(95.5%) poles were alive, 112 (4%) dead and 1.4 and 0.4 poles per ha composed old
cut and new cut poles respectively. The low rate of extraction recorded here could be due to
the location of the reserve. Kilindi FR like the neighbouring Nguru FR is buffered from the
villages with big areas of general land, which is well stocked with poles, trees and grass, and
therefore local communities get most of their forest needs from this area. The traditional and
cultural values, which restrict access to the forest, could also contribute in reducing forest
disturbance. Signs of livestock grazing were common in most of the surveyed transects while
in transect number two one new and one old burnt gaps were identified.
45
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 28 Summary of human disturbance transects in Kilindi FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
5,000
5
Poles
5,000
5
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
2397
2151
(89.7)
430.2
235
(9.8)
47
4
(0.2)
0.8
7
(0.3)
1.4
2764
2641
(95.5)
528.2
112
(4.1)
22.4
9
(.03)
1.8
2
(0.1)
0.4
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Forest threats
Kilindi forest like most of the EAM forests is highly threatened by fire especially on the forest
edge (Table 29). Hunters, honey collectors and occasionally herdsmen cause accidental
interior fires. The hunters and honey collectors appear to be responsible for most of the fires
(DFO, pers. comm., 2005). Most poles for villagers’ house construction and for the district
and regional markets are extracted from the open land consequently reducing the pressure
on the reserve. Encroachment for farming and settlement, and mining also threatens the
forest edge and interior, respectively.
Table 29 Forest threats in Kilindi FR
Forest location
Direct threat
FI1
FI2
FI3
Mining
Fire (accidental)
Tree/pole cutting
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
Sub-total
Total
Raw Score
%Threat met
2.0
1.8
3.85
40
30
55
7.65
Grazing
Fire (intentional)
Encroachment
1.5
2.4
2.25
6.15
13.8
TRA
%
42.5
30
30
45
34.2
38.3
Conservation initiatives
There are very few organized and coordinated forest conservation activities by the central or
district governments due to lack of funds. Inconsistent forest visits and patrols by the district
and regional forest officers have a minor impact on conservation.
4.3.13 Idewa forest reserve - Mufindi district
Forest disturbance
A total of 889 trees and 729 poles were surveyed along one transect line covering a distance
of 850 m (Table 30). The survey showed that old cut removed 84 trees per ha and 140 poles
per ha. There were no new cut trees while new cut poles composed of only 0.9 poles per ha.
The high percentage of cut trees shows that timber harvesting is one of the most serious
problems in Idewa. Accessibility from the district headquarters, Mafinga, has given the local
communities and people from other areas some liberty to exploit the forest. Trees and poles
are principally cut for fuel wood and building purposes. Two abandoned pit saws and some
human footpaths (probably of hunters, firewood collectors or tree / pole harvesters) were
seen along transects and in the forest in general. The large number of naturally dead trees
(10%) and poles (5.5%) could be due to gaps created by uncontrolled timber harvesting and
fire. Natural phenomena such as ageing may also contribute to this.
46
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 30 Summary of human disturbance transects in Idewa FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
850
0.85
Poles
850
0.85
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
889
730
(82.1)
858.8
88
(9.9)
103.5
729
565
(77.5)
664.7
40
(5.5)
47.1
Old
cut %
of
total
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
71
(8.0)
83.5
0
0
119
(16.3)
140
5
(0.7)
0.9
Forest threats
Fire and illegal timber harvesting are the most common and severe threat for the forest edge
and interior respectively (Table 31). Most fires escape from farm preparation while
inaccessibility from the district headquarters and lack of adequate on-station field staff has
given room for illegal timber harvesting. In recent years, some rituals, which advocate forest
conservation, appear to have reduced bush fires in Idewa (DFO, pers. comm., 2005).
Encroachment for farming, fire wood collection and pole cutting also pose some threat to the
reserve.
Table 31 Forest threats in Idewa FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Timber harvest
Hunting
Firewood collection
Fire (accidental)
Encroachment
Firewood collection
Raw Score
3.6
2.4
2.7
8.7
4.2
2.4
1.5
8.1
16.8
% Threat met
60
40
45
TRA %
48.3
60
40
30
45.0
46.7
Conservation initiatives
Timber extraction is still high in Idewa in spite of earlier interventions by HIMA
(Environmental Conservation in Iringa) project, which advocated sustainable forest
conservation. Alternative and sustainable sources of wood energy, through agroforestry
practices and woodlots establishment during HIMA interventions, have some potential in
reducing the pressure on the natural forests. The PFM approach to forest management is
being promoted in the district and is likely to contribute towards sustainable forest
conservation
4.3.14 Ihang’ana forest reserve - Mufindi district
Forest disturbance
A total of three transect lines covering about 3,500 m were surveyed and yielded 2285 trees
and 2447 poles (Table 32). A total of 92 trees per ha and 111 poles per ha composed old cut
stems while new cut stems composed of 10 trees per ha and 14 poles per ha. These results
indicate that both poles and trees are heavily extracted in this reserve. Several villages
surrounding Ihang'ana forest reserve have livelihoods which partly depend on the forest.
About 10% (236 stems) of the trees and 7% (171 stems) of the poles appeared to have died
naturally, probably as a result of fire or desiccation of the forest resulting from encroachment
and pole / tree cutting.
47
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 32 summary of human disturbance transects in Ihang'ana FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
30500
3.05
Poles
30500
3.05
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
2285
1739
(76.1)
570.2
236
(10.3)
77.4
279
(12.2)
91.5
31
(1.4)
10.2
2447
1896
(77.5)
621.6
171
(7.0)
56.1
337
(13.8)
110.5
43
(1.8)
14.1
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut
% of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Forest threats
The forest threats facing Ihang’ana reserve are closely related to those recorded for Idewa
FR. Encroachment and firewood collection are the most common and serious threats for the
forest edge and interior respectively (Table 33). Most fires escape from the forest agricultural
field preparations while inaccessibility from the district headquarters and lack of adequate onstation staff has given room for illegal timber harvesting. Although fire is considered a serious
threat here, only two fire incidences were recorded for the past three years (DFO, pers.
comm., 2005). The reduced threat could be due to awareness creation by the Village
Environmental Committees through HIMA project. On the other hand firewood collection is a
serious threat to both the forest edge and forest interior. Intensive removal of firewood could
reduce the productivity of the forest. Encroachment for farming, hunting and pole cutting also
pose some threat to the reserve.
Table 33 Forest threats in Ihang'ana FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Tree/pole cutting
Hunting
Firewood collection
Fire (Accidental)
Encroachment
Tree/pole cutting
Firewood collection
Raw Score
1.8
1.5
4.05
7.35
2.5
3.6
1.8
3.0
10.9
18.3
% Threat met
30
50
45
TRA %
40.8
50
40
30
30
36.3
38.0
Conservation initiatives
Timber extraction is still high in Ihang’ana forest reserve in spite of earlier interventions by
HIMA (Environmental Conservation in Iringa) project, which advocated sustainable forest
conservation. Alternative and sustainable source of wood energy, through agroforestry
practices and woodlots established during HIMA interventions, may reduce the pressure on
natural forests. The PFM approach to forest conservation in the district is likely to contribute
towards sustainable forest conservation in Ihang’ana FR.
4.3.15 Kisinga-Lugalo forest reserve - Kilolo district
Forest disturbance
Human related evidence of disturbance included human footpaths, livestock trails and
indiscriminate cuts on stems of some trees along human paths. Nine transect lines covering
a distance of 8,700 m were surveyed (Table 34). The survey identified 3741 trees and 3299
poles of which 2807 (75%) of trees and 2901 (88%) of poles were alive. Conversely naturally
dead trees and poles were 22% (825 stems) and 7% (244 stems) respectively. The high
number of dead trees and poles could be associated with forest diseases and/or ecosystem
48
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
disturbance as a result of intensive extraction of bamboo and Cussonia as well as fire from
honey collection activities. Old and new tops of Cussonia and bamboo were clear evidence
of exploitation of these species. Extraction of trees and poles was fairly low as only 12 trees
per ha and 17 poles per ha were identified as old cut stems while new cut stems composed
of 0.8 stems per ha of both trees and poles.
Table 34 Summary of human disturbance transects in Kisinga-Lugalo FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
8,700
8.7
Poles
8,700
8.7
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
3741
2807
(75.0)
322.6
825
(22.1)
94.8
102
(2.7)
11.7
7
(0.2)
0.8
3299
2901
(87.9)
333.4
244
(7.4)
28
147
(4.5)
16.9
7
(0.2)
0.8
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Forest threats
Grazing and fire appear to be the major threat on the edge and forest interior respectively
(Table 35). The majority of the external forest fires are deliberately set to accelerate grass
growth for livestock or are accidental from farm preparation, while the interior fires usually
escape from the former or from honey collectors. Intensive harvesting of Cussonia for
beehives construction causes some loses in biodiversity due to the gaps created after
harvesting. Gaps could alter the habitat making it unfavourable to other species (Kimmins,
1987). Falling Cussonia stems could also kill some other species. Other threats include fuel
wood collection, pole harvesting, bamboo extraction and encroachment for farming.
Table 35 Forest threats in Kisinga-Lugalo FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
FI4
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3e
FE4
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Bamboo extraction
Cussonia extraction
Encroachment
Fire (accidental)
Fire (intentional)
Grazing
Firewood collection
Tree/pole cutting
Raw Score
2.4
3.15
2.7
3.5
11.75
2.25
3.6
2.45
2.0
10.3
22.05
% Threat met
30
35
45
50
TRA %
39.2
25
40
35
40
34.3
36.8
Conservation initiatives
Adoption of proper land use plans by most communities around the forest as a result of
HIMA (“Hifadhi Mazingira Iringa”) and MEMA (“Matumizi Endelevu ya Maliasili”) programs,
and the formation of Village Environmental Committees could have contributed to the
observed low level of forest disturbance. Furthermore, the use of earth bricks for house
construction by most local communities as an alternative to poles has significantly reduced
the dependence on the forest for construction materials (trees and poles).
49
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
4. 3.16 Kitonga proposed forest reserve
Forest disturbance
Two transect lines covering 3,050 m were established and a total of 830 trees and 848 poles
were surveyed along these transects (Table 36). The percentage of live poles was higher
(72%) than the percentage of live trees (55%). This is an indication of heavy exploitation of
trees. Kitonga is one of the most disturbed forests in the EAM as shown by the high
percentage of cut pole / trees. Old cut trees and poles composed of 109 and 70 stems per ha
respectively, while new cut composed of 5 trees per ha and 1 pole per ha. The reserve is yet
to be gazetted. The vegetation is open in most parts and surrounded by densely populated
poor villages, factors that make the forest vulnerable to exploitation. Evidence of other
related human disturbances included presence of fresh and new charcoal kilns within the
reserve and five abandoned stacks of poles. Only 3% of the trees and 2% poles dead
through natural means. The dead trees may be linked to fires.
Table 36 Summary of human disturbance transects in Kitonga FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
30500
3.05
Poles
30500
3.05
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
830
460
(55.4)
150.8
23
(2.8)
7.5
333
(40.1)
109.2
14
(1.7)
4.6
848
611
(72.1)
200.3
20
(2.4)
6.6
214
(25.2)
70.2
3
(0.4)
1
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Forest threats
The status of Kitonga as a proposed forest reserve, its location along the Dar es Salaam –
Iringa highway, the closeness to Iringa municipality and Ilula Township and lack of serious
patrols, contribute to most of the threats facing this forest. The forest edge suffers from
frequent and severe annual fires while tree and pole cutting is the most severe threat in the
interior (Table 37). The use of fire to reduce residues during farm preparations and charcoal
burning are the main cause of accidental fires. Most poles are sold for fencing in Iringa city
and adjacent townships of Ilula. Land shortage and lack of well-known boundaries has given
room for forest encroachment and prevalent firewood collection. Furthermore, since the
gazettement process is not complete and there are no marked boundaries, neither the district
government nor central government or the local communities are fully responsible for the
forest.
Table 37 Forest threats in Kitonga FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Charcoal burning
Tree/pole cutting
Encroachment
Fire (accidental)
Encroachment
Tree/pole cutting
Charcoal burning
Raw Score
1.2
2.45
1.5
5.15
3.15
1.8
2.8
2.8
10.55
15.7
% Threat met
20
35
30
TRA %
28.6
35
30
40
35
35.2
32.7
50
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Conservation initiatives
Forest disturbance appears to be very high in this forest, probably due to lack of proper and
dedicated ownership since the reserve is in the process of being gazetted. In spite of that,
the District Council strictly prohibits charcoal burning, pole cutting and encroachment, and
fuel wood collection, which follows agreed procedures following the initiation of gazettement.
Alternative sources of poles are obtained from the adjacent forest proposed for Community
Based Forest Management (CBFM), while communities are encouraged to establish and
maintain some woodlots. These initiatives and the completion of gazettment process will
probably reduce the current disturbances.
4.3.17 Mselezi forest reserve - Ulanga district
Forest disturbance
Seven transect lines covering a total of 2,300 m were laid and a total of 724 trees and 673
poles were surveyed (Table 38). As expected the number of old cut trees and poles was
higher than the new cuts. A total 22 trees per ha and 36 poles per ha were identified as old
cut stems. Conversely 6 trees per ha formed the new cut stems while there were no new cut
poles recorded during the survey. Mselezi FR is an inaccessible forest and the district forest
officers hardly visit it due to limited funding. Lack of regular patrol has allowed some local
communities to institutionalize illegal forest activities. During the survey two old pit saws were
identified as an indication of illegal timber harvesting. Other human related disturbances
included encroachment and fire wood collection as indicated by three abandoned stacks of
firewood along the main trail to the forest. About 15% (109 stems) of the trees and 10% (10
stems) of the poles appeared to have died naturally probably due to fire and unplanned
timber extraction. Both factors could create conditions that are unfavourable to some trees.
Table 38 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mselezi FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
23000
2.3
Poles
23000
2.3
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
724
552
(76.2)
240
109
(15.1)
47.4
50
(6.9)
21.7
13
(1.8)
5.6
673
520
(77.3)
226.1
70
(10.4)
30.4
83
(12.3)
36.1
0
0
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut
% of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Forest threats
The distance from district headquarters in Mahenge, lack of funds and few forest guards has
made Mselezi FR vulnerable to different threats. Uncontrolled firewood collection on the
forest edge and encroachment for cultivation in the forest interior are the most severe threats
in the reserve (Table 39). Some farms of up to 2 ha were seen within the reserve during the
survey. In addition, tree and pole cutting and illegal timber harvesting are also threatening
the forest. In fact, part of the forest reserve has been encroached for settlement with a school
built in the encroached part. Boundary re-survey has been proposed as a settlement of this
crisis. Mining of ruby gemstones is also a growing threat in this reserve, and if the DFO does
not take immediate measures, the problem may result in serious forest degradation.
51
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 39 Forest threats in Mselezi FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
FI4
FI5
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Encroachment
Timber harvesting
Firewood collection
Tree/pole cutting
Mining
Raw Score
4.0
2.7
1.8
2.4
2.1
13.0
2.5
2.1
2.0
3.6
10.2
23.2
Encroachment
Fire (accidental)
Tree/pole cutting
Firewood collection
% Threat met
25
30
20
30
35
TRA %
27.7
25
30
40
45
34.0
30.1
Conservation initiatives
Timber harvesting, pole cutting, mining and encroachment are strictly prohibited and fuel
wood collection follows laid down district regulations. Alternative sources of poles are from
the adjacent general lands composed of woodlands. In spite of this, the forest is still
threatened, probably due to lack of patrol and monitoring by the district forest authorities. The
forest is also earmarked under the Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme, which aims
to ensure sustainable forest management. This initiative may raise awareness of the local
communities towards forests conservation.
4.3.18 Nambiga forest reserve - Ulanga district
Forest disturbance
Two transect lines covering a total of 1,050 m were surveyed and out of 462 surveyed trees,
320 (69.3%) were alive (Table 40). Similarly 428 poles (82.6%) were found alive out of the
518 poles surveyed. Tree and pole extraction was lower than that recorded for Mselezi FR.
Old cut stems composed of 26 trees per ha and 15 poles per ha. On the other hand, there
was no new cut trees and poles identified. Furthermore, 25% (115 stems) of the trees and
14% (74 stems) of the poles appeared to have died naturally. Large numbers of dead poles
and trees could be a result of open gaps created by timber exploitation, pests and ecosystem
disturbance.
Table 40 Summary of human disturbance transects in Nambiga
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
1,050
1.05
Poles
1,050
1.05
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
462
320
(69.3)
304.8
115
(24.9)
109.5
518
428
(82.6)
407.6
74
(14.3)
70.5
Old
cut %
of
total
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut
% of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
27
(5.8)
25.7
0
0
16
(3.1)
15.2
0
0
Forest threats
Inaccessibility of the reserve from the district headquarters encourages some illegal activities
in the forest. Tree and pole cutting were seen as the most serious problem along the forest
boundary while illegal timber harvesting was the same in the interior part of the forest (Table
41). Other threats included boundary encroachment, hunting and fire. Most of the forest fires
are accidental, caused during agricultural field preparations. Farms are common along the
forest edge. Encroachment of the forest in the form of teak planting by Kilombero Valley
52
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Teak Company (KVTC) is likely to be a big problem if it continues unchecked for a long
period.
Table 41 Forest threats in Nambiga FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Timber harvesting
Fire (accidental)
Hunting
Raw Score
3.5
2.4
1.2
7.1
2.7
1.75
2.75
7.2
14.3
Fire (accidental)
Encroachment
Tree/pole cutting
% Threat met
50
30
40
TRA %
39.4
45
25
55
40.0
39.7
Conservation initiatives
Environmental education given by the KVTC project and the promised alternative sources of
poles by the same may contribute to tree /pole extraction in the future. There are also some
efforts by the district forest authority to ensure reduced forest disturbance.
4.3.19 Iyondo forest reserve - Kilombero district
Forest disturbance
A total of seven transect lines covering a total length of 9,500 m were surveyed and included
4149 trees and 5167 poles (Table 42). Tree and pole extraction was fairly low in this reserve.
Only 3 trees and 3 poles (0.1% each) (0.3 stems per ha) were recorded as newly cut. In
contrast old cut trees composed of 2.5% trees (103 stems) (11 trees per ha) and 1.4% poles
(71 poles) (8 poles per ha). This forest has limited human disturbance compared to Ihanga
forest in the same district probably due to alternative sources of forest products for the forest
adjacent communities. Variations in people’s culture, availability of alternative sources of
forest products (woodlands) in the lowlands, poor accessibility and conservation education
could have contributed to the low intensity of forest disturbance. Two pit saws (one in the
forest edge and another adjacent to transect six) were indicative of activities associated with
human disturbances. The number of dead trees and poles were 23.6% (979 stems) and
8.5% (437 stems) respectively. The high level of naturally dead trees and poles could be due
to competition for nutrients, water and light. Forest diseases and wildlife damage could also
be responsible for the death of the weak and old trees.
Table 42 Summary of human disturbance transects in Lyondo FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
9,500
9.5
Poles
9,500
9.5
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
4149
3064
(73.8)
322.5
979
(23.6)
103.1
103
(2.5)
10.8
3
(0.1)
0.3
5167
4656
(90.1)
490.1
437
(8.5)
46
71
(1.4)
7.5
3
(0.1)
0.3
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Forest threats
Firewood collection by the adjacent communities is the major threat along the forest
boundary while tree and pole cutting are the major threats inside the forest (Table 43). In
addition to these, encroachment and tree / pole cutting along the boundary and illegal timber
53
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
harvesting inside the forest also threaten Iyondo forest reserve. Most forest fires originate
from adjacent agricultural fields.
Table 43 Forest threats in Lyondo FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
FE5
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Timber harvesting
Hunting
Tree/pole cutting
Raw Score
1.6
1.05e
2.8
5.45
1.2
1.1
2.7
4.5
2.8
12.3
17.75
Timber harvesting
Fire (accidental)
Tree/pole cutting
Firewood collection
Encroachment
% Threat met
20
35
40
TRA %
30.3
15
10
30
45
40
27.3
28.1
Conservation initiatives
The low level of forest disturbance recorded could partly be due to recent campaigns by the
catchment forest office against illegal forest practices around Iyondo FR. Many people are
also abstaining from operating in the forest due to the presence of fierce wild animals such
as elephants and buffalos. The planned JFM within Iyondo and CBFM in the adjacent forests
could further reduce the problem. The reserve is adjacent or adjoins the Udzungwa
Mountains National Park and conservation activities (for example patrolling) by the park may
also have influenced conservation of the FR. The National Park (NP) game scouts do not
differentiate the boundaries between the FR and the NP during patrol.
4.3.20 Ihanga forest reserve
Forest disturbance
A total of 867 trees and 1258 poles were surveyed along four transect lines (3,500 m long)
and the survey showed that tree /pole extraction was very high. A total of 95 trees per ha and
109 poles per ha were identified as old cut stems while 6 trees per ha and 7 poles per ha
formed the new cut group (Table 44). The magnitude of disturbance was also shown by the
relatively small percentage (54%) of the live trees and poles (67%). Sighting of cattle grazing,
their trails and abandoned charcoal kilns provided evidence of human related disturbance.
The high level of forest extraction recorded could be due to among other things the scarcity
of forest products experienced by the forest adjacent communities. Dead stems composed of
11 stems per ha and 2 poles per ha. Disturbance from illegal tree felling and insect / disease
attack could be responsible for the natural death of some trees and poles.
Table 44 Summary of human disturbance transects in Ihanga FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
3,500
3.5
Poles
3,500
3.5
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
867
417
(54.3)
134.6
40
(4.6)
11.4
334
(38.5)
95.4
22
(2.5)
6.3
1258
847
(67.3)
242
7
(0.6)
2
381
(30.3)
108.9
23
(1.8)
6.6
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
54
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Forest threats
Land scarcity is one of the biggest challenges facing the villages that surround Ihanga forest
reserve, and as a result, most of them depend largely on the forest for their livelihood. Trees
and pole cutting along the boundary and encroachment for settlement and farming inside the
reserve are the most serious threats documented (Table 45). Other threats include fire,
firewood collection and grazing. Encroachment for settlement into the reserve is chronic in
Ihanga and boundary re-survey has been proposed in order to resolve the existing conflict.
Table 45 forest threats in Ihanga FR
Forest location
Direct threat
FI1
FI2
FI3
FI4
FI5
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
FE5
FE6
Sub-total
Total
Encroachment
Grazing
Tree/pole cutting
Firewood collection
Charcoal burning
Encroachment
Fire (accidental)
Firewood collection
Tree/pole cutting
Charcoal burning
Grazing
Raw Score
% Threat met
4.4
4.2
2.5
2.4
1.2
14.7
1.0
2.8
5.25
6.0
1.8
2.8
19.65
34.35
40
35
25
30
30
TRA
%
32.7
20
35
35
40
30
20
31.2
31.8
Conservation initiatives
The recent campaigns against illegal forest practices by the District Forest Office could have
reduced forest disturbances. The newly introduced JFM and CBFM in the forest and the
adjacent forests could further reduce the problem.
4.3.21 Mang’alisa forest reserve - Mpwapwa district
Forest disturbance
During the study, a total of 1029 trees and 796 poles were surveyed along five transect lines
(5,050 m long) of which 70.8% trees and 71.9% poles were alive (Table 46). During the
survey 17 trees per ha and 29 poles per ha were identified as old cut stems. Conversely new
cut stems composed of 1.2 trees per ha and 0.2 poles per ha. The high extraction rate in
Mang’alisa could be due to lack of frequent patrols by responsible District Forest Officers.
Trees and pole cutting and forest clearing for farms were commonly observed in Mangalisa
FR. A total of 207 (20%) of the trees and 76 (10%) poles died naturally. The gaps created by
farming and illegal timber cutting may have contributed to large number of dead trees and
poles. Some trees are also very sensitive to forest disturbance (Moshi, 2000).
Table 46 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mang’alisa FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
5,050
5.05
Poles
5,050
5.05
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
1029
729
(70.8)
144.4
207
(20.1)
41
87
(8.5)
17.2
6
(0.6)
1.2
796
572
(71.9)
113.3
76
(9.5)
15
147
(18.5)
29.1
1
(0.1)
0.2
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut
% of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
55
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Forest threats
The primary threat to Mang’alisa FR is fire and encroachment for agricultural land (Table 47).
Forest edge and interior fire, which appears to be the major threat, is either accidental during
farm preparation or set deliberately by herdsmen and hunters. Bean and tobacco farms
between 1–1.5 ha and some up to 20 ha were seen during the survey. Forest clearing for
agricultural purposes will result in loss of biodiversity, loss of total available habitat and
fragmentation of the remaining forest. Large numbers of livestock were also seen grazing in
the forest and herdsmen looked free to continue this activity. Other threats, which could
impact on biodiversity include illegal timber harvesting and tree and pole cutting.
Table 47 Forest threats in Mang’alisa FR
Forest
location
FI1
FI2
FI3
FI4
FI5
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Encroachment
Fire (accidental)
Grazing
Timber harvesting
Tree/pole cutting
Fire (intentional)
Grazing
Encroachment
Firewood collection
Raw Score
% Threat met
2.25
3.5
2.4
1.35
2.25
11.75
3.2
2.0
3.0
1.2
9.4
21.15
15
35
30
45
25
TRA
%
26.1
40
25
30
40
31.3
28.2
Conservation initiatives
Very few conservation interventions are undertaken by the district forest office due to lack of
funds and the seclusion of the reserve from the district headquarters.
4.3.22 Mafwomera forest reserve- Mpwapwa district
Forest disturbance
Accessibility to Mafwomera FR and illegal forest activities are similar but vary in magnitude to
those reported for Mang’alisa FR. A total of 2497 trees and 2312 poles were surveyed along
five transect lines covering a distance of 3,300 m, out of which 72.4% (1809 stems) trees and
83.7% (1934 stems) poles were alive (Table 48). Conversely 24% of the trees and 10% of
the poles were dead. Tree and pole extraction were fairly high as old cut trees and poles
composed of 28 trees per ha and 43 poles per ha. There were no new cut trees and only 3
poles per ha were recorded as new cut. Although the survey showed low disturbance for the
last five years or more, some areas in the forest were completely cleared for farms (DFO,
pers. comm., and personal observation). One pit saw platform and signs of abandoned
mining pits were recorded along transect five and forest interior respectively. The gaps
created by farming and other illegal cutting may have contributed to large number of dead
trees and poles.
56
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 48 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mafwomera FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Trees
3,300
3.3
2497
1809
(72.4)
548.2
595
(23.8)
180.3
Poles
3,300
3.3
2312
1934
(83.7)
586.1
226
(9.8)
68.5
Old
cut %
of
total
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
93
(3.7)
28.2
0
0
143
(6.2)
43.3
9
(0.4)
2.7
Forest threats
Forest fires are only widespread along the boundary compared to the neighbouring
Mang’alisa FR (Table 49). Honey harvesting, farm preparations and herdsmen are the main
sources of these fires. Alluvial gold mining was recorded as the most significant threat inside
the forest. Mining affects biodiversity and degrades the environment. Trees and poles are
widely used by the local communities surrounding the forest and Mpwapwa and Dodoma
residents for house construction and fencing poles. It was revealed that some district
foresters had never been to the reserve and they are not even aware of the level of
disturbance. This scenario has given some people opportunities for illegal activities.
Table 49 Forest threats in Mafwomera FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
FI4
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Tree/poles cutting
Timber harvesting
Mining
Honey harvesting
Fire (accidental)
Firewood collection
Tree/poles cutting
Raw Score
2.25
1.8
2.7
1.8
8.55
2.25
1.4
1.5
5.15
13.7
% Threat met
25
30
45
20
TRA %
28.5
25
35
30
28.6
28.6
Conservation initiatives
Very few conservation interventions are undertaken by the district forest office due to lack of
funds and the seclusion of the reserve from the district headquarters.
4.3.23 Ukwiva forest reserve - Kilosa district
Forest disturbance
A total of 3611 trees and 2543 poles were surveyed along four transect lines covering a
distance of 9,700 m (Table 50). In spite of Ukwiva FR being easily accessible to the local
communities, this survey revealed a very low level of forest disturbance. A total of 7 trees per
ha and 3 poles per ha were identified as old cut stems. On the contrary, there was only one
new cut tree and there were no new cut poles. The relatively large number of naturally dead
trees (15.4%) and poles (8.1%) could be due to vegetation disturbance emanating from
forest clearing for bean farms or illegal timber harvesting.
57
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 50 Summary of human disturbance transects in Ukwiva FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Trees
9,700
9.7
Poles
9,700
9.7
Old
cut %
of
total
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
3611
2984
(82.6)
307.6
555
(15.4)
57.2
71
(2.0)
7.3
1
(0.0)
0.1
2543
2307
(90.7)
237.8
206
(8.1)
21.2
30
(1.2)
3.1
0
0
Forest threats
The main human impacts in the forest appear to be timber harvesting and encroachment for
farming (Table 51). Although the former is dominant for the whole forest, the latter is the
most important in the forest interior. Farming in the forest is normal to some neighbouring
villages. Fire is also a threat for the entire forest although it is more severe in the forest
interior. The main sources of forest interior fire could be honey collection and hunting
activities. Hunting of bush pig and tree / pole cutting are also prevalent.
Table 51 Forest threats in Ukwiva FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
FI4
FI5
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Encroachment
Timber harvesting
Hunting
Fire (accidental)
Honey harvesting
Tree/poles cutting
Fire (accidental)
Timber harvesting
Firewood collection
Raw Score
4.5
3.15
2.8
4.05
1.0
15.5
2.4
1.8
3.15
2.1
9.45
26.3
% Threat met
30
35
40
45
20
TRA %
34.4
40
20
35
35
31.5
35.1
Conservation initiatives
The low magnitude of cut trees and poles recorded in this forest could be a result of
continued campaign by the district catchment office against illegal forest practices and
application of the forest rules and regulations. Inaccessibility to the market could also reduce
pressure to the forest.
4.3.24 Mamiwa-Kisara North forest reserve - Kilosa district
Forest disturbance
A total of 2369 trees and 2302 poles were surveyed in five transects covering a total length
of about 3,900 m (Table 52). Out of these, 71% (1690 stems) trees and 80% (1851 stems) of
the poles were alive, 24% of the trees and 12.7% of the poles were dead. Tree and pole
extraction was fairly high in this reserve. Old cut trees comprised of 27 stems per ha and 40
stems per ha for poles. On the other hand, there were no new cut trees and only 2 poles
(0.1%) were recorded in this category. Several livestock trails and dung were observed
during the survey and some women were seen collecting firewood in the reserve. The large
quantities of naturally dead trees could be a result of gaps created by fire and/or illegal
harvesting. Diseases and insects could also contribute to the tree deaths.
58
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Table 52 Summary of human disturbance transects in Mamiwa-Kisara North FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
39000
3.9
Poles
39000
3.9
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
2369
1690
(71.3)
433.3
572
(24.1)
146.7
2302
1851
(80.4)
474.6
292
(12.7)
74.9
Old
cut %
of
total
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
107
(4.5)
27.4
0
0
157
(6.8)
40.3
2
(0.1)
0.5
Forest threats
Current principal human forest threats include grazing, firewood collection and tree / pole
cutting (Table 53). The former two are prevalent along the boundary and the latter inside the
reserve. Several loads of poles and livestock were seen inside the reserve. Firewood
gathering was confined to the eastern side of the forest which borders densely populated
villages. Old abandoned pit sawing platforms were clear evidence of illegal timber harvesting.
Fire occurs every year in the forest edge, which is predominantly woodlands, and hunting for
bush meat is confined to the interior forest area.
Table 53 Forest threats in Mamiwa-Kisara North FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
FI4
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
FE5
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Tree/poles cutting
Timber harvesting
Honey harvesting
Hunting
Firewood collection
Fire (accidental)
Grazing
Timber harvesting
Tree/poles cutting
Raw Score
3.6
2.4
0.8
2.4
9.2
3.6
2.25
3.6
1.6
3.15
11.05
20.25
% Threat met
30
30
20
40
TRA %
30.7
30
25
30
40
45
24.6
27.0
Conservation initiatives
The low magnitude of cut trees and poles recorded in this forest could be a result of
continued campaign by the district catchment office against illegal forest practices and
application of the forest rules and regulations. Inaccessibility to the market could also reduce
pressure to the forest.
4.3.25 Kanga forest reserve - Mvomero district
Forest disturbance
A total of 1182 trees and 854 poles were surveyed along six transect lines covering a total
distance of 4,250 m and out of these 74% of the trees and 79% of the poles were alive
(Table 54). Forest extraction was fairly high in this reserve. During the survey 39 trees per ha
and 25 poles per ha were recorded as old cut stems. Conversely 2 trees per ha and 0.5
poles per ha were recorded in the new cut stems category. Turiani Township could have
contributed to the high level of disturbance recorded. The traditional cultural values, which
restrict access to the forest area, are not well observed here due to the mixed culture of the
communities around the reserve. Natural mortality contributed to about 11% of the trees and
8% of the poles perhaps as a result of gaps created due to illegal harvesting and pests.
59
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Other human related disturbances such as grazing and fire could contribute to the death of
some stems.
Table 54 Summary of human disturbance transects in Kanga FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
4,250
4.25
Poles
4,250
4.25
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
1182
876
(74.1)
206.1
131
(11.1)
30.8
167
(14.1)
39.3
8
(0.7)
1.9
854
677
(79.3)
159.3
69
(8.1)
16.2
106
(12.4)
24.9
2
(0.2)
0.5
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut
% of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Forest threats
Kanga forest reserve is facing several threats in spite of traditional cultural values which
restrict access to the forest. The major threats for the entire forest include illegal timber
harvesting, fire, charcoal burning, encroachment and tree / pole cutting (Table 55).
Encroachment was confined to the forest edge. Illegal charcoal activities and encroachment
for spice farming were evident during the survey (Figure 9 and Figure 10). Land scarcity
triggers forest encroachment whilst accessibility and availability of timber market motivates
the illegal timber harvesting.
60
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Figure 9 Illegal charcoal transportation in Kanga FR, Mvomero district (top) and below is a
confiscated bicycle used in illegal charcoal transportation
61
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Figure 10 Illegal banana and cardamon farming in Kanga FR, Mvomero district
Table 55 Forest threats in Kanga FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
FI4
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
FE5
FE6
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Timber harvesting
Fire (accidental)
Tree/poles cutting
Charcoal burning
Fire (accidental)
Encroachment
Timber harvesting
Firewood collection
Tree/poles cutting
Charcoal burning
Raw Score
4.05
1.8
3.2
1.75
10.8
3.85
3.9
2.25
2.8
3.6
2.0
18.4
29.2
% Threat met
45
30
40
25
TRA %
36.2
35
30
25
35
30
20
29.2
31.4
62
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Conservation initiatives
Continued campaigning by the regional catchment forest office against illegal forest practices
and application of the forest rules and regulations could probably assist in reducing illegal
forest activities.
4.3.26 Nguru South forest reserve - Mvomero district
Forest disturbance
A total of 1105 trees and 1443 poles were surveyed along seven transect lines with a total
length of 9,550 m. Of these, 75.7% of the trees and 73.7% of the poles were alive (Table 56).
Forest extraction was fairly high in this reserve, with 19 trees per ha and 25 poles per ha
recorded as old cut stems. Conversely 4 trees per ha and 3 poles per ha were recorded in
the new cut stems category. Availability of forest product (timber and poles) markets in the
adjacent communities and Turiani Township could have contributed to the high level of
disturbance recorded in Nguru South FR. Abandoned pit saws and planks also echoed signs
of disturbance. Like the case of Kanga forest reserve, it appears that the traditional cultural
values, which restrict access to the forest area, are not well observed here due to the mixed
culture of the communities living around the forest. Natural mortality contributed to about
4.3% of the trees and 7.8% of the poles and may be within the normal range of variation.
Table 56 Summary of human disturbance transects in Nguru South FR
Trees/
poles
Total
transect
length
(m)
Total
area of
transect
(ha)
Total
no.
Trees
9,550
9.55
Poles
9,550
9.55
Live
% of
total
Average
live per
ha
Dead
% of
total
Average
dead
per ha
Old
cut %
of
total
1105
836
(75.7)
87.5
48
(4.3)
5
179
(16.2)
18.7
42
(3.8)
4.4
1443
1064
(73.7)
111.4
113
(7.8)
11.8
236
(16.4)
24.7
30
(2.1)
3.1
Average
old cut
per ha
New
cut %
of
total
Average
new cut
per ha
Forest threats
Nguru South forest reserve is facing several threats in spite of traditional cultural values,
which restrict access to the forest. The major threats for the whole forest include illegal
timber harvesting, fire, charcoal burning and tree / pole cutting (Table 57). During the survey,
illegal timber harvesting were evident along transect number four (Figure 11). In spite of this,
encroachment for farming and illegal timber harvesting are the primary threats on the edge
and interior parts of the forest respectively. Land scarcity triggers forest encroachment whilst
accessibility and availability of timber market motivates illegal timber harvest.
Table 57 Forest threats in Nguru South FR
Forest location
FI1
FI2
FI3
FI4
Sub-total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-total
Total
Direct threat
Encroachment
Timber harvesting
Fire wood collection
Fire (accidental)
Encroachment
Timber harvesting
Fire (accidental)
Firewood collection
Raw Score
6.5
3.6
1.5
1.4
12.9
5.4
3.15
3.15
1.5
13.2
26.1
% Threat met
50
40
30
20
TRA %
37.9
35
30
25
35
37.7
37.8
63
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Results
Figure 11 Pitsawing along transect number 4 in Nguru South FR, Mvomero district
Conservation initiatives
Continued campaigns by the regional catchment forest office against illegal forest practices
and application of the forest rules and regulations would assist in reducing illegal forest
activities.
64
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Conclusions and Recommendations
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions can be made on the basis of this study:
-
All the forests were disturbed, threatened and had some management problems that
varied in magnitude. Presence of new cut trees and poles in most forests indicated that
tree / pole cutting is still prevalent in the EAM forests in spite of continued efforts of the
government and NGOs to bar the action. The level of disturbance was significantly
different between privately owned forests, proposed forests and those under local and
central government regimes. Privately owned forests were the least disturbed followed
by the CGFRs and the worst were the Proposed FRs and the LGFRs. It was also
established that cutting of poles and trees was more prevalent on the edge of the forest
due to ease of access. The level of disturbance could contribute to the natural death of
trees and consequently loss of biodiversity.
-
Ten major threats were recorded in the study forests; fire was the most dominant threat
followed by tree / pole cutting and grazing. Fire occurred in all forests except
Ambangulu and Mazumbai, tree / pole cutting in 18 forests and grazing in 17 forests.
Encroachment for settlement and farming, illegal timber harvesting and firewood
collection were also recorded in most forests. Mining is a new threat to some forests
and it could be extended to other forests if immediate and corrective measures are not
taken. The trade of Brachylaena huillensis between Tanzania and Kenya needs to be
investigated because the target species is endemic and threatened in Tanzania. These
threats are therefore the main issues of concern in the management of the forests.
-
Statistically there was significant difference in mean TRA% between the Private FRs,
Proposed forests, LGFRs and CGFRs. The Proposed FRs and LGFRs were the most
threatened while Private forests were the least threatened. On the other hand, there
were no significant differences in mean TRA% between the forest interior and forest
edge.
-
Most forests were poorly managed and there are several reasons associated with this,
the most outstanding is lack of funds and human resources for patrol and monitoring
and inaccessibility to some areas. Analysis of variance for the management
effectiveness (percentage) between the four categories of FRs revealed that there was
significant difference between the four forest categories. Private forests are better
managed than the other three categories. Kitonga proposed FR was the worst in the
overall management effectiveness score. Mkusu, Kisinga-Lugalo, Mtai and Nilo CGFRs
appear to be better managed than other forests in that category perhaps due to direct
and indirect external interventions. Management could therefore be improved through
increased funding from the government or external sources and a change in the
existing management structure.
-
Conservation interventions executed by different Institutions are key to reduced
disturbance and threats in some forest reserves. Experience from Mkusu, Mtai and
Kisinga-Lugalo however, shows that conservation initiatives are not sustainable without
donor funding. On the other hand, experience from Mwanga and Mufindi shows that
traditional institutions could contribute in a reduction of forest threats, particularly fire.
65
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Conclusions and Recommendations
5.2 Recommendations
The Eastern Arc Mountains have been more studied than any ecosystem in Tanzania and
several recommendations have been generated during these studies for example Burgess et
al. (1998). The following recommendations are built on the basis of this study and learned
experience from other studies.
-
Baseline information from previous related forest condition studies and the current
study should be used to get things done on the ground. Areas and the existing and
potential threats should be prioritised according to their importance, and fire problems
should be treated with urgency.
-
Identify and map conservation hot spot areas (areas with high biodiversity values and
endemism and which are profoundly threatened by neighbouring communities) for
immediate interventions.
-
Conservation education should be intensified in heavily threatened areas. Cultural /
indigenous values should be harmonized with the modern conservation techniques in
order to optimise the output. The Mwanga and Mufindi model could be used.
-
Capacity building and conservation funds should be improved / intensified to enable
forest officers and the communities to perform forest condition assessment and other
conservation programmes and report the same to the relevant authorities.
-
All conservation initiatives by the government (central and district), NGOs and
community based organizations (CBOs) must be registered and their activities
scrutinized to avoid unnecessary duplication of activities.
-
Successful models of PFM and related conservation initiatives must be considered for
introduction to new areas.
-
In JFM and PFM programmes, benefit sharing by different stakeholders must be clear
and transparent.
-
The government initiatives on poverty alleviation should be an agenda for action in the
conservation of hot spot areas. These initiatives should emphasise livelihood
strategies, which reduce dependence on the natural forests.
66
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – References
References
Bjondalein, E.R., 1992. Tanzania vanishing rainforest - assessment of nature conservation
values biodiversity, and importance for water catchment. Agricultural Ecosystems and
Environment 40:313-334.
Beharrell, N.K., E. Fanning and K.M. Howell., 2002. East Usambara Conservation and
Management Programme. Nilo forest reserve. Biodiversity survey. Technical Paper 53.
Ministry of Natural resources and Tourism, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.
Burgess, N.D., M. Nummelin, J. Fjeldsa, K.M. Howell. K. Lukumbyzya, L. Muhando,
P. Phillipson and E. Vanden Berghe (eds.), 1998. Eastern Arc Mountains.
Journal of East African Natural History, Vol 87.
Doggart, N., M.S. Dilger, R. Killenga and E. Fanning 1999. East Usambara Conservation
and Management Programme. Mtai Forest reserve. Biodiversity survey. Technical
Paper 39. Ministry of Natural resources and Tourism, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.
Doggart, N.H., Lovett, J., Mhoro, B., Kiure J. and Burgess, N.D., 2005. Biodiversity surveys in
eleven Forest Reserves in the vicinity of the Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. Wildlife
Conservation Society of Tanzania, and Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania. www.easternarc.or.tz
FORCONSULT, 2003. Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania: District Baseline
Studies. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania 139pp.
Forestry and Beekeeping Division 2001. Community Based Forest Management Baselines.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania 86pp.
Forestry and Beekeeping Division, 1988. Amani Forest Inventory and Management Plan
Project. East Usambara Mountains. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dares-Salaam, Tanzania.
Frontier-Tanzania, 2002a. Udzungwa Mountains Biodiversity Survey – Methods Manual.
Doody, K.Z., Howell, K.M. and Fanning E. (Eds) Report of Udzungwa Mountains Forest
Management and Biodiversity Conservation Project, MEMA, Iringa, Tanzania.
Frontier-Tanzania, 2002b. East Usambara Conservation Area Management Programme
Technical Paper 53 Beharrell, N. K., Fanning, E. and Howell, K. M. (Eds) Nilo Forest
reserve. A biodiversity survey Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.
Frontier-Tanzania (2005) Uluguru Component Biodiversity Survey 2005 (Volume III): Uluguru
North Forest Reserve. Bracebridge, Fanning, Howell, Rubio, St. John (eds). Society for
Environmental Exploration and the University of Dar es Salaam; CARE-Tanzania,
Conservation and Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests (CMEAMF):
Uluguru Component, Forestry and Beekeeping Divison of the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism, GEF/UNDP:URT/01/G32.
Frontier-Tanzania (2005) Uluguru Component Biodiversity Survey 2005 (Volume II): Uluguru
South Forest Reserve. Bracebridge, Fanning, Howell, Rubio & St. John (eds). Society
for Environmental Exploration and the University of Dar es Salaam; CARE-Tanzania,
Conservation and Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests (CMEAMF):
Uluguru Component, Forestry and Beekeeping Divison of the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism, GEF/UNDP:URT/01/G32.
Hamilton, A. C. and I.V. Mwasha, 1989. History of Resource utilisation and management
after independence. In A. C Hamilton & R. Bensted-Smith (Eds). Forest Conservation in
the East Usambara Mountains Tanzania. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Pp 45-56.
IUCN, 2000. Evaluating Effectiveness – A Framework for Assessing the Management of
Protected Areas. In: M. Hockings, S. Stolton, N. Dudley and A. Philips (Eds) World
Commission on Protected Areas. Cardiff University, UK.
IUCN, 2002. IUCN Red list of threatened species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
[http://www.cepf.net/xp/cepf/where_we_work/eastern_arc_mountains/full_strategy.xml]
visited on 24.03.2005.
Iversen S.T., 1991. The Usambara Mountains, Northern Tanzania: History, Vegetation, and
Conservation. Uppsala University. Reprocentralen HSC.
67
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – References
Kalaghe, A.G., T. H Msangi, and L. Johansson, 1988. Conservation of catchment forests
in the Usambara Mountains. J. of Tanzania Association of Foresters 4: 12-17.
Kikula, I. S, 1989 Spatial changes in forest cover on the East Usambara Mountains. In A. C.
Hamilton & R. Bensted-Smith (Eds). Forest Conservation in the East Usambara
Mountains Tanzania. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Pp 79-86.
Kimmins, J. P., 1987. Forest Ecology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey 531pp.
Lovett, J. C., 1989 The Botanical Importance of the East Usambara forests in relation to
other forests in Tanzania. In A.C Hamilton & R. Bensted-Smith (Eds). Forest
conservation in the East Usambara Mountains Tanzania. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Pp
207-212.
Lovett, J.C., 1991. Notes on the forests at Ambangulu and Kunga in the West Usambara.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.
Lovett, J.C. and T. Pocs 1993. Assessment of the Condition of the Catchment Forest
reserves: A botanical appraisal. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar-esSalaam, Tanzania 300pp.
Madoffe, S.S., G. D. Hertel, B. O’Connell and R. Killenga, 2000. Forest Health Monitoring for
the EAM (Paper presented in AMA conference, Masseru, Lesotho 15-20 October
2000).
Madoffe, S.S., Urs Wiesmann, B.P. Kiteme, and A.S.K. Mvena, 2002. A methodological
framework for social economic and conservation issues in Forest Health in Eastern Arc
Mountains. AMA Conference Moshi. August 2002.
Mbilinyi, B. and J. Kashaigili, 2005. A forest area baseline for the Eastern Arc Mountains.
Technical Report – Conservation and Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests,
Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.
www.easternarc.or.tz
Mbilinyi B.P., Misana S, Malimbwi RE., Monela GC and Jambiya G., 2005. Assessing Land
Cover Dynamics due to Charcoal Production: Use of Remote Sensing and GIS.
Tanzania Journal of Forestry and Nature conservation, Vol. 77
Mittermeier, R. A., N. Myers, J. B. Thomson, G.A.B. da Fenseca and S. Olivier, 1998.
Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness: Approaches to setting conservation
priorities. Conservation Biology. 3:511-520.
MNRT, 1994. Tanzania Forestry Action Plan 1990/91–2007/08. Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.
MNRT, 1998. National Forest Policy. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar-esSalaam, Tanzania pp 59.
MNRT, 2001. National Forest Programme in Tanzania. Ministry of Natural Resources and
Tourism, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania. 143 pp.
MNRT, 2002. The National Forest Act. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism,
Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.
MNRT, 2003. Participatory Forest management in Tanzania. District Baseline studies.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania 134 pp.
Moshi, G.Y., 2000 The influence of disturbance on the status and regeneration rate of
selected forests in Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania. East Africa Natural History Society
Bulletin 21: 29-30.
Mrema, F.A. and M. Nummelin, 1998. Stem cracks and decay in Newtonia buchananii trees
in the Mazumabai Forest reserve, West Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Journal of
East African Natural History 87: 327-338.
Munishi, P.K.T., Shear, T.H., and Temu, R.P.C,. 2002. Household level impacts on forest
resources and the feasibility of using market based incentives for sustainable
management of the forest resources of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania Proc. of
Africa Mountains High Summit Conference, 6-10 May 2002, Nairobi, Kenya.
www.montagna.org/high-summit/rafrica/Politica/PolAfr11.10 Munishirelazioneeng.rtf.
Munishi, P.K.T., Temu, R.P.C., 1992. The Natural Forests and Environmental Conservation
in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. In J.A. Ekpere, D.J. Rees, K.P. Mbwile and
N.G. Lyimo (Eds.). Proceedings of an International Workshop on Agricultural Research,
68
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – References
Training and Technology Transfer in the Southern Highlands o Tanzania: Past
Achievements and Future Prospects. Uyole Agricultural Centre, Mbeya, Tanzania. 405
– 412.
Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, G.C. Mittermeier, Da Fonseca, A.B. Gustavo and J. Kent, 2000.
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853-858.
National Census 2002. Tanzania National Human Population Census.
Newmark, W.D., 1998. Forest area, fragmentation, and loss in the Eastern Arc Mountains:
implications for the conservation of biological diversity. Journal of East African Natural
History 87, 29-36.
Rodgers, W. A., 1993. The conservation of the forest resources of the eastern Africa: Past
influences, present practices and future needs. In: J. C. Lovett & S. K Wasser (Eds).
Biogeography and Ecology of the Rain Forest of Eastern Africa. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK. 283-332.
Schmidt, P., 1989. Early exploitation and settlement in the East Usambara
Mountains. In A. C. Hamilton & R. Bensted-Smith (Eds). Forest Conservation in
the East Usambara Mountains Tanzania. IUCN, Grand. Pp 357-361.
Veltheim, T. and M. Kijazi 2002. Participatory forest management in the East Usambaras.
Technical paper 61 East Usambara Catchment Forest Project. Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism and Department of International Development Co-operation,
Finland.
www.easternarc.org - visited Feb 2005.
www.easternarc.or.tz -visited September 2005.
www.usambara.com - visited March 2005.
Zilihona, I, C. Shangali, C.K. Mabula and C. Hamisy. 1998. Human activities threatening the
biodiversity of the Uzungwa Scarp Forest reserve. Journal of East African Natural
History, 87: 319-326
69
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Appendix I: TOR for the Forest Condition Assessment for the EAM
of Tanzania
Conservation & Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests: Eastern Arc Mountains
Strategy
(GEF/UNDP:00015426
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR
EASTERN ARC MOUNTAINS FOREST MANAGEMENT AND FOREST CONDITION
ASSESSMENT
Introduction
The Eastern Arc Strategy is a component of the Project ‘Conservation and Management of
the Eastern Arc Forests’ (GEF/UNDP: 00015426). The project is implemented by the
Forestry and Beekeeping Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and it is
funded by the Global Environment Facility through the United Nations Development
Programme.
Objectives
The objective of the Eastern Arc strategy component is:
Conservation status of Eastern Arc Mountains improved through the development and
implementation of an integrated conservation strategy for biodiversity conservation and water
supply
As a part of measuring impact, the project is establishing a number of baseline surveys that
can be repeated (either as a whole or in part) to measure changes over the lifespan on the
project. A linked set of issues forms one of the fundamental parts of this baseline, that of
assessing the condition of the forests, the threats facing the forests, and the effectiveness of
management of the forests. This document describes this work, and proposes the way in
which it can be delivered across the 14 Districts across the Eastern Arc. The aim of the work
is to determine:
i)
ii)
iii)
The levels of disturbance within a sample of the more than 100 Eastern Arc
forests across the 14 Districts covering the Eastern Arc Mountains (as detailed in
appendix V). The methodology for this assessment should follow that used
already in the Eastern Arc Mountains
The types and intensity of threats facing a sample of the more than 100 Eastern
Arc forests across the 14 Districts covering the Eastern Arc Mountains. The
threat assessment methodology should follow that used in the GEF UNDP
funding Cross Borders project in Chome Forest reserve (as detailed in appendix
VI).
The management effectiveness of a sample of the more than 100 Eastern Arc
forests across the 14 Districts covering the Eastern Arc Mountains. The
management effectiveness methodology should follow that outlined in the World
Bank/WWF Management Effectiveness tracking tool, as this is mandatory for all
GEF-funded projects (as detailed in Appendix VII).
Tasks for a consultant (s):
70
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
i.
The Eastern Arc strategy project requires a consultant (s) to train and organise a
team of forestry staff from 14 Eastern Arc Districts to undertake the work outlined
above.
ii.
The consultant will work in the field and lead the District forestry staff to collect data
on forest disturbance, will ensure that data are gathered in a systematic way and that
these data are also entered into a suitable computer database so that they can be
used to track changes in forest disturbance, threats and management effectiveness
over time.
iii.
The consultant (s) must also ensure relevant linkages to other projects working
across the Eastern Arc collecting data on forest disturbance (PEMA - South Nguru,
TFCG/WWF - East Usambara, TFCG - Udzungwa).
Expected Products
A detailed product containing
b) A report summarizing the levels of forest disturbance across a sample of the more
than 100 Eastern Arc Forests across the 14 Districts of the Eastern Arc Mountains;
c) An Access or Excel database containing the results of forest disturbance
assessments for a sample of the more than 100 Eastern Arc forests across the 14
Districts of the Eastern Arc Mountains;
d) A report summarizing the threats to a sample of the more than 100 Eastern Arc
Forests across the 14 Districts of the Eastern Arc Mountains;
e) Copy of the Excel worksheets containing the results of the threat assessment;
f)
A report summarizing the management effectiveness of a sample of the more than
100 Eastern Arc Forests across the 14 Districts of the Eastern Arc Mountains;
g) Copy of the Excel worksheets containing the results of the management effectiveness
assessment;
Copies of these products will be made available to the:
•
Eastern Arc Conservation Centre in Morogoro;
•
Forestry and Beekeeping Division in Dar es Salaam;
•
The Eastern Arc Mountains Conservation Endowment Fund.
•
Materials may also be placed on the proposed Eastern Arc mountains internet site
(location to be determined)
Implementation Arrangements
1. Time frame:
Fieldwork training will be provided in August/September 2004.
Implementation of the fieldwork will begin in August 2004 with the fieldwork completed
by the end of 2004, or early 2005. The amount of time spent in each District will vary
according to the area of forest sites chosen for investigation and the logistics of
reaching these sites. The final choice of field sites in each District will be made
collectively between the Eastern Arc project, District staff and the selected consultant
(s). Work should be planned so that each of the two team complete their field-work
within 6 months.
2. Preparation & Briefings: The project will provide full details of the methodologies to
the field team and ensure that the team leaders are familiar with the work required.
This will include detailed training sessions from people familiar with the methods and
their application in the field. The project will also provide details of previous forest
assessment projects, including copies of relevant reports and databases already
completed.
71
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
3. Debriefs: The Eastern Arc project will expect monthly progress reports by email or
telephone from the assessment team to ensure that the work is continuing on schedule.
4. Reporting: A draft final report is expected at the end of March 2005. The Project
Coordinator and Technical Advisor will provide advice and assistance with the
completion of this report
5. Field Work. The consultant (s) will be required to work in the field with Tanzanian
government staff under arduous field conditions. The Eastern Arc strategy suggests
that the consultant (s) will organise the work so that it is undertaken in parallel across
the Arc. A suggestion is that there are two field teams working with Districts. Team 1
will start in Mwanga District in the North and will progress through Same, Lushoto,
Korogwe, Muheza, Kilindi, Morogoro and Mvomero Districts. Team 2 will start in
Ulanga District and progress through Kilombero, Kilolo, Mufindi, Kilosa and Mpwapwa
Districts. The forests of Uluguru North and South are excluded as they have their own
study under the Uluguru component of the UNDP GEF support.
6. Resources: To facilitate the fieldwork, the project will provide 2 Land cruiser Hardtop
vehicles. The project will also provide the required field work equipment (tape
measures, GPS unit, basic field equipment such as boots, bags etc). Access to office
space and internet connection in Morogoro will also be available, as required.
7. Budget: The budget should be detailed in the tender for this project and cost efficiency
will be criteria for selecting the consultant.
8. Funding disbursements. Funds will be provided to the field team on the basis of the
work completed. Copies of the data collected in each forest (or each District) must be
received at the project office in Morogoro before further funds can be released to
continue the fieldwork. Final payments will be made to the field team leaders once the
summary report has been accepted by the project in Morogoro.
9. Reporting. The consultant (s) will report to the Eastern Arc strategy project
coordinator Dr. Felician Kilahama, supported by Dr. Neil Burgess, both based in
Morogoro - offices currently located at plot no. 107A along the Kingalu/Kaunda roads,
Forest Hill Area, P.O. Box 289, Morogoro (phone: 023-2601735). Prospecting bidders
can obtain details of Terms of References (ToRs) from Drs. Felician Kilahama and Neil
Burgess; who are Project Coordinator and Technical Advisor respectively. Also Dr. Neil
Burgess can be reached through e-mail address: [email protected]
72
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Appendix II: Itinerary for Forest Condition Assessment Assignment
for the EAM Forests
A: Northern zone (Kilimanjaro and Tanga)
Date
17-18 Dec 04
19-Jan-05
20 -21 Jan 05
22- 23 Jan 05
24-Jan-05
25-Jan-05
26 - 30 Jan 05
31-Jan-05
01-Feb-05
02-Feb-05
03-Feb-05
5 - 6 Feb 05
7- 8 Feb 05
09-Feb-05
10-Feb-05
11- 15 Feb 05
16-Feb-05
17- 19 Feb 05
20-Feb-05
21-22 Feb 05
23-Feb-05
24 - 27 Feb 05
28 Feb – 1 Mar
05
02-Mar-05
3 – 4 Mar 05
05-Mar-05
6 – 11 Mar 05
12-Mar-05
13 –18 Mar 05
19-Mar-05
20 – 22 Mar 05
23-Mar-05
Place
SUA, Morogoro
Morogoro – Mufindi
Idewa FR, Mufindi
Ihang'ana FR, Mufindi
Mufindi – Kilolo
Kilolo - Kisinga Lugalu FR
Kisinga Lugalu FR, Kilolo
Kisinga-Lugalu – Kitonga
Kitonga FR, Kilolo
Kilolo – Ulanga
Ulanga - Mselezi FR
Mselezi FR, Ulanga
Nambiga FR, Ulanga
Ulanga – Kilombero
Kilombero - Iyondo FR
Iyondo FR, Kilombero
Iyondo FR - Ihanga FR
Ihanga FR, Kilombero
Kilombero – Morogoro
Morogoro
Morogoro – Mpwapwa
Mangaliza FR, Mpwapwa
Mafwemera FR, Mpwapwa
Activity
Training of foresters
Travel
Field work
Field work
Travel
Travel
Field work
Travel
Field work
Travel
Travel
Field work
Field work
Travel
Travel
Field work
Travel
Field work
Travel
Logistics
Travel
Field work
Field work
Mpwapwa – Kilosa
Kilosa
Kilosa - Ukwiva
Ukwiva FR, Kilosa
Ukwiva - Mamiwa North
Mamiwa FR, Kilosa
Kilosa - Mvomero
Kanga FR, Mvomero
Travel to Morogoro
Travel
Logistics
Travel
Field work
Travel
Field work
Travel
Field work
End of Field work
73
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
B: Southern zone (Iringa, Dodoma and Morogoro)
Date
17-18 Dec 04
19-Jan-05
20 -21 Jan 05
22- 23 Jan 05
24-Jan-05
25-Jan-05
26 - 30 Jan 05
31-Jan-05
01-Feb-05
02-Feb-05
03-Feb-05
5 - 6 Feb 05
7- 8 Feb 05
09-Feb-05
10-Feb-05
11- 15 Feb 05
16-Feb-05
17- 19 Feb 05
20-Feb-05
21-22 Feb 05
23-Feb-05
24 - 27 Feb 05
28 Feb – 1 Mar
05
02-Mar-05
3 – 4 Mar 05
05-Mar-05
6 – 11 Mar 05
12-Mar-05
13 –18 Mar 05
19-Mar-05
20 – 22 Mar 05
23-Mar-05
Place
SUA, Morogoro
Morogoro – Mufindi
Idewa FR, Mufindi
Ihang'ana FR, Mufindi
Mufindi – Kilolo
Kilolo - Kisinga Lugalu FR
Kisinga Lugalu FR, Kilolo
Kisinga-Lugalu – Kitonga
Kitonga FR, Kilolo
Kilolo – Ulanga
Ulanga - Mselezi FR
Mselezi FR, Ulanga
Nambiga FR, Ulanga
Ulanga – Kilombero
Kilombero - Iyondo FR
Iyondo FR, Kilombero
Iyondo FR - Ihanga FR
Ihanga FR, Kilombero
Kilombero – Morogoro
Morogoro
Morogoro – Mpwapwa
Mangaliza FR, Mpwapwa
Mafwemera FR, Mpwapwa
Activity
Training of foresters
Travel
Field work
Field work
Travel
Travel
Field work
Travel
Field work
Travel
Travel
Field work
Field work
Travel
Travel
Field work
Travel
Field work
Travel
Logistics
Travel
Field work
Field work
Mpwapwa – Kilosa
Kilosa
Kilosa - Ukwiva
Ukwiva FR, Kilosa
Ukwiva - Mamiwa North
Mamiwa FR, Kilosa
Kilosa - Mvomero
Kanga FR, Mvomero
Travel to Morogoro
Travel
Logistics
Travel
Field work
Travel
Field work
Travel
Field work
End of Field work
NB: After the training at SUA, the foresters formed two teams of eight people each for
fieldwork in the Northern and Southern zones.
74
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Appendix III:
Description of the study forests
1. Kilimanjaro region
1.1 Mwanga district.
i) Mramba forest reserve
Mramba Forest reserves is located at 3‫ ס‬31’ - 3‫ ס‬39’ S 37‫ ס‬33’ – 37‫ ס‬36’ E. It is about 8 km
from Mwanga and accessible from Simbomu village. The reserve was established in 1958
with an area of 3355 ha. It covers the steep rocky Mramba–Kifaru ridge on the north western
end of the north Pare mountains from an altitude of 760 to 1700 m.
The reserve is a source of two permanent rivers Mahururu and Mrimwacha and many
seasonal streams.
Logging of Newtonia buchananii and Podocarpus sp. has been undertaken in the montane
forest.
ii) Kiverenge forest reserve
Kiverenge forest reserve is located at 30 48’ – 30 50’ S 370 37’ – 370 40’ E. It is 16 km from
Mwanga, 5 km from Lembeni on the main road to Moshi. This reserve can be accessed from
Sekibaha to Kilomeni road, which passes through the reserve. It is a proposed reserve with
an area of 2155 ha. It covers the western slopes, half the eastern slopes and peak of
Kiverenge Hill on the southern end of the north Pare mountains from an altitude of 1000 to
1680 m.
Most of the strreams are seasonal and two springs are reported at the summit.
1.2 Same district
i) Chambogo forest reserve
Chambogo forest reserve is located at 4‫ ס‬04’ – 4‫ ס‬08’ S 37‫ ס‬45’ – 37‫ ס‬51’ E. It was
established in 1958 with an area of 5467 ha. It is 12 km east of Same and can be accessed
from the Same – Kisiwani and Same – Mwembe roads. The reserve covers the north western
end of the South Pare Mountains from 820 to 1847 m asl.
The montane forest serves as water catchment for provision of water to Mwembe village
otherwise catchment value is limited to soil erosion control.
ii) Vumari forest reserve
Vumari FR is located within the mountain ranges of South Pare and has a total area of about
1,829ha. This reserve is under Same district council and is managed for biodiversity
conservation and utilisation.
2. Tanga region
2.1 Lushoto district
i) Mkusu forest reserve
Mkusu FR is part of Magamba FR, Lushoto district and is about 3674ha. The main objective
of this reserve is conservation and management of East Africa camphor (Ocotea
usambarensis). Other objectives include water catchment and biodiversity conservation. This
75
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
reserve is also rich in Juniperus procera. The main threats to the reserve include
encroachment, illegal timber harvest and grazing.
ii) Mazumbai private forest
Mazumbai private forest is located in the western end of the West Usambaras in NE
Tanzania in Korogwe District. It is about 300ha lying approximately at 4050’S and 38030’E
and ranging from 1300 – 1900m above sea level. The Mazumbai Forest reserve is managed
by Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) to whom it was bequeathed by Mr. and Mrs
Tanner the previous owners, who were Swiss coffee and quinine farmers in the area. The
forest was donated to the University under the terms that it would be used for research
purpose.
Mazumbai like most of the EAM is rich in biodiversity and it represents one of the most intact
and undisturbed forests of this type (Iversen 1991). Several villages that are predominantly
agricultural and livestock keepers surround Mazumbai.
2.2 Korogwe district
i) Amabagulu private forest
Ambangulu private forest is about 772 ha and is part of the tea estates of Ambangulu. It lies
at 50 5’ S, 380 26’ E at between 1000 and 1360 metres in altitude and is located in the
southern corner of the West Usambara mountains. The area contained extensive moist
forest in the past, much of which has been cleared over the years for plantations of tea and
quinine. The mean annual rainfall at Ambangulu over 45 years was 2088 mm
ii) Bombo West forest reserve
Bombo West forest reserve was established in 1959 with an area of 3523 ha. It is located at
4‫ ס‬52’ – 4‫ ס‬47’ S 38‫ ס‬39’ – 38‫ ס‬39’ – 38‫ ס‬43’ E, in a low lying hilly terrain in the Lwengera
valley rain shadow with an altitude range of 380 m to 680 m. It is 60 km from Korogwe, 6 km
from Mashewa. Access from the northern boundary is through Mashewa to Tanga road.
2.3 Muheza district
i) Nilo forest reserve
Nilo forest reserve is about 6025 ha and is owned by the Central Government. It was
gazetted in 1999 under the Government Notice: No. 287 1.10.99. The reserve is situated in
the north west of the East Usambara Mountains at 040 50’ – 04059’S and 380 37’ –380 41’ at
400 – 1506 m asl.
Nilo forest reserve as it is today did not exist. Instead three smaller forests reserves had
been gazetted which include Lutindi forest reserve (2,165 ha) gazetted in 1928, Kilanga
forest reserve (791ha) gazetted in 1931 and Nkombola forest reserve (185ha) gazetted in
1963.
.
Nilo has slopes with two main peak areas. The highest point, at Nilo Peak in the northwest of
the reserve rises to 1506 m asl The secondary peak to the south west of this peak is Lutindi
peak at c. 1300 m where there is a 360-degree view of the East and West Usambaras. The
forest feeds the Hundu, Bombo and Muzi rivers. There are numerous streams throughout the
reserve, which serve many surrounding villages.
It is the second largest contiguous forest block under protection in Muheza district, the
largest being Amani Nature Reserve. The reserve is ‘Y’ shaped. The southern border of the
eastern ‘arm’ is close to Semdoe FR, whilst the western border of the western ‘arm’ faces the
Lwengera valley and across to the West Usambaras. A central ridge runs along the southern
‘leg’ of the reserve towards the proposed Derema wildlife corridor, which is planned to link
Nilo FR and Amani Nature Reserve.
76
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
ii) Mtai forest reserve
Mtai forest reserve is one of the oldest forest reserves in Tanzania; it was initially gazetted in
1913. It has a total area of about 6071 ha located at 40 47' - 40 52' S, 380 48' - 380 44' E.
The reserve covers part of the Msimbai and part of the upper Muzi catchments. Access is
from the Mashewa to Gombelo road. The reserve covers hilly country on the north end of the
East Usambara mountains, west of the Muzi valley over an altitude range of 200 m to 1060
m.
Eight villages surround Mtai with about 26,000 people (National Census, 2002) and the
majority of the villagers are Sambaa and Bondei. Economically the communities adjacent to
the forest depend on agriculture and animal husbandry. The FINNIDA survey indicated that
of the forested area: 50% is exploited moist forest, 39% is intact moist forest, 10% is poorly
stocked forest and 1% is barren land. Logging has been by pit sawing (32%) and
mechanised (14%).
About 20 km of the boundary has been cleared and gaps in boundary marking planted with
Eucalyptus and teak. The Amani management plan suggests extending the reserve by 1220
ha (in another part of the report this extension area is 1037 ha) to make a new area of 2985
km with 13 km of boundary (this looks a bit odd considering that 20 km of boundary has
already been cleared). The suggested extension covers the area to the southwest of the
present reserve, including the important catchment area of the Muzi river valley. The area
contains Khaya and there are pit sawyers working on steep slopes. Another suggestion
contained in the Amani management plan is to include in the reserve the three enclaves of
Mamba, Handei and Msasa with a total area of 183 ha. There is still a large village in the
Mamba enclave.
2.4 Kilindi district
i) Nguru North forest reserve
The Nguru north forest reserve located at 5‫ ס‬27’ – 5‫ ס‬38’S and 37‫ ס‬36’ – 37‫ ס‬32’ E was
established in 1934 with an area of 14042 ha. It is located 66 km from Handeni and 6 km
from Kwediboma. It can be accessed from the north through Kwediboma to Kibirashi road, to
the eastern edge through the villages of Kilwa and Lugalo, from the western edge through
the village of Gombero, and to the southern edge through the village of Lwande. The reserve
covers several parallel, north-south running ridges on the eastern edge of the Maasai steppe
from an altitude of 860 to 1550 m.
The reserve is important catchment supplying water to Java, Mgera, and Mndeba villages. It
is a source of water for the Kwamaligwa dam.
ii) Kilindi Forest reserve
The location of Kilindi Forest reserve is 5‫ ס‬33’ – 5‫ ס‬40’ S 37‫ ס‬33’ – 37 ‫ ס‬36’ E. It was
established in 1934 with an area of 4299 ha. It is about 66 km from Handeni and 25 km from
Kwediboma. It can be accessed from the eastern side by the road passing through Kilindi
village, and from the western side by the road passing through Tamota prison. It covers a
north – south running ridge with steep open rock faces and two large rock outcrops, Kilinga
and Kilindi at an altitude of 760 to 1520 m above sea level. The eastern side is composed of
tall forest on the windward side on gentle slopes and valleys. The forest cover extends from
820 to 1520 m altitude ranging from riverine to lowland, submontane and montane with
increasing altitude. On the western leeward side woodland and scrub occurs on the steeper
slopes and ridges with riverine to submontane forest in the valley and around the base of the
hills.
77
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
3. Iringa region
3.1 Mufindi district
i) Idewa forest reserve
Idewa Forest is a local authority forest reserve established in 1988 covering an area of
291ha. It is located in Kibengu Ward of Kibengu Division and is surrounded by four villages
of Ilong’ombi on the south, Igeleke, on the west, Kibengu on the north and Mwatasi on the
east. It can be accessed from Mafinga through the Mafinga-Kibengu road. The forest is a
part of the water source for the Kihansi river catchment that supplies water to the Kihansi
hydropower plant downstream.
ii) Ihang’ana forest reserve
Ihangana is a central government forest reserve established in 1956 covering an area of
2882ha. It can be accessed from Mafinga through the Mafinga to Kibengu road. The forest is
a part of the water source for the Kihansi river catchment that supplies water to the Kihansi
hydropower plant downstream thus of high catchment value nationally
3.2 Kilolo district
i) Kisinga-Lugalo forest reserve
Kisinga-Lugalo Forest is a central government forest reserve established in 1934 covering an
area of 14164 ha. It is located in Mazombe and Kilolo Divisions and surrounded by eight
villages of Imalutwe, Ibofwe, Mazombe, Mbigiri, Lugalo, Kitelewasi and Isagwa of Mazombe
Division and Kisinga of Kilolo Division. It can be accessed from Iringa through the Iringa Dar
es Salaam highway.
ii) Kitonga forest reserve
Kitonga forest reserve is a proposed reserve under local authority. It is located at the Kitonga
escarpment on the southern part of the Rubeho mountains. The area is not yet known as it
has not been surveyed. It can be accessed through the Dar es Salaam to Iringa highway,
which dissects the forest in two almost equal halves.
4. Dodoma region
4.1 Mpwapwa district
i) Mang’alisa Forest reserve
Mang’alisa Forest reserve is located in Rubeho block in Mpwapwa district at 07° 07’ – 07°
13’S and 03°6’ 23” – 03°6’ 28”E between 1900m – 2200 m altitude. The reserve was
established in 1951 and is about 4,988 ha. Three villages namely; Mang’alisa, Kinusi and
Kikuyu surround the reserve with a total population of 6,666 people. The reserve is part of
the catchment area for a number of tributaries of the Great Ruaha including the Mweza,
Kibungo, Kihongolamatuli, Moga and Fikundi strreams.
The forest is poorly managed because the Mpwapwa District staff do not have the resources
to manage or even visit the reserve. Unless steps are taken to halt the forest clearance in
Mang’alisa it is likely that the forest will largely be cleared over the next decade.
ii) Mafwomera forest reserve
Mafwomera Forest reserve is in Mpwapwa district between 06° 49’ – 06° 59’S and 036° 33’ –
036° 37’E between 1600m – 2200m asl. The forest was gazetted in 1954 and has an area of
about 3237ha distributed in two areas of forest namely north and south Chugu with 800ha
and 2400 ha respectively. The reserve is surrounded by five villages namely: Mbuga,
Galigali, Lufu, Mafene and Lumuma in three wards with a total human population of
approximately 13,922.
78
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Mafwomero is between the Great Ruaha and Wami catchment basins. Streams feeding into
the Great Ruaha on the western side of the reserve include the Idinindi, Kakwandali and
Lubulumwa.. To the east the Langangulu and Lufusi flow north into the Lumuma and on
towards the Wami River.
5. Morogoro region
5.1 Ulanga district
i) Mselezi forest reserve,
Mselezi forest reserve was gazetted in 1954 and has an area of 2245 ha. The reserve is
located between 8° 46’ – 8° 52’S and 36° 43’E – 36° 44’E, 15 – 20 km south of Mahenge.
The forest can be accessed from the Chilombola road passing through the reserve along the
Mselezi valley. It covers an altitude range from 560 – 890 m. The reserve supplies water to
Mbingu, Chilomba and Mwaya villages
ii) Nambiga forest reserve
Nambiga forest reserve was gazetted in 1955. This reserve is located at 8° 33’ – 8° 35°S and
36° 27’ – 36° 30’E, covering an area of 1390 ha, 75 km from Mahenge and 45 km from
Lupilo. It covers a fairly level to slightly hilly ground with areas of seasonal ground water at
335 – 365 m altitude. The reserve is of a limited catchment value with Mafinji river passing
along its western edge.
5.2 Kilombero district
i) Iyondo forest reserve
Iyondo forest reserve was established in 1958 with an area of 27975 ha. It lies between 8‫ס‬
00’ – 8‫ ס‬16’ S and 36‫ ס‬06’ – 36‫ ס‬22’E, 55 km west of Ifakara. Iyondo FR can be accessed
from Mbingu mission farm. It covers a hilly terrain along the base of the Udzungwa
Mountains with Mgeta river on the western boundary, West Kilombero Scarp FR on the north
and Ruipa river on the east. It covers an altitude ranging from 300 to 900 m. The reserve
covers the lower part of the Ruipa, Ichiwachiwa, Iyondo, and Mgeta river catchments, which
flow into the Kilombero river.
ii) Ihanga forest reserve
Ihanga forest reserve was established in 1958 as a local authority forest reserve covering an
area of 8469 ha. It is about 20 km from Ifakara accessed through the Ifakara to Mbingu road.
5.3 Kilosa district
i) Ukwiva forest reserve
Ukwiva forest reserve with an area of 54,635 ha was established in 1954. It is located 35 km
from Kilosa town at 6‫ ס‬58’ – 7‫ ס‬21’ S and 36‫ ס‬34’–36‫ ס‬51’E. It covers an extensive area of the
eastern escarpment and upland plateau of the Rubeho (Usagara) mountains at an altitude
range between 600 and 2050m. It can be accessed through Kilosa to Mikumi road via Zombo
to Mkulusi or other villages on the eastern boundary or from the Mbuyuni to Mpwapwa road
to Ulelingombe.
The reserve is an important catchment including Miyombo river and parts of the Mkondoa
and Great Ruaha catchments. It is also the source of rivers Mwega, Magubi, Mnaga, Luma,
Simbalenga, Chomboi, Mdikwi, Mgaku, Mengi, Luhuma and Sasima.
ii) North Mamiwa Kisara forest reserve
North Mamiwa Kisara forest reserve has an area of about 7897 ha and is located at 6‫ ס‬21’ –
6‫ ס‬30’S and 36‫ ס‬53’ – 37‫ ס‬03’E about 100 km from Kilosa town. The forest can be accessed
79
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
from Mandege Forest Station through the road from Mandege to Lufukiri. Access from the
southern part is from the Mvumi to Mandege road at Makwambe. It covers a sharp mountain
ridge southwest of Mandege Forest Station in the Ukaguru Mountains from 1500 to 2250 m
altitude. The forest is the main source of water for Gairo Township in the dry lowlands. It also
supplies water to Lufukiri basin and Wami river in the Mkata Plains.
5.4 Mvomero district
i) Kanga Forest reserve
Kanga forest reserve with an area of 6664 ha was established in 1954 and is located at 5°
53’–6° 03’S, and 37°40’–37° 45’ E. It covers a steep rocky hill with two peaks north of the
main Nguru mountain range at an altitude range of 500 to 2019 m. The reserve is about 25
km from Turiani along the Turiani – Handeni road.
The reserve is part of the Wami river catchment. The Mziha river flows from the northern
side, the Mkowongele and Mtomkulu rivers flow from the eastern side and Lusonge river
from the western side. The forest is relatively undisturbed probably due to traditional value
restrictions.
ii) Nguru South forest reserve
Nguru South Forest Reserve with an area of 18794 ha was established in during German
Adminstration and is located at 6° 01’– 6° 13’S, and 37°26’–37° 37’ E. It is 10 km from
Turiani Township and accessed from Turiani through Mhonda Mission on the eastern side or
Maskati Mission on the western side. The reserve covers a summit ridge and the eastern
slopes of Nguru Mountains, north west of Turiani with an altitude range of 400 – 2400 m. The
catchment value of the forest is high supplying water to Mtibwa sugar factory, among the
largest sugarcane projects in Tanzania.
80
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Appendix IV: Forest disturbance in the Eastern Arc Mountain forests of Tanzania
Transect
1
Length m
500
Area ha
0.5
2
500
0.5
3
450
0.45
4
1000
1
Transect
1
Length m
1350
Area ha
1.35
2
1050
1.05
Mramba forest reserve, Mwanga district
GPS begin
Trees
New
cut
of plot
Live
Dead
Alt 1368m
211
44
0
N 034484
E 959845
Alt 1358m
194
14
2
N 034486
E 959826
Alt 908m
191
17
0
N 034328
E 959739
Alt 1365m
444
53
4
N 034538
E 959881
GPS end
Live
253
8
623
29
5
52
2
566
44
4
25
9
638
58
7
16
Kiverenge forest reserve, Mwanga district
GPS Begin
Trees
New
Old
of plot
Live
Dead
cut
cut
Alt 1065m
269
41
5
53
N 034970
E 957982
Alt 1145m
176
41
0
74
N 034974
E 957970
Poles/ saplings
New
cut
Dead
39
1
Old
cut
2
Live
519
181
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
20
15
15
2
Old cut
2
of plot
Alt 1334m
N 034531
E 959846
Alt 1335m
N 034526
E 959829
Alt 1495m
N 034511
E 959866
Alt 1365m
N 034442
E 959868
GPS end
Old cut
96
45
of plot
Alt 1130m
N 034826
E 957980
Alt 1145m
N 034877
E 957947
Chambogo forest reserve, Same district
81
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
GPS begin
Transect
1
Length m
3000
Area ha
3
2
1900
1.9
3
550
0.55
Transect
1
Length m
350
Area ha
0.35
2
700
0.7
3
1000
1
4
650
0.65
of plot
Alt 1092m
N 037222
E 954411
Alt 1144m
N 037216
E 954430
Alt 1215m
N 037214
E 954449
Trees
Live
640
GPS end
Live
428
Dead
32
1022
76
17
125
1455
21
40
300
421
20
1
15
602
34
4
88
Vumari forest reserve, Same district
GPS begin
Trees
New
cut
of plot
Live
Dead
Alt 1159m
39
0
1
N 036087
E 955462
Alt 1164m
198
11
1
N 036090
E 955424
Alt 1361m
108
12
0
N 036016
E 955402
Alt 1388m
268
61
1
N 036007
E 955384
Old
cut
305
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
22
34
New
cut
14
Poles/ saplings
New
cut
Dead
0
5
Old cut
346
of plot
Alt 1117m
N 036919
E 954405
Alt 1218m
N 037020
E 954425
Alt 1214m
N 037160
E 954449
GPS end
Old
cut
29
Live
124
106
524
7
0
60
27
285
0
1
39
75
423
27
3
49
Old cut
11
of plot
Alt 1206m
N 036054
E 955439
Alt 1342m
N 036023
E 955421
Alt 1257m
N 036047
E 955401
Alt 1327m
N 036066
E 955378
82
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Transect
1
Length m
1050
Area ha
1.05
2
1000
1
3
1850
1.85
4
850
0.85
5
850
0.85
Transect
1
Length m
400
Area ha
0.4
2
650
0.65
3
250
0.25
Mkusu forest reserve, Lushoto district
GPS begin
Trees
New
of plot
Live
Dead
cut
Alt 1650m
341
25
10
N 0429'99"
E 9472'93"
Alt 1619m
487
26
0
N 0430'01"
E 9472'73"
Alt 1564m
248
8
7
N 043102
E 947265
Alt 1401m
341
23
2
N 042137
E 947048
Alt 1558m
64
4
1
N 043035
E 947222
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
3
12
GPS end
Old
cut
84
Live
411
42
556
4
27
85
35
314
6
5
26
58
583
2
23
68
7
75
0
3
9
Mazumbai forest reserve, Lushoto district
GPS begin
Trees
New
Old
of plot
Live
Dead
cut
cut
Alt 1570m
335
62
0
0
N 044516
E 946627
Alt 1599m
258
25
0
0
N 044515
E 946646
Alt 1609m
161
44
0
0
N 044514
E 946666
Live
452
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
12
0
Old cut
70
of plot
Alt 1592m
N 0480'98"
E 9472'86"
Alt 1608m
N 0431'01"
E 9472'82"
Alt 1579m
N 043016
E 947270
Alt 1547m
N 043028
E 947240
Alt 1623m
N 043049
E 947220
GPS end
Old cut
0
242
12
0
0
322
2
0
0
of plot
Alt 1680m
N 044475
E 946625
Alt 1646m
N 044462
E 946653
Alt 1665m
N 044489
E 946666
83
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Transect
1
Length m
400
Area ha
0.4
2
400
0.4
Transect
1
Length m
1750
Area ha
1.75
2
1750
1.75
Ambangulu forest reserve, Korogwe district
GPS begin
Trees
New
Old
of plot
Live
Dead
cut
cut
Alt 129m
106
6
1
4
N 043658
E 943830
Alt 1278m
184
10
2
2
N 043659
E 943812
Bombo West forest reserve, Korogwe district
GPS begin
Trees
New
Old
cut
cut
of plot
Live
Dead
Alt 526m
535
33
8
257
N 046393
E 947247
Alt 552m
477
62
7
217
N 046402
E 947197
Live
232
334
Live
706
467
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
4
0
4
2
Poles/ saplings
New
cut
Dead
33
1
29
6
GPS end
Old cut
11
46
of plot
Alt 1287m
N 043638
E 943830
Heavy
crown
GPS end
Old cut
179
76
of plot
Alt 444m
N 046587
E 947251
Alt 412m
N 046577
E 947191
84
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Transect
1
Length m
1700
Area ha
1.7
2
1250
1.25
3
1500
1.5
4
1350
1.35
5
300
0.3
Nilo forest reserve, Muheza district
GPS begin
Trees
New
of plot
Live
Dead
cut
Alt 818m
525
19
4
N 046257
E 945763
Alt 811m
582
20
4
N 046257
E 945758
Alt 831m?
771
16
7
GPS not
Function
Alt 847m
369
15
0
N 046283
E 945698
Alt 828m
82
3
0
N 046283
E 945677
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
0
3
GPS end
Old
cut
55
Live
346
35
712
0
13
58
40
1025
2
9
55
29
311
0
1
57
3
177
0
1
4
Old cut
95
of plot
Alt 1110m
N 046077
E 945760
Alt 824m
Heavy
crown
Alt 895m
N 046149
E 945697
Alt 812m
N 046259
E 945680
85
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Transect
1
Length m
750
Area ha
0.75
2
1000
1
3
600
0.6
4
850
0.85
Transect
1
Length m
1500
Area ha
1.5
2
2250
2.25
3
600
0.6
4
650
0.65
Mtai forest reserve, Muheza district
GPS begin
Trees
New
of plot
Live
Dead
cut
Alt 420m
249
19
0
N 047610
E 946407
Alt 382m
465
22
1
N 047612
E 946387
Alt 403m
223
16
1
N 047607
E 946399
Alt 405m
343
24
0
N 047602
E 946852
Kilindi forest reserve, Kilindi district
GPS begin
Trees
New
cut
of plot
Live
Dead
Sky view
619
81
0
not clear
Alt 801m
1138
85
7
N 033933
E 937638
Alt 818m
242
35
0
N 033934
E 937618
Alt 727m
N 033393
E 937636
152
34
0
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
3
0
GPS end
Old
cut
19
Live
278
39
754
4
3
44
12
398
6
5
35
40
343
4
0
17
Poles/ saplings
New
cut
Dead
34
0
Old cut
33
of plot
Alt 663m
N 047537
E 946406
Alt 717m
N 047513
E 946408
Alt 586m
N 047548
E 946368
Alt 681m
N 047517
E 946848
GPS end
Old
cut
0
Live
901
3
1096
16
2
5
0
281
16
0
2
1
363
46
0
0
Old cut
2
of plot
Alt 921m
N 034099
Alt 800m
N 034152
E 937644
Alt 917m
N 033992
E 937622
Alt
727m???
N 033974
E 937634
86
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Transect
1
Length m
750
Area ha
0.75
2
850
0.85
3
500
0.5
4
1500
1.5
5
1050
1.05
6
700
0.7
600
7
0.6
8
1000
1
9
1500
1.5
10
250
0.25
Nguru North forest reserve, Kilindi district
GPS begin
Trees
New
Old
of plot
Live
Dead
cut
cut
Alt 1010m
195
5
0
0
N 033777
E 939669
Alt 940m
260
18
0
2
N 033771
E 939680
Alt 925m
183
24
0
9
N 033781
E 939630
Alt 968m
531
36
1
4
N 033781
E 939640
Alt 996m
636
75
0
0
N 033790
E 939589
Alt 947m
199
21
0
0
N 033792
E 939570
Alt 950m
198
31
3
9
N 033770
E 939552
Alt 974m
285
22
0
2
N 033737
E 939558
Alt 908m
399
31
0
7
N 033436
E 938475
Alt 896m
107
8
0
0
N 033440
E 938426
Live
128
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
4
0
GPS end
Old cut
0
233
19
0
1
126
5
0
4
664
37
1
9
830
53
4
5
130
10
0
0
128
12
6
2
389
18
2
1
323
52
0
5
46
3
0
0
of plot
Alt 1155m
N 033711
E 939665
Alt 1161m
N 033693
E 939687
Alt 1089m
N 033735
E 939629
Alt 1011m
N 033648
E 939672
Alt 1065m
N 033694
E 939586
Alt 1136m
N 033724
E 939567
Alt 1103m
N 033715
E 939548
Alt 1176m
N 033648
E 939563
Alt 981m
N 033430
E 938472
Alt 990m
N 033417
E 938425
87
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Nguru North cont.
GPS begin
Transect
11
Length m
1050
Area ha
1.05
12
450
0.45
13
1050
1.05
14
650
0.65
Transect
Length m
Area ha
1
450
0.45
Poles/
saplings
Trees
Live
343
Dead
27
118
11
0
4
129
5
0
0
309
42
0
0
579
39
4
5
224
25
0
3
121
11
0
1
Idewa forest reserve, Mufindi district
GPS begin
Trees
New
of plot
Live
Dead
cut
Old
cut
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
Old
cut
of plot
Alt 875m
N 033434
E 938407
Alt 931m
N 033383
E 938388
Alt 927m
N 033414
E 938397
Alt 930m
N 033418
E 938349
Alt1994m
S 08°17'09"
E 35°48'01"
730
88
0
Old
cut
1
Live
213
GPS end
New
cut
0
71
Live
565
Dead
29
New
cut
0
Old
cut
1
40
5
of plot
Alt 1167m
N 033333
E 938400
Alt 1089m
N 033387
E 938387
Alt 921m
N 033412
E 938399
Alt 1123m
N 033357
E 938347
GPS end
119
of plot
Cloudy
day
88
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Transect
1
Length m
1300
Area ha
1.3
Kisinga-Lugalo forest reserve, Kilolo district
GPS begin
Trees
New
Old
of plot
Live
Dead
cut
cut
Alt2085m
635
243
0
24
Poles/ saplings
Live
447
Dead
31
New cut
0
GPS end
Old
cut
29
S 07°45'27"
2
1400
1.4
E 36°01'09"
Alt2061m
389
60
1
16
551
47
0
25
448
166
0
9
349
33
0
11
362
82
0
16
549
78
0
22
428
136
2
8
338
8
7
16
242
43
2
21
342
36
0
16
13
7
2
0
9
0
0
8
S 07°45'37"
3
1050
1.05
E 36°01'26"
Alt1882m
S 07°44'59"
4
1800
1.8
E 26°00'54"
Alt2014m
S 07°45'34"
5
900
0.9
E 36°01'05"
Alt2104m
S 07°45'05"
6
300
0.3
E 36°00'13"
Alt2107m
S 07°44'56"
7
100
0.1
E 36°00'47"
Alt2015m
of plot
Alt 2086m
S
07°45'20"
E
35°56'37"
Alt 2061m
S
07°45'37"
E
36°01'36"
Alt 2093m
S
07°45'18"
E
36°00'05"
Alt 2074m
S
07°45'39"
E
35°59'12"
Alt 2087m
S
07°45'32"
E
36°00'55"
Alt 2109m
S
07°45'28"
E
36°00'29"
Alt 2099m
89
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
S
07°44'54"
E
36°00'44"
S 07°44'54"
E 36°00'39"
8
600
0.6
Alt2074m
186
54
0
6
136
3
0
9
104
34
0
2
180
8
0
11
S 07°45'04"
9
500
0.5
E 36°00'46"
Alt2076m
S 07°45'12"
E 36°00'39"
Alt 2049m
S
07°45'06"
E
36°00'16"
Alt 2079m
S
07°45'13"
E
36°00'16"
90
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Transect
Length m
Area ha
1
750
0.75
2
950
0.95
3
1000
1
Transect
1
Length m
1550
Area ha
1.55
2
1500
11.5
Ihang'ana forest reserve, Mufindi district
GPS begin
Trees
New
Old
of plot
Live Dead
cut
cut
Alt2045m
S 08°00'17"
E 35°43'38"
Alt2040m
S 08°17'30"
S 35°43'12"
Alt2082m
S 08°18'35"
E 35°44'32"
Live
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
GPS end
Old
cut
310
14
1
16
507
52
2
55
743
107
4
131
575
39
16
134
686
115
26
132
814
80
25
148
Kitonga forest reserve, Kilo district
GPS begin
Trees
New
of plot
Live Dead
cut
Alt1295m
295
8
14
S 07°39'30"
E 36°08'14"
Alt1315m
165
15
0
S 07°39'37"
E 36°08'24"
Old
cut
301
Live
335
32
276
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
2
2
18
1
of plot
Heavy
crown
Alt 2066m
S 08°17'29"
E 35°43'13"
Alt 2056m
S 07°45'02"
E 36°00'13"
GPS end
Old
cut
187
27
of plot
Alt 1317m
S 07°39'26"
E 36°08'62"
Alt 1447m
S 07°38'51"
E 36°09'13"
91
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Transect
1
Length m
500
Area ha
0.5
2
400
0.4
3
150
0.15
4
250
0.25
5
450
0.45
6
150
0.15
7
400
0.4
Mselezi forest reserve, Ulanga district
GPS
begin
Trees
New
cut
of plot
Live Dead
Alt 831m
150
27
0
S 08°46'14"
E 36°43'09"
Alt 836m
81
15
13
S 08°46'23"
E 36°43'15"
Alt 785m
42
3
0
S 08°36'03"
E 36°44'32"
Alt 577m
38
5
0
S 08°47'03"
E 36°45'03"
Alt 522m
151
30
S 08°50'17"
E 36°43'48"
Alt 594m
20
5
0
S 08°47'24"
E 36°43'15"
Alt 588m
70
24
0
S 08°48'09"
E 36°43'32"
Poles/ saplings
New
cut
Dead
0
0
GPS end
Old
cut
4
Old
cut
8
Live
137
0
58
19
0
5
1
44
2
0
8
6
25
3
0
7
0
14
121
18
0
9
37
3
0
19
16
98
25
0
16
of plot
Alt 810m
S 08°46'15"
E 36°43'26"
Alt 832m
S 08°46'23"
E 36°43'06"
Alt 783m
S 08°46'03"
E 36°43'32"
Alt 540m
S 08°50'21"
E 36°43'48"
Alt 622m
S 08°48'10"
E 36°43'25"
92
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Nambiga forest reserve, Ulanga district
GPS begin
Transect
1
Length m
750
Area ha
0.75
2
450
0.45
3
300
0.3
Transect
1
Length m
300
Area ha
0.3
2
1250
1.25
3
1600
1.6
4
350
0.35
of plot
Alt 595
S 08°35'31"
E 36°29'06"
Alt 390
S 08°35'45"
E 36°29'18"
Alt 398
S 08°35'52"
E 36°28'32"
Trees
Poles/ saplings
New
cut
Dead
49
0
GPS end of
plot
Live
204
Dead
92
New
cut
0
Old
cut
21
Live
158
65
9
0
5
171
20
0
5
51
14
0
1
99
5
0
2
Ihanga forest reserve, Kilombero district
GPS begin
Trees
New
Old
of plot
Live Dead
cut
cut
Alt 317m
341
28
17
166
S 08°05'02"
E 36°35'01"
Alt 307m
87
6
0
62
S 08°05'23"
E 36°35'02"
Alt 306m
28
1
5
83
S 08°05'00"
E 36°35'14"
Alt 307m
15
5
0
23
S 08°05'23"
E 36°35'02"
Live
274
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
3
15
Old
cut
9
Alt 425
S 08°35'34"
E 36°29'05"
GPS end
Old
cut
135
499
1
3
119
10
0
5
73
64
3
0
54
of plot
Alt 251m
S 08°05'04"
E 36°35'25"
Alt 299m
S 08°05'08"
E 36°36'15"
Alt 312m
S 08°04'58"
E 36°35'58"
Alt 297m
S 08°05'14"
E 36°35'23"
93
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Mangliza forest reserve, Mpwapwa district
GPS begin
Transect
1
Length m
1000
Area ha
1
2
1250
1.25
3
1450
1.45
4
650
0.65
5
500
0.5
6
200
0.2
of plot
Alt2028m
S 07°08'46"
E 36°25'25"
Alt1981m
S 07°08'37"
E 36°25'07"
Alt2020m
S 07°09'25"
E 36°24'13"
Alt2014m
S 07°09'32"
E 36°24'17"
Alt2010m
S 07°09'09"
E 36°24'48"
Alt2039m
S 07°09'19"
E 36°24'23"
Trees
Poles/Saplings
Live
167
Dead
43
New
cut
6
Old
cut
22
Live
119
New
cut
0
Old
cut
25
128
24
0
21
135
5
0
47
251
94
0
26
159
19
1
27
106
30
0
10
101
20
0
27
55
12
0
5
40
13
0
16
22
4
0
3
18
2
0
5
Dead
17
GPS end of
plot
Alt 2065m
S 07°31'26"
E 36°25'35"
Alt 2127m
S 07°08'35"
E 36°25'43"
Alt 2066m
S 07°09'19"
E 36°25'26"
Alt 2027m
S 07°08'96"
E 36°24'45"
Alt 2039m
S 07°09'08"
E 36°24'17"
Alt 2033m
S 07°09'17"
E 36°24'23"
94
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Transect
1
Length m
1000
Area ha
1
2
1450
1.45
3
1250
1.25
4
1450
1.45
5
1000
1
6
1250
1.25
7
950
0.9
8
1250
1.25
Iyondo forest reserve, Kilombero district
GPS begin
Trees
New
Old
of plot
Live Dead
cut
cut
Alt 360m
380
180
0
23
S 08°07'30"
E 36°15'18"
Alt 355m
404
61
0
30
S 08°07'30"
E 36°15'15"
Alt 358m
578
241
3
25
S 08°07'28"
E36°15'14"
Alt 356m
279
63
0
1
S 08°07'39"
E 36°15'17"
Alt 377m
438
165
0
13
S 08°07'09"
E 36°15'16"
Alt 370m
212
41
0
7
S 08°07'39"
E 36°15'16"
Alt 379m
540
192
0
1
S 08°06'48"
E 36°15'14"
Alt 373m
233
36
0
3
S 08°06'57"
E 36°15'15"
Live
315
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
35
0
GPS end
Old
cut
9
902
57
3
43
503
32
0
2
792
58
0
4
393
80
0
9
725
38
0
1
371
91
0
0
655
46
0
3
of plot
Alt 454m
S 08°06'24"
E 36°25'11"
Alt 391m
S 08°05'25"
E 36°16'20"
Alt 371m
S 08°07'25"
E 36°14'52"
Alt 325m
S 08°07'14"
E 36°16'27"
Alt 421m
S 08°07'21"
E 36°15'05"
Alt 367m
S 08°07'06"
E 36°16'09"
Alt 425m
S 08°06'56"
E 36°16'20"
95
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Transect
1
Length m
550
Area ha
0.55
2
500
0.5
3
1150
1.15
4
800
0.8
5
300
0.3
Mafwomera forest reserve, Mpwapwa district
GPS begin
Trees
New
Old
of plot
Live Dead
cut
cut
Alt 202m
394
169
0
9
S 06°57'29"
E 36°36'00"
Alt1996m
130
54
0
3
S 06°57'23"
E 36°36'07"
Alt2027m
707
270
0
56
S 06°57'26"
E 36°36'22"
Alt2077m
459
80
0
17
S 06°57'30"
E 36°36'24"
Alt1984m
119
22
0
8
S 06°57'32"
E 36°36'25"
Live
317
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
60
1
GPS end
Old
cut
21
204
33
0
0
589
80
7
67
570
37
1
50
254
16
0
5
of plot
Alt 2021m
S 06°57'21"
E 36°36'19"
Alt 2003m
S 06°57'25"
E 36°36'26"
Alt 1978m
S 06°57'25"
E 36°36'29"
Alt 2102m
S 06°57'31"
E 36°35'42"
Alt 1984m
S 06°57'30"
E 36°36'39"
96
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Transect
1
Length m
700
Area ha
0.7
2
1350
1.35
3
500
0.5
4
1400
1.4
5
1000
1
6
1250
1.25
7
1350
1.35
8
1100
1.1
9
1400
1.4
Ukwiva forest reserve, Kilosa district
GPS begin
Trees
New
of plot
Live Dead
cut
Alt 627m
214
35
0
S 07°03'33"
E 36°50'33"
Alt 618m
401
48
1
S 07°03'22"
E 36°50'35"
Alt 615m
167
28
0
S 07°03'32"
E 36°05'34"
Alt 606m
250
38
0
S 07°03'01"
E36°50'39"
Alt 605m
296
34
0
S 07°03'21"
E 36°50'37"
Alt 616m
215
43
0
S 07°02'39"
E 36°50'43"
Alt 314m
645
112
0
S 07°02'50"
E 36°50'40"
Alt 623m
249
34
0
S 07°03'13"
E 36°49'45"
Alt 648m
547
183
0
S 07°03'12"
E 36°49'44"
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
3
0
GPS end
Old
cut
4
Old
cut
0
Live
96
2
269
21
0
0
7
88
4
0
6
9
366
31
0
3
18
162
1
0
1
6
294
27
0
10
14
250
5
0
7
9
405
45
0
0
2
377
69
0
3
of plot
Alt 616m
S 0°703'35"
E 36°50'03"
Alt 665m
S 07°03'26"
E 36°50'02"
Alt 629m
S 07°03'29"
E 36°50'24"
Alt 654m
S 07°03'06"
E 36°50'03"
Alt 612m
S 07°03'21"
E 36°50'30"
Alt 626m
S 07°02'44"
E 36°50'23"
Alt 625m
S 07°02'59"
E 36°50'14"
Alt 638m
S 07°03'17"
E 36°49'25"
Alt 851m
S 07°03'22"
E 36°49'07"
97
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Transect
1
Length m
500
Area ha
0.5
2
700
0.7
3
600
0.6
4
1150
1.15
5
0.95
0.95
6
0.15
0.15
Mamiwa forest reserve, Kilosa district
GPS begin
Trees
New
of plot
Live Dead
cut
Alt1851m
299
81
0
S 06°22'52"
E 36°55'28"
Alt1850m
175
48
0
S 06°22'52"
E 36°55'28"
Alt 852m
301
115
0
S 06°22'59"
E 36°55'11"
Alt 1846m
286
65
0
S 06°22'43"
E 36°55'34"
Alt1846m
601
258
0
S 06°22'43"
E 36°55'35"
Alt1903m
28
5
0
S 06°22'30"
E 36°55'77"
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
33
0
GPS end
Old
cut
27
Old
cut
42
Live
226
7
301
53
1
6
33
213
32
0
16
26
535
50
0
72
8
521
117
1
16
6
55
7
0
5
of plot
Alt 1862m
S 06°22'53"
E 36°55'11"
Alt 1842m
S 06°22'47"
E 36°56'05"
Alt 1848m
S 06°22'58"
E 36°55'29"
Alt 1873m
S 06°22'30"
E 36°56'09"
Alt 1920m
S 06°22'43"
E 36°55'35"
Alt 1873m
S 06°22'30"
E 36°56'09"
98
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Transect
1
Length m
1400
Area ha
1.4
2
700
0.7
3
750
0.75
4
650
0.65
5
500
0.5
6
250
0.25
Kanga forest reserve, Mvomero forest reserve
GPS
begin
Trees
New
Old
cut
cut
of plot
Live Dead
Alt 532m
303
71
4
76
S 05°59'34"
E 37°45'31"
Alt 424m
110
13
1
8
S 05°59'00"
E 37°45'26"
Alt 436m
201
13
3
57
S 05°59'07"
E 37°45'29"
Alt 523m
99
15
0
12
S 05°59'08"
E 37°45'28"
Alt 496m
110
12
0
6
S 05°59'03"
E 37°44'56"
Alt 455m
53
7
0
8
S 05°59'24"
E 37°45'25"
Live
163
Poles/ saplings
New
cut
Dead
25
0
GPS end
Old
cut
30
109
13
0
14
100
0
0
31
126
18
0
7
122
9
2
14
57
4
0
11
of plot
Alt 564m
S 05°59'03"
E 37°45'23"
Alt 567m
S 05°59'03"
E 37°45'29"
Alt 433m
S 05°59'03"
E 37°45'20"
Alt 554
S 05°59'08"
E 37°44'49"
Alt 447m
S 05°59'03"
E 37°45'22"
Alt 452m
S 05°59'47"
E 37°45'26"
99
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
5
Transect
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5&6
Length
m
6
Area
ha
Nguru South forest reserve, Mvomero forest reserve
GPS begin
Trees
New
Old
of plot
Live Dead
cut
cut
Live
Alt. 513m
33
6
1
6
31
N9322276
E0339200
Alt.532
113
8
0
6
80
N9323033
E0339467
Alt.446
5
2
3
5
8
N9325363
E0338824
Alt. 1061m
80
8
15
47
188
N9325538
E0338751
Alt. 1000m
270
8
12
1
275
N9332266
E0339301
Alt. 1213
239
14
9
21
206
N9336052
E0334405
Alt. 725m
96
2
2
93
276
N9328034
E0339904
Poles/ saplings
New
Dead
cut
5
0
Old
cut
2
GPS end
of plot
Alt. 1020m
N9322396
E0339302
Heavy
Crown
16
0
7
3
0
0
Heavy
crown
12
6
36
37
2
7
18
10
38
Alt. 1253m
N9325565
E0338280
Alt. 1150m
N9317831
E0338042
Alt. 1324m
N9335981
E0343525
Alt. 842m
N9327980
E0339936
22
12
146
Could not determine the length and area of the transects because the number of plots were not given in the PEMA report
100
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Appendix V: Threat Reduction Assessment of 26 forests in the Eastern Arc
Mountain forests of Tanzania
Mramba forest reserve, Mwanga district
Area Ranking Intensity Urgency Total
Direct Threats
Ranking Ranking Ranking
FI1
Poles cutting
3
3
3
FI2
Grazing
2
1
2
FI3
Root digging
1
2
1
(medicine)
Sub-Total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-Total
Total
Tree/poles cutting
Grazing
Fire (accidental)
Trailing (erosion)
4
3
2
1
3
2
1
2
TRA
% Threat Raw
Met
Score Index
9
50
4.9
5
45
2.25
4
40
1.6
18
11
8
4
5
28
46
4
3
1
2
35
40
70
50
8.75 48.60%
3.85
3.2
2.8
2.5
12.35 44.10%
21.1 45.90%
FI1 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FI2 Land use plan in place, grazing procedures/restrictions in the FR are strictly adhered to
FI3 Root digging for medicine done under licence through herbalist groups
FE1 See FI1
FE2 See FI2
FE3 At most one fire incidences per year, firebreaks maintained each year
FE4 Main trails joining adjacent villages abolished
Kiverenge forest reserve, Mwanga district
Area Ranking
Direct Threats
FI1
Tree/poles cutting
FI2
Grazing
FI3
Root digging
Sub-Total
FE1
Tree/poles cutting
FE2
Grazing
FE3
Fire-accidental
FE4
Trailing (erosion)
Sub-Total
Total
Intensity Urgency
Ranking Ranking
1
1
3
3
2
2
3
1
2
4
3
2
1
3
4
2
1
2
4
1
2
Total
Ranking
% Threat Raw
TRA
Met Score Index
5
30
1.5
7
30
2.1
6
40
2.4
18
6 33.30%
9
40
3.6
11
35
3.85
5
50
2.5
4
40
1.6
29
11.6 41.40%
47
17.6 37.30%
FI1 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FI2 Land use plan in place, grazing procedures/restrictions in the FR are strictly adhered to
FI3 Root digging for medicine done under licence through herbalist groups
FE1 See FI1
FE2 See FI2
FE3 At most one fire incidences per year, firebreaks maintained each year
FE4 Main trails joining adjacent villages abolished
101
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Chambogo forest reserve, Same district
Area Ranking
Intensity Urgency
Total
% Threat Raw
TRA
Met
Score Index
40
3.6
45
2.7
30
2.7
9 37.50%
Direct Threats
Grazing
Charcoal/firewood
Fire (accidental)
Ranking Ranking Ranking
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
FE1
Grazing
5
2
4
11
50
5.5
FE2
Fire (intentional)
4
5
5
14
30
4.2
FE3
Charcoal/
firewood
2
3
3
8
45
3.6
FE4
Stone collection
1
2
1
4
40
1.6
FE5
Encroachment
3
1
2
6
40
2.4
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-Total
Sub-Total
Total
9
6
9
24
37
61
17.3
46.8
26.3 43.10%
FI1 Land use plan in place, grazing procedures/restrictions in the FR are strictly adhered to
FI2 Charcoal burning is completely banned in the forest and alternative source available
FI3 At least one to two fires occur in the forest per year
FE1 AsFI1
FE2 As FI3
FE3 As FI2
FE4 Stone collection completely banned in the forest and an alternative area sought.
FE5 Encroachment for cultivation and settlement eliminated and sustainable land use plan in place
Vumari forest reserve, Same district
Area
Ranking
Direct Threats
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-Total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Sub-Total
Total
Intensity
Ranking
Fire (accidental)
Grazing
Tree/poles cutting
3
2
1
Fire (accidental)
Grazing
Tree/pole cutting
Grass cutting
3
4
2
1
Urgency
Ranking
2
3
1
4
2
3
1
Total
Ranking
2
1
3
4
3
1
2
7
6
5
18
15
9
6
4
34
52
TRA
% Threat Raw
Met
Score Index
40
2.8
40
2.4
40
2
7.2
40%
50
7.5
35
3.15
35
2.1
35
1.4
14.15 42.90%
21.35 41.10%
FI1 At least one to two fires occur in the forest per year
FI2 Land use plan in place, grazing procedures/restrictions in the FR are strictly adhered to
FI3 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FE1 See FI1
FE2 See FI2
FE3 See FI3
FE4 Grass cutting done under licence
102
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Mkusu forest reserve, Lushoto district
Intensity
Urgency
Area
Ranking
Direct Threats
Ranking
Ranking
FI1
Timber harvest
3
3
FI2
Grazing
1
2
FI3
Sub-Total
Charcoal burning
3
1
FE1
FE2
Tree/pole cutting
Fires
1
4
FE3
Grazing
FE4
Encroachment
Total
Ranking
TRA
% Threat Raw
Met
Score Index
7
40
2.8
6
45
2.7
1
3
2
6
19
30
1.8
7.3 38.40%
2
4
1
2
4
10
40
40
1.6
4
2
1
4
7
30
2.1
3
3
3
9
35
3.15
Sub-Total
Total
30
49
10.85 36.10%
18.15 37.00%
FI1 Timber exploitation completely banned and no fresh pit-sawing seen
FI2 Land use plan in place, grazing procedures/restrictions in the FR are strictly adhered to
FI3 Charcoal burning is completely banned in the forest and alternative area sought
FE1 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FE2 At least one to two fires occur in the forest per year
FE3 See FI2
FE4 Encroachment for cultivation and settlement eliminated and sustainable land use plan in place
Mazumbai forest reserve, Lushoto district
Intensity
Urgency
Area
Ranking
Direct Threats
Ranking
Ranking
FI1
Hunting
2
2
FI2
Medicinal plants
1
1
Total
Ranking
2
1
TRA
% Threat Raw
Met
Score Index
6
80
4.8
3
80
2.4
75
60
Sub-Total
FE1
Fire wood
2
2
1
9
5
FE2
Medicinal plants
1
1
2
4
Sub-Total
Total
11
20
7.2 80.00%
3.75
2.4
6.15
60%
13.35 66.80%
FI1 Hunting is completely banned and no traps seen in the forest
FI2 Collection of medicinal plants done under licence through herbalist groups
FE1 Firewood collection done under agreed procedures (day, type of wood etc)
FE2 See FI2
103
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Amabangulu forest reserve, Korogwe district
Area
Intensity
Ranking Ranking
Direct Threats
FI1
Encroachment
2
FI2
Pit sawing
1
FI3
Mining
3
Sub-Total
FE1
Grazing
2
FE2
Encroachment
1
Sub-Total
Total
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
1
6
4
8
18
6
4
10
28
% Threat Raw
TRA
Met
Score Index
75
4.5
60
2.4
80
6.4
13.3 73.90%
65
3.9
70
2.8
6.7
67%
20 71.40%
FI1 Encroachment for cultivation and settlement eliminated and sustainable land use plan in place
FI2 Timber exploitation completely banned and no fresh pit sawing seen in the forest
FI3 Mining is completely banned and no fresh pit seen
FE1 Land use plan in place, grazing procedures/restrictions in the FR are strictly adhered to
FE2 Encroachment for cultivation and settlement eliminated and sustainable land use plan in place
Bombo West forest reserve, Muheza district
Intensity
Area
Ranking
Direct Threats
Ranking
FI1
Charcoal burning
3
FI2
Tree/poles cutting
1
FI3
Fire (intentional)
2
Sub-Total
FE1
Fire (intentional)
4
FE2
Grazing
1
FE3
FE4
Sub-Total
Total
Tree/pole cutting
Encroachment
2
3
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
2
1
3
3
1
2
4
3
3
4
2
1
2
1
8
3
7
18
11
8
6
5
30
48
TRA
% Threat Raw
Met
Score Index
25
2
40
1.2
30
2.1
5.3 29.40%
25
2.75
40
3.2
25
50
1.5
2.5
9.95 33.20%
15.25
32%
FI1 Charcoal burning is completely banned in the forest and alternative area sought
FI2 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FI3 At least one to two fire incidences per year, firebreaks maintained each annually
FE1 See FI3
FE2 Land use plan in place, grazing procedures/restrictions in the FR are strictly adhered to
FE3 See FI2
FE4 Encroachment for cultivation and settlement eliminated and sustainable land use plan in place
104
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Nilo forest reserve, Muheza
FI1
FI2
FI3
Direct Threats
Mining of gold
Timber harvest
Fire (Accidental)
Area
Ranking
Intensity
Ranking
2
3
1
Urgency
Ranking
1
3
2
Sub-Total
FE1
Poles cutting
4
1
FE2
Grazing
1
FE3
FE4
Fire (Intentional)
Firewood
collection
FE5
Timber harvest
% Threat Raw
TRA
Met
Score Index
4
30
2.4
8
35
2.8
6
35
2.1
Total
Ranking
1
2
3
1
18
6
7.3 40.60%
1.5
25
2
4
7
35
2.45
5
2
4
5
5
3
14
10
45
40
6.3
4
3
3
2
8
40
3.2
Sub-Total
39
17.45 44.70%
Total
57
24.75 43.40%
FI1 Mining is completely burned and no fresh pit seen
FI2 Timber exploitation completely banned and no fresh pit-sawing seen in the FR
FI3 At lest one to two fire incidences per year, firebreaks maintained annually
FE1 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FE2 Land use plan in place, grazing procedures/restrictions in the FR are strictly adhered to
FE3 See FI3
FE4 Firewood collection done under agreed procedures (day, type of wood etc)
FE5 See FI2
105
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Mtai forest reserve, Muheza district
Area
Ranking
Direct Threats
FI1
Fire (Accidental)
Intensity
Ranking
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
% Threat Raw
TRA
Met
Score Index
8
50
4
3
2
3
1
2
2
1
5
4
17
35
40
FI2
FI3
Sub-Total
Tree cutting
Mining
2
1
FE1
FE2
Fire (accidental)
Grazing
4
2
4
1
4
2
12
5
40
40
48
2
FE3
Firewood
collection
3
2
1
6
30
1.8
FE4
Tree/poles cutting
1
3
3
7
35
2.45
Sub-Total
Total
30
47
1.75
1.6
7.35 43.20%
11.05 36.80%
18.4 39.10%
FI1 At least one to two fire incidences per year, firebreaks maintained each year
FI2 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FI3 Mining is completely burned and no fresh pit seen
FE1 See FI1
FE2 Land use plan in place, grazing procedures/restrictions in the FR are strictly adhered to
FE3 Firewood collection done under agreed procedures (day, type of wood etc)
FE4 See FI2
Nguru North forest reserve, Kilindi
district
Direct Threats
Area
Ranking
Intensity
Ranking
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
FI1
FI2
Mining
Fire (Accidental)
3
2
2
3
2
1
FI3
Sub-Total
FE1
FE2
FE3
Sub-Total
Total
Tree/pole cutting
1
1
3
Grazing
Fire (Intentional)
Encroachment
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
2
3
TRA
% Threat Raw
Met
Score Index
7
50
3.5
6
40
2.4
5
18
3
7
7
17
35
50
40
45
40
2.5
8.4 46.70%
1.2
3.15
2.8
7.15 42.10%
15.55 44.40%
FI1 Mining is completely burned and no fresh pit seen
FI2 At least one to two fire incidences per year, firebreaks maintained annually
FI3 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FE1 Land use plan in place, grazing procedures/restrictions in the FR are strictly adhered to
FE2 See FI2
FE3 Encroachment for cultivation and settlement eliminated and sustainable land use plan in place
106
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Kilindi forest reserve, Kilindi district
Area
Ranking
Direct Threats
Intensity
Ranking
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
FI1
FI2
FI3
Sub-Total
Mining
Fire (Intentional)
Tree/poles cutting
1
3
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
5
6
7
18
FE1
FE2
FE3
Sub-Total
Total
Grazing
Fire (Intentional)
Encroachment
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
5
8
5
18
36
% Threat Raw
TRA
Met
Score Index
40
2
30
1.8
55
3.85
7.65 42.50%
30
30
45
1.5
2.4
2.25
6.15 34.20%
13.8 38.30%
FI1 Mining is completely banned and no fresh pit seen
FI2 At least one to two fire incidences per year, firebreaks maintained annually
FI3 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FE1 Land use plan in place, grazing procedures/restrictions in the FR are strictly adhered to
FE2 See FI2
FE3 Encroachment for cultivation and settlement eliminated and sustainable land use plan in place
Idewa forest reserve, Mufindi district
Area
Ranking
Direct Threats
FI1
Harvesting of timber
Intensity
Ranking
Urgency
Ranking
% Threat Raw
Met
Score
Total
Ranking
TRA
Index
2
3
1
6
30
1.8
FI2
Hunting
FI3
Poles cutting
Sub-Total
3
1
1
2
2
3
6
6
18
40
25
2.4
1.5
5.7 31.67%
FE1
Fire (Accidental)
3
2
3
8
30
2.4
FE2
Encroachment
2
3
2
7
30
2.1
FE3
Firewood collection
1
1
1
3
30
0.9
Sub-Total
Total
18
36
5.4
30%
11.1 30.80%
FI1 Harvesting of Parinari curatelifolia - No trees harvested illegally
FI2 Hunting no longer exists (no trap trenches seen)
FI3 Pole cutting completely banned and alternative sources of poles e.g. woodlots available
FE1 At least one to fire incidences per year, and fire breaks cleaned yearly
FE2 No farming activities within the forest reserve and forest boundary maintained/well demarcated annually
FE3 Sustainable procedures for firewood collection in place and implemented.
107
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Ihang’ana forest reserve, Mufindi district
Area
Intensity
Ranking
Direct Threats
Ranking
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
% Threat Raw
Met
Score
FI1
Poles collection
2
2
2
6
30
1.8
FI2
Hunting
1
1
1
3
50
1.5
FI3
Fire wood collection
3
3
3
9
45
4.05
Sub-Total
18
7.35
FE1
FI2
Fire (Accidental)
Encroachment
1
4
2
4
2
1
5
9
50
40
2.5
3.6
FE3
Poles collection
2
1
3
6
30
1.8
3
3
4
10
30
48
30
3.0
10.9
18.3
FE4
Fire wood collection
Sub-Total
Total
TRA
Index
40.8%
36.30%
38.00%
FI1 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FI2 No hunting of any kind, alternative source of protein developed e.g. livestock
FI3 Firewood collection procedures in place and implemented
FE1 At least one to two fire incidences per year, firebreaks maintained each year
FE2 Encroachment abolished and boundary clearly demarcation and maintenance
FE3 Pole cutting completely banned and alternative sources of poles e.g. woodlots available
FE4 See FI3
Kisinga-Lugalo forest reserve, Kilolo district
Area
Intensity
Ranking
Direct Threats
Ranking
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
% Threat Raw
Met
Score
FI1
Bamboo exploitation
3
1
4
8
30
2.4
FI2
Cussonia harvesting
4
2
3
9
35
3.15
45
50
25
2.7
3.5
11.75
2.25
FI3
Encroachment
FI4
Fire
Sub-Total
FE1
Fire
1
2
4
3
1
2
4
4
1
6
7
30
9
FE2
Grazing
3
3
3
9
40
3.6
FE3
Fuel wood collection
2
1
4
7
35
2.45
FE4
Poles harvesting
1
2
2
5
40
2.0
Sub-Total
Total
30
60
10.3
22.05
TRA
Index
39.2%
34.3%
36.8%
FI1 Bamboo harvesting plan in place and implemented
FI2 Introduction and adoption on the use of modern beekeeping beehives
108
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
FI3 Encroachment for cultivation completely eliminated
FI4 One to two fire incidences per year and firebreaks cleaned annually
FE1 One to two occurrences of fire per year (for fire sensitive villages)
FE2 Land use plan in place, grazing procedures/restrictions in forest reserves are strictly adhere to
FE3 Alternative source of firewood addressed firewood collection procedures strictly adhered to
FE4 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. Woodlots
Kitonga forest reserve, Kilolo district
Area
Ranking
Direct Threats
Intensity
Ranking
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
% Threat Raw
Met
Score
FI1
Charcoal burning
2
2
2
6
20
1.2
FI2
Tree and poles cutting
3
1
3
7
35
2.45
FI3
Encroachment
1
3
1
5
30
1.5
25
30
5.15
2.25
1.8
Sub-Total
FE1
Fire
FE2
Encroachment
4
1
3
4
2
1
18
9
6
FE3
Poles cutting
2
2
3
7
20
1.4
FE4
Firewood collection
3
1
4
8
25
2
Sub-Total
Total
30
48
7.45
12.6
TRA
Index
28.6%
24.80%
26.30%
FI1 Charcoal burning is completely banned and alternative source available from adjacent public forests
FI2 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FI3 Encroachment for cultivation eliminated and land use plan in place
FE1 One or two fire occurrences per year and firebreaks cleaned annually
FE2 Encroachment for cultivation eliminated and land use plan in place
FE3 See FI2
FE3 Firewood collecting procedures in place and alternative source of firewood
109
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Mselezi forest reserve, Ulanga district
Area
Ranking
Direct Threats
Intensity
Ranking
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
% Threat Raw
Met
Score
FI1
Encroachment
5
5
3
15
25
4.0
FI2
Timber exploitation
4
3
2
9
30
2.7
FI3
Firewood collection
3
1
5
9
20
1.8
FI4
Tree and poles cutting
2
2
4
8
30
2.4
FI5
Mining
Sub-Total
1
4
1
6
47
35
2.1
13
FE1
Encroachment
4
4
2
10
25
2.5
FE2
Fire hazards
3
3
1
7
30
2.1
FE3
Tree/poles cutting
1
1
3
5
40
2.0
FE4
Firewood collection
2
2
4
8
45
3.6
Sub-Total
Total
30
77
10.2
23.2
TRA
Index
27.7%
34%
30.1%
FI1 Forest encroachment banned, encroachers evicted and forest boundary resurveyed
FI2 Timber exploitation completely banned
FI3 Firewood collection procedures in place and alternative source of firewood
FI4 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FI5 Mining exploitation completely banned and no fresh pits seen
FI1Encroachment for cultivation completely eliminated
FE2 Fire occurrences reduced to at most 3 per year
FE3 See FI4 and FE4 See FI3
Nambiga forest reserve, Ulanga district
Area
Ranking
Direct Threats
Intensity
Ranking
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
% Threat Raw
Met
Score
FI1
Timber exploitation
2
2
3
7
50
3.5
FI2
Fire hazards
3
3
2
8
30
2.4
FI3
Hunting
Sub-Total
1
1
1
3
18
40
1.2
7.1
FE1
Fire hazards
2
3
1
6
45
2.7
FE2
Boundary encroachment 3
2
2
7
25
1.75
FE3
Tree/poles cutting
1
3
5
55
Sub-Total
Total
1
18
36
2.75
7.2
14.3
TRA
Index
39.4%
40%
39.7%
110
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
FI1 Timber exploitation completely banned and alternative source available
FI2 Fire occurrences reduced to at most 3 times a year
FI3 Hunting is completely banned and eliminated
FE1 See FI2
FE2 Encroachment eliminated, boundary clearly resurveyed and encroachers evicted
FE3 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
Ihanga forest reserve, Kilombero district
Area
Intensity
Ranking
Direct Threats
Ranking
FI1
Encroachment
4
5
Urgency
Ranking
2
Total
Ranking
11
% Threat Raw
Met
Score
40
4.4
FI2
FI3
Grazing
Tree/poles cutting
5
3
3
4
4
3
12
10
35
25
4.2
2.5
FI4
Firewood collection
2
1
5
8
30
2.4
FI5
Charcoal burning
1
2
1
4
30
1.2
Sub-Total
45
14.7
FE1
Encroachment
1
1
3
5
20
1.0
FE2
Fire hazards
3
4
1
8
35
2.8
FE3
Firewood collection
4
5
6
15
35
5.25
FE4
FE5
Tree/poles cutting
Charcoal burning
5
2
6
2
4
2
15
6
40
30
6.0
1.8
6
3
5
14
63
108
20
2.8
19.65
34.35
FE6
Grazing
Sub-Total
Total
TRA
Index
32.7%
31.2%
31.8%
FI1 Encroachment (settlement and cultivation) completely eliminated
FI2 Grazing adhere to forest rules and regulations
FI3 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FI4 Firewood collection adhere to forest rules and regulations
FI5 Charcoal burning completely banned
FE1 Encroachment (settlement and cultivation) completely eliminated
FE2 Fire occurrences reduced to at most 2 times a year
FE3 See FI4, FE4 See FI3 and FE5 See F15
FE6 Land use plan in place, grazing procedures/restrictions in forest reserves are strictly adhere to
Iyondo forest reserve, Kilombero district
Area
Intensity
Ranking
Direct Threats
Ranking
FI1
Timber exploitation
3
3
Urgency
Ranking
2
Total
Ranking
8
% Threat Raw
Met
Score
20
1.6
FI2
FI3
1
3
3
7
35
40
Hunting
Tree/poles cutting
1
2
1
2
Sub-Total
FE1
FE2
FE3
FE4
Timber harvesting
Fire hazards
Tree/poles cutting
Firewood collection
18
2
5
4
3
3
5
1
2
3
1
4
5
8
11
9
10
1.05
2.8
5.45
15
10
30
45
TRA
Index
30.3%
1.2
1.1
2.7
4.5
111
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
FE5
Encroachment
1
4
2
Sub-Total
Total
7
40
45
63
2.8
12.3
17.75
27.3%
28.1%
FI1 Timber exploitation completely banned and eliminated
FI2 Poaching completely banned and eliminated
FI3 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FE1 See FI1
FE2 Fire occurrence reduced to at most two year per year and firebreaks cleaned annually
FE3 See FI3
FE4 Firewood collection adhere to forest rules and regulations
FE5 Encroachment (settlement and cultivation) completely eliminated
Mang’alisa forest reserve, Mpwapwa district
Area
Intensity
Ranking
Direct Threats
Ranking
FI1
Encroachment
5
5
Total
Ranking
15
% Threat Raw
Met
Score
15
2.25
2
3
1
4
10
8
3
9
45
35
30
45
25
FI2
Fire,
FI3
Grazing
FI4
Pit sawing
FI5
Tree/poles cutting
Sub-Total
4
3
1
2
FE1
Fire
3
3
2
8
40
3.2
FE2
Grazing
2
2
4
8
25
2.0
FE3
Encroachment
4
4
3
11
30
3.0
FE4
Firewood collection
1
1
1
3
40
1.2
Sub-Total
Total
4
2
1
3
Urgency
Ranking
5
30
75
3.5
2.4
1.35
2.25
11.75
9.4
21.15
TRA
Index
26.1%
31.3%
28.2%
FI1 Encroachment for cultivation is completely stopped
FI2 Fire occurrence reduced to 3 incidence/ year
FI3 Grazing is allowed under license as per prescription of the Forest Act
FI4 Pit sawing is completely banned, woodlots established
FI5 Poles and tree cutting banned and eliminated
FE1 See FI2, FE2 See F13
FE3 Encroachment for cultivation is completely stopped and eliminated
FE4 Firewood collection adhere to forest rules and regulations
112
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Mafwomera forest reserve, Mpwapwa district
Area
Intensity
Ranking
Direct Threats
Ranking
FI1
Tree/poles cutting
4
1
Urgency
Ranking
4
Total
Ranking
9
% Threat Raw
Met
Score
25
2.25
FI2
Pit sawing
2
2
2
6
30
1.8
FI3
FI4
Mining
Honey collection
1
3
4
3
1
3
6
9
45
20
2.7
1.8
8.55 28.5
FE1
Fire
3
3
3
9
25
2.25
FE2
Fuel wood collection
2
1
1
4
35
1.4
FE3
Tree/poles cutting
1
2
2
5
30
1.5
Sub-Total
Total
18
48
5.15
13.7
TRA
Index
28.60%
28.50%
FI1 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FI2 Pit sawing is completely stopped, wood lot establishment initiated
FI3 Mining is completely burned and no fresh pit seen
FI4 Honey collection with use of fire abolished and no fire incidence is caused by honey collectors.
FE1 Fire occurrences reduced three times a year
FE2 Firewood collection adhere to forest rules and regulations
FE3 See FI1
Ukwiva forest reserve, Kilosa district
Area
Ranking
Direct Threats
Intensity
Ranking
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
% Threat Raw
Met
Score
FI1
Encroachment
5
5
5
15
30
4.5
FI2
Timber harvesting
3
3
3
9
35
3.15
FI3
Poaching
2
1
4
7
40
2.8
FI4
Fire hazards
4
4
1
9
45
4.05
FI5
Honey collection
Sub-Total
FE1
Tree/poles cutting
1
2
2
20
2
2
2
5
45
6
40
1.0
15.5
2.4
FE2
Fire hazards
4
4
1
9
20
1.8
FE3
Timber exploitation
3
3
3
9
35
3.15
FE4
Firewood collection
1
1
4
6
35
2.1
Sub-Total
Total
30
75
9.45
26.3
TRA
Index
34.40%
31.5%
35.1%
FI1 Encroachment for cultivation and settlement completely stopped and boundary well demarcated
113
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
FI2 Timber exploitation completely stopped and control mechanisms established
FI3 Poaching completely stopped and control mechanisms established
FI4 Fire occurrences reduced to at most two per year
FI5 Honey collection with use of fire abolished and no fire incidence is caused by honey collectors
FE1 Illegal tree and poles cutting completely stopped, CBFM initiated in adjacent forest
FE2 See FI4, FE3 See FI2
FE4 Fire wood collection adhere to forest rules and regulations, CBFM to the adjacent forests
Mamiwa Kisara forest reserve, Kilosa district
Intensity
Area
Ranking
Direct Threats
Ranking
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
FI1
Tree/poles cutting
4
4
4
12
30
3.6
FI2
Timber exploitation
3
3
2
8
30
2.4
FI3
Honey collection
1
2
1
4
20
0.8
FI4
Hunting
2
1
3
6
40
2.4
9.2
% Threat Raw TRA
Met
Score Index
Sub-total
FE1
Fire wood collection
5
3
5
30
13
30
3.6
FE2
FE3
Fire hazards
Grazing
3
4
5
4
1
4
9
12
25
30
2.25
3.6
FE4
Timber exploitation
1
1
2
4
40
1.6
2
2
3
7
45
75
45
3.15
11.05 25.60%
20.25 27%
FE5
Tree/poles cutting
Sub-Total
Total
30.7%
FI1 Trees and poles cutting completely stopped, alternative sources initiated e.g. woodlots
FI2 Timber exploitation completely stopped and control mechanisms established e.g. frequent patrol
FI3 Honey collection with use of fire abolished and no fire incidence is caused by honey collectors
FI4 Illegal hunting completely stopped, JFM initiated
FE1 Fire wood collection adhere to forest rules and regulation
FE2 Fire occurrences reduced to at most two per year
FE3 Grazing adhere to forest rules and regulations
FE4 See FI2, FE5 See FI1
114
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Kanga forest reserve, Mvomero district
Area
Ranking
Direct Threats
Intensity
Ranking
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
% Threat Raw
Met
Score
FI1
4
2
3
9
45
4.05
FI2
Fire hazard
FI3
Tree/poles cutting
FI4
Charcoal burning
Sub-Total
1
3
2
4
1
3
1
4
2
6
8
7
30
30
40
25
1.8
3.2
1.75
10.8
FE1
Fire hazards
6
4
1
11
35
3.85
FE2
Encroachment
5
6
2
13
30
3.9
FE3
Timber exploitation
3
2
4
9
25
2.25
FE4
Firewood collection
1
1
6
8
35
2.8
FE5
Tree/poles cutting
4
3
5
12
30
3.6
2
5
3
10
63
93
20
2.0
18.4
29.2
Timber exploitation
FI6
Charcoal burning
Sub-Total
Total
TRA
Index
362%
29.2%
31.4
FI1 Timber exploitation completely stopped and control mechanisms established e.g. frequent patrol
FI2 At least one to two fire incidences per year, firebreaks maintained each year
FI3 Pole cutting banned in the FR and alternative source of poles available e.g. woodlots
FI4 Charcoal burning is completely banned in the forest and alternative area sought
FE1 See FI2
FE2 Encroachment for cultivation and settlement completely stopped and boundary well demarcated
FE3 See FI1, FE4 See FI2, FE5 See FI3 and FE6 See FI4
FE4 Fire wood collection adhere to forest rules and regulation
115
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Nguru South forest reserve, Mvomero district
Area
Intensity
Ranking
Direct Threats
Ranking
Urgency
Ranking
Total
Ranking
% Threat Raw
Met
Score
FI1
Encroachment
4
5
4
13
50
6.5
FI2
Timber exploitation
FI3
Firewood collection
FI4
Fire (accidental)
Sub-Total
3
2
1
3
1
3
3
2
1
9
5
7
34
40
30
20
3.6
1.5
1.4
12.9
FE1
Encroachment
5
4
3
12
45
5.4
FE2
Timber exploitation
4
3
2
9
35
3.15
FE3
Fire (accidental)
3
4
2
9
35
3.15
FE4
Firewood collection
2
2
1
5
30
1.5
Sub-Total
Total
35
69
13.2
TRA
Index
37.9
37.7
37.8
FI1 Encroachment for cultivation completely stopped and boundary well demarcated
FI2 Timber exploitation completely stopped and control mechanisms established e.g. frequent patrol
FI3 Fire wood collection adhere to forest rules and regulations
FI4 At least one to two fire incidences per year, firebreaks maintained each year
FE1 See FI1
FE2 See FI2
FE3 See FI4
FE4 See FI3
116
CMEAMF Forest Condition Assessment Report – Appendices
Appendix VI: Management effectiveness in the Eastern Arc Mountains of
Tanzania
Example data sheet
Name of protected area
Location of protected area (country and
if possible map reference)
Date of establishment (distinguish
between agreed and gazetted*)
Ownership details (i.e.
owner, tenure rights etc)
Management Authority
Size of protected area
(ha)
Number of staff
Budget
Designations (IUCN category,
World Heritage, Ramsar etc)
Reasons for designation
Brief details of World Bank funded
project or projects in PA
Brief details of WWF funded
project or projects in PA
Brief details of other relevant
projects in PA
List the two primary protected area objectives
Objective 1
Objective 2
List the top two most important threats to the PA (and indicate reasons why these were chosen)
Threat 1
Threat 2
List top two critical management activities
Activity 1
Activity 2
117