Advertisement

Are Livestock Keepers in and Around Forests Key Stakeholders in Forest Management? Experiences from Mabira Central Forest Reserve, Uganda

  • Dorothy K. Nampanzira
  • Constantine B. Katongole
  • Vincent B. Muwanka
  • John R. S. Tabuti
Chapter
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

Globally, forests play an important role in supporting livelihoods of local communities that surround them. However, livestock rearing is hardly considered an important livelihood activity supported by forests. Forests can be a source of pastures which are key feed resources for livestock especially ruminants. There is little information on how a forest reserve affects livestock production especially in sedentary systems. In the current study, the status of livestock production in and around Mabira forest reserve, Uganda, was studied, to characterize the livestock production systems and determine the level of reliance on the forest for forages. A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire, and a total of 80 households were interviewed. Results revealed that over 70% of the respondent farms had more than one livestock type. Cattle (71%), pigs (49%), chickens (47%) and goats (40%) were the most frequently kept livestock types. Most respondents fed cattle (54%) and pigs (81%) under the stall-feeding system, while 68% of the farms tethered goats. Chickens are mainly fed under free ranging feeding system (66%). Firewood, water, poles for construction and forages were the four forest products of significance importance to households rearing livestock around Mabira forest. Among the key determinants of level of reliance on forages from Mabira forest was negatively and significam, household’s distance to Mabira forest (P <0.01), household size (P <0.05) and landholding size owned by the household (P <0.05) were the variables found to be statistically significant. In conclusion, livestock farmers in and around Mabira forest rear a diversity of livestock types. Forest forages contribute substantially to the feed resource base of a significant proportion of households rearing livestock in and around Mabira forest. Therefore, livestock keepers in and around this Forest reserve are important stakeholders in the forest estate since they depend substantially on it for livestock forage.

Keywords

Livestock production Forage resource Forest communities Co-benefits 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support from NORAD (UGA-13/0019).

References

  1. Adhikari B, Di Falco S, Lovett JC (2004) Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecol Econ 48(2):245–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahrends A, Burgess ND, Milledge SAH et al. (2010) Predictable waves of sequential forest degradation and biodiversity loss spreading from an African city. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:14556–14561Google Scholar
  3. Babulo B, Muys B, Nega F, Tollens E, Nyssen J, Deckers J, Mathijs E (2008) Household livelihood strategies and forest dependence in the highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Agric Syst 98(2):147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown D, Seymour F, Peskett L (2008) How do we achieve REDD co-benefits and avoid doing harm? In: Angelsen A (ed) Moving ahead with REDD: Issues, options and implications. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor. http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BAngelsen080111.pdfGoogle Scholar
  5. Chadwick D, Sommer S, Thorman R, Fangueiro D, Cardenas L, Amon B, Misselbrook T (2011) Manure management: implications for greenhouse gas emissions. Anim Feed Sci Technol 166:514–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DelCurto T, Porath M, Parsons CT, Morrison JA (2005) Management strategies for sustainable beef cattle grazing on forested rangelands in the Pacific northwest. Rangel Ecol Manag 58(2):119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2016) State of the world’s forests: Forests and agriculture, Land-use challenges and opportunities, FAO.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher M (2004) Household welfare and forest dependence in Southern Malawi. Environ Dev Econ 9(2):135–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. García-Nieto AP, Quintas-Soriano C, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Montes C, Martín-López B (2015) Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: the role of stakeholders׳ profiles. Ecosyst Serv 13:141–152Google Scholar
  10. Hao X, Larney FJ, Chang C, Travis GR, Nichol CK, Bremer E (2005) The effect of phosphogypsum on greenhouse gas emissions during cattle manure composting. J Environ Qual 34(3):774–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hosonuma N, Herold M, De Sy V, De Fries RS, Brockhaus M, Verchot L, Romijn E (2012) An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ Res Lett 7(4):044009Google Scholar
  12. Illukpitiya P, Yanagida JF (2008) Role of income diversification in protecting natural forests: evidence from rural households in forest margins of Sri Lanka. Agrofor Syst 74(1):51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson JMF, Franzluebbers AJ, Weyers SL, Reicosky DC (2007) Agricultural opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Pollut 150(1):107–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kamanga P, Vedeld P, Sjaastad E (2009) Forest incomes and rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu District, Malawi. Ecol Econ 68:613–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Langdale-Brown I, Osmaston HA, Wilson JG (1964) The vegetation of Uganda and its Bearing on Land Use. Government of Uganda Printer, UgandaGoogle Scholar
  16. Malla YB, Neupane HR, Branney PJ (2003) Why aren’t poor people benefiting more from community forestry. J For Livelihood 3(1):78–92Google Scholar
  17. Mamo G, Sjaastad E, Vedeld P (2007) Economic dependence on forest resources: a case from Dendi District, Ethiopia. Forest Policy Econ 9(8):916–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McElwee PD (2010) Resource use among rural agricultural households near protected areas in Vietnam: the social costs of conservation and implications for enforcement. Environ Manag 45(1):113–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neupane HR (2003) Contested impact of community forestry on equity: some evidence from Nepal. For Livelihood 2(2):55–61Google Scholar
  20. NFA (2009) Draft land Cover technical report of Uganda 2005. National Forestry AuthorityGoogle Scholar
  21. Prabhu R, Haggith M, Mudavanhu H, Muetzelfeldt R, Standa-Gunda W, Vanclay JK (2003) ZimFlores: a model to advise co-management of the Mafungautsi Forest in Zimbabwe. Small-scale. Forestry 2(2):185–210Google Scholar
  22. Rudel TK (2013) The national determinants of deforestation in sub-Saharan Africa. Phil Trans R Soc B 368(1625):20120405Google Scholar
  23. Timsina N (2002) Empowerment or marginalization: a debate in community forestry in Nepal. For Livelihood 2(1):27–33Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorothy K. Nampanzira
    • 1
  • Constantine B. Katongole
    • 2
  • Vincent B. Muwanka
    • 3
  • John R. S. Tabuti
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Livestock and Industrial ResourcesMakerere UniversityKampalaUganda
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural ProductionMakerere UniversityKampalaUganda
  3. 3.Department of Environmental ManagementMakerere UniversityKampalaUganda

Personalised recommendations