Are Livestock Keepers in and Around Forests Key Stakeholders in Forest Management? Experiences from Mabira Central Forest Reserve, Uganda
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.
KeywordsLivestock production Forage resource Forest communities Co-benefits
The authors acknowledge the financial support from NORAD (UGA-13/0019).
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Langdale-Brown I, Osmaston HA, Wilson JG (1964) The vegetation of Uganda and its Bearing on Land Use. Government of Uganda Printer, UgandaGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Neupane HR (2003) Contested impact of community forestry on equity: some evidence from Nepal. For Livelihood 2(2):55–61Google Scholar
- NFA (2009) Draft land Cover technical report of Uganda 2005. National Forestry AuthorityGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Rudel TK (2013) The national determinants of deforestation in sub-Saharan Africa. Phil Trans R Soc B 368(1625):20120405Google Scholar
- Timsina N (2002) Empowerment or marginalization: a debate in community forestry in Nepal. For Livelihood 2(1):27–33Google Scholar