Neil D. Burgess, Paul Harrison, Peter Sumbi, James Laizer, Adam ...

SYNTHESIS OF BASELINE INFORMATION ON TANZANIA’S COASTAL FORESTS – 2011 

Towards a Sustainably Funded Protected Area Network in the 

Coastal Forests of Tanzania 

Synthesis Document of Available Baseline Information on the Coastal 

Forests Protected Area Sub-System 

January 2012


Editors: 

Neil D. Burgess, Paul Harrison, Peter Sumbi, James Laizer, Adam Kijazi, John Salehe, Isaac Malugu, 

Richard Komba, Nicholaus Kinyau and Almas Kashindye (eds). 

Recommended citation: 

WWF Tanzania Country Office (2012). Neil D. Burgess, Paul Harrison, Peter Sumbi, James Laizer, Adam 

Kijazi, John Salehe, Isaac Malugu, Richard Komba, Nicholaus Kinyau and Almas Kashindye (eds). Synthesis 

Baseline Report for Coastal Forests in Tamzania. WWF-Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 

The designation of geographical entities in this report, and the presentation of the material, do not 

imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF the legal status of any country, 

territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Published by: The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF). 

© 2012 Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is 

authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully 

acknowledged. 

© 2012 Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without 

prior written permission of the copyright holder. 

Available from: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Tanzania Country Office, Plot Nº 350, Regent 

Estate, Mikocheni, PO Box 63117, Dar es Salaam. United Republic of Tanzania. Email: info@wwwftz.org 

i


Executive Summary 

Biodiversity Baseline Situation 

The coastal forests of eastern Africa are a well-known biodiversity hotspot, supporting more than 500 species 

of plants that are found only in the forest habitat, and an additional more than 800 species that are found in 

the much larger areas of miombo woodland, thicket and coastal margin vegetation types in the broader 

coastal region. They are found in regions of the coast that are often densely populated with people, with 

millions of people living in close proximity to these forests and the surrounding woodlands and bushland 

habitats. The forests and woodlands provide important part of the livelihoods for many rural people. 

Our updated analysis of the endemic and near-endemic species shows that hundreds of species are endemic 

to the Tanzanian coastal forests; the majority of which are plants. Within Tanzania, at least 700 plants are 

endemic to the coastal region, with 300-400 endemic to the forests. There are also populations of 14 

endemic bird species, with four unique species on Pemba Island. Moreover populations of 13 of the 14 

endemic coastal forest mammals are found in Tanzania, together with populations of seven endemic 

amphibians and at least 20 endemic reptiles, with several species again confined to Pemba Island. Precise 

statistics on the number of endemics are, however, difficult to generate with complete confidence (especially 

for the plants). An analysis of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 

(IUCN) red list to assess which species are threatened with extinction, shows that there are 97 threatened 

plants (and an additional two regarded as extinct or possibly extinct), 14 threatened mammals, 10 

threatened birds, five threatened amphibians, and two threatened reptiles in the Tanzanian coastal forests 

(most reptiles have not been assessed for threat though). More detailed analysis of the species found in the 

main intervention landscapes shows that there are hundreds of species in each landscape; 759 in Rufiji, 231 

in Kilwa, 455 in Lindi and 398 on Zanzibar. Detailed lists of all species in these landscapes have been prepared 

from older existing data. 

Fieldwork was conducted (2011) in the coastal forests of southern Tanzania rediscovered, or reconfirmed, 

the existence of two species that were regarded as extinct or possibly extinct on the IUCN red list; the trees 

Erythrina schleibenii and Karomia gigas. These are now proposed to be re-classified as Critically Endangered. 

A further 10 threatened plants were also located during the survey period. Other results from biological field 

work were somewhat disappointing; the forests were very dry at the time of the surveys and the field teams 

recorded only common species of mammals and reptiles, only one species of amphibian of conservation 

relevance (Mertensophryne loveridgei), and only a few of the coastal forest specialist birds (plain backed 

sunbird –Anthreptes reichenowi and the locally distributed flycatcher - Batis reichenowi). It must be noted 

that the seasonality of the study, in the dry part of the year, has affected the information gathered. On 

Zanzibar, no further species were added to the lists of species that are already known from these islands. 

Overall, the Kilwa landscape is under-studied compared to the Lindi and Rufiji landscapes. Protecting the 

coastal forest habitat and the key species that it contains is a core element of the projects work and these 

baselines will allow progress against that objective to be measured. 

In 2007, the overall area of coastal forest in Tanzania (protected and unprotected) covered an area of 

273,700 ha, falling from 420,765 ha in 1990 and 358,333 ha in 2000. By 2007, Pwani and Lindi regions 

together had 236,633 ha or 86% of the remaining coastal forest, while only 385 ha of forest remained in Dar 

es Salaam. Across the study area, the rate of forest loss had slowed from the 1.0 % yr−1 in the 1990s to 0.4 % 

yr−1 in 2000– 2007. Deforestation also slowed in each of the five regions. 

The aggregate deforestation rate inside reserves was nine times slower in reserves than in the unreserved 

forest lands. Rates of forest loss inside reserves were 0.2 % yr−1 in 1990–2000 and in 2000–2007 versus 1.3 % 

yr−1 in the 1990s and 0.6 % yr−1 in 2000–2007 outside reserves. While in 2000–2007 forest loss rates 

decreased in unreserved areas, forest loss rates in reserved areas remained almost constant between 1990– 

2000 and 2000–2007.


Data from the period 1990-2000 and 2000-2007 shows that the greatest carbon dioxide emissions were in 

the period 1990-2000, and that the greatest rates in this period were in Lindi Region, followed by Mtwara 

and Pwani. In the 2000-2007 period the greatest rate was in Pwani region, with losses being much reduced in 

all other Regions. Total carbon emissions per annum from the coastal forest areas between 1990-2000 was 

631,933 tCO 2 yr-1, and had declined to 198,154 tCO 2 per annum in the period 2000-2007. 

Spatial Planning Baseline Situation 

Many of the important areas of forest are already protected, mainly within national and local authority 

Forest Reserves, but with increasing numbers of Village Land Forest Reserves as well. Despite this work to 

gazette important forest areas, there remain a number of key gaps in the protection of forest and woodland 

habitats that support important assemblages of species, including rare and endemic plants, and rare and 

range-restricted animals. 

On the mainland of Tanzania, 110,000 ha Saadani National Park contains Coastal Forest habitats, within the 

Zaraninge/Kiono plateau forest patch and smaller lowland forest patches that were formally part of the 

Mkwaja ranch. In total over 3,000 ha of forest is found in this park. On Unguja an important area of Coastal 

Forest / swamp forest is found within the Jozani National Park, which was gazetted in 2004 and covers 5,000 

ha with around 1,000 ha of forest habitat. 

Coastal regions of Tanzania contain at least 166 Forest Reserves in lowland areas, which cover 1,191,000 ha 

of land. Of this total area, almost 960,000 ha are coded as ‘production forest’ for sustainable utilization, 

whereas around 231,000 ha are coded as protection forest, primarily for water catchment and habitat 

conservation purposes. The precise area of forest within these reserves has not been calculated beyond the 

situation in 2007, but there are plans to update to 2010 with support of the ongoing UNDP - GEF project. 

The conservation of unprotected forest areas in southern Tanzania and Zanzibar forms the focus of the 

UNDP-GEF project ‘extending the coastal forest protected area sub-system in Tanzania’. Large areas of 

unprotected coastal forest habitat are found in Rufiji and Kilwa Districts – with the largest areas in Kilwa. 

Improving the protection status of these ungazetted forests, and strengthening the existing reserves, forms 

the majority of the project’s work. Upgrading some areas to the status of Nature Reserve – for example the 

Rondo Nature Reserve in Lindi, forms another part of the projects activities, as does seeking ways to enhance 

the financial sustainability of the forest management systems. On Zanzibar similar activities are being 

undertaken, to formally protect some of the remaining patches of natural forest on the island, to upgrade the 

status of some other areas to Nature Reserve, and to make the reserve system more financially sustainable. 

Management Issues 

Assessment of the effectiveness of the reserve management has been completed for the protected areas 

across the coastal forests of Tanzania, with 146 Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) sheets being 

filled in. Most effort has been made in the focal landscapes for the project. Mean METT scores for the 

reserves in these districts are 30.9 in Lindi, 39.46 in Rufiji, 51.3 in Kilwa, 51 on Zanzibar – against a score of 

48.5 for the rest of the coastal districts that are not focal areas of the project. 

The analysis from recent METT indicate that, the best managed reserves are National Parks managed by 

Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), and Village Land Forest Reserves managed at village level. Less wellmanaged 

reserves are a combination of National and Local Authority Forest Reserves, which tend to have 

similar and weak management effectiveness. Very often these reserves have no clear boundary, no 

management plan, and no management budget allocated by central or local government authorities. Not 

surprisingly, several of these reserves have also been encroached for farmland, heavily logged for timber, and 

some have been more or less cleared of woody vegetation to produce charcoal. Improving the effectiveness 

of management is a core part of the work of this project and the baseline information will allow progress to 

be measured over time. At the bottom of the list are proposed reserves.


In the target landscapes in Lindi, Kilwa and Rufiji the territorial reserves are not very effectively managed, 

which has resulted in extensive uncontrolled logging of high value timber and considerable bush-meat 

hunting. This includes the poaching of elephants both for meat and for Ivory. Several carcasses of elephants 

were observed during the field survey work in Kilwa in late 2011. 

Financial Sustainability 

The coastal forests protected area network has very limited funds at present time. In most districts there is 

no financial allocation to management of the reserves beyond the salary for the District Forest or Natural 

Resources Officer. Allocations to forest management from the Tanzanian government in the focal landscapes 

are estimated at: Rufiji USD 13,333, Kilwa USD 22,000, Lindi USD 12,328 and Unguja USD 8,000. This brings 

the long term sustainability of the system into question. Remaining funding for project activities and field 

work comes from various kinds of donor funding, which runs in USD 100s of thousands per annum in the 

same districts outlined above. 

In many of the reserves there is also considerable legal and licensed exploitation of timber and other woody 

products, which brings significant income to the District Council budget. For example in 2010 Rufiji district 

collected USD 773,333, Kilwa USD 82,000 and Lindi USD 47,162 from natural resources, mainly logging. Illegal 

exploitation will have generated much more money than this. In this way the reserves are bringing more 

revenues to the districts than the districts are putting back in financial terms; there is also significant illegal 

harvesting from the reserves as well, which further reduces the financial sustainability of reserve 

management as there is less available to use. Capturing more of the benefits of utilisation of the production 

reserves in the coastal areas would do much to enhance the financial sustainability of the reserve system. 

Socio-Economic Baseline Situation 

Communities living in the projects focal scapes in Rufiji, Kilwa and Lindi, and on Zanzibar are poor. They are 

also dependant on farming – a range of cash and food crops - and the exploitation of natural resources for 

their livelihoods, from timber to charcoal. A social baseline in Rufiji, Kilwa and Lindi has quantified the socioeconomic 

position of communities in intervention landscapes. Income generating options exist through the 

sustainable, and certified, exploitation of high value timber in southern Tanzania. In Kilwa, the Mpingo 

Conservation Project Initiative is working with villages to market their timber using sustainable harvesting 

approaches and using the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Group certification scheme. These approaches to 

sustainable timber harvesting have a chance to improve the financial sustainability of the village Forest 

Reserves and also can provide significant benefit to the local people involved in that work. A social baseline 

does not, yet, exist for Zanzibar and income generating options are more likely to involve tourism than 

sustainable use of timber resources.


Abbreviations and Acronyms 

CARE 

CBD 

CBFM 

CBO 

CF 

CFs 

CITES 

CR 

DD 

DFO 

DFNRNR 

EMA 

EN 

FBD/TFS 

FR 

FSC 

GEF 

GR 

IBAs 

IUCN 

JFM 

KPFR 

LAFR 

LC 

MCDI 

METT 

NE 

NEAP 

NGO 

NP 

NSGRP 

NT 

PA 

Care International in Tanzania 

Convention on Biological Diversity 

Community Based Forest Management 

Community Based Organization 

Coastal Forest 

Coastal Forests 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 

Critically Endangered (IUCN Red List) 

DD (IUCN Red List) 

District Forest Officer 

Department of Forestry and Non-Renewable Natural Resources 

Environmental Management Ac 

Endangered (IUCN Red List) 

Forestry and Beekeeping Division now Tanzania Forest Service 

Forest Reserve 

Forest Stewardship Council 

Global Environment Facility 

Game Reserve 

Important Bird Areas 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 

Joint Forest Management 

Kiwengwa Pongwe Forest Reserve 

Local Authority Forest Reserve 

Least Concern (IUCN Red List) 

Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative 

Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool 

Northeast 

National Environmental Action Plan 

Non-Government Organisation 

National Park 

National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty 

Near Threatened (IUCN Red List) 

Protected Area


PFM 

REDD 

SE 

TANAPA 

TFCG 

TFCMP 

UNCCD 

UNEP-WCMC 

UNFCCC 

UTUMI 

VLFR 

VU 

WCS 

WCST 

WMA 

WWF 

WWF ESARPO 

WWF-TCO 

Participatory Forest Management 

Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation 

Southeast 

Tanzania National Parks 

Tanzania Forest Conservation Group 

Tanzania Forest Conservation and Management Programme 

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 

Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

Danish Funded Project (defunct) 

Village Land Forest Reserve 

Vulnerable (IUCN Red List) 

Wildlife Conservation Society 

Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania 

Wildlife Management Area 

World Wide Fund for Nature 

World Wide Fund for Nature East and Southern Africa Regional Office 

World Wide Fund for Nature Tanzania Country Office


Table of Contents 

1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 8 

1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 8 

2 Biodiversity Baseline .................................................................................. 1 

2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 1 

2.2 Biological Values of the Coastal Forests .................................................................................... 1 

2.2.1 Species richness and endemism ........................................................................................................ 2 

2.2.2 Flagship species ................................................................................................................................. 4 

2.3 Priority Analyses ..................................................................................................................... 5 

2.3.1 Simple number of important vertebrates ......................................................................................... 5 

2.3.2 Other priority setting approaches ..................................................................................................... 6 

2.4 The Coastal Forest Habitat in Eastern Africa ............................................................................. 8 

2.5 Forest Cover and Change in Coastal Tanzania ........................................................................... 9 

2.6 Implications for Carbon Emissions .......................................................................................... 11 

2.7 Matumbi Landscape .............................................................................................................. 11 

2.8 Kilwa Landscape .................................................................................................................... 13 

2.9 Lindi Landscape ..................................................................................................................... 16 

2.10 Zanzibar Landscape ............................................................................................................... 17 

2.11 Concluding Remarks .............................................................................................................. 18 

3 Spatial Planning Baseline .......................................................................... 19 

3.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 19 

3.2 Definition of a Protected Area and the IUCN Categories ......................................................... 19 

3.3 Forest Protection under the Convention of Biological Diversity ............................................... 20 

3.4 Protected Area Gaps .............................................................................................................. 20 

3.5 The Current Reserve Network for the Coastal Forests ............................................................. 21 

3.5.1 Reserves that are internationally recognised as protected areas ................................................... 21 

3.5.2 Other reserves that are not internationally recognized as protected areas ................................... 22 





3.9.1 Unguja Island ................................................................................................................................... 43 

3.9.2 Pemba Island ................................................................................................................................... 46 


4 Management Issues ................................................................................. 49 

4.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 49


4.2 Policy and Legislative Context for the Management of Biodiversity ......................................... 49 

4.2.1 Zanzibar ........................................................................................................................................... 49 

4.2.2 Mainland Tanzania .......................................................................................................................... 50 

4.3 Participatory Forest / Natural Resources Management ........................................................... 52 

4.3.1 Joint Forest Management................................................................................................................ 52 

4.3.2 Community Based Forest Management .......................................................................................... 53 

4.4 Threat Prioritization .............................................................................................................. 54 

4.4.1 Expanding agriculture ...................................................................................................................... 54 

4.4.2 Charcoal production ........................................................................................................................ 55 

4.4.3 Logging ............................................................................................................................................. 57 

4.4.4 Uncontrolled fires: ........................................................................................................................... 57 

4.4.5 Pole harvesting and firewood collection ......................................................................................... 59 

4.4.6 Climate change ................................................................................................................................ 59 

4.4.7 Lack of prioritisation ........................................................................................................................ 59 

4.5 Coastal Forest Area Systems of Management ......................................................................... 59 

4.5.1 NGOs and other Donors’ Support for Forestry Activities ................................................................ 60 

4.6 Application of Legal Frameworks and Business Tools .............................................................. 61 

4.6.1 Prevalence and Application of Legal Regulatory Frameworks and Implications to Forest Resource 

Management ................................................................................................................................... 61 

4.6.2 Prevalence and Application of Business Planning Tools and Implications on Forest Resource 

Management ................................................................................................................................... 61 

4.6.3 Revenue Collection Tools and Application Implications on Forest Resources Management ......... 61 

4.7 Management Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 63 

4.8 Potential Projects as Revenue Sources to be Applied in Coastal Forest .................................... 64 

4.8.1 Emerging Opportunities: ................................................................................................................. 64 

4.8.2 Baseline of Institutional Involvement .............................................................................................. 65 

4.8.3 Baseline for Mainland Tanzania and Forestry and Beekeeping Division (FBD) Institutional Capacity 

......................................................................................................................................................... 66 


4.9.1 Baseline for Matumbi and Kichi Hills Landscape ............................................................................. 67 


4.10.1 Baseline for Kilwa Landscape .......................................................................................................... 68 


4.11.1 Conservation issues, threats and drivers ........................................................................................ 68 

4.12 Zanzibar landscape ................................................................................................................ 69 

4.12.1 Conservation issues, threats and drivers ........................................................................................ 69 


5 Financial Sustainability ............................................................................. 71 

5.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 71 

5.2 Financing Forest in Coastal Districts and the Financial Status .................................................. 71 

5.2.1 Available Finances for Forest Management Activities in Coastal Districts...................................... 72 

5.2.2 Financial Commitment and Current Financial Status ...................................................................... 72 

5.3 Annual Central Budget Allocated Funds for Forest Management Activities .............................. 73


5.3.1 Budget Allocated to Respective Districts from Central Government .............................................. 73 

5.3.2 Local Government Allocations from District Council Budget .......................................................... 74 

5.3.3 Support from the Development Partners........................................................................................ 74 

5.3.4 Total Financial Investment Based on the 2010/2011 Different Actors Budget .............................. 74 

5.4 Revenue Collection from Forests in the Coastal Districts ......................................................... 76 

5.5 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 76 






6 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 80 

6.1 Biodiversity Issues ................................................................................................................. 80 

6.2 Spatial Planning Issues ........................................................................................................... 80 

6.3 Management Issues ............................................................................................................... 80 

6.4 Financial Sustainability .......................................................................................................... 80 

6.5 Socio-economic Issues ........................................................................................................... 81 

7 References ............................................................................................... 82 

8 Annexes ................................................................................................... 86 

8.1 Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) Scores ........................................................ 86 

8.2 Lists of endemic, near-endemic and threatened species of birds, mammals, reptiles and 

amphibians in the Coastal Forests .......................................................................................... 96 

8.3 Annex 3. List of Reserves Containing Coastal Habitats in the Relevant Coastal Districts of 

Tanzania ............................................................................................................................. 123 

8.4 Socio-economic Information and Livelihoods Strategies ....................................................... 137 

8.4.1 Household Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 137 

8.4.2 Average Land Size Owned and Used for Crop and Woodlots ....................................................... 142 

8.4.3 Livestock Ownership ...................................................................................................................... 143 

8.4.4 Type of Houses Based on Roofing Materials ................................................................................. 145 

8.4.5 Energy Sources for Cooking ........................................................................................................... 145 

8.4.6 Sources of Water for Domestic Use .............................................................................................. 146 

8.5 Financial Score Cards ........................................................................................................... 147


Tables 

Table 1: Threatened species of vertebrates in the coastal forests of Tanzania (based on 2010 version of the 

IUCN Red List) ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 

Table 2: Species richness* within the GEF project implementation landscapes ** .............................................. 4 

Table 3: Forest change in the coastal districts of Tanzania from 1990-2000-2007 (from Godoy et al. 2011). ..... 9 

Table 4: Annual emissions among Tanzanian regions – 1990-2000 and 2000-2007 (emission measures are in 

tonnes CO 2 per year) ................................................................................................................................................... 11 

Table 5: Perceptions of villagers on abundance of some useful tree species in the surrounding forest areas .. 12 

Table 6: Main tree species and perceptions of villages on abundance of some tree species in the landscape.. 14 

Table 7: Plants within the Kilwa landscape listed as threatened on the IUCN Red list (2008) ............................ 15 

Table 8: Perceptions of villages on abundance of some tree species in the surrounding woodlands around 

Rondo Forest Reserve .................................................................................................................................................. 16 

Table 9: National, Local Authority and Village Forest Reserves within the Coastal Regions of mainland Tanzania 

(according to list from FBD in 2000). Recent updates to the PA network are only partly captured here .................. 23 

Table 10: Total Hectares of Reserves Based on the Type of the Forest Ownership in focal landscapes on the 

Tanzania Mainland and Zanzibar ................................................................................................................................. 24 

Table 11: Summary of GIS-generated Areas of Forests in Matumbi-Kichi Hills Landscape ................................... 27 

Table 12: Summary of Forest Reserves and Village Land Forest Reserves in Kilwa Landscape in 2008 ................ 32 

Table 13: Summary of new Village Land Forest Reserves within the Kilwa landscape (Kashaigili et al. 2011) ..... 32 

Table 14: Summary of forest reserves in the Rondo Landscape ........................................................................... 37 

Table 15: Summary of new Village Land Forest Reserves within Lindi landscape (Kashaigili et al. 2011) ............ 39 

Table 16: Summary of sector ministries with policies and Legal Acts supporting Coastal Forests ....................... 51 

Table 17: Status of Joint Forest management in the Coastal Forest Regions in Tanzania (data from PFM survey 

of 2009 by the Forestry and Beekeeping Division) ...................................................................................................... 53 

Table 18: Status of Community Based Forest Management in the Coastal Forests Regions (data from PFM 

survey of 2009 by the Forestry and Beekeeping Division) .......................................................................................... 53 

Table 19: Ranked threats in the coastal forest ecoregion (WWF Eastern African Coastal ForestsProgramme 

2006). 54 

Table 20: Daily amounts of charcoal transported to Dar es Salaam (Malimbwi et al. 2007) ................................ 55 

Table 21: Total Hectares Based on the Type of the Forest Ownership in Tanzania .............................................. 59 

Table 22: Percentage Application Level of Legal Regulatory Frameworks and Business Planning Tools .............. 62 

Table 23: Current Baseline of Organizational Involvement ................................................................................... 65 

Table 24: Different Actors Working in the Selected Case Study Areas.................................................................. 71 

Table 25: Financial Commitments by Actors and Current (2010/2011) Financial Investment .............................. 72 

Table 26: Estimated Budgets (in USD) from Different Actors Working in the Selected Districts .......................... 75 

Table 27: Revenue Collected from Coastal Forests in the Selected Districts ........................................................ 76 

Table 28: Summary METT Scores by Protected Area ............................................................................................ 86 

Table 29: METT Scores by Landscape and Category .............................................................................................. 91


Table 30: List of threatened plant species ............................................................................................................. 96 

Table 31: List of threatened amphibians ............................................................................................................. 109 

Table 32: List of Threatened Birds ....................................................................................................................... 112 

Table 33: List of Threatened Mammals ............................................................................................................... 113 

Table 34: Threatened List of Reptiles .................................................................................................................. 116 

Table 35: List of Forest Reserves Containing Coastal habitat .............................................................................. 123 

Table 36: Household Characteristcs in the Case Study Districts ......................................................................... 138 

Table 37: Marital Status by Village/Shehia .......................................................................................................... 139 

Table 38: Levels of Education by Village/Shehia ................................................................................................. 140 

Table 39: Education Level by Wealth Categories ................................................................................................ 141 

Table 40: Respondents’ Age by Village ................................................................................................................ 142 

Table 41: Average Land Size Owned and Used for Crop and Woodlots .............................................................. 143 

Table 42: Land Ownership by Wealth Groups and Villages ................................................................................. 143 

Table 43: Average Number of Livestock Owned by Individual Households ........................................................ 144 

Table 44: Livestock Ownership Across Wealth Categories in the Sample Villages .............................................. 144 

Table 45: House Types Based on Roofing Materials ............................................................................................ 145 

Table 46: Energy Sources for Cooking ................................................................................................................. 145 

Table 47: Energy for Cooking by Wealth Categories ........................................................................................... 146 

Table 48: Source of Water for Domestic Use ...................................................................................................... 146 

Table 49: Source of Water for Domestic Use by Wealth Categories ................................................................... 146 

Table 50: Scores for elements of Legal regulatory and institutional frameworks assessed in the selected coastal 

forests in Tanzania ..................................................................................................................................................... 147 

Table 51: Scores for business planning tool for cost effective management as a component to the elements of 

financing systems ...................................................................................................................................................... 151 

Table 52: Scores for tool for revenue generation as a component to the elements of financing systems ......... 154 

Table 53: Wealth Group Ranking Criteria in the Sample Villages ........................................................................ 157 

Figures 

Figure 1: Coastal forests of mainland of Tanzania and Zanzibar, showing location of the main implementation 

landscapes for the project ............................................................................................................................................. 9 

Figure 2: Number of forest vertebrates across the Coastal Forest sites of Tanzania (based on data from Burgess 

and Clarke 2000); these data are historical and for heavily degraded sites near Dar es Saalam species richness is 

certainly now much lower than this .............................................................................................................................. 6 

Figure 3: Ranked priority areas for the conservation of 4,202 species of birds, mammals, amphibians and 

snakes (not other reptiles) in Sub-Saharan Africa (based on databases compiled to 2007) ......................................... 7


Figure 4: Map of irreplaceable sites (dark red) and optional sites (red) for the conservation of all the 

threatened species in the Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests Hotspot of Tanzania (based on data in Burgess and 

Clarke 2000; and Eastern Arc data from Burgess et al. 2007b) ..................................................................................... 8 

Figure 5: The extent of the coastal forests of Tanzania, across Tanga, Pwani, Lindi, Mtwara and Dar es Salaam 

regions, and forest cover in 1990–2000–2007. The two map insets detail patterns of deforestation from 1990– 

2000–2007 around reserved areas near Dar es Salaam (map A) and the Matumbi Hills (map B) (from Godoy et al. 

2011) 10 

Figure 6: Distribution of Important Bird Areas ..................................................................................................... 21 

Figure 7: The existing network of protected areas and other reserves in coastal Tanzania ................................ 25 

Figure 8: PAs network in Matumbi-Kichi Hill Landscape (from Kashaigili et al. 2011) ......................................... 26 

Figure 9: Remote sensing image showing vegetation and location of reserves and villages in Matumbi-Kichi 

Hills landscape (from Perkin et al.2008a) .................................................................................................................... 29 

Figure 10: Map of Matumbi–Kichi Hills -simulated corridors (from Kashaigili et al. 2011) ................................ 30 

Figure 11: Network of PAs in Kilwa landscape(from Kashaigili et al. 2011) ....................................................... 33 

Figure 12: Map of Kilwa Landscape and simulated wildlife corridors ................................................................ 36 

Figure 13: Forest areas on the Mbwalawala and Uchungwa Plateaux in Kilwa district, also showing the 

location of the bioshape biofuel plantation areas (Perkin et al. 2008c – using data provided by Sokoine University 

and Conservation International) .................................................................................................................................. 37 

Figure 14: Protected Areas in the Lindi Landscape(from Kashaigili et al. 2011) ................................................ 40 

Figure 15: Map of Lindi Landscape- simulated corridors (from Kashaigili et al. 2011) ...................................... 42 

Figure 16: Zanzibar Landscape: Unguja Island, land use map (from Siex et al. 2011) ........................................ 44 

Figure 17: Location of the proposed Muyuni-Jambiani reserve (from Siex et al. 2011) .................................... 45 

Figure 18: Zanzibar Landscape: Pemba Island (Siex et al. 2011) ........................................................................ 47 

Figure 19: Charcoal sources for Dar es Salaam city (2006-2007) (from Malimbwi et al. 2007) ......................... 56 

Figure 20: Logging of timber trees in the forests from Dar es Salaam to the Matumbi Hills (From Ahrends 

2005) 57 

Figure 21: Annual burning probability in the coastal area of Tanzania, 2001-2009. Data derived from MODIS 

fire points database, University of Maryland (map by Dr Marion Pfeifer, University of York) ................................... 58 

Figure 22: Mean management effectiveness scores across different reserve management regimes in coastal 

Tanzania (n=146 sites with data) ................................................................................................................................. 63


Acknowledgements 

We thank the various consultants who have worked to bring together the data used in this report; 

biodiversity team (Kim M. Howell, Charles A. Msuya, Cosmos Miligo, Chacha Werema, Phillip Kihaule, 

M.K. Honorati, Haji Suleiman); social and financial team (Riziki Silas Shemdoe and Jumanne Moshi 

Abdalah), species and management effectiveness team (Paul Harrison, Andrew Williams and James 

Lazier), the spatial mapping team (Japhet J. Kashaigili, Emmanuel F. Nzunda, Reuben Mwamakimbullah, 

Agnes Sirima, Deo Shirima and Peter J. Mkumbo), the Zanzibar mapping and connectivity team (Tim 

Davenport, Kirstin Siex, Said Fakih, Abbas Mzee, Miza Khamis, Ali Kassim, Abu Bakar), and the WWF field 

teams on the ground (Isaac Malugu, Nicholas Kinyau, Almas Kashindye, Peter Sumbi, Adam Kijazi, 

Emmanuel Msoffe, Richard Komba, and John Salehe). 

We also thank those who undertook past analyses which contribute to the material presented here; the 

staff and volunteers of the Frontier-Tanzania Coastal Forests Research Programme (named in Burgess 

and Clarke 2000), the Danish funded UTUMI project and the following Danish scientists who worked on 

that programme: Flemming Pagh Jensen (birds) and Erik Prins (remote sensing), and the GEF, TFCG and 

WWF teams that that prepared the GEF coastal forests project through their field work in the relevant 

project landscapes: Andrew Perkin, Nike Doggart, Moses Mwanyoka, George Jambiya and the late Alan 

Rodgers. The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund who funded the work of Conservation International 

and Sokoine University of Agriculture to produce the forest change analysis used here, especially Karyn 

Tabor, Mark Steininger, Boniface Mbilinyi and Japhet Kashaigili. The PFM data we used was derived 

from work conducted by Tom Blomley and Hadija Rhamadhani of the Forestry and Beekeeping Division. 

The Wildlife Conservation Society, have also generously made available some of their past data for 

Zanzibar for inclusion in this report. We thank especially Kirstin Seix and Tim Davenport for their 

assistance in this matter. Useful comments on the draft report were received from Phil Clarke in 

Denmark, and Simon Anstey in the WWF Coastal East Africa Initiative office in Dar es Salaam.

INTRODUCTION: TANZANIA’S COASTAL FORESTS 2011 

1 Introduction 

1.1 Overview 

Forests contain as much as 90% of terrestrial biodiversity, with tropical forests being particularly 

important in terms of both species richness and their concentration of endemic species (Brooks et al. 

2006). The world’s forests are also globally important carbon stores and sinks (Gullison et al. 2007) and 

provide a wide variety of other ecosystem services for people, such as the protection of fisheries, 

watersheds and soils. Furthermore, forests constitute an important source of raw materials for both the 

rural poor who depend on a wide range of forest products to meet basic livelihood needs, and for 

industry’s demand for timber and non-timber products. 

Approximately 30% of the global land area is currently forested, but this total is decreasing with mean 

global deforestation rates amounting to 13 million hectares a year (Achard et al. 2002). This is caused by 

mankind’s continuous destruction and degradation of the world’s forests, particularly in tropical 

countries. Forest biodiversity is also threatened in boreal and temperate forests due to increasingly 

industrialized management of these forests. 

The terms coastal and forest are important to define in this document. “Coastal” means the area lying 

over sedimentary rocks of the coastal plain and plateaux, to the east of the older basement complexes 

inland. “Forest” is closed-canopy woody vegetation over 8m tall. The Coastal Forests in this context are 

not mangroves. Today the eastern Africa coastal strip is mapped by scientists as a Moist Savannah – 

Forest Complex, but the forest has largely gone. Within this complex there is a wide range of floristic 

associations with considerable endemism, including different forest types. What we see today is the 

remains of a once more widespread set of different forest covers along the eastern seaboard. There are 

stretches of coast that are always moist, with higher plateaux and hills that attract the rain. It is 

especially these strategically placed plateaux and hills that are rich in biological diversity and endemics. 

The overall project is working across the entire coastal region of Tanzania (mainland and offshore 

islands). Within this there are six landscapes that have been recognised by the Strategic Framework for 

conservation of the Eastern Africa Coastal Forest Ecoregion; namely Matumbi-Kichi Hills, Kilwa, Lindi- 

Rondo, Pugu-Kazimzumbwi-Ruvu South, Kiono-Zaraninge-Msubugwe-Gendagenda and the Lowland East 

Usambaras. 

The focus of this Global Environment Facility (GEF) investment on the ground is into the three southern 

landscapes in Tanzanian mainland (Matumbi, Kiwa and Lindi) and the islands of Unguja and Pemba. 

These are therefore the focus of the information presented here. Details of the other landscapes are 

provided in other World Wide Fund (WWF) publications and in the baseline report by Kashaigili et al. 

(2011) that was prepared for the GEF project. 

The subsequent subsections provide information on the focal landscapes; this includes descriptions, 

ecological data, updated maps that show PAs in the landscapes and proposed corridors; they also 

present information on social-economic and biological values of the natural resources found in the 

landscapes; conservation issues, threats and drivers are highlighted as well. In addition to the general 

Tanzania Coastal Forests Map (Figure 1), individual maps for each landscape have been developed and 

are presented in the respective subsections.

INTRODUCTION: TANZANIA’S COASTAL FORESTS 2011 

Pemba 

Unguja 

Rufiji 

Kilwa 

Lindi 

Figure 1: Coastal forests of mainland of Tanzania and Zanzibar, showing location of the main 

implementation landscapes for the project

BIODIVERSITY BASELINE: TANZANIA’S COASTAL FORESTS 2011 

2 Biodiversity Baseline 

2.1 Overview 

The Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa epitomize the difficulties of maintaining biodiversity values in the 

tropics, in that they show virtually all of the conservation problems faced by conservation planners and 

protected area managers. The Coastal Forests are: 

Small, and highly fragmented, consisting of many (over 150) separate forest patches, most of 

which are less than 500 ha in size, and little protected by government agencies. 

Surrounded by impoverished rural communities with a growing demand for farmland and forest 

resources. 

Individually distinctive, with high local forest endemism and a great array of different plant 

communities. 

Without the national level `hard' resources such as commercial timber or water catchment, that 

would allow species resources to piggyback on their continuation. 

The amount of forest remaining in the coastal regions of Tanzania is debated, but the current estimate is 

around 358,000 ha (Godoy et al. 2011), declining each year as forest cover is converted to farmland or 

heavily cut for timber and charcoal and is changed from forest to bushland or thicket. 

2.2 Biological Values of the Coastal Forests 

During the past twenty years, the Coastal Forest mosaic of eastern Africa has increasingly become 

recognized as an area of major conservation importance on the African continent. White (1983) 

described the vegetation of Africa and recognized the Zanzibar-Inhambane Regional Transition Zone 

along the eastern seaboard of Africa, and estimated that it possessed ‘at least several hundred’ endemic 

plant species. This total was upgraded by Clarke et al. (2000) to at least 1,356 species based on an 

examination of botanical literature, allowing the area to be upgraded to a regional centre of plant 

endemism (Clarke, 1998). The Coastal Forest habitat mosaic is also recognized as globally important in 

analyses of endemic bird species (Stattersfield, 1998) and overall animal and plant species values (WWF) 

(Burgess 2004). Twelve Important Bird Areas (IBAs) are recognized in the Coastal Forests of Tanzania 

(Baker and Baker 2002). 

Today the Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa are recognized as a globally important conservation priority 

by BirdLife International, WWF and Conservation International (Stattersfield et al. 1998; Olson and 

Dinerstein 1998; Burgess et al. 2004; Mittermeier et al. 2004). In 2002 this Hotspot ranked first among 

the Global Hotspots in terms of the number of endemic plant and vertebrate species per unit area and 

eighth (globally) in terms of levels of threat (Brooks et al. 2004). The coastal forests are now recognized 

as a separate biodiversity hotspot, one of 33 globally, having been divided from the Eastern Arc in the 

updated analysis that was published in 2004. Tanzania contains parts of three distinct forest-based 

global “hotspots for biodiversity.” 1 These are the Eastern Arc Montane Forests (95% in Tanzania), the


Albertine Rift Forests (5% in Tanzania) and the Coastal Forests (CF) shared with Kenya and Mozambique, 

with 40% in Tanzania (Myers et al. 1999). Despite being one of the world’s “Global Biodiversity Hotspots” 

(Myers et al. 1998), coastal forests are much less well known than East Africa’s montane forests. 

The zone of highest biological importance within the Coastal Forests covers around 113,000 km 2 of 

Kenya and Tanzania, but new work is also showing that the coastal forests of northern Mozambique are 

also of importance (Timberlake et al. 2011; Clarke 2011). 

At a finer scale, two important sub-centres of endemism can also be recognised. The first straddles the 

border between Kenya and Tanzania - the ‘Kwale-Usambara’ local centre of endemism, while the second 

is found in southern Tanzania - the ‘Lindi’ local centre of endemism (Burgess et al. 1998; Clarke 2001). 

2.2.1 Species richness and endemism 

The entire Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa Hotspot contains over 3,000 plant species within more than 

800 plant genera, of which around 1,356 plant species and 27 genera are endemic (Clarke et al. 2000). 

The lowland forest habitat is the most biologically valuable and contains at least 554 forest-dependant 

endemic plant species, with 17 of the 27 described endemic genera confined to forest habitats, although 

further taxonomic revisions and study might raise this figure to some 800 forest-dependant endemic 

species (Clarke et al. 2000). 

Non-forest vegetation types cover at least 275,000 km 2 of land (0.3 regional endemics plants per 100 

km 2 of habitat), whereas the Coastal Forests cover a total of 6,259 km 2 (15.3 regional endemics per 100 

km 2 of habitat) (data from Clarke et al. 2000), so it is clearly the forest patches that have the highest 

biodiversity importance per unit area. A substantial proportion of the endemic plants are confined to a 

single forest (for example, the Rondo Forest area in southern Tanzania has at least 60 strict endemics, 

the Litipo Forest, also in southern Tanzania has at least 30 strict endemics and the Shimba Hills in Kenya 

has 12) (Clarke et al. 2000; Clarke 2001). 

Similarly, these forest patches are important in terms of vertebrate diversity and endemism. Birds are 

represented by 94 species, of which 14 species are endemic to the Coastal Forest hotspot. In the 

Tanzanian portion, Pemba Island contains four endemic bird species (Treron pembaensis, Nectarinia 

pembae, Zosterops vaughani and Otus pembaensis). Other endemics are scattered in the Coastal Forest 

remnants in Kenya and Tanzania (Erythrocercus holochlorus, Anthus sokokensis (EN), Sokoke scops owl 

(Otus ireneae, EN) and Campethera mombassica). Among the near-endemic species, two are shared 

with the adjacent Eastern Arc forests, Fischer’s turaco (Tauraco fischeri), and Amani sunbird (Anthreptes 

pallidigaster, EN). There are no endemic bird genera or families. 

Some 154 mammal species are recorded from this hotspot, of which 14 are endemic (including four 

undescribed shrews). Endemic Coastal Forest mammals present in the Tanzanian Coastal Forests 

include Aders’ duiker (Cephalophus adersi, EN), Pemba flying fox (Pteropus voeltzkowi, CR), Dar es 

Salaam pipistrelle (Pipistrellus permixtus, DD), Zanzibar red colobus (Procolobus kirkii, EN), Rondo galago 

(Galagoides rondoensis, CR), which may eventually be separated into two species, and the rodent 

Grammomys caniceps. 

Among the remaining terrestrial vertebrates, some 109 reptiles are recorded, 132 species are endemic 

or near-endemic to the hotspot (Broadley undated). In addition, there are 72 amphibian species, of 

which seven endemic and near-endemic species are found in coastal Tanzania: Mertensophryne 

micranotis, Stephopaedes howelli, S. loveridgei, S. usambarensis, Afrixalus sylvaticus and Hyperolius 

rubrovermiculatus. The species Kassina jozani is endemic to the Jozani Forest on Zanzibar. The toad 

genus Mertensophryne is endemic to the hotspot.

Genus 

Species 

Synonyms 

Red List status 

Red List criteria 


While the endemism within vertebrates is impressive, rates of endemism are even higher in invertebrate 

groups such as millipedes (80% of all the forest species) and molluscs (68%) (Burgess and Clarke 2000). 

Interestingly, in the dragonflies there is a notable Gondwana relict species (Coryphagrion grandis) that 

has its nearest relatives in Central and Southern America. 

Narrow ranges and disjunct distributions typify the endemic species, for example among the birds and 

the plants (Burgess and Clarke 2000). There is also a huge turnover of species between forest patches, 

especially in the less mobile species. Forests that are only 100 km apart can differ in 70% of their 

millipedes (Hoffman 2000), and in 80% of their plants (Clarke et al. 2000). The flora has affinities with 

that of West Africa, suggesting an ancient connection with the Guineo-Congolian lowland forests (Lovett 

and Wasser 1993; Clarke et al. 2000). Endemism is primarily ancient and relictual rather than recently 

evolved (Burgess et al. 1998; Clarke et al. 2000). 

Table 1: Threatened species of vertebrates in the coastal forests of Tanzania (based on 2010 version of 

the IUCN Red List) 

Birds 

Anthreptes pallidigaster Amani Sunbird EN 

B1ab(i,ii,iii,v); 

B2ab(i,ii,iii,v) 

Anthreptes reichenowi Plain-backed Sunbird NT - 

Anthus sokokensis Sokoke Pipit EN B1ab(i,ii,iii,v) 

Apalis chariessa White-winged Apalis VU B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) 

Circaetus fasciolatus Southern Banded Snake Eagle NT - 

Otus ireneae Sokoke Scops Owl EN B1ab(iii) 

Otus pembaensis Pemba Scops Owl VU C2a(ii) 

Sheppardia gunningi East Coast Akalat NT - 

B1ab(ii,iii,v); 

Swynnertonia swynnertoni Swynnerton’s Robin VU 

C2a(i) 

Terathopius ecaudatus Bateleur NT - 

Treron pembaensis Pemba Green Pigeon VU C2a(ii) 

Zoothera guttata Spotted Ground Thrush EN C2a(i) 

Mammals 

Cephalophus adersi Aders' Duiker CR A4cd 

Diceros bicornis Black Rhinoceros CR A2abcd 

Galagoides rondoensis Rondo Dwarf Galago CR B1ab(ii,iii) 

Hippopotamus amphibius Hippopotamus VU A4cd 

Kerivoula africana Tanzanian Woolly Bat EN B2ab(iii)


Loxodonta africana African Elephant VU A2a 

Myonycteris relicta East African Little Collared Fruit Bat VU A4c 

Panthera leo Lion, African Lion VU A2abcd 

Procolobus kirkii Zanzibar Red Colobus EN B1ab(ii,iii,v) 

Pteropus voeltzkowi Pemba Flying Fox VU D2 

Rhynchocyon chrysopygus Golden-rumped Elephant Shrew EN B1ab(iii) 

Rhynchocyon petersi Black And Rufous Elephant Shrew VU B1ab(iii) 

Taphozous hildegardeae Hildegarde's Tomb Bat VU B1ab(iii) 

Reptiles 

Elapsoides nigra EN B1ab(iii) 

Lygosoma mafianum EN B1ab(iii) 

Amphibians 

Afrixalus sp. VU B1ab(iii) 

Afrixalus sylvaticus EN B2ab(iii) 

Afrixalus uluguruensis EN B1ab(iii) 

Hyperolius rubrovermiculatus EN B1ab(iii) 

Stephopaedes sp. EN B1ab(iii) 

Table 2: Species richness* within the GEF project implementation landscapes ** 

Kilwa 

Landscape 

Lindi Landscape 

Matumbi 

Landscape 

Zanzibar 

Landscape 

Amphibia 10 16 22 11 

Aves 52 58 40 31 

Plantae 133 249 625 286 

Mammalia 28 48 46 42 

Reptilia 8 84 26 28 

TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES 231 455 759 398 

*only species of some conservation interest are included; widespread species have been omitted so the 

total species number is actually higher 

** based on the synthesis of past survey work and the results of new surveys concluded during this 

projects baseline phase 

2.2.2 Flagship species 

The Coastal Forests in Tanzania, especially in the south, support significant populations of elephants 

(Loxodonta africana). Other African flagship species occur, for example, African wild dog (Lycaon

East Usambara 

Kilulu Hills 

Amboni Caves 

Tongwe 

Msumbugwe 

Pangani Falls 

Genda Genda 

Mkwaja 

Zaraninge-Kiono 

Ruvu North 

Pugu/Kazimzumbwi 

Pande 

Ruvu South 

Vikindu 

Kisiju 

Mchungu 

Namakutwa 

Kiwengoma 

Tong'omba 

Litipo 

Rondo 

Dimba FR 

Kitope FR and 

Nyangamara 

Pindiro 

Chitoa 

Ngarama 

Pemba Island 

Zanzibar Island 

Mafia Island 

Kimboza 

Number of forest species 


pictus), lion (Panthera leo), leopard (Panthera pardus) and perhaps a few black rhinoceros (Diceros 

bicornis). 

The Zanzibar red colobus (Procolobus kirkii) is also a flagship species on Unguja Island. The estimated 

global population is around 2,500 individuals, mainly living in and around the Jozani Forest, but also in a 

number of village forests in close association with people. It is not hunted by the Muslim inhabitants of 

this island and has become a significant tourist attraction. A few individuals have also been introduced 

into Pemba island, but are not doing well. 

Among the plants, the main flagship species in the coastal forests are African violets (Saintpaulia sp), 

which are only present in a few of the wetter forests, mainly close to the East Usambara mountains. 

These plants are globally cultivated as houseplants, but originate in Tanzanian and Kenyan forests. The 

Coastal Forests also contain 11 species of wild coffee, of which eight are endemic (Clarke et al. 2000). 

None of these have been exploited as commercial crops. There are also important stands of cycads in 

some well sheltered areas where fire is not a strong threat, with the common species being 

Encephalartos hildebrandtii. Preliminary botanical explorations in the little-known Namatimbili– 

Ngarama forest block located some 35 km inland of Kilwa in south-east Tanzania have rediscovered and 

further confirmed the presence of two tree species, Erythrina schliebenii Harms and Karomia gigas 

(Faden) Verdc., that were previously thought to have become extinct. Both trees are endemic to the 

Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa hotspot and to the Swahilian Regional Centre of Endemism (Clarke et 

al. 2011). 

2.3 Priority Analyses 

2.3.1 Simple number of important vertebrates 

A simple addition of the forest species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians found in those 

Coastal Forests of Tanzania that have been studied, indicates a rough idea of biological priority (Figure 

2). This shows that several sites have more than 100 forest species present, East Usambara lowlands, 

Gendagenda, Zaraninge (now part of Sadaani NP), Pugu/Kazimzumbwe (now heavily degraded), 

Kiwengoma, Litipo, Rondo and Zanzibar Island. The last four of these sites are within the intervention 

landscapes of this GEF project. 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0


Figure 2: Number of forest vertebrates across the Coastal Forest sites of Tanzania (based on data from 

Burgess and Clarke 2000); these data are historical and for heavily degraded sites near Dar es Saalam 

species richness is certainly now much lower than this 

2.3.2 Other priority setting approaches 

Various analytical approaches exist for assessing the degree of biological ‘priority’ within the Coastal 

Forests of Tanzania. At the larger scale, the biogeographical region that contains the Coastal Forests has 

been defined as a global biological priority. Moreover, work undertaken as a part of the IUCN Coastal 

Forests of Eastern Africa book (Burgess and Clarke 2000) and the WWF conservation planning (WWF 

EARPO 2006) has also defined some of the areas of higher biological value within the coastal region. 

Other approaches using computer based priority setting can also provide some guidance on the 

importance of different areas within the broader Coastal Forests region. Below we present the results 

of two such approaches, one an analysis using the programme WORLDMAP of the biological databases 

developed at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark (http://130.225.211.158/subsaharanafrica), and 

the other using the programme C-Plan applied to the threatened species data collected by the Critical 

Ecosystem Partnership Fund and their partners in East Africa for the CEPF Profile for eastern arc and 

coastal forests (CEPF 2003). 

1) Priority areas for African vertebrates. This presents a minimum set of areas in ranked order that have 

been identified as essential to protect all the 4,202 vertebrates in Africa (Figure 3). Six one degree grid 

cells are identified as critically important for species conservation using this analytical approach, 

including the Rondo, Matumbi, Pugu, Gendagenda, and the lowland East Usambaras areas (2 grids). 

These areas correspond well with the priority intervention landscapes selected for this GEF coastal 

forests project.


Figure 3: Ranked priority areas for the conservation of 4,202 species of birds, mammals, amphibians and 

snakes (not other reptiles) in Sub-Saharan Africa (based on databases compiled to 2007) 

2) Priority sites for threatened species. An analysis of the irreplaceability of sites in the coastal region of 

Tanzania has also been completed; based on records of threatened vertebrates, plants and 

invertebrates. The approach identifies a scattering of sites within the Tanzanian Coastal Forests, many 

of which are regarded as wholly irreplaceable (no other options for conservation of that species), while 

other areas provide more options for conservation (Figure 4). It is perhaps important to note that there 

are priority sites along the entire coast of Tanzania.


Figure 4: Map of irreplaceable sites (dark red) and optional sites (red) for the conservation of all the 

threatened species in the Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests Hotspot of Tanzania (based on data in Burgess 

and Clarke 2000; and Eastern Arc data from Burgess et al. 2007b) 

2.4 The Coastal Forest Habitat in Eastern Africa 

The coastal strip of eastern Africa supports a mosaic of different natural vegetation types. Much of the 

area supports bushland/thicket habitats and coastal variants of savannah woodland habitats. There are 

also smaller areas of wetland, and patches of lowland forest. Large areas have also been converted to 

farmland and ‘mango/cashew nut savannah’. The total area of land covered by this mosaic of habitats is 

around 280,000 km 2 (Coastal Forest mosaic and Zambezian coastal savannah – but excluding mangrove 

forests). 

Data from Burgess and Clarke (2000) shows that Coastal Forests are usually found up to 500 m above 

sea level, although in Tanzania they can occur to over 1,000 m on isolated hills, for example on the 

Rondo Plateau in SE Tanzania and Handeni Hill in NE Tanzania. Rainfall ranges between 2,000 mm/year 

(Pemba) and 600 mm/year (northern Kenya and parts of southern Tanzania/northern Mozambique). 

There are two rainy seasons (long, April-June; short, November-December) in the north, but only one 

(November to April) in the south. Dry seasons can be severe and El Niño effects can be dramatic. 

Climate change impacts are starting to be felt in some areas. Climatic conditions along the coast are


believed to have been relatively stable for the last 30 million years (Axelrod and Raven, 1978), although 

variation from year to year can be considerable, leading to droughts or floods. 

The Coastal Forests and the Eastern Arc forests share a large number of widespread African forest 

species, although this apparent similarity is misleading as these species only represent a fraction of the 

total number of individual trees in each forest type, yet this has nonetheless resulted in the distinction 

between the two forest types becoming a matter of some debate (e.g. Lovett et al. 2000, Clarke et al. 

2000). The altitudinal separation is generally placed around 500-800 m (e.g. White 1983), but varies 

according to local ecological conditions (Clarke 2000). A gradation between the two forest types is found 

on the East Usambara, Uluguru, Udzungwa and Nguru ranges. Other Coastal Forests are not contiguous 

with mountain forest habitats and are often separated from the mountains by 100s of km of drier 

Zambezian woodlands. 

2.5 Forest Cover and Change in Coastal Tanzania 

Sokoine University of Agriculture and Conservation International, working with technical input from 

WWF and Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) have developed an improved forest change map 

for the Coastal Forests of Tanzania from 1990-2000-2007. This map uses Landsat imagery to assess the 

area of forest at these three dates, and calculates the area of forest that has been lost over this decade. 

In 2007, coastal forest cover in Tanzania covered an area of 273,700 ha, falling from 420,765 ha in 1990 

and 358,333 ha in 2000 (Godoy et al. 2011). By 2007, Pwani and Lindi regions together had 236,633 ha 

or 86 % of the remaining coastal forest, while only 385 ha of forest remained in Dar es Salaam. Across 

the study area, the rate of forest loss had slowed from the 1.0 % per year in the 1990s to 0.4 % per year 

in 2000– 2007. Deforestation also slowed in each of the five regions. 

The aggregate deforestation rate inside reserves was nine times slower in reserves than in the 

unreserved forest lands. Rates of forest loss inside reserves were 0.2 % per year in 1990–2000 and in 

2000–2007 versus 1.3 % per year in the 1990s and 0.6 % per year in 2000–2007 outside reserves (Table 

3). While in 2000–2007 forest loss rates decreased in unreserved areas, forest loss rates in reserved 

areas remained almost constant between 1990–2000 and 2000–2007. 

Table 3: Forest change in the coastal districts of Tanzania from 1990-2000-2007 (from Godoy et al. 

2011). 

Dar es 

Salaam 

Forest 

cover 

Forest 

cover 

Forest 

cover 

~1990 ~2000 ~2007 

Yearly 

forest 

change 

1990- 

2000 

Yearly 

forest 

change 

1990- 

2000 

Cloud 

Factor 

1990- 

2000 

Yearly 

forest 

change 

2000- 

2007 

Yearly 

forest 

change 

2000- 

2007 

ha ha ha ha/ y %/ y % ha/ y %/ y % 

Cloud 

Factor 

2000- 

2007 

2,007 650 385 66 -7.9 3 1 -0.2 14 

Lindi 152,026 141,977 114,789 1,106 -0.8 100 181 -0.2 81 

Mtwara 43,576 29,601 16,942 1,553 -4.2 100 103 -0.6 59 

Pwani 201,133 165,714 121,844 1,537 -0.9 54 908 -0.7 58 

Tanga 22,023 20,390 19,749 57 -0.3 60 0 0.0 55


Total 420,765 358,333 273,709 3,735 -1.0 67 1,233 -0.4 65 

Figure 5: The extent of the coastal forests of Tanzania, across Tanga, Pwani, Lindi, Mtwara and 

Dar es Salaam regions, and forest cover in 1990–2000–2007. The two map insets detail patterns 

of deforestation from 1990–2000–2007 around reserved areas near Dar es Salaam (map A) and 

the Matumbi Hills (map B) (from Godoy et al. 2011)


2.6 Implications for Carbon Emissions 

The forest status and change analysis of Godoy et al. (2011) has also been turned into an assessment of 

carbon stock and change. The carbon data used was from an African wide map of above ground carbon 

developed by Baccini et al. (2008). Carbon content was assumed to be 50 % of dry weight. Average 

carbon stock for above- and below-ground biomass was calculated for each district based on the 

forested area in 2000. The map of carbon stocks was combined with that of forest-loss data for 1990– 

2000 and 2000–2007 to estimate gross carbon emissions during each period. It was assumed that all 

carbon content was released into the atmosphere once the vegetation was cleared. 

Results (Table 4) show that the greatest CO 2 emissions were in the period 1990-2000, with the greatest 

rates in Lindi, followed by Mtwara and Coast regions. In the 2000-2007 period the greatest rate was in 

Coast region, with losses reduced in all other Regions. Total carbon emissions per annum from the 

coastal forest areas between 1990-2000 were 631,933 tCO 2 per annum, and had declined to 198,154 

tCO 2 per annum in the period 2000-2007. 

Table 4: Annual emissions among Tanzanian regions – 1990-2000 and 2000-2007 (emission measures 

are in tonnes CO 2 per year) 

Region 

Annual Emission rate tCO 2 yr -1 

1990-2000 2000-2007 

Dar es Salaam 553 14 

Lindi 267,524 56,576 

Mtwara 198,132 16,042 

Coast 151,151 125,521 

Tanga 14,574 0 

Total 631,933 198,154 

2.7 Matumbi Landscape 

Previous biodiversity surveys by WWF and Frontier-Tanzania have revealed that the forest/woodland 

mosaic of the Matumbi/Kichi Hills have high species richness, diversity and endemism. These results are 

summarised in Clarke and Dickinson (1995), St. John (2007) and Perkin et al. (2008). 

Types of trees 

There are number valuable trees in landscape, although species like Afzelia quanzensis, Khaya 

anthotheca, Milicia excelsa and Pterocarpus angolensis have been depleted through illegal harvesting. 

Table 5 outlines the perceived abundance and use of some tree species, as observed by local 

communities in 2011.


Table 5: Perceptions of villagers on abundance of some useful tree species in the surrounding forest 

areas 

Local name Scientific name Abundance Use value 

Mvule Milicia excelsa Medium Timber 

Mkongo Afzelia quanzensis Medium Timber 

Mninga Pterocarpus angolensis Medium Timber 

Mpondo Commiphora africana Medium Firewood 

Msufi mwitu Bombax rhodognaphalon Medium Timber 

Mtondoro Brachystegia spiciformis High Timber 

Mkarati Bridelia micrantha High Timber 

Msekeseke Ochna densicoma Medium Timber 

Mkuruti Diospyros consulatae Medium Medicinal 

Mnondondo 

(Mdamudamu) 

Julbernardia globiflora High Timber 

Mdundu Lonchocarpus bussei Medium Medicinal 

Birds 

The landscape is an important area for coastal forest birds. The area supports coastal forest endemic 

species including: southern-banded snake eagle (Circaetus fasciolatus), plain backed sunbird (Anthreptes 

reichenowi), tiny greenbul (Phyllastrephus debilis), Fischer’s greenbul (Phyllastrephus fischeri) and 

Livingstone’s flycatcher (Erythrocercus livingstonii). 

Mammals 

Matumbi- Kichi Hill landscape provides excellent habitat for a number of mammals. Near endemic 

species include the chequered elephant shrew Rhynchocyon cirnei. There are also populations of 

elephant (Loxodonta africana) and lion (Panthera leo). An undescribed species of shrew Crocidura sp. is 

found in Tong'omba. Other large and medium sized mammals include buffalo (Syncerus caffer), leopard 

(Panthera padus), wild dog (Lycaon pictus), dik dik (Madoqua kirkii), bush pig (Potamocherus porcus), 

baboons (Papio spp.), vervet monkey (Chlorocebus pygerythrus), greater kudu (Tragelaphus 

strepsiceros), spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), black and white colobus monkey (Colobus guereza), 

bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), common duiker (Sylvicarpa grimmia), hartebeest (Alcelaphus 

buselaphus), sable antelope (Hippotragus niger), waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), zebra (Equus 

burcheli), impala (Aepyceros melampus), wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), eland (Taurotragus oryx), 

porcupines (Hystrix spp.) and warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus). The abundance of mammals 

increases towards the Selous Game Reserve. 

Other animal biodiversity 

This landscape supports a diverse assemblage of reptiles. The prominent ones are African rock python 

(Python sebae), Cobra spp., Viper spp., Lygodactylus spp., Cnemaspis uzungwae, Hemidactylus spp., 

Agama mossambica, Chamaeleo spp., Rhampholeon spp., Sepsina t. tetradactyla, Bitis g. gabonica, 

Melanoseps loveridgei, Atractaspis bibronii, Philothamus hoplogaster, and Thelotornis capensisi


mossambicanus. The rare montypic scarlet-snouted frog Spelaeophryne methneri whose type locality is 

the Nangoma caves, has since been collected in some of the Eastern Arc mountains. The landscape also 

contains at least three endemic species of plants, an endemic butterfly, and at least 16 undescribed 

species of millipedes. 

2.8 Kilwa Landscape 

In the Kilwa Landscape, there are distinct strips of vegetation running parallel with coast (Prins and 

Clarke 2006). Moving inland from the coast, the strips are made up of Coastal Forests on the 

discontinuous chain of hills along the coast, scrub forests, Brachystegia forest, thick miombo, to open 

woodland dominated by miombo (sensu Clarke 2000; Clarke 2001). 

The majority of the Coastal Forests are concentrated in Ruwawa (Ngarama North and South, and 

Mitundumbea Forest Reserves) and Mbarawala (including Pindiro Forest Reserve) Plateaus. Rungo FR is 

located on the western part of the landscape, with Ngarama North and South Forest Reserves in the 

east, and Mitundumbea FR and Uchungwa also in the east. The reserves are surrounded by miombo 

woodlands and areas of ungazetted coastal forest that is in the process of being included within Village 

Land Forest Reserves and Wildlife Management Areas. The eastern part of the plateaus towards the 

coastal plain is largely dominated by dry forests and woodlands (Perkin et al. 2008b). 

Ruwawa Plateau 

This plateau is characterized by an escarpment facing to the east formed by sea level changes and uplift 

processes. The plateau is mainly ancient coral rag limestone which results in free draining dry conditions 

and the formation of caves, which some animals find them (caves) suitable habitats. Mitundumbea, 

Ngarama North and South FRs protect parts of the plateau. The plateau is covered with different types 

of scrub forest. There are also a few patches of Coastal Forest that occur on the plateau particularly to 

the North West along ridges of well-developed mixed dry forest and legume-dominated forest in the 

North and Western part of Ngarama North FR (Prins and Clarke 2006). The plateau hosts estimated 43 

km 2 of scrub forest and ca. 13 km 2 of mixed dry forest (UTUMI 2002). Grewia sp., Hymenocardia 

ulmoides, Cussonia zimmermannii, Bombax rhodognaphalon and Vitex schliebenii dominate large part of 

the scrub forest while the outer part of the forest block is composed of Hymenaea verrucosa, 

Scorodophloeus fischerii, Strychnos henningsii and Synaptolepis kirkii (Clarke, 1995). 

In Ngarama South FR, vegetation differing from open to dense woodland to scrub forest is dominated by 

Milicia excelsa, Markhamia obtusifolia and Pteleopsis myrtifolia (Clarke, 1995). Hymenaea verrucosa 

dominated forest only remains in a tiny part of Ngarama South FR (Eriksen et al. 1994; Clarke, 1995). 

Mitundumbea FR protects most of the northerly part of the Ruwawa plateau. Although there are a few 

patches of coastal thicket and closed-canopy forest (UTUMI 2002), the area is mainly Brachystegia 

woodland with Pterocarpus angolensis and Milicia excelsa. 

Mbarawala Plateau 

This plateau is partly protected by the Pindiro Forest Reserve in the south. However, ca. 75km 2 of scrub 

forest and 5km 2 of mixed dry forest (Prins and Clarke 2006) occur outside to the north and north-west. 

There is a mosaic of scrub forest with patches of dry forest, which appear to be similar to the ones in 

Ngarama FR. The scrub forest on Mbarawala plateau is similar to the scrub forest around Uchungwa 

Peak (Prins and Clarke 2006).


In the northern end of the Mbarawala Plateua there is the Uchungwa forest (also known as Namateule 

or Namatimbili). This forest remains largely unsurveyed and is not reserved under any status, but 

remote sensing indicates significant areas of various coastal forest types including ca. 29 km 2 of scrub 

forest and ca. 34 km 2 of mixed dry forest. The Uchungwa and Mitundumbea forests are split by the 

Mavuji River which has cut a dramatic gorge through the ancient coral rag escarpment. The area 

contains a mosaic of different types of dry forest in pristine condition. The coral rag area contains a 

unique type of dry forest including high densities of the cycad Encephalartos hildebrandtii (UTUMI 

2001). This area is dominated by the Lindi region endemic trees Cynometra filifera, Cynometra gillmannii 

and Erythrina schliebenii. The tree species E. schliebenii was considered to be extinct (IUCN 2008). There 

is also a little disturbed and well developed band (ca. 3 km 2 ) of riverine forest along the gorge of the 

Mavuji River. 

Types of trees 

There is a wide diversity of tree species in Kilwa Landscape with both miombo woodland and coastal 

forest species found in high proportions. Some of the main species in the woodlands are presented in 

Table 6. The rest of areas of this landscape are covered by coastal forest, grassland/wetland and rock 

outcrops. The landscape forms important parts of water catchment for Matandu, Mavuji and 

Mbwemkuru rivers that drains different parts as seen above. 

Table 6: Main tree species and perceptions of villages on abundance of some tree species in the 

landscape 

Local Name Scientific names Perceived 

Abundance 

Mninga Pterocarpus angolensis Medium Timber 

Mkongo Afzelia quanzensis Medium Timber 

Mpingo Dalbergia melanoxylon High Timber 

Mtondo Brachystegia spiciformis High Timber 

Mkangazi Khaya anthotheca Medium Timber 

Myombo Brachystegia boehmii High Timber 

Mbuyu Adansonia digitata High 

Mikunya Sterculia appendiculata High 

Msufi pori Bombax rhodognaphalon Medium 

Mng’ong’o Sclerocarya birrea High 

Mkwanga Zanha africana High 

Mgelegele Brachystegia bussei High 

Msekeseke Ochna densicoma Medium 

Use 

There are also a number of threatened plant species in the landscape.


Table 7: Plants within the Kilwa landscape listed as threatened on the IUCN Red list (2008) 

Site Family Species Habitat Habit RL cat 

Uchungwa 

Fabaceae 

(Caes.) 

Cynometra 

filifera 

F T CR B1+2abcde ver 2.3 (1994) 

Uchungwa 

Fabaceae 

(Caes.) 

Cynometra 

gillmanii 

F T CR B1+2abcde, C2b ver 2.3 

(1994) 

Uchungwa Tiliaceae Grewia 

goetzeana 

Uchungwa Ebenaceae Diospyros 

magogoana 

F, W, T DD ver 2.3 (1994) 

F T, S EN B1+2bc ver 2.3 (1994) 

Uchungwa 

Fabaceae 

(Pap.) 

Erythrina 

schliebenii 

F T EX ver 2.3 (1994) 

Uchungwa Zamiaceae Encephalartos 

hildebrandtii 

Uchungwa Rubiaceae Gardenia 

transvenulosa 

Uchungwa Annonaceae Lettowianthus 

stellatus 

Uchungwa Papillionaceae Milletia 

stuhlmanii 

Uchungwa Rutaceae Vepris 

sansibarensis 

Uchungwa Rutaceae Zanthoxylum 

holtzianum 

F T NT ver 3.1 (2001) 

F, W, T, S VU B1+2b ver 2.3 (1994) 

F T VU B1+2b ver 2.3 (1994) 

F,W T VU B1+2b ver 2.3 (1994) 

F T, S VU B1+2b ver 2.3 (1994) 

F,W T VU B1+2d, D2 ver 2.3 (1994) 

Source: Perkin et al (2008b). 

In Kilwa Landscape there are six plants that are strictly endemic to the Kilwa Landscape (data from Prins 

and Clarke 2006; Clarke 2001): 

Karomia gigas – effectively endemic to Mitundumbea Forest Reserve and Ngarama North Forest 

Reserve following the extinction of the only known individual from Kenya 

Erythrina schliebenii – effectively endemic to Uchungwa forest following its probable extinction 

from the lake Lutamba area. 

Pterygota sp. nov. – Uchungwa forest 

Trichilia sp. nov. a ff. lovettii – Uchungwa forest. Probably the same Trichilia sp. nov found in 

Chitoa Forest Reserve in 1995. 

Baphia cf. keniensis – Ruwawa Plateau (Ngarama North and South Forest Reserves) 

Leptactina cf. oxyloba - Ruwawa Plateau (Ngarama North and South Forest Reserves) 

(Source: Perkin et al.2008b). 

The landscape harbours many tree species of medicinal and cultural values to the surrounding 

communities. In the landscape local communities get timber, poles, charcoal, local medicines, fuel


wood, land for cultivation, wild meat, honey, wild fruits, sources of water, building materials, clean air 

and rain. 

Birds 

The landscape is an important area for coastal forest birds. Uchungwa, Mitundumbea, Ngarama N&S 

and Pindiro contain populations of plain backed sunbird (Anthreptes reichenowi), and southern-banded 

snake eagle (Circaetus fasciolatus). Other forest dependent species present in the landscape include 

African Broadbill Smithornis capensis, little greenbul Andropadus virens (only in Litipo), tiny greenbul 

(Phyllastrephus debilis) and yellow-streaked greenbul (P. flavostriatus). Within the landscape, the near 

endemic subspecies, the Rondo green barbet (Stractolaema olivacea spp. hylophona) is present in 

Uchungwa, Mitundumbea and Ngarama N&S, whilst Reichenow’s batis (Batis mixta reichenowi) occurs 

in Uchungwa, Mitundumbea, Ngarama N&S and Pindiro. 

Mammals 

Namatimbili, Mitundumbea, Ngarama N&S and Pindiro FR is important for the near endemic Grant’s 

galago (Galagoides granti), the lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei) and the chequered elephant shrew 

(Rhynchocyon cirnei macrurus). Elephant (Loxodonta africana) and lion (Panthera leo) occur in low 

numbers, and African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) has been seen in recent years. There is an interesting 

isolated population of bush hyrax (Heterohyrax sp) in Uchungwa and Mitundumbea Other large and 

medium sized mammals include buffalo (Syncerus caffer), hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus), bush pig 

(Potamocherus porcus), leopard (Panthera pardus), zebra (Equus brucheli), impala (Aepyceros 

melampus) wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), sable antelope (Hippotragus niger), dik dik (Madoqua 

kirkii), common duiker (Sylvicarpa grimmia), porcupine (Hystrix spp), hippopotamus (Hippopotamus 

amphibious) and spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta). 

2.9 Lindi Landscape 

Biodiversity status 

The natural vegetation of the Rondo/Noto landscape is extremely variable and includes: scrub forest, 

dry evergreen forest, woodland and transitional woodlands, riverine forest, and thickets. Other land 

cover types include the Rondo pine plantation forest. 

Type of trees 

Different types of trees are found in the landscape. These are detailed in Table 8 together with their 

perceived abundance levels as cited by interviewed communities. 

Table 8: Perceptions of villages on abundance of some tree species in the surrounding woodlands 

around Rondo Forest Reserve 

S/N Local name Scientific name Abundance 

1 Mvule Milicia excelsa Medium 

2 Mbambakofi/Mkongo Afzelia quanzensis Medium 

3 Mninga Pterocarpus angolensis High 

4 Mpairosa Swartzia madagascarenis Low 

5 Mmula Parinalia curratellifolia High


6 Njiligwi High 

7 Mtuganjiwa Albizia sp High 

8 Mpingo Dalbergia melanoxylon High 

9 Mpangapanga Euphorbia candelabrum Low 

10 Mgama Mimusops schliebenii High 

11 Mtondoo Brachystegia spiciformis Medium 

12 Myombo Brachystegia bohemii High 

13 Mchalaka Spirostachys africana High 

14 Msungura Tarenna graveolens High 

15 Mkonge Psychotria bibracteata Medium 

16 Msufi pori Bombax rhodognaphalon Medium 

17 Msama Medium 

Birds 

This landscape is also an important area for coastal forest birds. Rondo contains populations of east 

coast akalat (Sheppardia gunningi), plain backed sunbird (Anthreptes reichenowi) and Southern-banded 

snake eagle (Circaetus fasciolatus). There are also interesting sub-species of birds – such as rondo green 

barbet (Stractolaema olivacea spp. hylophona) and Reichenow’s Batis (Batis reichenowi). Rondo Plateau 

is a breeding site for the East African population of spotted ground thrush (Zoothera guttata). 

Mammals 

Rondo, Chitoa, Litipo and Ruawa are critical sites for the Tanzanian endemic Rondo Galago (Galagoides 

rondoensis) – which is known from five other small forest patches in coastal Tanzania. There is an 

interesting isolated population of bush hyrax (Heterohyrax sp) in Ruawa and the landscape is important 

for the near endemic Grant’s galago (Galagoides granti), the lesser pouched rat (Beamys hindei) and the 

Chequered elephant shrew (Rhynchocyon cirnei macrurus). The landscape is also important for more 

widespread species such as elephant (Loxodonta africana), buffalo (Syncerus caffer), leopards (Panthera 

padus), lion (Panthera leo), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), bush pig (Potamocherus porcus), baboon 

(Papio spp.), vervet monkey (Chlorocebus pygerythrus), zebra (Equus burcheli), hartebeest (Alcelaphus 

buselaphus) and spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta). 

Reptiles 

Reptile species that are endemic to the Lindi Landscape include three species of reptile (Melanoseps 

rondoensis, Scolecoseps litipoensis and Typhlops rondoensis). There are also two near-endemic reptiles: 

(Chirindia rondoensis and Chirindia ewerbecki). All of these species have been recorded from the Rondo 

plateau. 

2.10 Zanzibar Landscape 

The Zanzibar landscape includes numerous small islands and two large ones: Unguja (the main island, 

informally referred to as "Zanzibar"), and Pemba (Figure 4). The biodiversity priority landscapes and 

ecosystems of Zanzibar are high forests covering 98,329 ha, coral rag forests covering 6,119 ha and


20,000 ha of mangroves. The Protected Area System includes the Jozani-Chwaka Bay NP (5,000 ha), 

Kiwengwa-Pongwe FR (3,325 ha), Ngezi-Vumawimbi NR (2,900 ha), Ras Kiuyu proposed FR (270 ha), 

Masingini FR (566 ha) and Msitu Mkuu proposed FR (180 ha). In addition, 20,000 ha of mangrove forests 

have been put under conservation management. 

The most significant biodiversity within the Zanzibar landscape includes endemic plant species and 

subspecies such as Aloe pembana, Erica mafiensis and Dypis pembana, endemic mammal species such 

as Procolobus kirkii, Pteropus voeltzikowi, Cephalophus monticola pembae and the near-endemic 

Cephalophus adersi. Endemic bird species on Pemba Island include Pemba green pigeon Treron 

pembaensis, Pemba scops owl Otus pembaensis, Pemba white-eye Zosterops vaughani, Pemba sunbird 

Nectarinia pembae. Zanzibar Island has some endemic bird sub-species – for example Tauraco fischcheri 

zanzibaricus. In terms of reptiles, Phelsuma abbotti, Lygosoma pembanus and Leptotyphlops pembae 

are endemic and Cassina jozani is an endemic amphibian. 

2.11 Concluding Remarks 

The biological values of the key landscapes that the project will focus on are very high, and recent field 

work has confirmed that there are biologically interesting areas that are still little known to science. 

Within these areas there the project has found two species of trees previously thought to be extinct. 

Large areas of coastal forest remain outside the protected area network and hence ensuring that they 

are managed sustainably under some management regime would make a strong contribution to 

conservation in the area.

SPATIAL PLANNING BASELINE: TANZANIA’S COASTAL FORESTS 2011 

3 Spatial Planning Baseline 

3.1 Overview 

Protected Areas (PAs) provide the principal method for protecting areas of significant biodiversity in 

Tanzania, and this is the key strategy laid out in the BSAP and National Environmental Action Plan 

(NEAP) documentation, and explicitly stated in the National Forest Policy (1998) and law – such as the 

Tanzania Forest Act (2002). The Coastal Forests were singled out as priority areas for conservation. 

However, whilst Tanzania’s PA estate is huge, relatively little of the Coastal Forest (CF) resource is 

adequately protected. Forests in Tanzania, including Coastal Forests, have been mainly protected by the 

Forestry and Beekeeping Division (now Tanzania Forest Service TFS) of Government, through a network 

of Forest Reserves (WCMC/UNEP 2006). Two coastal forests were recently incorporated into a mainland 

National Park (Sadaani), and Zanzibar created a National Park and Nature Reserve for two more. The 

Tanzanian mainland is also proposing to upgrade one coastal forest area (Rondo) as a potential Forest 

Nature Reserves. More than 20 distinct coastal patches are still not protected, including areas of 

recognized endemism and areas that would increase connectivity between reserved patches. 

3.2 Definition of a Protected Area and the IUCN Categories 

Protected areas are internationally recognized as a major tool in conserving species and ecosystems 

(Box 1). They also provide a range of goods and services essential to the sustainable use of natural 

resources, such as protecting watersheds and preventing soil erosion. Protected areas provide resources 

that local communities and indigenous peoples may depend upon for survival, and can play a role in 

maintaining cultural values. They are also important for scientific research and education, and can make 

significant contributions to local economies. 

Box 1: What is a ‘protected area’? (from Dudley 2008) 

The IUCN defines a protected area as: ‘“A clearly defined geographicalspace, recognised, dedicated 

and managed, throughlegal or other effective means, to achieve the long-termconservation of 

nature with associated ecosystemservices and cultural values”. 

In applying the categories system, the first step is to determine vwhether or not the site meets this 

definition and thesecond step is to decide on the most suitable category. 

IUCN protected area categories (explained in full in Dudley 2008): 

Category Ia: Strict nature reserve 

Category Ib: Wilderness area 

Category II: National park 

Category III: Natural monument or feature 

Category IV: Habitat/species management area 

Category V: Protected landscape/seascape 

Category VI: Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources


Within the coastal forests of Tanzania, only a few of the existing reserves have a protected area category 

assigned. This is elaborated further below. 

3.3 Forest Protection under the Convention of Biological Diversity 

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) considers protected areas as cornerstones for 

biodiversity conservation and as critical tools for reducing the current rate of loss of species and 

habitats. The CBD Cop10 meeting in Japan in 2010 defined a new set of targets for the period 2010- 

2020, to be achieved by all nations who are parties to the CBD. Specific targets include those to halve 

deforestation and reduce degradation and fragmentation (Target 5), manage all forests sustainably 

(Target 7), effectively conserve at least 17% of all terrestrial areas (Target 11), and restore at least 15% 

of degraded ecosystems to enhance both biodiversity and carbon (Target 15). 

A recent analysis by the United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring 

Centre (UNEP-WCMC) shows that the Northern Zanzibar-Inhambane Coastal Mosaic ecoregion (Kenya 

and Tanzanian Coastal Forests) has 4.3 % of the remaining forest habitat protected within IUCN I-IV 

coded protected areas. This is below the 10% target, and well below the 17% target, and was one of the 

reasons for additional GEF investment in the area. 

3.4 Protected Area Gaps 

Gap analysis is a tool promoted by the CBD (Dudley and Parrish 2006) to assess the degree to which 

protected area networks are representative of different attributes of biodiversity. Past gap analyses 

undertaken by conservation NGOs and academic institutions have indicated the lack of protected area 

coverage of the Coastal Forest Habitats; with regard to habitats (Hoekstra et al. 2005), global species 

diversity (Rodrigues et al. 2004b), conservation priority areas (Rodrigues et al. 2004a), African birds (De 

Klerk et al. 2004), African mammals (Fjeldså et al. 2004) and African plants (Burgess et al. 2005). The 

situation remains the same today even though these analyses are almost 10 years old now. Indeed, a 

recent gap analysis of Important Bird Areas in Tanzania (Sritharan and Burgess 2011) shows the gaps in 

bird protection that remain in 2009, including a number in the coastal forests. Gaps in protection for 

other species groups, for example plants, will be more than for birds.


Figure 6: Distribution of Important Bird Areas 

Distribution of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and conservation priorities of 27 unprotected IBAs in Tanzania in 2009: 

1, Dar es Salaam Coast; 2, Eluanata Dam; 3, Kagera Swamps; 4, Lake Burungi; 5, Lake Eyasi; 6, Lake Kitangire; 7, 

Lake Manyara National Park; 8, Lake Natron and Engaruka Basin; 9, Lake Rukwa; 10, Lake Tlawi; 11, Lake Victoria: 

Bumbire Islands; 12, Lake Victoria: Bunda Bay; 13, Lake Mara Bay and Masirori Swamp; 14, Lake Victoria: Mwanza 

Gulf; 15, Latham Island; 16, Longido Game Controlled Area; 17, Mtera Reservoir; 18, Mtwara District Coastal 

Forest; 19, Nyumba va Mungu Reservoir; 20, Pemba Island; 21, Rufiji Delta; 22, Rufiji District Coastal Forests; 23, 

Singida Lakes; 24, Usangu Flats; 25, Uvidunda Mountains; 26, Wembere Steppe; 27, Zanzibar Island: East Coast. 

3.5 The Current Reserve Network for the Coastal Forests 

3.5.1 Reserves that are internationally recognised as protected areas 

Tanzania (mainland and Zanzibar) has a number of reserves that have been coded as protected areas 

according to the IUCN protected area criteria and categories (see above). Those within the coastal 

regions are briefly described below, with the majority of the data coming from the World Database on 

Protected Areas (www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa).


National Parks 

On the mainland of Tanzania the 110,000 ha Saadani National Park (an IUCN category II protected area) 

contains Coastal Forest habitats. This Park was gazetted in 2005 and is managed by TANAPA. Important 

Coastal Forests included are the Zaraninge/Kiono forest that was previously a Forest Reserve and the 

forest patches that were formally part of the Mkwaja ranch. In total over 3,000 ha of forest is found in 

this park, where it is well protected. On Unguja an important area of Coastal Forest / swamp forest is 

found within the Jozani National Park (an IUCN category II protected area). This reserve was gazetted in 

2004 and covers 5,000 ha and contains around 1,000 ha of forest habitat that supports the majority of 

the global population of the Zanzibar red colobus monkey. The Park is managed by the government of 

Zanzibar with a strong community involvement through the Jozani Environment Conservation 

Association (JECA), under a different set of laws and regulations to those that operate on mainland 

Tanzania. 

Game Reserves 

The huge (4,400,000 ha) Selous Game Reserve (an IUCN category IV protected area) contains some 

Coastal Forest habitats on its eastern margins. These are not well known and have not been visited in 

recent years, but are assumed to provide good protection to habitats and species that occur. This 

reserve is managed by the Wildlife Department from Tanzania mainland and has a significant staff and 

considerable resources as it is used for tourist hunting. 

Marine Parks 

The Mafia Island Marine Park (IUCN category VI protected area) covers a variety of marine and coastal 

habitats, including an area of coastal forest termed Mlola that is otherwise included within a Forest 

Reserve. The Marine Park is 82,200 ha in extent (forests are only 100 ha) and is managed by the 

Tanzania Fisheries Department, with collaborative input from surrounding communities. Coral rag 

thicket habitats are also found within the Dar es Salaam Marine Park (2,600 ha, no IUCN category 

assigned), which is centred on three islands close to the capital. And coastal habitats are also found 

within the Mnazi Bay Marine Park in Mtwara (220,000 ha, IUCN category VI). 

Marine Conservation Areas. 

The Menai Bay Conservation Area on Unguja (44,700 ha, IUCN category VI) and Pemba Channel 

Conservation Area on Pemba (area unknown) are primarily marine reserves, but both contain some 

terrestrial habitats. The marine conservation area on Pemba, in particular, includes a number of smaller 

islands that are known to contain thicket and even small areas of forest habitat. 

Private Reserves 

The tiny protected area of Chumbe Island Marine Park contains coral rag thicket and has been classified 

as an IUCN category II protected area. It covers only 100 ha of land and sea. 

3.5.2 Other reserves that are not internationally recognized as protected areas 

Forest Nature Reserves 

The only Nature Reserve within the coastal forests region is found on Pemba Island. This Ngezi- 

Vumawimbi Nature Reserve was gazetted in 2007 and covers around 2,000 ha of lowland forest habitat. 

Proposed Nature Reserves include Rondo in Lindi Region and Masingini on Unguja island.


Forest Reserves (national, local authority and village) 

No Forest Reserve in the coastal region of Tanzania has been assigned an IUCN protected area category, 

and many will not meet the definition of a protected area (established and managed for biodiversity 

conservation), although some will (Burgess et al. 2007). Coastal regions of Tanzania contain at least 166 

Forest Reserves in lowland areas, which cover 1,191,000 ha of land (Table 9). Of this total area, almost 

960,000 ha are coded as ‘production forest’ for sustainable utilization, whereas around 231,000 ha are 

coded as ‘protection forest’, primarily for water catchment and habitat conservation purposes. 

The majority (146) of the 166 Forest Reserves in the coastal regions of mainland Tanzania are coded in 

the national list of Forest Reserves (latest from 2000) as national Forest Reserves and hence are 

supposed to be managed by the Forestry and Beekeeping Division directly. Most of these reserves have 

practically no management input from the Forestry and Beekeeping Division (FBD) (now Tanzania Forest 

Service, TFS) as day-to-day management has been devolved to the District Councils and the District 

Forest Officer. Management budgets and staffing levels are extremely low, with operational funds often 

being nothing, an exception being the Rondo Forest Plantation and to a limited level Pugu Kazimzumbwi 

which have moderate resources with staff and other resources from FBD/TFS. 

Another 20 Forest Reserves on the mainland are coded as Local Authority Forest Reserves. These are 

managed by the District Natural Resources Departments. They can also be managed for protection (a 

minority) or for sustainable harvesting (the majority). These reserves receive very few resources for 

management from the District Authorities and most are supposed to generate revenue for the District. 

In recent years further areas of forested land have been protected as Village Forest Reserves under the 

authority of the village government. The location and area of these reserves is now as well catalogued 

and mapped (Kashaigili et al. 2011). Some large Coastal Forests on the Matumbi Hills and also further 

south in Kilwa District, e.g. the Namateule forest and forest on the Noto and Mbwalawala plateaux have 

no formal protection. 

Despite the low levels of management input into most Forest Reserves (except forest plantations and 

catchment forests) in Tanzania, their boundaries are usually respected and encroachment into the 

reserves is rare. Illegal logging is however widespread. 

Table 9: National, Local Authority and Village Forest Reserves within the Coastal Regions of mainland 

Tanzania (according to list from FBD in 2000). Recent updates to the PA network are only 

partly captured here 

Regions 

National FR 

Local 

Authority FR 

Village FR 

Proposed FR 

Productive 

(ha) 

Protective 

(ha) 

Pwani (Coast) 46 4 6 2 302,841.7 64,324.7 

Dar es Salaam 13 0 0 0 0.0 4,503.9 

Lindi 27 3 10 5 542,042.6 82,455.5 

Mtwara 5 8 0 6 56,356.6 17,812.2 

Tanga 55 5 1 1 58,654.8 62,488.7 

Totals 146 20 7 14 959,895.7 231,585.0 

On Zanzibar, Forest Reserves are also found on Unguja and Pemba Islands. There are four Forest 

Reserves in total (Kiwengwa-Pongwe, and Masingini catchment forest on Unguja, and Misitu Mkuu on


Pemba), that cover areas of coral rag thicket and high forest. They protect some of the best remaining 

habitat areas on these islands and are managed by the Department of Forestry and Non-Renewable 

Natural Resources (DFNRNR). An area of thicket at Muyuni is also proposed as a forest reserve on 

Unguja, as is Ras Kiuyu on Pemba. 

An increasingly important category of reserve in the coastal districts is the Village Land Forest Reserve 

and Wildlife Management Area. These two, community owned and managed, reserve types are being 

developed in the open forest land between the existing reserves. There are a number of village land FRs 

in Rufiji and Kilwa Districts, with more being developed in these districts, but also in Lindi and further 

north between Dar es Salaam and the Kenya border. Wildlife Management Areas are also being 

developed in the area, with one already existing between the Kichi Hills Forest Reserve and the Selous 

Game Reserve in Rufiji District – and others being planned for further south in Kilwa district. 

In coastal districts, types of forests where central government, local government and Non-Government 

Organisations (NGOs) are putting more efforts in ensuring their management and sustainability were 

divided into different categories, including (i) the central government managed forest; (ii) district council 

managed forests; (iii) village land forest reserves (iv) forests on public/general land and (v) privately 

owned forests. Sizes of the respective forests based on the ownership as identified by the consulted 

district forest officers are given below. 

Table 10: Total Hectares of Reserves Based on the Type of the Forest Ownership in focal landscapes on 

the Tanzania Mainland and Zanzibar 

Type of Forest Based on the Ownership 

Total forest in ha in Coastal Districts 

Rufiji Kilwa Lindi Unguja Pemba 

Central government managed forest 125,346 201,900 45,828 21,557 20,080 

Forest on Public lands Ni 450,000 470,000 38,328 8000 

Local Authority Forests (District) 84,957 83,000 3,080 Ni 50 

Village 

Pemba) 

Forest Reserves (community woodlots for 

Ni = No information available 

18,807 126,000 5,132.63 Ni 5000


Figure 7: The existing network of protected areas and other reserves in coastal Tanzania



Matumbi and Kichi hills are located in Rufiji and Kilwa Districts south of the Rufiji River. These hills 

contain more than 26,000 ha of closed canopy coastal forest, grading into larger areas of coastal 

woodland and thicket habitats (Perkin et al. 2008a,b). The Kichi Hills lies to the west of the Matumbi hills 

but is connected by a forest belt that has partially been included in a Local Authority Forest Reserve 

which also falls within the Ngarambe/Tapika wildlife management area. 

Figure 8: PAs network in Matumbi-Kichi Hill Landscape (from Kashaigili et al. 2011) 

Three main features characterize the topography of the landscape. These are Coastal belt zone, the river 

basins and lowlands zone, and the highland zone. The Matumbi-Kichi Hills is within the highland zone 

which is characterized with coastal hills and highland areas (but not plateaus) rising between 150 - 580 

masl. 

Matumbi-Kichi Hills Landscape, as with the majority of other coastal region areas, experiences tropical 

East African oceanic climate with an average temperature of 28 o C. Climate varies slightly with altitude. 

The nearest rainfall station is at the Mohoro Dispensary (8°08´S, 39°11´E 20 m asl), where an average of 

1083 mm of rainfall per year was recorded for 27 years from 1939 to 1966, with June, July, August, 

September and October having a monthly average of less than 50 mm rainfall during this period. A peak 

annual rainfall of 1546 mm and a minimum annual rainfall of 533 mm have been recorded between 

1939 and 1966 from this rainfall station. There are two main seasons with average rainfall of about 800 

to 1000 mm per year which are the main rain season and short rain season. The main rain season lasts 

for roughly 120 days between March and June every year. The rains are usually heavy and spread 

throughout the region. This is also the main crop planting season for all crops, but especially so for the 

seasonal crops such as maize, paddy and cotton. The short rain season lasts for 60 days between


October and December each year. The rains are not evenly distributed and they are not very much 

reliable. They are most suitable for short term crops such as pulses. 

Table 11: Summary of GIS-generated Areas of Forests in Matumbi-Kichi Hills Landscape 

Forest name Area (ha) 

Area 

(ha) Status Source 

2010 2011 

Rupiange 1,884.56 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Rupiange 525.13 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Katundu 4,595.26 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Utete 1,495.96 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Tamburu 5,227.80 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Kitope 4,093.46 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Lungonya 5,862.46 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Mbinga 1,943.89 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Kiwengoma 3,588.86 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Mohoro 3,119.41 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Mangrove 18,797.02 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Kichi Hill 14,494.62 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Namakutwa 

TZA Protected Area 2010 

Nyamuete 4,684.92 - FR 

Selous 1,448.26 - GR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Tong'omba 3,005.74 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Ngarambe-Tapika 77,824.72 - WMA TZA Protected Area 2010 

Mohoro River 257.58 - FR TZA Protected Area 2010 

Nyambenga - 1,798.12 Proposed VLFR TFCG 

Marendengo - 790.59 Proposed VLFR TFCG 

Mpwakilwa - 912.80 Proposed VLFR TFCG 

Mkongoro - 515.46 Proposed VLFR TFCG 

Sanduku - 222.68 Proposed VLFR TFCG 

Nyambalawa - 1,631.26 Proposed VLFR TFCG 

Chumbi - 1,132.60 Proposed VLFR TFCG 

Minganje* - 453.95 Proposed VLFR TFCG 

Nyamwage - 127.67 VLFR TFCG 

Mchonga - 4.02 VLFR TFCG


Mchekela - 24.30 VLFR TFCG 

Mbwara - 2,274.88 VLFR TFCG 

Kilungulungu - 349.44 VLFR TFCG 

Kibambo - 33.93 VLFR TFCG 

Kianika - 232.83 VLFR TFCG 

Yelya - 1,293.38 VLFR TFCG 

Nambunju - 2,071.18 VLFR TFCG 

Tawi - 2,515.31 VLFR TFCG 

*This forest is located about 30km north of the boundary of the Matumbi-Kichi Hills Landscape 

Source: Kashaigili et al. 2011 

Within the Matumbi landscape tropical ferruginous sandy soils are common and support dry or semidry 

forests including areas of miombo and the Kichi Hills FR. Clayey vertisols (black cotton soil) occurs along 

river banks (Mwasumbi et al. 2000). A catenary sequence is found on the hill tops with a thin (3-4 cm) 

humus layer. On the hill sides, soils are coarser, shallower and better aerated with the depth of humus 

related to the level of human disturbance. Valley bottoms have deep loamy soils underlain by fine clays 

with high water retention ability. Soils do degenerate quickly once forests are cleared for agriculture 

reaching complete degradation in about 15 years. 

The main river that runs through the Matumbi landscape is the Rufiji River on the northern boundary of 

the landscape. Small rivers within the landscape include the Tamburu, Muhoro and Hanga Rivers which 

originate within the Matumbi Hills landscape. The Matumbi Hills is quite a dry landscape with 

settlements occurring in the valleys relying on numerous seasonal rivers, marsh lands and shallow wells 

for water supplies. Perennial pools are found in valleys and serve as important water sources for animals 

during the dry season. 

Village land forest reserves 

Some of the large areas of unprotected forest in the landscape have been included within Village Land 

Forest Reserves: Nambunju (1996 ha), Tawi (2775 ha) and Mbwara (600 ha) (Figure 8). Other areas 

proposed to be conserved as village land forest reserves include Masangasi, Muulah, Kiwambo and 

Kitemambagalo forests. 

Wildlife corridors 

A preliminary study by Perkin et al. (2008a) identified a number of potential corridors in this landscape. 

The corridors include: 

Kichi Hill–Selous GR. Animals pass to and from Selous Game Reserve to Kichi Hill FR through 

coastal forests outside the Kichi especially on the Western and Southern part of the hill. 

Kiwengoma FR–Tong’omba FR. This corridor also harbours Kainika and KilungulunguVillage Land 

Forest Reserve( VLFRs) which in essence serve as stopovers for animals in search of water and 

food. 

Namakutwa/Nyamwete–Tamburu–Kitope FR. 

Namakutwa/Nyamwete–Nambunju–Kiwengoma FR. 

Ruhoi–Ngumburuni–Rufiji Mangroves


A broad consultation with stakeholders from this landscape in 2011 (Kashaigili et al. 2011) identified and 

mapped the remaining corridors, which are: 

Selous Game Reserve (GR)–Tapika–Kichi–Katundu FR–Rufiji River 

Tawi–Kiwengoma–Namakutwa FR–Tamburu–Kiwanga and then cross the main tarmac road. 

Tawi–Kitope–Somanga–Simu (Sanduku FR). This corridor is followed during the breeding season. 

A modelling approach was also used to define potential corridors (Figure 10); some of these confirm 

those identified by stakeholders, notably between Rupiange FR and Kichi Hill FR and Namakutwa- 

Nyamwete FR and Mohoro FR and Tamburu FR (Figure 9). However, a simulated corridor between 

Kingoma FR and Mangroves passes through settlements because that is the least cost route between 

the two patches. This is an example of where the model produces a corridor which cannot work in the 

real world. 

Figure 9: Remote sensing image showing vegetation and location of reserves and villages 

in Matumbi-Kichi Hills landscape (from Perkin et al. 2008a)


Figure 10: Map of Matumbi–Kichi Hills -simulated corridors (from Kashaigili et al. 2011) 


Kilwa landscape is found in Kilwa district in Lindi Region, South East of the Tanzanian coastal zone. It lies 

on latitude 8 0 20’S to 9 0 56’S and longitude 38 0 36’ E to 39 0 50’ East. The landscape is dominated by two 

elongated plateaus running parallel to the coast some 40 km and 60 km inland between the Matumbi 

Hills to the North and the wide Mbemkuru valley to the South. The Western (inland) of these is known


as the Mbarawala Plateau while the Ruwawa Plateau is located towards the coast. Both plateau systems 

are interrupted at their northern end by the Mavuji River, giving rise to the spectacular and little known 

forested Rudadonga gorge with sheer 100 m sides of ancient coral-rag limestone. Coastal Forest is 

mainly found on these plateaus but is also present along a large length of the Mavuji River. 

The Ruwawa (including Ngarama N & S and Mitundumbea FRs) and Mbarawala (including Pindiro FR) 

plateaus contain the bulk of the Coastal Forests. On the westerly landscape boundary is Rungo FR and 

the east is delineated by Ngarama North FR and Ngararma South FR, Mitundumbea FR and Uchungwa or 

Namatimbili/Namateule - a large area of ungazetted forest. To the east of the plateaus on the coastal 

plain there are areas of coastal thicket and dry forest as well as woodlands. Miombo woodland is 

present outside of forest areas in all the reserves. These are important sources of the commercial timber 

trees Pterocarpus angolensis and African Blackwood (Dalbergia melanoxylon). On the North east of the 

landscape is the Mitarure FR which used to be very rich in African Blackwood until in 1980s, when it was 

heavily extracted. 

The altitude of the landscape ranges from 15m to 480m. The highest points being Ngarama North Forest 

Reserve in the North and Pindiro Forest Reserve in the south. Mitundumbea is the highest point in the 

North along the Mbarawala Plateau. In the west the landscape goes down to plain land at approximately 

120m while in the east the land drops to 15m and becomes plain towards the coast. 

Kilwa District has a coastal climate which is hot and humid with the average temperature range between 

22 0 C to 30 0 C. Humidity is high, nearly 98-100% during the long rains. The landscape receives a total 

rainfall of 800-1400 mm/year and its distribution varies according to locality. The land North of Kilwa 

Masoko receives 1000-1400 mm, while that to the south receives less, about 800-1400 mm/year. The 

period of rainfall coincide with the onset of each monsoon; the long rains, from about mid March to 

May, and the short rains from about late October to December. 

Kilwa landscape is dominated with deep sandy soils collected from terrestrial sands, calcretes, laterites 

and gravels believed to be of Miocene and Pleistocene ages. The escarpments are generally composed 

of old coral rag, sandy loam and clay soils (Perkin et al. 2008b)). 

The two plateaus Mbarawala and Ruwawa are the main sources of rivers that flow in the landscape. 

Eastern and Southern sides of Ngarama are being drained by Kihimbwi and Mbwemkuru rivers 

respectively while Mavuji River flows to the northern end of the landscape. There are a few numbers of 

seasonal rivers and wetlands that form small habitats for hippos like Pindiro pool. Matandu River, in 

addition to Mavuji River, drains the northern part of this landscape. In the south the landscape is being 

drained by Pindiro River a tributary of the Mbwemkuru that flows between the two plateaus. 

The two plateaus receive the highest rainfall in the landscape, and most drains rapidly into the sandy 

soils and into the underlying limestone, where rivers and small lakes in the valleys are formed. This 

results in agricultural being practiced in the valleys and at the plateaus’ bases which is one of the 

reasons for the relatively better conserved plateaus’ top forests.


Table 12: Summary of Forest Reserves and Village Land Forest Reserves in Kilwa Landscape in 2008 

Forest Reserves Area (ha) Status Altitudinal 

range (m) 

Vegetation types 

Uchungwa(also 

known as 

Namateule or 

Namatimbili) 

Approx 

10,000 

Not Gazetted but parts 

of this signed over to 

BioShape 

150 – 404 Dry coastal forest (coral rag type and 

non-coral rag type), woodland, riverine 

forest. 

Mitarure 60,484 Central Government FR 92-154 Woodland, wooded grassland, coastal 

thicket 

Mitundumbea 8,547 Central Government FR 100 - 500 Dry coastal forest, coastal thicket, 

woodland, riverine forest 

Rungo 22,586 Central Government FR 120 – 220 Woodland, wooded grassland, coastal 

thicket 

Ngarama North 32,628 Central Government FR 120 - 480 Dry coastal forest 

Ngarama South 2,018 Central Government FR 50 - 170 Dry coastal forest 

Pindiro 11,795 Central Government FR 80- 480 Dry coastal forest, coastal thicket, 

woodland, riverine forest and ground 

water forest 

Kikole 1,200 VLFR Brachystegia woodland with many 

mpingo to the North of the Matandu 

River 

Kisangi 

Kimbarambara 

SOURCE: Perkin et al. 2008b. 

2,000 VLFR Closed Brachystegia woodland to the 

South of the Matandu River 

Table 13: Summary of new Village Land Forest Reserves within the Kilwa landscape (Kashaigili et al. 

2011) 

Forest name Area (ha) Area (ha) Status Source 

2010 2011 

Lupyagile - 1,426.71 VLFR WWF 

Liwiti - 4,376.82 VLFR WWF 

Mrambani - 9,572.93 LAFR WWF 

Likawage - 5,765.51 VLFR WWF 

Long'ou - 19,286.03 VLFR WWF 

Nambondo - 2,547.77 Proposed VLFR Mpingo 

Mtandi - 1,063.50 Proposed VLFR Mpingo 

Kiranjeranje - 604.77 Proposed VLFR Mpingo 

Milumba - 1,729.76 Proposed VLFR Mpingo 

Mbarawala - 35,000 Proposed LAFR Mpingo


Likawage WMA - 6,664.42 Proposed WMA WWF 

Nakiu WMA - 876.27 Proposed WMA WWF 

Figure 11: Network of PAs in Kilwa landscape(from Kashaigili et al. 2011) 

Ritual areas 

Mihima village forest reserve has a special area for rituals called Kwanamweve where local communities 

pray for rain and other blessings. Another ritual area called Paligongolelo is located in Liganga VLFR. In 

Mtene VLFR there is a special area called Nandele, which is reported to be a ritual site charged with


ghosts. If people want to harvest forest products in it, they use the area for rituals so that in the course 

of harvesting and finally as they leave the forest no harm happens to them. 

Open lands to be protected 

Available remote sensing images from 2000 and 2007 (Prins and Clarke 2006; Godoy et al. 2011) show 

that large areas of coastal forest habitat in southern Tanzania fall outside the Forest Reserve or 

protected area network. Particularly large and potentially important unreserved forest patches are 

found on the Uchungwa plateau to the north of Mitundumbea FR, and on the Mbwalawala plateau 

north of Pindiro FR. Various proposals have been made for the protection of these forests. 

WMA 

Local communities in various villages have proposed some current forests to be upgraded to Wildlife 

Management Areas. The forests of Kiwawa, Liwiti, Likawage, Nakiu, Makangaga, Hoteli Tatu, Mandawa 

(Figure 10) were proposed to be WMAs as they are rich in terms of wildlife populations but also good 

habitats for different species. Nanjirinji A & B is proposed to be split between VLFRs in the forested 

areas and WMAs for the wooded grassland areas with wildlife movements. 

Changing existing and proposed Protected Areas (PAs) into WMAs may result into some costs. The costs 

may include lack of access to timber and building poles as these activities are not allowed in WMAs. In 

addition, increased wildlife-human conflicts are likely to happen if the wildlife populations in the 

proposed WMAs will increase. Specifically, crops being raided by wild animals, livestock being eaten by 

wild predators and threat to human life are top on the list of such likely conflicts. 

On the other hand, there are benefits that could be accrued from the shift. The benefits are increased 

security for wildlife as in WMAs animals are better protected and managed if the resources needed for 

management are made available, and tourist hunting through which villages will benefit from revenue 

that will be collected. The ownership of the resources by the villages will, at some levels, reduce 

poaching as it is expected there will be collective protection effort by the villages or communities where 

the WMAs are. 

However, the majority of the proposed PAs are neither surveyed nor inventoried, aspects that are 

important for designating their protection status. Accordingly, changing protection status of any PA 

should be done subject to supporting evidence. Secondly, the proposal should fit within the existing 

National Policies and Legislations. For example, according to Reference Manual for Implementing 

Guidelines for the Designation and Management of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) in Tanzania 

(2003) stipulates that: 

Wildlife management areas may be established in the following areas: 

Areas that are outside of core wildlife protected areas 

Areas used by local communities 

Areas within the village land 

And also no area shall be designed as a WMA unless it meets the following criteria 

It has significant accessible resources 

It is ecologically viable or forms part of an ecologically viable ecosystem. 

It belongs to one or more villages in accordance to the relevant provisions of the legislation 

governing village land, and other legislation relating to occupation and use of village land.



Due to its large size and different bands of vegetation progressing from inland to coast and richness in 

different wildlife species Kilwa landscape, has a number of wildlife corridors (Figure 12) which animals 

use while in search for food, water, refuge and or for reproduction purposes. During this study, the 

following corridors were identified: 

Matapwa FR-Pindiro FR–Ngarama North FR–Kiwawa proposed VLFR–Mitundumbea FR– 

Uchungwa open areas/Namateule Plateau–Selous GR. 

Likawage proposed VLFR–Liwiti VLFR–Uchungwa open areas /Namateule Plateau. 

Uchungwa open areas /Namateule Plateua to the shores of Indian Ocean along the small delta of 

Mavuji river. 

Namateule FR–(through Bioshape jatropha farm)–Mbarawala proposed Local Authority Forest 

Reserve (LAFR) –Mbarawala Plateau. 

 

Kisangi VLFR–Kikole VLFR –Ruhatwe VLFR–Matandu village–Mtu kwao village–shores of 

Indian Ocean. 

Ngarama North FR–Hotel tatu–Namakongoro–shores of Indian Ocean. 

Selous Game Reserve –Mitarure FR- through Bioshape jatropha farm-Namateule- Mavuji - shores 

of Indian Ocean. 

The potential establishment of larger areas of Jatropha plantation in this landscape blocks an important 

elephant corridor which stretches from Matapwa FR to Selous GR. Also a corridor from Selous GR- 

Namateule- Mavuji- to shores of Indian Ocean could be blocked. 

A previous study by Perkin et al. (2008b) also revealed the following potential corridors: 

A corridor to the North West linking Uchungwa open areas with Mitaure FR. 

A corridor linking Pindiro FR and Ngarama north FR. 

A potential corridor linking Pindiro North along the Mbarawala plateau North to Uchungwa open 

forests. 

There is considerable overlap between these past corridors and the modelled ones presented in Figure 

12. For example Uchungwa areas, ,Mitarure , ,Pindiro and Ngarama north FR corridors are part of the 

reported Matapwa FR-Pindiro FR–Ngarama North FR–Kiwawa VLFR–Mitundumbea FR–Uchungwa 

FR/Namateule Plateau–Selous GR corridor. Similarly, Pindiro North along the Mbarawala plateau North 

to Uchungwa forest corridor is part of the Namateule FR–(through Bioshape jatropha farm)–Mbarawala 

proposed LAFR–Mbarawala Plateau corridor. 

The simulated corridors (Figure 12) diverge from settlements despite the shorter distance between PAs 

if it could pass through them. This is because the Corridor Designer software considers among other 

factors, the suitability of the corridor.


Figure 12: Map of Kilwa Landscape and simulated wildlife corridors


Figure 13: Forest areas on the Mbwalawala and Uchungwa Plateaux in Kilwa district, also showing 

the location of the bioshape biofuel plantation areas (Perkin et al. 2008c – using data provided by 

Sokoine University and Conservation International) 


The landscape includes a narrow coastal plain, rising in a series of sandstone ridges that run more or less 

parallel to the coast. The lowland areas have deep, leached sandy soils derived from terrestrial sands, 

gravels, calcretes and laterites of Miocene to Pleistocene age (Perkin et al. 2008c). 

The Rondo, Noto, Chitoa, Mputwa and Likonde plateaus are composed of soft friable Miocene sands and 

the smooth tops of these plateaus appear to be remnants of an ancient rolling Miocene surface that is 

being eroded away through a process of retreating scarp erosion (Burgess and Clarke 2000). Small 

patches of forest are located on and around these plateaus, as well as near the coast. 

The altitude of the landscape ranges from 0 m-asl at the coast to 900 m-asl on the western side of the 

Rondo plateau. The Noto Plateau extends up to 534 m and the Chitoa plateau extends up to 260 m. 

Table 14: Summary of forest reserves in the Rondo Landscape 

Forest 

Reserves 

Area Status Altitude 

(m) 

Vegetation types 

Reference 

Chitoa 770* CGFR 240-420 Dry evergreen forest, riverine Clarke (1995),


forest, dry semi-deciduous 

forest, scrub, woodland / 

fallow. 

Burgess & 

Clarke (2000) 

Litipo 1000 CGFR 180-280 Dry evergreen forest, riverine 


forest, scrub, woodland 

Dimba 2687 CGFR 75 - 150 Dry forest, thicket and 

plantation. 

Rondo 14060 CGFR 465 - 885 Dry evergreen forest, riverine 


forest, scrub, & woodland 

Ruawa 2949 CGFR 150-460 Dry evergreen forest, riverine 


forest, scrub, woodland/fallow, 

groundwater pandanus 

Makangala 1271 LGFR 200-280 

approx 

Miombo woodland , dry semideciduous 

forest, evergreen 

thicket 

Mtama 1027 LGFR Mainly woodland with trial 

plots of Pinus carribea and P. 

insularis. 

Nyangamara 1120.2 LGFR Dry semidecidous forest and 

woodland 

Mtama 1040 LGFR Miombo woodland 

Matapwa 16493 CGFR Mialy woodland, dry deciduous 

forest ,riverine forest 

Nandimba 1250 CGFR Said to be dry semi-deciduous 

forest, the forest is in Ruangwa 

district. 

Noto 12000** No status 250-497 Dry evergreen forest, riverine 


forest, scrub, & woodland 

Nndawa 646 VLFR Approx. 

450 -600 

Said to be mainly miombo 

woodland, dry semideciduos 

Clarke (1995), 


Clarke (2000) 



Clarke (2000) 



Clarke (2000) 



Clarke (2000) 

Clarke (1995) 

Clarke (1995) 

Lindi DFO 

Lindi DFO 

Lindi DFO 

Clarke and 

Prins (2006), 

Lindi DFO 

Njau 93 VLFR Said to be miombo woodland Lindi DFO 

Lwii 949 VLFR Mainly dry deciduous miombo 

woodland 

Namangale 221 VLFR Dry deciduous miombo 

woodland 

Mihima VLFR approx. 

450-600 

Parinari and Brachystegia 

woodland, dry semi-deciduous 

forest, evergreen thicket 

Lindi DFO 

Lindi DFO


Nndawa 646 VLFR Mainly woodland with forest 

patches. 

Mnamba 93 VLFR Said to be mainly woodland 

with forest patches. 

Namupa 109 VLFR Said to be mainly woodland 

with forest patches 

DFO Lindi 

DFO Lindi 

DFO Lindi 

Source Perkin et al. (2008c) 

Other Village Land Forest Reserves not include Liganga and Mtene which like many VLFRs, are not 

surveyed and inventoried and therefore, there is no realistic data on them. 

Table 15: Summary of new Village Land Forest Reserves within Lindi landscape (Kashaigili et al. 2011) 

Forest name Area (ha) Area (ha) Status Source 

2010 2011 

Ruaha - 118.76 VLFR WWF 

REDD Project - 11672.03 VLFR TFCG 

Njau - 94.94 VLFR WWF 

Nandambi - 3635.41 VLFR WWF 

Nambidi - 144.07 VLFR WWF 

Namangale - 215.31 VLFR WWF 

Milolo -REDD - 1210.91 VLFR TFCG 

Mihima - 3211.14 VLFR WWF 

Lwii - 998.65 VLFR WWF 

Ntene A - 5273.64 VLFR WWF 

Liganga - 3457.62 VLFR WWF 

Source: Kashaigili et al. 2011


Figure 14: Protected Areas in the Lindi Landscape(from Kashaigili et al. 2011) 

This landscape is characterised by deep, leached sandy soils derived from terrestrial sands, gravels, 

calcretes and laterites of Miocene to Pleistocene age. There is severe erosion where trees had been 

cleared on the forest boundaries. 

Most of the major rivers supplying water to Lindi District originate at the base of the Rondo, Noto or 

Chitoa plateaus. As such these areas are important water catchments. Rivers flowing from the eastern


side of the Rondo Plateau include the Nyengedi river which then flows into the Lukuledi River and the 

Nali and Mirole streams which contribute to the irrigation schemes around Lutamba. At the southern 

base of the Chitoa plateau there are two lakes, Lake Lutamba and Lake Nampawara which support 

small-scale fishing activities in the communities living at Lutamba, Milola and Nampawara. From Lake 

Lutamba flows the Ngahava River. The valley between the Noto and Chitoa plateaus is the source of the 

Mahuiui River which provides water to Lindi Town. Several rivers flowing towards Ruangwa have their 

sources at the western base of the Rondo Plateau. 

The largest forest in the landscape is Rondo forest is located at 10°04’S - 10°14’S and 39°08’E - 39°15’E in 

Lindi district, Lindi region. Rondo forest reserves comprise an area of 14,060 ha of both plantation and 

natural forests. The forest is located on part of the Rondo (Mwera) plateau at around 870 m asl (to a 

maximum of 885 m asl). The Rondo Forest Reserve receives a single rainy season (November-May), with 

an average annual rainfall of 1088 mm (1951-1979) recorded at the Rondo Forest station. Temperatures 

vary between 11°C and 32°C with the coolest period between June and August (Annual Report of the 

Forest Department, 1952).Part of the forest is found on the escarpment edge from 465 m asl in the 

Mchindiji, Mtandi and Nanyolyo valleys. The reserve is about 4 km from Ntene Rondo village, itself 

approximately 60 km west of Lindi. The Rondo Forest Reserves are found along the eastern facing ridges 

or on slightly raised ground east of the ridges. Further inland there are a number of deeply fissured 

plateau and on these are the better stands of remaining forest. The forest is also found along some of 

the river valleys that drop from these plateaus. 


Four animal movement corridors have been identified. First, is the elephant corridor which connects 

Matapwa Forest Reserve in the North and Ndawa forest area in the South. This corridor goes through 

Namunda, Mputwa, Nahoro, Mtere village areas and Rondo Forest Reserve (Figure 14). Elephants start 

their journey at the Mbwemkuru River between September and October and move southwards to 

Ndawa FR. However, once they are within this southern area the animals may remain in the region of 

Rondo FR up to three months before they start their way back to Matapwa FR in the North in January to 

February. 

Another corridor connects Matapwa Forest Reserve to Kilangala forest area through Namikongo area 

and Dimba Forest Reserve (Figure 14). This is also used mainly by elephants during the crop growing 

season. Buffalo’ movement corridors are also present but these are shorter and the buffaloes tend to 

co-use corridors used by elephants. The Buffaloes’ corridors include those between Nambambi and 

Noto Plateau and Tandangoro and Noto Plateau (Figure 15). Another route which was identified is the 

one believed to be shared between buffaloes and elands. This connects Mandawa and Mihima through 

grassland areas on the west side of Rondo FR. 

It should be noted, however, that among the animals mentioned only elephants appear to have 

permanent routes unlike others that change routes from time to time. Moreover, unlike simulated 

corridors that generate routes away from villages, some of the identified animals routes, which are 

historical in nature, pass close to or even through villages (Figure 15) causing human-wildlife conflicts. 

For example, the identified animal corridor between Matapwa FR and Dimba FR passes through 

settlements, which have low habitat suitability according to calculations by the Corridor Designer. This 

corridor has been associated with crop raiding. It is likely that the corridor existed before the 

establishment of villages which did not consider animal corridors.


Figure 15: Map of Lindi Landscape- simulated corridors (from Kashaigili et al. 2011) 


The Zanzibar landscape consists of two main islands, the northern island of Pemba and the southern 

island of Unguja. These islands lie between 4°50’ - 6°30’ south latitude and 39°10’ - 39°90’ east 

longitude.


All regions of Unguja and Pemba, and in particular the remaining patches of coral thicket forests, are 

severely threatened by a very high human population density (400 individuals/km 2 ), which is increasing 

at an estimated rate of five percent per year (three percent intrinsic and two percent immigration). The 

vast majority of Zanzibar’s human population is dependent upon shifting cultivation and forest products, 

such as building poles, firewood, and charcoal. Due to the high price of electricity, even Zanzibar’s 

urban population is heavily reliant on firewood and charcoal for cooking. Wood cutting to supply this 

demand continues to be a major threat to Zanzibar’s wildlife. Zanzibar is currently losing an estimated 

1.2 percent of its forest each year. Thus, in order to conserve Zanzibar remaining wildlife and ensure the 

genetic viability of these species into the future, all of the remaining forests patches important to 

wildlife must be identified, protected and linked by functional corridors in a comprehensive Protected 

Areas (PA) network of community and government forests. 

3.9.1 Unguja Island 

Unguja island, the largest in the Zanzibar archipelago, is located on the continental shelf and is 

separated from mainland Tanzania by approximately 40 km by the Zanzibar channel. Unguja island is a 

small island of approximately 1650 km 2 and is largely old coral reef and sand bar. The island has been 

separated from the mainland for approximately 10,00-15,000 years due to a rise in sea level. 

The western portion of Unguja Island receives more rain, and is more fertile containing soils derived 

from limestone or non-calcareous sediment. Historically, this portion of the island is presumed to have 

supported tropical high forest. Large scale deforestation in this region began during the early 19 th 

century with the arrival of the Omani Arabs who replaced the original forest with coconut and clove 

plantations and food crops. The eastern half of the island is much drier and consists of old coral rock 

sparsely covered with variously sized pockets of red-brown sandy soil. These conditions would have 

given rise to deciduous woodland and dry evergreen bush. Today, this area, the eastern half of the 

island, still supports dry evergreen bush (or coral-thicket forest) which is where most of Unguja’s 

remaining wildlife is found. 

On Unguja the remaining best habitat for Zanzibar’s unique wildlife and those which must be included in 

the development of the PA network include: Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park (JCBNP), Kiwengwa 

Pongwe Forest Reserve (KPFR) (Figure 16), the High Protection and Low Impact Use zones of the 

community forests surrounding JCBNP (17 Communities) and KPFR (10 communities), and the Proposed 

Muyuni-Jambiani Forest Reserve (Figure 17). These forests are all still relatively well linked by a series of 

5 corridors (Figure 15,16). These habitat corridors are mainly on community lands, overlap the 

Proposed Muyuni-Jambiani Forest Reserve, and are all actively used by wildlife (as determined by 

reconnaissance surveys and camera trapping). However, many of these connections might be lost in 

coming years due to agriculture expansion and cutting for building poles, firewood and charcoal 

production. Hence corridor conservation is an urgent priority at present (Siex et al. 2011).


Figure 16: Zanzibar Landscape: Unguja Island, land use map (from Siex et al. 2011)


Figure 17: Location of the proposed Muyuni-Jambiani reserve (from Siex et al. 2011)


3.9.2 Pemba Island 

Pemba Island, 1014km 2 , lies approximately 50 km from the mainland and is surrounded by 

comparatively deep water with strong currents. Unlike Unguja, Pemba has been separated from the 

mainland since the end of Miocene about 10 million years ago. Also unlike the relatively flat terrain of 

Unguja Island, Pemba has an undulating landscape with valleys, some of which are quite steep, and dry 

river beds. The only high forest remaining on Pemba is in the extreme North, the rest of the island is 

covered by a mosaic of agriculture, grassland, bushland, or forest in various stages of growth or 

regeneration from cultivation. 

On Pemba, the areas of the greatest importance for wildlife and those to be included in the PA network 

include: the three government PAs of Ngezi-Vumawimbi Nature Reserve, Msitu Mkuu Forest Reserve 

and Ras Kiuyu Proposed Forest Reserve, and the High Protection and Low Impact Use zones of the 13 

community forests (Figure 17). There are also a number of additional forest patches which need to be 

further studied to determine their importance to wildlife. These include: Kwa Konondo, Ngulu, 

Makuwe-gando, Kangagani, and Kideke; and the community managed forest patches of Fundo, 

Matambwe, Mgelema, and Mbiji/Changaweni (Figure 18). Unlike on Unguja, most of these important 

areas are spread out across the island and are not well connected; none of the 3 government PAs are 

connected by wildlife corridors. There was reported to be a corridor between Msitu Mkuu and 

Kangagani but recent exploration has shown that no longer to exist. There is still a corridor between 

Ngezi and Makuwe but this corridor is mainly via mangrove forest rather than terrestrial forest which 

will limit the usefulness of the corridor to a select number of species. There may also be a corridor 

linking Kangagani and Makaani which is currently being explored.


Figure 18: Zanzibar Landscape: Pemba Island (Siex et al. 2011)



The protected area estate for the coastal forests covers many of the remaining patches of natural forest 

and woodland habitat. The status of some of the reserves is not totally clear, however, and there seems 

to be moderate levels of confusion on which of the reserves exist on the ground, and who is tasked to 

manage them. The project is working to clarify this situation and produce a definitive list of reserves in 

the coastal districts, in particular in the focal landscapes in southern Tanzania. In Rufiji, Kilwa and Lindi 

districts there is also considerable scope for the gazettement of additional forest patches as various 

kinds of reserve, ranging from community-based to central government. Emphasis will be on 

community based approaches, through Village Land Forest Reserves and Wildlife Management Areas. 

These approaches will be promoted and developed during the period of the ongoing GEF support to the 

coastal forests.

MANAGEMENT ISSUES: TANZANIA’S COASTAL FORESTS 2011 

4 Management Issues 

4.1 Overview 

Past management (since colonial time) of Forest Reserves was not always biodiversity friendly (e.g. 

planting the core of perhaps the richest patch of Coastal Forest, Rondo Plateau FR, with exotic pine in 

1952). In 1977 Forest Reserves with no national catchment or timber values (i.e. most of the Coastal 

Forest patches) were passed to districts for their management as part of Tanzania’s decentralisation 

process, with fewer staff, less funds and little conservation interest or capacity. Districts manage both 

the timber-rich woodlands around the biodiversity rich forests and the forest patches. This has now 

changed especially in the 1990s after the Rio summit. 

4.2 Policy and Legislative Context for the Management of Biodiversity 

Environmental management in Tanzania is complex, multi-sectoral and cross sectoral; it requires a 

holistic approach and multi-level operation. There is a strong policy framework for environmental 

management and for biodiversity conservation in Tanzania. Environmental concerns are embedded in 

the constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, where article 27 (1) states that, “Every person has 

the duty to protect the natural resources of the United Republic of Tanzania, the property of the state 

authority, all property collectively owned by the people, and also to respect another person’ property”. 

The 2025 country’s vision overall goal specifically includes; ‘sustainable development endeavours, on 

intergeneration equity basis, such that the present generation derives benefits from the rational use of 

natural resources of the country without compromising the needs of future generations’. 

The environmental related laws of mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar differ and are separated here: 

4.2.1 Zanzibar 

On Zanzibar there are two relevant laws that relate to the implementation of this project: The 

Environmental Management for Sustainable Development Act, 1996, Part 1 to the Zanzibar Government 

Gazette Vol CVI No 5743 of 31 st May 1997, and the Forest Resources Management and Conservation Act 

No 10 of 1996, Part 1 to Zanzibar Government Gazette Vol. No. 5769 of 6 th December 1997. These laws 

provide the basis for developing a network of protected areas, and in recent years there have been 

important additions to the protected area network of Zanzibar, including the Jozani National Park (2004) 

on Unguja. 

The mandate of the Department of Forestry and Non Renewable Natural Resources (Formally 

Department of Commercial crops, fruits and forests,) is stated in the National Forest Policy of 1995 and 

partly in the Agricultural sector policy. The department is instructed to ‘Protect, conserve and develop 

forest resources as well as to promote sustainable development of the agricultural sector for the social, 

economic and environmental benefit of present and future generations of the people of Zanzibar’. 

The Department of the Environment is governed by the Environmental Policy of 1992, which is currently 

under review. The aim of the policy is stated as to ensure that the economic development is 

accompanied by proper environmental management, so that Zanzibar’s natural heritage is passed on 

undiminished to future generations.


The National Protected Areas Board (NPA Board) has been established as a consultative authority to 

provide policy guidance in the designation, management and coordination of protected areas system in 

Zanzibar. The Board draws members from various disciplines, including environment, forestry, fisheries, 

local government, finance, women groups, tourism and trade as well as a number of prominent Zanzibar 

scientists. In undertaking its duties, the newly constituted Board is seriously constrained by the lack of 

appropriate expertise, facilities and equipment within Zanzibar. The Board itself has inadequate 

experience, and few linkages with other regional and international networks. This board is now being 

reactivated through the support of the ongoing GEF coastal forests project for Tanzania 

4.2.2 Mainland Tanzania 

On mainland Tanzania the Tanzanian National Environmental Action Plan (United Republic of Tanzania 

1994) identified six major environmental problems: land degradation; lack of accessible, good quality 

water for both urban and rural inhabitants; pollution; loss of wildlife habitats; deterioration of marine 

and freshwater systems; and deforestation. The National Environment Policy (1997), as an umbrella 

instrument, defines in broad terms the sectoral obligations and requirements for biodiversity 

conservation. This policy aims “to achieve sustainable development that maximizes the long-term 

welfare of both present and future generations of Tanzanians”. 

In response to environmental problems, Tanzania has made considerable progress in achieving 

sustainable environmental management through putting in place Environmental Management Act No. 

20 of 2004 (EMA 2004) and the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP 2005) in 

which environmental issues have been mainstreamed. In addition, the National Environmental Action 

Plan 2006 (NEAP), Local Government Reforms Programme, National Development Vision 2025 and 

sector specific policies, legislations, programmes and strategies do all reflect important environmental 

management issues. 

The government of Tanzania, being a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 

Convention since 1992, developed a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) in 2001 as 

an obligation to the country as Contracting Party. The NBSAP is guided by the overall vision which is to 

build a society that values all the biodiversity richness using it sustainably and equitably while taking the 

responsibility for actions that meet both the competing requirements of the present and the legitimate 

claims of the future generations 

The Government of Tanzania is also committed to related conventions such as Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 

(UNCCD) and the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) for the conservation and sustainable 

utilization of biological diversity. 

The Forest Policy of Tanzania (1998) establishes a framework for the conservation of biological diversity 

through participatory forest management, decentralization and privatization and recognizes the roles of 

local communities and the private sector in managing forest resources. Implementation of the Forest 

Policy is through the National Forest Act (2002) and the National Forest Programme of the Ministry of 

Natural Resources and Tourism (2001). 

The National Forest Programme was launched in 2001 and aims to reduce poverty through increasing 

employment in forest based industries by 25% by 2010 and increasing the income generated from forest 

resources and services that is retained by local communities by 20% by 2010. The Tanzania Forest 

Conservation and Management Programme (TFCMP) have been financing implementation of the 

National Forest Programme and the institutional strengthening of national forestry sector agencies and


institutions. Implementation is being carried out through partnerships involving local government, 

communities, civil society and the private sector. 

In line with the Forest Policy, the Forest Act and the Village Land Act (1999), the Ministry of Natural 

Resources and Tourism issued Guidelines for Community-Based Forest Management in 2001 to provide 

practical guidance to staff and district and village authorities for implementation. The Guidelines make 

clear that the target population for community-based forest management is the local population living 

adjacent to, or within, the forests. The establishment of joint management committees (village and subvillage 

level) and joint management agreements are promoted. 

A Participatory Forest Management approach allows villages to collaborate in managing forest 

resources. It is assumed that if local communities are granted appropriate user rights and security of 

tenure as incentives for sustainable forest management, they are likely to participate actively and 

effectively in the conservation and management of their forest resources. There are a number of 

challenges to this and the impact of the PFM approach has been less than hoped, although communitybased 

forest management where the communities take full resposibilty seems to have been more 

successful than ‘joint forest management’ where the communities and forest authorities work together 

to make a designated government reserve. 

Table 16: Summary of sector ministries with policies and Legal Acts supporting Coastal Forests 

Ministry/department Policies Legal Acts 

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism 

with: 

a. Forestry and Beekeeping Division National Forest Policy (1998) Forest Act No. 14 of 2002 

b. Beekeeping Division National Beekeeping Policy (1998) The Beekeeping Act No.15 of 2002. 

The Wildlife Conservation Act, 1974 

c. Wildlife Division National Wildlife Policy (2007) 

d. Tourism Division National Tourism Policy (1999) 

Wildlife Conservation (Wildlife 

Management Areas) Regulations 

2002. 

Guidelines for Coastal Tourism 

Development in Tanzania 2003 

e. Fishery Division 

National Fisheries Sector Policy and 

Strategy Statements (1997) 

Fisheries Act No/ 22 of 2003 

Land Act No. 4 of 1999 

Ministry of Lands and Settlement National Land Policy (1997) 

Village Land Act No. 5 of 1999 

The Land Dispute Courts Act No. 2 

of 2002. 

Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and 

Cooperation 

Agriculture and Livestock Policy 

(1997) 

Veterinary Act 2003 and Animal 

Diseases Act 2003. 

Ministry of Water and Irrigation National Water Policy. (2002) 

Ministry of Energy and Minerals 

National Energy Policy (2003) 

National Mineral Policy (1997) 

Ministry of Community Development, Women and Gender Development The Community Service Act No. 6 of


Ministry/department Policies Legal Acts 

Gender and Children Policy (2000) 2002 and Community Service 

Regulation No. 87 of 2004 

National Strategy for Gender 

Development (2005) 

Rural Development Policy (2003) 

Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher 

Education 

Vice President’s Office 

National Science and Technology 

Policy (1996) 

The National Policy on NGOs (2001) 

National Environmental Policy (1997) 

Integrated Coastal Environment 

Management Strategy (2003) 

The Environment Management Act 

No. 3 of 2004. 

Ministry of Livestock Development & Fisheries Livestock Policy (2006) 

Ministry of Industry and Trade 

National Trade Policy (2003) 

Small and Medium Enterprise 

Development Policy (2003) 

Employment Promotion Services. 

Act No. 9 of 1999 

Ministry of Works Construction Industry Policy (2003) 

Ministry of Communications and Transport 

National Information and 

Communications Technologies Policy 

(2003) 

Public Roads Act No. 12 of 2002 

4.3 Participatory Forest / Natural Resources Management 

There are two types of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) in Tanzania – Joint Forest Management 

and Community Based Forest Management. 

4.3.1 Joint Forest Management 

Joint Forest Management (JFM) is where local people and FBD or District Councils have formed an 

agreement over the management of a particular Forest Reserve, or a part of it. The roles and 

responsibilities of the community and the government authorities should be clear and there is some 

evidence from the coastal forests (and other forest types in Tanzania) that the condition of the forest 

within Forest Reserves underJoint Forest Management (JFM) agreements is better than in reserves 

where there is no community involvement (Blomley et al. 2008). Within the relevant regions of 

Tanzania well over 100 villages are involved with JFM, covering at least 200,000 ha of reserved land.


Table 17: Status of Joint Forest management in the Coastal Forest Regions in Tanzania (data from PFM 

survey of 2009 by the Forestry and Beekeeping Division) 

Region 

Districts 

Counted 

Number 

of NFRs 

Number 

of 

LAFRs 

Protection 

Forests 

Production 

Forests 

Number 

of 

Villages 

JMAs 

signed 

or 

pending 

signing 

Total Area 

(ha) 

Tanga* 7 47 11 49 42 130 37 43,483.9 

Lindi 4 5 2 4 5 43 0 119,237.3 

Pwani 

(Coast) 

8 10 2 5 5 72 0 115,612.0 

Mtwara 1 2 0 2 0 15 0 9,052.0 

NFR = National Forest Reserve; LAFR = Local Area Forest Reserve; JMA = Joint Management Agreement; 

JFM = Joint Forest Management 

* only one of these Districts is relevant to the coastal forests area, and even in that District (Muheza) the 

JFM agreements also include montane forests. 

4.3.2 Community Based Forest Management 

Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) is where the communities manage the forest resource 

within their village lands, with advice and assistance from the District (Forest Office) as requested. 

Within the relevant regions of Tanzania there are over 70 villages participating in CBFM schemes, 

covering over 250,000 ha of forested land. In many cases the boundaries of these CBFM forest areas are 

not well known, and may not be mapped. 

Table 18: Status of Community Based Forest Management in the Coastal Forests Regions (data from 

PFM survey of 2009 by the Forestry and Beekeeping Division) 

Region 

Districts 

Counted 

Number 

of 

villages 

VNRC 

Established 

Number 

VLFRs 

Gazetted 

VLFRs 

Total 

Area 

Facilitators 

Tanga* 4 94 93 22 1 12,390.7 EUCAMP, TFCG, WWF 

Lindi 4 31 25 0 145,405.8 UTUMI, PFM, WWF 

Pwani 

(Coast) 6 20 19 19 2 57,401.0 REMP, WWF, TFCG 

Mtwara 1 25 24 0 73,121.0 Data from 2002 

Totals 15 170 161 41 3 288,318.5 

* only one of the Districts is relevant to the Coastal Forests area, and even in that District (Muheza) the 

JFM agreements also include montane forests.


4.4 Threat Prioritization 

Degradation and loss of Coastal Forests and associated habitats and the species that they support is a 

result of a wide range of natural and man-made causes interacting at different levels and intensities on 

the east African Coastal Forest ecosystems. An estimated 60% of natural habitats in the EACFE have 

been converted over time to farmland and urban areas. Stakeholders have identified three-quarters of 

the remaining Coastal Forest areas to be highly or very highly threatened. 

A methodology developed by The Nature Conservancy in the USA was applied in September and 

December 2006 to prioritize threats in the Coastal Forests ecoregion. Threats were ranked in terms of: 

 

 

 

Area. How wide an area does the threat affect? Is it going to affect the entire area or just a small part 

of it? 

Intensity. How strong is the impact of the threat on a given piece of habitat, ecosystem service or 

wildlife population? Will it destroy it completely? Or will it cause only minor damage? 

Urgency. How urgent is the action to deal with the threat? Is the threat occurring now? Or is it only 

likely to be important in future years? 

Table 19: Ranked threats in the coastal forest ecoregion (WWF Eastern African Coastal 

ForestsProgramme 2006). 

Threat 

Criteria 

Area Severity Urgency 

Conversion to agriculture 14 14 14 42 V HIGH 

Increased demand for fuelwood (charcoal, 

firewood) 

Total 

Rank 

13 12 13 38 V HIGH 

Infrastructure development 10 13 10 33 HIGH 

Unsustainable logging (timber, poles) 12 9 12 33 HIGH 

Uncontrolled fire 11 8 11 30 HIGH 

Over-harvesting of wood for carving 8 7 9 24 MED 

Unsustainable hunting (legal & illegal) 9 5 8 22 MED 

Conversion for salt pans, aquaculture 6 11 5 22 MED 

Mining 5 10 6 21 MED 

Adverse climate change 7 6 2 15 MED 

Unsustainable collection for trade 4 3 7 14 LOW 

Vegetation destruction by elephants 2 4 4 10 LOW 

Invasive species 3 1 3 7 LOW 

Effluent pollution 1 2 1 4 LOW 

4.4.1 Expanding agriculture 

The most important threat facing the natural habitats of eastern Africa, and the Coastal Forests, is the 

expansion of agriculture. In general the soils of coastal east Africa are poor and cannot easily support 

settled agriculture. Coastal agriculture traditionally takes the form of short-term shifting cultivation, 

concentrating on food crops such as cassava and maize, along with some banana, papaya and coconut.


The soils under the remaining patches of lowland forest are more fertile than those of surrounding 

woodlands and hence face pressure to be converted for agriculture. Growing population pressures also 

tend to decrease the length of fallow periods. Plantations of coconut, sisal and cashew nut also occupy 

considerable areas of coastal land, replacing lowland Coastal Forest and other natural habitats. 

A newly emerging threat is the establishment of large industrial plantations for the production of 

biofuels on the eastern African coast. Large areas of woodland and coastal forest habitats have already 

been cleared for Jatropha production in Kilwa District and around Pugu close to Dar es Salaam, and 

sugar cane plantations are also planned for the Bagamoyo area. Land allocation for plantations of trees 

is also being explored in southern Tanzania, through Green Resources, and there are also major 

development plans for agriculture in southern Tanzania, with potential for huge amounts of inward 

investment. These kinds of agricultural developments are proceeding rapidly and have the potential to 

transform the coastal region of Tanzania. In particular these developments have the potential to split 

the remaining migration corridors between the reserved patches of forest in many of coastal districts. 

4.4.2 Charcoal production 

Charcoal production is a major cause of habitat loss in areas close to large cities and alongside main 

roads, particularly in Tanzania. Although not well quantified, the business of charcoal production has 

heavily impacted forest areas up to 200 kilometres from Dar-es-Salaam, and is spreading ever further 

into the bush. Away from towns and roads this threat is much less important as local people use 

firewood for cooking and transport difficulties discourage charcoal production as a cash crop. The major 

supply routes of charcoal to Dar es Salaam are along the Kilwa, Morogoro and Pugu roads; with the 

Kilwa road accounting for 50% of the total supply – much of this being sourced from the forests and 

woodlands up to 150 km distance from Dar es Salaam (Ahrends 2005; Ahrends et al. 2010). 

Table 20: Daily amounts of charcoal transported to Dar es Salaam (Malimbwi et al. 2007) 

Routes 

Average load per day (bags) 

Commercial 

Vehicles 

Bicycles Non-Commercial Total 

Kilwa road 3,018 204 139 3,361 50 

Morogoro road 1,301 167 152 1,620 24 

Pugu road 578 276 15 869 13 

Bagamoyo 108 97 27 232 3 

TAZARA railway** 450 7 

TRC railway 245 4 

Total 5,005 744 333 6,777 100 

Percentage (%) 84 11 5 100 

**There were no current amount obtained 

Percentage (%) 

Previous studies indicated that charcoal production sites for Dar es Salaam city were located in Pwani 

(Coast) and Morogoro Regions and had changed from a 50 km radius in the 1970’s to about 200 km in 

the 1990’s (Ahrends et al. 2010). The spatial distribution of charcoal harvesting for Dar es Salaam now 

targets most of the coast and is spreading further inland. In 2007 charcoal was being sourced from


several regions more than 300 km distance from Dar es Salaam, and the transport by rail from Tabora is 

over 1,000 km from Dar es Salaam. Considerable amounts of charcoal came from the coastal forest 

landscapes in 2007 (Figure 19), a situation that continues today. 

Figure 19: Charcoal sources for Dar es Salaam city (2006-2007) (from Malimbwi et al. 2007)

Vikindu 

Pande 

Pugu 

Ruvu 

Kisiju 

Muchungu 

Ngumburuni 

Namakutwa 

Kiwengoma 

Stacked % felled Timber Class 

Average 'stump value' in US$ 


4.4.3 Logging 

The commercial logging of Coastal Forest tree species currently occurs mainly in northern Mozambique 

and the remoter areas of Tanzania, especially to the south. Logging using pit sawing techniques occurs in 

those Coastal Forests where commercial timber trees remain. Many forests have already been logged to 

exhaustion for the usual commercial timber trees but are ever threatened by further logging when 

commercial attention shifts to new species. 

Particularly heavy exploitation for round wood export recently occurred in the Coastal Forests of the 

Rufiji, Kilwa and Lindi Districts of Tanzania, although this has now been stopped to a limited extent. 

Although some of this logging is undertaken using licences obtained from the relevant authorities, most 

is illegal. Logging of the valuable trees is often the first major disturbance to a forest, which then 

progresses to fire wood collection and charcoal burning, and in the worse cases to clearance for 

agricultural use. Studies within 10 forests from Dar es Salaam south to the Matumbi Hills (Ahrends 

2005) have shown that logging of the highest value trees is concentrated more than 150 km south of the 

city – for the simple reason that these high value timber species have already been exploited in the 

forests closer to Dar es Salaam (Figure 20). 

Distance from DSM in km 

100% 

10 20 30 50 70 100 170 210 220 

100 

75% 

50% 

25% 

0% 

75 

50 

25 

0 

Timber Class V 

Timber Class IV 

Timber Class II 

Timber Class I 

Average 'stump value' 

Linear (Average 'stump 

value') 

Forest 

Figure 20: Logging of timber trees in the forests from Dar es Salaam to the Matumbi Hills (From Ahrends 

2005) 

4.4.4 Uncontrolled fires: 

Although forest fires are an occasional natural phenomenon in eastern Africa, due mainly to lightning 

strikes, the vast majority are started by people, who use fire to clear farmland, drive animals for hunting, 

collect honey, and remove tsetse flies from an area. Some other fires are started accidentally, for 

example from cigarettes thrown from passing vehicles or by pedestrians. Fire can invade lowland


Coastal Forest patches and thicket vegetation during the dry season. At this time it can be irreversibly 

destructive to the vegetation that is not adapted to be being burnt. Over time and with frequent and 

intense burning it is believed that lowland Coastal Forest and thicket vegetation is converted to more 

fire-adapted vegetation types similar to the Zambesian Miombo woodlands (dominated by Brachystegia 

and Julbernadia species). This results in a loss of the narrowly endemic Coastal Forest specialist species 

and their replacement by wide-ranging species typical of Miombo. The probability of burning in the 

coastal districts of Tanzania is moderate, but not as high as further inland (Figure 21). Fire frequency is 

linked to human population increase and the opening of new farmlands, as well as the incidence of dry 

years (e.g. 2003). There are almost no fires on the densely populated areas of the coast, nor on the 

offshore islands (Figure 21). 

Figure 21: Annual burning probability in the coastal area of Tanzania, 2001-2009. Data derived from 

MODIS fire points database, University of Maryland (map by Dr Marion Pfeifer, University of York)


4.4.5 Pole harvesting and firewood collection 

Pole harvesting is widespread in the coastal forests, especially in rural areas where they are used in the 

construction of houses. The same is true for firewood harvesting, which is primarily conducted in the 

rural areas and forms a major extraction in these areas. The levels of forest damage that are caused by 

pole cutting or firewood harvesting are much less severe than for charcoal or timber harvesting, but in 

areas close to rural villages they can form a significant forest use. 

4.4.6 Climate change 

Predictions for climate change in eastern Tanzania suggest only moderate changes, with temperatures 

rising slightly and rainfall patterns tending towards an overall increase, but with potentially more severe 

dry seasons and longer ‘short rains’ periods. The sea level may rise to some degree. Overall the impact 

of the various climate change predictions on the eastern African Coastal Forests are unknown, but 

available prediction suggest that they may be less dramatic than elsewhere in Africa (Case 2007), 

although locally devastating in the case of rainstorms and associated flooding. 

4.4.7 Lack of prioritisation 

The Coastal Forest habitat type is not recognized as a priority for investment by the national 

government, or the Districts along the coast. Typically these reserves are seen as a source of timber, 

charcoal and other materials to supply increasing urban centres, or for export. This use is compromising 

the globally significant biodiversity values, which are mainly found in the Forest Reserves being 

managed by District authorities. 

4.5 Coastal Forest Area Systems of Management 

In this section, coastal forest management and current financial status in the selected coastal districts of 

the main land (Rufiji, Kilwa and Lindi) as well as Unguja and Pemba are discussed. Issues discussed 

include the coastal forest management systems; financing forest in the coastal districts and the financial 

status; available finances for forest management activities in the coastal districts; financial commitment 

for forest activities in the respective selected areas; actual annual central government budget allocated 

to coastal districts for forest management activities as well as NGOs and other donors’ support to 

forestry activities in the selected coastal districts of Tanzania. 

In coastal districts, types of forests where central government, local government and NGOs are putting 

more efforts in ensuring their management and sustainability were divided into different categories, 

including (i) the central government managed forest; (ii) district council managed forests; (iii) village 

forest reserves (iv) forests on public/general land and (v) privately owned forests. Sizes of the respective 

forests based on the ownership as identified by the consulted district forest officers are given in Table 

21. 

Table 21: Total Hectares Based on the Type of the Forest Ownership in Tanzania 

Type of Forest Based on the Ownership 

Total forest in ha in Coastal Districts 


Central government managed forest 125,346 201,900 45,828 21,557 20,080 

Forest on Public lands Ni 450,000 470,000 38,328 8000


Local Authority Forests (District) 84,957 83,000 3,080 Ni 50 

Village Forest Reserves (community woodlots for 

Pemba) 

NI = NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE 

18,807 126,000 5,132.63 Ni 5000 

Forests types indicated above, receive funding from various stakeholders. The actors that are funding 

forest activities in the respective areas include the Central Government, Local Government through 

respective district council budgets, donors channelling funds through the Central Government and Local 

Governments directly, as well as NGOs working directly in these forests. Most NGOs do work on local 

government forests, mainly the district and village forest reserves. 

4.5.1 NGOs and other Donors’ Support for Forestry Activities 

Different Non-Governmental Organizations have been allocating money for forest activities in the 

selected coastal districts. These include WWF Tanzania Country Office, CARE International in Tanzania, 

Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative (MCDI), International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) and the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG). 

WWF-Tanzania Country Office 

WWF Tanzania, through the agreement of government, is utilising UNDP-GEF project funds to support 

landscape level initiatives in the Coastal Forests. WWF is utilising a total sum of USD 94,600 for forest 

conservation activities in each of the three selected districts (Rufiji, Kilwa and Lindi) in 2010-2011. The 

main activities are forest conservation, including the establishment of Territorial, Local Authority and 

Village Land Forest Reserves with a total of 49,000 ha in Rufiji, 54,000 ha in Kilwa and 25,000 ha in Lindi. 

Tanzania Forest Conservation Group 

Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) has projects in Rufiji, Kilwa and Lindi districts in Community 

Based Forest Management (CBFM). In Rufiji district, TFCG covers a total of 4,544 ha; in Kilwa 2,442 ha 

and a total of 1,873 ha in Lindi rural. In these districts, the estimated funds that TFCG has invested in 

forest activities include USD 62,500 in Rufiji; USD 22,500 in Kilwa and USD 150,000 in Lindi in 2010-2011. 

Most of these funds are for piloting Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) 

and come from the Norwegian Government. 

International Union for Conservation of Nature 

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is working in two different forests in Rufiji district. 

These forests are Mtanza Msona Village Forest Reserve (7,395 ha); and the 13,500 ha Ngurumbuni 

Forest. The main activity is Participatory Forest Management and the investment in 2010-2011 was USD 

82,425. 

Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative 

Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative (MCDI) is working in two districts, Rufiji and Kilwa. In 

Rufiji, a total of USD 14,500 was spent for forestry activities in 2010/2011. MCDI has a number of 

activities in Kilwa District, including Participatory Forest Management (PFM), REDD+ and forest 

certification. In Kilwa, a total of USD 372,117 was budgeted and spent for these activities in this district.


Under this organization, most of the funds are for the PFM for piloting REDD+ pilot project and 

certification initiatives. 

CARE International in Tanzania 

CARE International in Tanzania is piloting REDD+ in coastal forests in Unguja and Pemba under 

community forest management. In Unguja, CARE is working in a total of 25,000 ha and 15,000 ha in 

Pemba. In these two areas, the budget that has been budgeted for and spent in the fiscal year 

2010/2011 amounts to USD 50,000 for Unguja and USD 40,000 for Pemba. 

4.6 Application of Legal Frameworks and Business Tools 

Application of legal regulatory frameworks and business-planning tools for effective forest management 

and the use of tools for revenue collections in the case study districts were studied using a Financial 

Sustainability Scorecard developed by GEF. In this scorecard, elements of the existence and 

implementation of the legal and regulatory frameworks; application of the business-planning tool for 

cost effective forest management; and application of revenue collection tools were documented. 

4.6.1 Prevalence and Application of Legal Regulatory Frameworks and Implications to Forest 

Resource Management 

Data from the GEF financial sustainability scorecard shows that the existence and implementation of 

legal regulatory frameworks in all selected districts is below 50%; with levels of 15.8% in Rufiji, 30.5% in 

Lindi and 37.9% in Kilwa. On Zanzibar, levels of implementation of legal regulatory frameworks are 

12.6% in North Unguja, 21.4% in Central district and 41.1% in Western Urban. The low level of legal 

regulatory framework implementation leads to forest resources degradation as well as the poor 

contribution of forest resources to community livelihoods and the national economy. 

4.6.2 Prevalence and Application of Business Planning Tools and Implications on Forest Resource 

Management 

Results from the GEF financial sustainability scorecard indicated that the existence and application of 

business planning tool for cost effective management in the selected coastal districts was also very low. 

Application of the business-planning tool was 11.5% in Kilwa, 34.4% in Lindi and 44.3% in Rufiji. On 

Zanzibar, application of the business-planning tool for cost effective management is 0% in North Unguja, 

11.5% in Central district and 13.1% in Western Urban district. 

4.6.3 Revenue Collection Tools and Application Implications on Forest Resources Management 

Results indicate that there is a low level of financial tools application in revenue collection in almost all 

the case study districts. Application of relevant tools was 19.7% in Lindi, 26.8% in Rufiji and 29.6% in 

Kilwa. On Zanzibar use of revenue collection tools use ranged from 4.2% in North Unguja to 23.9% in 

Western Urban district. This implies that a lot of revenue from the coastal forests was lost. This is also 

supported by the fact that there was no information on revenue collected from selected coastal forest 

resources reported in districts.


Table 22: Percentage Application Level of Legal Regulatory Frameworks and Business Planning Tools 

Component Element 

Legal 

regulatory 

frameworks (bylaws, 

financial regulations) 

Rufiji Kilwa Lindi Central District, 

Zanzibar 

Percentage Level in the Respective Districts 

North Unguja 

District, Zanzibar 

Western Urban 

District, Zanzibar 

15.79 37.89 30.53 27.37 12.63 41.05 27.54 

Average % use of 

frameworks and 

tools 

Business planning tool for 

cost effective forest 

management 

44.26 11.48 34.43 11.48 0.00 13.11 19.13 

Revenue collection tools 

26.76 29.58 19.72 16.90 4.23 23.94 20.19 

NOTE: DETAILS OF THE ANALYSIS IS GIVEN IN ANNEX 9.5

METT scores (total out of 100) 


4.7 Management Effectiveness 

The effectiveness of reserve management in the coastal Districts of mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar 

island has been assessed through the completion of 146 Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool 

forms in 2011. This work covers all coastal districts, but with a focus on the main implementation 

landscapes in Rufiji, Kilwa and Lindi, and all reserves on Unguja and Pemba. 

Analysis of these data shows that the most effective reserve management approaches (according to 

the scores derived from the tool) are National Parks and Village Land Forest Reserves. No Nature 

Reserves were assessed using the tool as there are none in the mainland coastal forests and one in 

Pemba that is recently established. 

The National and Local Authority Forest Reserves assessed all have lower scores than the National 

Parks or Village Land Forest Reserves, suggesting they have lower effectiveness in terms of their 

ability to conserve the habitat or species that are found within their boundaries. This is broadly 

confirmed by the high levels of logging, charcoal burning, pole cutting and bushmeat hunting that 

occurs in many of these reserves. Some of this is legally licensed by the districts (and hence is a 

source of income), but a lot is illegal and only providing benefits to a few traders and those 

controlling the trade, often based in Dar es Salaam. The lack of effective management makes it hard 

for these illegal practices to be controlled. 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

National Park 

(n=2) 

Nature Reserve 

(n=1) 

Game 

Reserve(n=1) 


(n=76) 

Local Authority 


(n=8) 

Village Land 


(n=45) 

Proposed 

reserves (n=12) 

Reserve categories 

Figure 22: Mean management effectiveness scores across different reserve management regimes 

in coastal Tanzania (n=146 sites with data) 

Average scores for the reserves within the focal intervention landscapes are 30.9 in Lindi, 39.46 in 

Matumbi, 51.3 in Kilwa, 51 on Zanzibar – against a score of 48.5 for the rest of the coastal districts 

that are not focal areas of the project. These average scores imply that the weakest managed 

reserves are in Lindi district, but that all the reserves are not very effectively managed. Reserves 

often lack clearly marked boundaries, have no management plan, lack staff, and do not have 

effective agreements with surrounding local communities. 

63


4.8 Potential Projects as Revenue Sources to be Applied in Coastal 

Forest 

In the coastal areas, the potential additional sources of funding apart from the existing ones may be 

achieved through different project write ups. Potential areas that have been indicated to interest 

different funding organizations include: 

Sustainable logging can be one of the potential project sources of revenue to the communities and 

the forest sector in coastal forests. An example comes from MCDI where a total of 84m 3 of 

blackwood (worth TZS 13,337,800/-) and 23m 3 of five other species (msenjele, mpangapanga, 

mtondoro, mninga and mkongo worth 2,683,400/-) was harvested from Village Land Forest Reserve 

(MCDI pers comm 2011). Certification of these harvests is resulting in sustainable logging and 

communities can benefit from harvesting their own forests. 

Butterfly farming is another potential revenue generation activity which could be introduced to 

communities around selected coastal forests. This type of the project has been applied in a number 

of areas in Tanzania, including Zanzibar and Tanzania mainland. In Kwezitu Village in the East 

Usambara, households involved in the butterfly farming project can earn up to TShs 200,000 per 

month. 

Project Based Approaches: 

Wildlife Management Areas (WMA). Wildlife Management Areas are village level management 

arrangements focussed on wildlife conservation, and operating under different legal and regulatory 

frameworks than those for Village Land Forest Reserves. Communities within the focal landscapes, 

and indeed across the coast, expressed a strong interest in developing WMAs, often because 

benefits were perceived to be greater than in VLFR systems. 

Sustainable charcoal production. A more sustainable approach to charcoal production is another 

way of revenue generation for the communities in coastal districts. As observed in Malimbwi et al. 

(2007) there is huge amount of charcoal flowing into Dar es Salaam from coastal areas. In 2007, at 

least 6,777 bags of charcoal entered Dar es Salaam every day, with 50% coming in along the Kilwa 

Road. It is expected that the amount of bags moving to Dar es Salaam along this road will have 

increased since 2007. WWF has been exploring more efficient and sustainable charcoal production 

using Half Orange Kilns, which could increase community income in coastal forests as well as reduce 

the pressure on the forests due to haphazard charcoal burning which causes degradation of forests 

in coastal districts. Sumbi and Songela (2010) show that sustainable charcoal production by two 

groups in Bumba-Msoro village earned TSh. 1.8 million by selling 180 bags of sustainable charcoal to 

Destinations All Ltd, so there is potential in this approach to be expanded further in this region. in 

the case study area which will result into improved livelihoods of the communities in the respective 

areas and reduce pressure to the forest resources in these areas. 

4.8.1 Emerging Opportunities: 

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). Such projects are another 

way to develop an alternative source of revenue to continue with forest activities. Significant REDD+ 

funding is being channelled to coastal districts for different forest activities. Based on the existing 

experience, further funds might be obtained for forest conservation and management activities 

based on the conservation of forest carbon. Currently, most of the activities carried out in these 

areas entirely depend on the project funding. 

Ecotourism. This is one kind of revenue generating activity that could not only benefit the 

community in the respective areas but also the revenue collected could be re-invested into 

conservation activities in the respective areas where coastal forests do exist. 

64


4.8.2 Baseline of Institutional Involvement 

Until 2009 a WWF facilitated Coastal Forests Task Force existed. This included representatives of all 

the major players in the conservation of these forests. The funding for the Task Force was stopped 

by WWF as the GEF project came into being and the Steering Committee for the GEF Coastal Forests 

Project now fulfils the same coordination role as the earlier Task Force meetings. 

Between 2002 and 2009 WWF also facilitated the development of a Coastal Forest conservation 

strategy. The implementation of that strategy has been handed over to the GEF Coastal Forests 

project in large part, and with other elements being undertaken by the WWF Coastal East Africa 

Network Initiative. 

Researchers have also undertaken some work on identifying gaps in the protected area system for 

the Coastal Forests, primarily at the research level and again not strongly linked into government 

process. At the national level there are also processes to promote participatory forest management, 

but these do not focus on the Districts containing the landscapes proposed for intervention here. 

Table 23: Current Baseline of Organizational Involvement 

Baseline Organisation Gaps 

FR management 

FR management 

FR, NP, NR management 

FBD (mainland) 

District Councils 

(mainland) 

DCCFF 

(Zanzibar) 

FBD manages the National FR in the Coastal Area under their 

authority. This basically equates to the Rondo Forest in the Lindi 

Landscape. This has only modest resources for management and 

staffing. 

The District Councils manage the Forest Reserves in the mainland 

landscapes. They issue licences for harvesting in these reserves 

and collect the revenue. Some reserves are closed for harvesting 

officially. Much illegal logging also goes on and the reserves are 

weakly managed as there is practically no budget or staffing. 

DCCFF manages the protected area network of Zanzibar. It has 

limited funds and capacity for this task. 

VLFR management 

Village 

Governments 

(mainland) 

Aside for where projects (e.g. WWF and the Mpingo Conservation 

and Development Initiative) have established VLFR, they are not 

being developed. 

Land alienation 

Land alienation 

Agricultural Support 

Commercial 

companies 

Reserves 

Extension offices 

Operations such as Bioshape are purchasing land in the coastal 

regions of Kilwa and converting woodland and some forest habitat 

to monoculture. Similar activities are planned by other companies. 

Some of the reserves owned and managed by the central 

government have alienated land from the local people. This 

mainly relates to the stricter protection areas, such as the Selous 

and the Sadaani National Park. 

District Agriculture offices have extremely limited staff and 

financial resources. This severely constrains their work to assist 

with agricultural improvement in the focal Districts. 

Credit 

Banks 

Microloans 

and 

Aside from a few microcredit schemes established by NGO projects 

(e.g. CARE in Zanzibar) access to credit by local communities is 

extremely constrained. In some Districts there may also be some 

credit available via the World Bank TASAB project, or through the 

PFM interventions. But these are all small. 

65


Baseline Organisation Gaps 

Logging 

Biodiversity Conservation 

Various 

Various 

In the period 2000-2003 logging was out of control in this region, 

for export to the Far East. Although better regulated and 

controlled, it is believed the significant illegal logging activity still 

takes place. In addition, there is also a significant amount of legal 

logging. 

The NGO projects operating in the area provide some funds for 

biodiversity (forest) conservation in the Matumbi Hills, Kilwa and 

Zanzibar landscapes. However, aside from these funds there is no 

funding available from government for biodiversity conservation. 

4.8.3 Baseline for Mainland Tanzania and Forestry and Beekeeping Division (FBD) Institutional 

Capacity 

Management and governance 

Over the past year Forestry and Beekeeping Division has instigated a section that is dedicated to the 

conservation of the Coastal Forests and mangroves, splitting this from the section that was 

responsible for the management of mountain catchment forests. However, despite this change it 

remains true that the Coastal Forests are not a priority for investment by mainland Districts, and are 

rather seen as a source of income. 

Management of existing PAs and establishment of new PAs 

At the landscape level, all three areas have been the subject of a variety of project inputs over the 

past decade. This has assisted in some cased with improving the protected area coverage and 

management effectiveness. In other landscapes the advances made during project support, may not 

have been sustained as projects have ended. Most of the project inputs on mainland Tanzania have 

involved elements of Participatory Forest Management and the establishment of Village Land Forest 

Reserves. These approaches have been encouraged by the Forest Policy of 1998 and the Forest Act 

of 2002. Fully embedding these approaches within the work of the District Forest Officers has 

proven more challenging and most efforts have been externally funded by projects. Solving the 

capacity and funding issues at District level remains a fundamental problem to scale up PFM as a 

forest management approach in these landscapes, or more broadly within Tanzania. 


The Matumbi–Kichi Hills contain one of the largest blocks of contiguous forest in coastal Tanzania, 

with only some of the area under official protection. Degradation and loss of Coastal Forests and 

associated habitats and the species that they support is a result of a wide range of natural and manmade 

causes interacting at different levels and intensities on the east African Coastal Forest 

ecosystems (Burgess and Clarke 2008). High among the threats to forests in the area are illegal 

logging, pit sawing, and shifting cultivation, and forest fires especially those which happen after 

prolonged dry spells. Although these threats are mainly the result of local people struggling for 

survival, wild fires are sometimes made purposely by poachers to burn grasses so that when grasses 

sprout animals are attracted to these opened areas and hence made easy prey to the poachers. 

Illegal loggers also use fire to clear grass and understorey so that they can easily pass in the forest 

towards logging sites. 

Shifting cultivation is practiced by the local communities because coastal soils are relatively infertile. 

This condition forces local communities to switch to new farm lands after every 2-3 years. Shifting 

cultivation is also practiced from an experience point of view where weeds seem to increase as one 

66


cultivates on the same land for many years. Therefore, to avoid weeding cost they always clear new 

forest areas. This has been exacerbated by the construction of a road from Utete to the gate in the 

Selous GR of Kingupira. There have been high levels of logging throughout the landscape, especially 

along the main roads between the Mkapa Bridge over the Rufiji River and Somanga, but few areas 

remain unaffected. There is also charcoal production and bags are sold on the main Dar to Lindi 

road as well as around Utete. 

Costs of conservation to communities 

Wildlife-human conflict is an apparent problem in all villages bordering PAs. It was reported that in 

forests under PFM, due to improved forest condition, the number of wildlife has increased posing a 

serious wildlife-human conflict in the areas. Lions visit village neighbourhoods and sometimes are 

reported to obliterate human life. Leopards do also visit village neighbourhoods and are often 

reported to kill chicken and dogs. Elephants often raid crops like rice, sorghum, cassava and maize. 

Village councils should be guided on how to handle such a situation. Measures like sustainable 

animal cropping could be introduced to balance the situation. 

4.9.1 Baseline for Matumbi and Kichi Hills Landscape 

Conservation. 

The landscape has benefited from FBD-WWF involvement for the past 15 years, and which is 

continuing. A Forest Management Plan was developed for the Matumbi Hills section of the 

landscape, Community Conservation Committees were established in several villages, and Village 

Forest Reserves were established (some partially gazetted Village Land Forest Reserves need to be 

finalized). Between 2001 and 2003 an IUCN-supported project also worked in the area, through the 

Rufiji District, and gathered significant data on the region and mapped the distribution of forest and 

forest harvesting activities. 

Management and Governance 

The protected forests in the landscape are a mixture of national forest reserves, local authority 

forest reserves and village forest reserves. In theory the national forest reserves should receive 

support from the central government while the local authority and village forests are managed from 

the District Forest Office of Rufiji and Kilwa Districts. In practice, neither the central nor the local 

government can provide significant funding for management and the District Forest Officer (DFO) is 

effectively responsible for management. There is pressure from the District to generate revenue 

from the forests and licenses have been issued for logging for export from many parts of the 

landscape. Logging is also taking place in the national, local authority and village forest reserves and 

a large proportion of this is illegal. This activity reached its peak in 2003, but still continues today. 

Rural Livelihoods 

As with other parts of rural Tanzania, people are mainly poor subsistence farmers practicing shifting 

cultivation. This activity is augmented by logging and some charcoal production. Participatory forest 

management systems have been established with WWF project support, and these are providing a 

mechanism for communities to gain better control of their forest lands, but further work is needed 

to strengthen them. There is also a need to further improve local financing systems for micro or 

rural credit to farmers. These issues will be captured during the monitoring process. 


Due to its relatively intact habitats, Kilwa attracts people seeking natural resources products, and 

land. This increases the threats to these relatively pristine landscapes and the associated 

67


biodiversity. Threats to biodiversity populations and habitats in the landscape are mainly 

anthropogenic activities; shifting cultivation, wildfires, unsustainable logging especially the high 

valued timbers, uncontrolled settlement and charcoaling. These threats not only reduce and change 

habitats for animals, reptiles and insects but also reduce populations of various biological species i.e. 

plants and animals. 

Both illegal hunters and legalized professional hunters purposely start fires so as to encourage grass 

re-growth that attracts animals and eases vehicle movement within the forests. Most of the forest 

areas, which are vast, are not under controlled forest management. Although there are efforts for 

PFM, the areas that are already covered are much smaller than what remains. 

Community responsibilities in management of forest resources 

Some community members are eager to assist forest management activities; however, they do not 

have the required technical expertise, e.g. tree planting in open patches. Some would also like to be 

involved in wildlife patrols. It is difficult for villagers to patrol the forest areas because of their 

vastness, difficulty of access and lack of incentives. 

4.10.1 Baseline for Kilwa Landscape 

Conservation 

Parts of the Kilwa landscape receive support from WWF under the Eastern Selous project and the 

Coastal Forest Project. The Mpingo Conservation Project has been supporting several villages 

developed Village Land Forest Areas through the PFM process, and has recently been awarded the 

first certificate by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for community-managed natural forest in 

Africa. Several unprotected forest areas in Kilwa need to be gazetted and protected as soon as 

possible as new investment and development initiatives pose a new threat to the forests of this 

region. 


The District Forest Officer in Kilwa has no dedicated vehicle although he can get fuel money. Only 

three forest officers are employed and although a fourth position is open but they have not been 

able fill it. The district forestry department is also struggling to support communities interested to 

engage in participatory forest management due to limited resources. Many reserves do not show 

any evidence of beacons or boundary clearance and there are no management plans. A complex 

issue is dealing with compensation claims from loggers whose licenses were cancelled by the 

government before they had expired. 

Rural Livelihoods 

Although quantitative data on the rural livelihoods for these landscape areas are not available, the 

rural population is believed comparable to many other parts of rural Tanzania. This means that most 

people are poor subsistence farmers with few income generating opportunities. 


4.11.1 Conservation issues, threats and drivers 

Currently, the Rondo forests are highly threatened by frequent wild fires, which are sometimes set 

on purpose or sometimes spread from neighbouring farming fields in the dry season between 

July/August and November. It was reported that fires start most frequently from Liganga village and 

spread out to other areas. Liganga Village is a new settlement that was officially recognized as a 

68


village in 2010, after it was abandoned during the villagisation operation in the 1970s. Presumably, 

the fire is associated with opening of new farms and settlements in this new village. 

Furthermore, the forests in the landscape have been subjected to human disturbances especially on 

its buffer zones and adjacent forest on the slopes of the plateau. Shifting cultivation, pole cutting 

and charcoaling are other threats to forests and woodlands in the landscape. 


Problem animals are the main cost of conservation in the landscape. Forest adjacent communities 

lose crops to elephants, monkeys, bush pigs and warthogs. There are also reports of people being 

killed by animals and at least one person has been killed every year since 2009. The problem of 

elephant attacks has increased recently. 

Community responsibilities in management of forest resources 

Communities conduct patrols against illegal harvesting, charcoaling, and help with fire fighting. 

However, both patrols and fire fighting are limited by lack of facilitation including lack of transport 

facilities, patrol camps, fire fighting equipment and fire watch towers. 

4.12 Zanzibar landscape 

4.12.1 Conservation issues, threats and drivers 

All regions of Zanzibar (Unguja and Pemba), and in particular the remaining patches of coral thicket 

forests, are severely threatened by a very high and rapidly increasing human population (400 

individuals/km 2 ). The vast majority of Zanzibar’s human population is dependent upon shifting 

cultivation and forest products, such as building poles, firewood, and charcoal. Cutting trees and 

bushes to supply this demand continues to be a major threat to Zanzibar’s wildlife. Zanzibar is 

currently losing an estimated 1.2 percent of its forest each year. Hunting is also a major threat to 

some of Zanzibar’s wildlife species; in particular to the small forest antelopes. 

Rural Livelihoods and Community responsibilities in management of forest resources 

Zanzibar’s wildlife survives in small habitat fragments within a human dominated landscape. Only 

some of these critical wildlife habitat fragments lie within Government managed protected areas, at 

least half are on community lands. Thus, conservation of Zanzibar’s unique flora and fauna is 

contingent on successful conservation management of a network of protected areas not only on 

government but also on community lands. 

Zanzibar’s communities are highly dependent on natural resources [including firewood, charcoal, 

building materials, and other non-timber forest products (NTFPs)] for their survival and for income 

generation. Nutritionally, they are dependent on a wide variety of produce grown on the island, and 

the vast majority of their protein requirement is provided by legumes, fish and shell fish. Although 

hunting occurs, it is thought to provide a negligible and unnecessary amount to total protein intake. 

Over the last decade and a half, DFNRNR has worked to bring communities into every aspect of land 

use planning and management of natural resources across the island. Communities have been 

empowered to manage their forests by the development of Community Forest Management 

Agreements (CoFMA). CoFMAs are legally binding documents giving communities the mandate to 

manage their forests. During the development of a Community’s CoFMA, all land surrounding the 

village and over which the community will be responsible is zoned into high protection zones, low 

impact use zones, or higher impact use zones such as agricultural and settlement zones. One of the 

main benefits to communities of developing a CoFMA is that they restrict open access to their land. 

In order to obtain CoFMAs, communities must also agree to a set of responsibilities which include 

69


the protection of areas which are designed as high protection zones and the sustainable 

management of lands designated for various levels of use. Each Community’s Village Conservation 

Council (VCC) receives a share of the tourism revenue from Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park to help 

them fulfill these management and protection responsibilities. This revenue is generated from 

tourism mainly to view the Zanzibar red colobus. 


There are some minor costs to conservation especially in community lands directly adjacent to 

Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park (JCBNP), due to some (although a relatively low occurrence) of crop 

raiding by wildlife. This cost, however, is currently being offset by a revenue sharing scheme 

between the Government of Zanzibar and the communities that live adjacent to JCBNP. As 

explained above, this is revenue that is generated by tourists who visit JCBNP to view the wildlife 

(mainly the Zanzibar red colobus). 


On Zanzibar the DFNRNR gives a higher priority to Coastal Forest conservation than the mainland. 

The DFNRNR has received some support via projects such as the GEF funding Jozani Chwaka Bay 

project, but this has always been small. Government allocations to conservation are also small. 

Management of existing PAs and establishment of new ones: Under the baseline scenario there 

would be very little active management of the Coastal Forest sites, except the few (such as Jozani- 

Chwaka Bay National Park) that generate their own funding. 


The management regimes in the coastal forests follow the national policies, laws and regulations. 

These provide a framework for the protection of forests within various kinds of reserves. This 

includes those managed under central, local authority and village governments. The number and 

area of village based management regimes have been increasing in recent years. And this trend us 

set to continue. Benefit sharing frameworks also exist and need to be promoted in order to make 

the management of the forests sustainable in the long run. 

70


5 Financial Sustainability 

5.1 Overview 

The funding available for the management of the Coastal Forests in Tanzania is woefully inadequate. 

There is a zero allocation from the central government for the management of the national Forest 

Reserves in southern Tanzania, and the Forest Reserves are seen as an income generating resource by 

the District Councils. As an example, natural resources contribute the majority of the revenue available 

to the Rufiji District Council. It has been estimated from available data compiled from around the 

world, that adequate management of reserves similar to those of the eastern African coastal forests can 

be achieved if managers have around US$1,500-US$1,750 for each sq km of forest under their 

management (Love and Morrison 2007). Hence, there is an urgent need for a source of sustainable 

funding that can be used to assist protect and manage the reserves in the coastal regions of Tanzania. 

There are several stakeholder/actors that are investing money for forest activities in coastal areas and 

most of these actors have been conducting their activities in the Tanzania mainland than in the Island. 

Funding contributions from Central and Local Governments for forest conservation and management 

activities are limited and mostly in-kind. The collected revenue from forest products and services are not 

directly retained for forest conservation and management activities in the case study coastal districts. 

Non-existent or inadequate follow up of implementation of legal regulatory frameworks (bylaws, 

financial regulations) is common; the use of business planning tool for cost effective management and 

the use of tools for revenue collection in the selected coastal districts is low. This results in more 

encroachment to forest resources, inadequate information about forest conservation activities 

expenditures and revenue losses. 

There are possible potential projects that can be used as source of revenue for the forest activities in the 

coastal areas. These sources can be in different broad categories such as commercial / market driven 

funding approaches; community level approaches; project based approaches and emerging 

opportunities such as REDD. As efforts to explore different sources of income are still being worked out, 

it has to be noted that these coastal areas are characterized by community with low level of education, 

and limited sources of income generation activities. Moreover, the communities much depend on 

forests and forest related products and services. These necessitate the need for sustainable forest 

management in these coastal areas. 

5.2 Financing Forest in Coastal Districts and the Financial Status 

Financing forest conservation in the coastal districts (Rufiji, Kilwa, Lindi, Unguja and Pemba) comes from 

various different sources (Table 24). 

Table 24: Different Actors Working in the Selected Case Study Areas 

Actor Rufiji Kilwa Lindi Unguja Pemba 

Central government – Through respective ministries v v v v v 

Local government-District Council v v v v v 

WWF Tanzania Country Office v v v v v 

71


CARE International in Tanzania v v 

Tanzania Forest Conservation Group v v v 

IUCN 

v 

Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative v v 

Other donors through central government 

(DANIDA, FINNIDA) 

v v v v v 

5.2.1 Available Finances for Forest Management Activities in Coastal Districts 

Available finances for forest management activities, both operational and investment costs are analyzed 

for each of the three coastal districts as well as Pemba and Unguja. Several aspects are discussed based 

on the financial information that was obtained as a baseline. These include (i) total annual Central 

Government budget allocated to the coastal districts for forest management activities. This information 

was harmonized from two sources, that is, from FBD and those that were obtained from respective 

district councils; (ii) total annual donor budget and finances dedicated to coastal forest management in 

the respective coastal districts; (ii) total annual district revenue collected from forests in the respective 

coastal districts; and (iii) total annual expenditure for forest activities in the respective district. Table 24 

presents the annual budget that different actors are allocating in for forestry activities in the five 

selected areas where this assignment was carried out. The budget is drawn from actors based on the 

2010/2011 financial year. 

5.2.2 Financial Commitment and Current Financial Status 

The project on improving conservation of selected coastal forests of Tanzania mainland and Zanzibar 

that UNDP-GEF has committed USD 3.5 million. Several other commitments were set by different actors 

to fund different forest activities in the selected project districts. The type of financial commitment were 

both in cash and in-kind. Forestry and Beekeeping Division (FBD); Ministry of Agriculture and Natural 

Resources of Zanzibar; Rufiji, Kilwa and Lindi district councils committed to offer some in-kind 

contributions to the project. In the project stating, there has been a need to identify the exact financial 

status that is being injected into different forest conservation and management activities in the coastal 

forests in the respective selected areas. The actual total annual budgets and expenditures for different 

actors have been documented and the information obtained can be used as a baseline status for the 

project onset. In the year 2010/2011 as a baseline year, an estimated total of USD 3,665,594have been 

invested in forest conservation and management related activities in Rufiji, Kilwa Lindi rural districts as 

well as Unguja and Pemba. These are receiving funds from central and local governments, some 

development partners as well as NGOs working in these areas. The table below presents financial 

commitments by different stakeholders and the baseline financial status (for the year 2010/2011) for 

funds that have been invested in the selected coastal districts for coastal forest conservation activities. 

Table 25: Financial Commitments by Actors and Current (2010/2011) Financial Investment 

Responsible Party/ 

Implementing Agent 

Amount 

Year 1 (USD) 

Amount Year 

2 (USD) 

Amount 

Year 3 (USD) 

Amount 

Year 4 (USD) 

Total (USD) 

*Baseline 

Expenditure 

(2010/2011) 

GEF 902,000 1,095,500 857,500 695,500 3,550,500 0 

UNDP 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000 0 

72


Responsible Party/ 

Implementing Agent 

Amount 

Year 1 (USD) 

Amount Year 

2 (USD) 

Amount 

Year 3 (USD) 

Amount 

Year 4 (USD) 

Total (USD) 

*Baseline 

Expenditure 

(2010/2011) 

FBD (In kind) 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 1,280,000 47,661 

DCCFF (In kind) 433,000 433,000 433,000 433,000 1,732,000 8,000 

Rufiji District council 

(in kind) 

Kilwa District council 

(in kind) 

Lindi district council (in 

kind) 

51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 204,000 12,000 

60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 240,000 18,667 

54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 216,000 14,667 

TFCG 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000 235,000 

CARE 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 600,000 90,000 

Mpingo Conservation 

and Development 

Initiative 

WWF TCO and 

Partners 

100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000 386,667 

597,800 

WWF UK 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 480,000 

WWF Finland 347,500 0 0 0 347,500 

WWF Denmark 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 

WWF Sweden 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 800,000 

IUCN 0 0 0 0 0 82,425 

SMOLE II 0 0 0 0 0 2,100,000 

Other development 

partners through 

central government 

0 0 0 0 0 62,707 

Total Project Finance 2,977,500 2,783,500 2,545,500 2,383,500 10,690,000 3,655,594 

SOURCE: PROJECT DOCUMENT (PIMS NO: 2760 PROPOSAL ID: 00049523, PROJECT ID: 00060459) 

1US$ = 1500TSHS AND 1EURO = 1.4 US$ 

5.3 Annual Central Budget Allocated Funds for Forest Management 

Activities 

5.3.1 Budget Allocated to Respective Districts from Central Government 

Budget allocations from Central Government are estimated at USD 13,333, Kilwa USD 22,000; Lindi USD 

12,328 and Unguja USD 8,000. 

73


5.3.2 Local Government Allocations from District Council Budget 

The financial commitments from local governments to the project are: USD 51,000 (Rufiji District 

Council); USD 60,000 Kilwa District Council); and USD 54,000 (Lindi District Council). 

5.3.3 Support from the Development Partners 

In the selected coastal districts, various donors have funded different forest activities. These include 

DANIDA with USD 18,020 for PFM in Kilwa; and USD 24,687 in Lindi. In Rufiji, a total of USD 20,000 was 

provided by FINNIDA to facilitate various forest activities in this district. 

In Zanzibar (MANRZ 2010), there is a second phase of the programme on Sustainable Management of 

Land and Environment (SMOLE- II). This programme aims at reduction of absolute poverty in Zanzibar 

through environmentally sound land management and socio-economic as per the government’s strategy 

for growth and poverty reduction (called MKUZA). The government of Finland has donated a total of 9 

million Euros to the Government of Zanzibar for execution of SMOLE II. Half of the funds (4.5 million 

Euros) have been set as operational cost for the programme and the other half is set for technical 

assistance. Thus it is estimated that there is a total of 1.5 million Euros (USD 2.1 million) per year 

budgeted for operational activities. 

5.3.4 Total Financial Investment Based on the 2010/2011 Different Actors Budget 

Based on the financial figures obtained from different actors working in the selected coastal areas, a 

total of USD 3,655,594 was invested for different forest conservation and management activities in the 

project area during 2010/2011. Other funding that might impact some of the project area includes the 

Finnish funding in Liwale and Nachingwea that supports good forest governance, benefit sharing and 

poverty alleviation activities at a tune of 9 million Euros, Mama Misitu phase II which is also supported 

by Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Finland through TNRF coordination in Kilwa and Rufiji Districts at a tune 

of 0.8 million Euros (USD 1.1 million). 

74

FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: TANZANIA’S COASTAL FORESTS 2011 

Table 26: Estimated Budgets (in USD) from Different Actors Working in the Selected Districts 

Actor Rufiji Kilwa Lindi Zanzibar Total (USD) 

Central government 13,333 22,000 12,328 8,000 55,661 

Local governments 12,000 18,667 14,667 0 45,334 

WWF Tanzania Country Office 94,600.00 94,600.00 94,600.00 314,000 597,800 

CARE International in Tanzania 0 0 0 90,000 90,000 

Tanzania Forest Conservation Group 62,500.00 22,500.00 150,000.00 0 235,000 

IUCN 82,425.00 0 0 0 82,425 

Mpingo Conservation and 

Development Initiative 

Other development partners through 

the government (DANIDA for Kilwa and 

Lindi and FINNIDA for Rufiji) 

14,500.00 372,166.67 0 0 386,666 

20,000 18,020 24,687 0 62,707 

SMOLE 11 0 0 0 2,100,000 2,100,000 

Estimated Total 299,358 547,954 296,282 2,512,000 3,655,594 

75

SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE: TANZANIA’S COASTAL FORESTS 2011 

5.4 Revenue Collection from Forests in the Coastal Districts 

Most of the royalties are collected from sales of forest goods obtained from forests on the public 

lands or within district forest reserves. Rufiji district has the highest reported revenue collection 

compared to other districts. This was attributed to its proximity to Dar es Salaam where there is high 

demand of wood based products including charcoal. Moreover, the district has good road networks 

encouraging transportation of the forest products. Studies in Rufiji district have indicated that forest 

products are also being produced and illegally sold without revenue been collected (WWF 2010). 

Table 27: Revenue Collected from Coastal Forests in the Selected Districts 

Collected amount in a district in USD 


Total revenue collected 733,333 82,000 47,162 - - 

5.5 Overview 

In the focal landscapes of the GEF Coastal Forests project an average 79% of the population was 

married in 2011, with low cases of divorce across the area. With an exception of the Magharibi 

(Zanzibar) and Lindi (mainland) districts, where the number of widows was high, the remaining 

districts had low number of widows. About half of the population has completed primary school, and 

about 30% has not received any formal education. With low levels of education, opportunities for 

income generation often mean relying on natural resource such as the forest, fisheries, and 

agriculture. Those who are considered ‘well-off’ typically had more access to education 

opportunities (Shemdoe and Abdalah 2011). 

The amount of land owned and/or used varies between communities. Within Kilifi, Lindi and Rufiji, 

the average land size owned by individual households ranged from 2.8 to 6.1 acres with the overall 

mean land size being 4.8 acres. The main use of the land is crop production and very small areas of 

land are set aside for woodlots. The most common crops are maize and rice; average land area used 

for maize production ranges from 0.6 acres to 2.2 acres with an average of 1.6 acres. For rice, the 

land area used ranges from 0.3 acres to 1.8 acres with an average of 1.1 acres (Shemdoe and 

Abdalah 2011). 

Households have set aside small areas for woodlots because wood resources such as charcoal, 

firewood and other related wood products are obtained from surrounding forests. Lack of inputs for 

agricultural production limit the de facto access to land to the few well-off groups leaving a majority 

of the poor households with small areas of used land (Shemdoe and Abdalah 2011). 

Animals are a source of food, more specifically, protein for human diets and income. For low-income 

producers, livestock can serve as store of wealth (Shemdoe and Abdalah 2011). In these districts, 

livestock keeping in the studied communities include cow, goat and poultry (chicken and duck). In 

these districts, the average number of cows ranges from 0 to 1 and average number of goats are 

between 1 and 2. Most of the livestock (mainly goats) are owned by the well-off group, followed by 

the middle group, and then the poor. The poor were mainly confined to keeping smaller stock such 

as goats and chicken. 

The majority (86%) of households live in houses that are grass thatched, with 56% having wellthatched 

grass and 31% having dilapidated grass thatch. Moreover, majority of these houses were 

constructed using poles, which are among timber products derived from the forests. In the surveyed 

villages in these districts, only 12% of the interviewed households possess houses that are roofed 

76


using iron sheet, and only 1% of the respondents own houses that are roofed with tiles (Shemdoe 

and Abdalah 2011). 

Energy is an important element of survival for communities. In the case study area, the main types of 

energy sources for cooking are firewood, charcoal and kerosene. The majority of households (84.6%) 

use firewood as the main source of energy for cooking. The well-off tend to mix charcoal and 

firewood, and the middle income and very poor categories use firewood. Forest Reserves are 

situated in the vicinity of these villages. Their uses are restricted by the law, but were being accessed 

by those communities that live adjacent to them for charcoal and firewood. 

This baseline information indicate that people in these areas much depend on crop production and 

extraction of other natural resources such as forest products for their livelihoods. These lead to a 

need for the establishment of alternative income generation activities that are intended to help 

people reduce forest product overutilization and their associated resources if forest conservation is 

to be attained (Shemdoe and Abdalah 2011). 

The existing sources of water for domestic purposes include wells, rivers, springs and taps. Half of 

the households interviewed in the selected coastal areas depend on wells as sources of domestic 

water followed by those depending on rivers, springs and very few (4%) with access to tap water 

(Shemdoe and Abdalah 2011). Although the main water source is wells, poor people have fewer 

choices for water sources compared to the well-off and middle wealth groups. There is a clear need 

to ensure that forests are conserved, as they are the catchments for all water sources that the 

communities in these areas depend upon. 


According to the Census of 2002, the official population of Kilwa District was 171,650 people with 

82,817 male and 89,033 female. Rufiji District had a population of 202,001 people of which 52% are 

females and 48% are males. The following data is based on a 2011 socioeconomic baseline survey. 

75% of the greater Rufiji landscape is married; 6% is widowed; 2% is divorced and 17% is single. 71% 

of the population has received primary education; 12% has received secondary education; 16% has 

not received any formal education and 1% has completed adult school. 

The average land size is 2.8 acres where; where 0.1 of the acres have woodlots; 0.63 have maize; 

and 0.6 of the acres have rice. Of those surveyed, there was an average of one cow and one goat per 

household, and 5 chickens or ducks. Results from the survey indicate that 84% have thatched grass 

roofing; 13% have iron sheet roofing; and 2% have tile roofing. The main source of cooking energy 

for 83% of the greater Rufiji landscape is firewood; charcoal for 15% and kerosene for 2%. For a 

source of water, 48% use wells, 41% get water from rivers; 1% from springs; and 10% from taps. 

The Matumbi – Kichi Hills forests are important for catchment and for the local communities living 

adjacent to them who depend on these forests for various forest products and services. The local 

community fetches firewood, medicinal plants, fruits, etc. Trees which are commonly used as 

medicinal plants are Dalbergia melanoxylon (mpingo), Pygeum africanum (mkondekonde). Others (in 

local language) are mpingapinga, mnyulunyulo, mneke and mpakacha. 

The main economic activities in Rufiji district are farming, livestock keeping, fishing and forest 

production. Agriculture is the major source of income for people of Coast Region. Crops cultivated 

within the landscape area include simsim, cassava, cashew nuts, oranges, maize, rice, sorghum and 

potatoes. 

Kingongolilo ritual site is inside Kichi Hill Forest Reserve. Here, local communities ask their gods for 

rain and food. Other areas of similar importance include Kinyanjilwa, Mtengela and Kutikuti. 

77



The total population of Kilwa District in 2002 was 171,057 living in 36,549 households. It is 

administratively divided into 6 divisions 20 wards and 97 registered villages (Masoko and Kivinje 

Urban areas inclusive). The following data is based on a 2011 socioeconomic baseline survey; 85% of 

the Kilwa district’s population is married; 3% is widowed; 5% divorced and 7% are single. 70% of the 

population has received primary education, 5% has received secondary education; 20% have not 

received any formal education, and 5% have completed adult school. 

The average land holding is 5.7 acres; where 0.17 acres have woodlot; 1.42 acres have maize; 0.78 

acres have rice and the rest is not used. Of those surveyed, no-one owned cattle, there was an 

average of two goats and 9 poultry animals (chicken or ducks) per household. Results from this 

survey indicate that 86% have thatched grass roofing; 14% have iron sheet roofing, and none have 

tile roofing. The main source of cooking energy for 81% of Kilwa residents is firewood; for 11% is 

charcoal, and none reportedly use kerosene. For a source of water, 59% use wells, 36% use rivers, 

5% use springs, and none use taps. 

The economy of Kilwa Landscape hinges on crop production, livestock keeping, fishing, trade and to 

a very limited extent industrial activities. Like in most districts in Tanzania, Kilwa residents and their 

District Council draw a substantial amount of income and food from small holder cultivators. The 

most popular crops are cashew nuts, simsim and coconuts. There is not much cash generated from 

maize, cassava and rice. The average per capital income is estimated to TSh. 150,000/= per year. 


Population Size 

According to the Census of 2002, the official population of Lindi District was 215,764 people of which 

102,530 were males and 113,234 females. Updates on the population status could not be found 

during the study visit and therefore, these data are only indicative. Based on a 2011 socioeconomic 

baseline survey, 76% of Lindi’s population is married; 10% is widowed; 4% is divorced and 10% are 

single. 70% of the population has received primary education; 6% has received secondary education; 

24% have not received any type of formal education, and none of the representative sample had 

completed adult school. 

Social economic 

The main economic activity for the majority of the local community in Lindi region is agriculture 

which employs over 90% of the population. Crops farmed in the area, and particularly in villages in 

the landscape, include cashew nuts, simsim, groundnuts, pigeon peas, cow peas, green gram, palm 

trees, mbambara nuts, cassava, sorghum and maize. Cashew nuts, simsim and coconuts are mainly 

for sale. 

The average land size is 3.2 acres, and there are no woodlots; 1.12 of the acres have maize and 0.33 

of the acres have rice. Of those surveyed, no-one owned cattle within the Lindi district, there was 

one goat on average per household, and each house had nine poultry animals (chicken or ducks). 

Results from this survey indicate that 88% of the houses have thatched grass roofing, 10% have iron 

sheets, and 2% have tiles. The main source of cooking energy for 83% of Lindi residents is firewood, 

17% is charcoal, and none reportedly use kerosene. For a source of water, 48% use wells, 33% use 

rivers, 13% use springs and 6% use taps. 

This landscape is also a source of forest products to the community. The products 

gathered/harvested and services provided from the forests in the landscape include bush meat, 

vegetables, timber, building poles, tubers (ming’oko), mushrooms, fruits, thatch grasses, edible 

78


insects, grasshoppers (senene), termites, (likukungunguni), medicines, water and climate 

amelioration, and firewood (mainly from open areas). 


Socio-economic data for Zanzibar was not gathered for this baseline. 


The protected area network in the southern Tanzanian landscapes is funded through a number of 

projects. These projects provide the greatest source of funds for conservation and development in 

the region, with government providing salaries and some logistical support. Government is also 

responsible for law enforcement and control over harvesting and hunting. Opportunities to improve 

the income potential from these forests are available in the form of sustainable logging of high value 

tree species, and of developing forest carbon projects. Attempts have also been made to use the 

forest land for plantation agriculture, for example for Jatropha biofuels. But, these schemes have so 

far not managed to deliver sustainable agriculture, and even less sustainable forest use. 

The socio-economic situation of the communities surrounding the coastal forests in southern 

Tanzania is one where the people are dependent on some forest resources for cash and subsistence, 

but are also very poor and seeking other ways to make money to support their lives. As such there is 

significant involvement in illegal bushmeat hunting, elephant poaching and logging of high value 

timber from the forests and woodlands. 

79

REFERENCES: TANZANIA’S COASTAL FORESTS 2011 

6 Conclusions 

In this report we bring together all available information on the Coastal Forests of Tanzania. This 

includes data on biodiversity, protected areas location, protected areas management effectiveness, 

protected areas financing, socio-economic conditions in the broader landscape, carbon values in the 

broader landscape and the administrative and legal settings within which these forests are sitting. 

The main conclusions we derive from this work are as follows: 

6.1 Biodiversity Issues 

The coastal forests are of global importance for the conservation of rare, endemic and threatened 

species of plants and animals. New field work shows that there are still areas of forest that are not 

well known, but which have high biological importance. In this project we can see that all 

intervention areas have significant biological importance and are in need of conservation. There is 

also a pressure on some of the species, particularly the larger mammals as they are intensively 

hunted for bushmeat for local consumption and there is also evidence of poaching of elephants for 

Ivory, including observations made during the field work in September 2011. 

The coastal forest habitat has shrunk dramatically over the past centuries and this shrinkage 

continues. Rates of forest loss seem to have slowed in recent years, but forest degradation in the 

form of charcoal burning of the forest biomass, and the logging of valuable timber and building 

poles, continues. All of these pose threats to dissappearance of some of biodiversity values. Charcoal 

burning is focused around Dar es Salam and logging is focused in the southern areas of the forests. 

6.2 Spatial Planning Issues 

The protected area network in the coastal forests is mainly in the form of Forest Reserves that are 

owned by the central government, but managed by the local authority. Official records for these 

reserves are poorly mnaged and scattered, and in many cases there is confusion on whether certain 

reserves exist, or do not exist. This situation makes the production of a reliable list and set of data 

on the current protected area network problematic. Despite this, there are clearly gaps in the 

protection of key forest areas, particularly in Kilwa District, but actually in all areas of the coast on 

the mainland and on Zanzibar. Closing these protected area gaps is a major focus on this GEF 

project, using a combination of approaches ranging from Village Land Forest Reserves, Local Area 

Forest Reserves, and upgrading selected reserves to the status of Nature Reserve. Significant areas 

of forested land are being put under conservation management and sustainable use in this way. 

6.3 Management Issues 

The effectiveness of management of the government forest reserve network is weak in the coastal 

areas of mainland and somewhat better on Zanzibar. The best managed reserves according to the 

data collected are the Village Land Forest Reserves and the Sadaani National Park. All other reserve 

categories are very weakly managed. Most are used as a source of revenue for the District Councils 

and there are very significant levels of illegal logging, charcoal burning and pole harvesting in most 

reserves. 

6.4 Financial Sustainability 

The financial sustainability of the reserves in this area is also very weak. Most of the districts have 

very little to zero funding available for operational management, and apart from salaries there is not 

80


much funding available to support forest conservation. This is at odds with the situation that natural 

resources, logging in particular, are a major source of income for some of the coastal forest districts 

– particularly Rufiji. Apart from legal logging that is recorded, there is far larger illegal logging going 

on, with movement of timber through various means to Dar es Salaam and for export to the Far East, 

especially China. In addition to the export of valuable timber, there is also an extensive and illegal 

trade in charcoal being produced in the coastal forest reserves, bushmeat hunting and ivory 

poaching. So there is significant value contained within the forests, which is being realised by 

several actors, but this does not translate into funding to ensure sustainable forest management. 

6.5 Socio-economic Issues 

In some of the Village Land Forest Reserves there are efforts being made to set up sustainable and 

certified logging of high value timber, especially Dalbergia melanoxylon. These schemes are aiming 

to enhance the ability of villagers to gain benefit from the forests in terms of financial benefits from 

logging, while at the same time sustaining the timber stock and preventing illegal harvesting by 

outsiders. This project aims to work with the villages and the relevant project and authorities to 

expand the coverage of the forest that is under these schemes and make further FSC certified timber 

available on the market. 

Other options for improving the sustainable financing of the reserve network include forest carbon 

projects, small scale ecotourism projects, and beekeeping and income generating activities linked to 

the forest. But none of these seem able to deliver rapid livelihood improvements for local people, or 

significant income to government, and hence have been downplayed as intervention strategies by 

the project. Instead the main effort will be put into Village Land Forest Reserves. 

81


7 References 

Achard, F., H. D. Eva, H. J. Stibig, P. Mayaux, Gallego J., T. Richards, And J. P. Malingreau 2002. 

Determination Of Deforestation Rates In The World’s Humid Tropical Forests. Science 297: 999- 

1002. 

Ahrends, A. 2005. Patterns Of Degradation In Lowland Coastal Forests In Coast Region, Tanzania. 

University Of Greifswald, Greifswald. 

Ahrends, A., Burgess, N.D., Milledge, S.A.H., Bulling, M.T., Fisher, B., Smart, J.R.C., Clarke, G.P., 

Mhoro, B.E. and S..L. Lewis (2010). Predictable waves of sequential forest degradation and 

biodiversity loss spreading from an African city. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 

of USA 107: 14556-14561. 

Axelrod, D.I. & Raven; P.H. 1978. Late Cretaceous And Tertiary Vegetation History Of Africa. In: 

Werger, M.J.H. With Assistance From Van Bruggen, A.C. Eds. Biogeography And Ecology Of 

Southern Africa. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague. 

Baker, N. & E. Baker. 2002. Important Bird Areas Of Tanzania: A First Inventory. Wildlife Conservation 

Society Of Tanzania, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. 

Brooks T.M, Mittermeier R., Mittermeier C., Da Fonseca G.A.B., Rylands A.B., Konstant W., Flick P., 

Pilgrim J., Oldfield S., Magin G., Hilton Taylor C. 2002. Habitat Loss And Extinction In The 

Hotspots Of Biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16: 909-923. 

Blomley, T., Pfliegner, K, Isango, J., Zahabu, E., Ahrends, A. And N.D. Burgess 2008. Seeing The Wood 

For The Trees: Towards An Objective Assessment Of The Impact Of Participatory Forest 

Management On Forest Condition In Tanzania. Oryx 42: 380-392. 

Brooks T.M., Mittermeier R.A., Da Fonseca G.A.B., Gerlach J., Hoffmann M., Lamoreux J.F., 

Mittermeier C.G., Pilgrim J.D. And Rodrigues A.S.L. 2006. Global Biodiversity Conservation 

Priorities. Science 313: 58-61. 

Burgess, N.D., Clarke, G.P. & Rodgers, W.A. 1998. Coastal Forests Of Eastern Africa: Status, Species 

Endemism And Its Possible Causes. Biological Journal Of The Linnean Society 64: 337-367. 

Burgess, N.D. & Clarke, G.P. 2000. Coastal Forests Of Eastern Africa. IUCN, Cambridge. 

Burgess, N., D'amico Hales, J., Underwood, E., Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Itoua, I., Schipper, J., Ricketts, 

T., Newman, K. 2004. Terrestrial Ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: a continental assessment. 

Island Press, Washington DC. 

Burgess, N.D. And Clarke P. 2008. Towards A Protected Area Network in The Coastal Forests 

Ecoregion Of Tanzania: Analysis And Recommendations. WWF Tanzania 

Burgess, N.D., I. Gordon, J. Salehe, P. Sumbi, N. Doggart, A. Rodgers, P. Clarke 2004. Coastal Forests 

Of Eastern Africa. Pp. 231-239. In: Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest And Most 

Endangered Ecoregions. Eds. Mittermeier, R.A., Robles-Gil, P., Hoffmann, M., Pilgrim, J.D., 

Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, C.G., Lamoreux, J.L. & Fonseca, G. Second Edition. Cemex, Mexico 

Burgess N.D., Küper W., Mutke J., Westaway S., Brown J., Turpie S., Meshack C., Taplin J., Mcclean C. 

And Lovett J. 2005. Major Gaps In The Distribution Of Protected Areas For Threatened And 

Narrow Range Afrotropical Plants. Biodiversity And Conservation 14: 1877-1894. 

Burgess N.D., Loucks C., Stolton S. And Dudley N. 2007. The Potential Of Forest Reserves For 

Augmenting The Protected Area Network In Africa. Oryx 41: 151-159 

82


Burgess, N.D., Butynski, T.M., Cordeiro, N.J., Doggart, N., Fjeldså, J., Howell, K., Kilahama, F., Loader, 

S.P., Lovett, J.C., Mbilinyi, B., Menegon, M., Moyer, D., Nashanda, E., Perkin, A., Stanley, W., 

Stuart, S. (2007b). The biological importance of the Eastern Arc mountains of Tanzania and 

Kenya. Biological Conservation 134: 209 –231. 

Case, M. 2007. Climate Change Impacts On East Africa : A Review Of The Scientific Literature. WWF 

US, Washington DC. 

CEPF 2003. Ecosystem Profile For The Coastal Forests And Eastern Arc Mountains. CEPF, Washington 

DC, USA. 

Clarke, G.P. 1995. Status Reports for 6 Coastal Forests in Lindi Region, Tanzania. Frontier-Tanzania 

Technical Report No. 18. London & Dar es Salaam, The Society for Environmental 

Exploration/The University of Dar es Salaam. 63 pp. 

Clarke, G.P. and Dickinson, A. (1995). Status Reports for 11 Coastal Forests in Coast Region, Tanzania. 

Frontier-Tanzania Technical Report No. 17. The Society for Environmental Exploration, U.K. / The 

University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 

Clarke G.P. 1998. A New Regional Centre Of Endemism In Africa. In: Chorology, Taxonomy And 

Ecology Of The Floras Of Africa And Madagascar. Eds. Huxley, C.R., Lock, J.M. & Cutler, D.F. Royal 

Botanic Gardens, Kew. 

Clarke G.P. 2000. Defining The Eastern African Coastal Forests. In: Burgess, N.D. & Clarke, G.P. Eds. 

Coastal Forests Of Eastern Africa. IUCN, Cambridge. 

Clarke, G.P., Vollesen, K. & Mwasumbi, L.B. 2000. Vascular Plants. In: Burgess, N.D. & Clarke, G.P. 

Eds. Coastal Forests Of Eastern Africa. IUCN, Cambridge. 

Clarke, G.P. 2001. The Lindi Local Centre Of Endemism In SE Tanzania. Systematics And Geography Of 

Plants, Vol. 71, No. 2, Plant Systematics And Phytogeography For The Understanding Of African 

Biodiversity, Pp. 1063-1072 

Clarke, G.P., N.D. Burgess, F.M. Mbago, C. Mligo, B. Mackinder and R.E. Gereau. 2011. Two ‘extinct’ 

trees rediscovered near Kilwa, Tanzania. In Press. 

De Klerk H.M., Fjeldså J., Blyth S. And Burgess N.D. 2004. Gaps In The Protected Area Network For 

Threatened Afrotropical Birds. Biological Conservation 117: 529-537. 

Dudley, N. (Editor) (2008). Guidelines For Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, 

Switzerland IUCN. X + 86pp 

Dudley N. And Parish J. 2006. Closing The Gap. Creating Ecologically Representative Protected Area 

Systems: A Guide To Conducting The Gap Assessments Of Protected Area Systems For The 

Convention On Biological Diversity. Technical Series No. 24. Secretariat Of The Convention On 

Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. 108 P. 

Fjeldså J., De Klerk H.M., Blyth S. And Burgess N.D. 2004. Where Are The Major Gaps In The Reserve 

Network For Africa's Mammals? Oryx 38: 17-25. 

Godoy, F., Tabor, K., Burgess, N.D., Steininger, M.K., Mbilinyi, B.P., Kashaigili, J.J., Horning, N. (2011). 

The Impact Of Deforestation On Co 2 Emissions In Coastal Tanzania From Circa 1990 - Circa 2007 

And The Estimation Of Carbon Stock Of Remaining Forests. Environmental 

ConservationDoi:10.1017/S037689291100035x 

Gullison R.E., Frumhoff P., Canadell J., Field C.B., Nepstad D.C., Hayhoe K., Avissar R., Curran L.M., 

Friedlingstein P., Jones C.D. And Nobre C. 2007. Tropical Forests And Climate Policy. Science 316: 

985-986 

83


Hoekstra J.M., Boucher T.M., Ricketts T.H. And Roberts C. 2005. Confronting A Biome Crisis: Global 

Disparities Of Habitat Loss And Protection. Ecology Letters 8: 23-29. 

IUCN 1994. Guidelines For Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN And World Conservation 

Monitoring Centre (WCMC), Gland, Switzerland And Cambridge, Uk. 94 P. 

Kashaigili, J., Nzunda, E.F. , Mwamakimbullah, R., Sirima, A. Shirima, D. & Mkumbo, P. (2011) 

Consultancy Report For Spatial Planning Baseline Focusing On The Coastal Forest Of Tanzania For 

The Coastal Forest Project. WWF Tanzania 

Love, G. And Morrison, K. (2007). Sustainable Funding Strategy For The Eastern Arc Mountains And 

Coastal Forests Of Tanzania And Kenya. CEPF, Washington Dc. 

Lovett, J. C. And S. K. Wasser, Editors. 1993. Biogeography And Ecology Of The Rain Forests Of 

Eastern Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

Lovett, J. C., J. R. Hansen, And V. Hørlyck 2000b. Comparison With Eastern Arc Forests. Pages 115- 

125 In Burgess N. D. And Clark G. P., Editors. Coastal Forests Of Eastern Africa. IUCN, Cambridge, 

Uk And Gland, Switzerland. 

Malimbwi, R.E, Zahabu, E And Mchome, B2007. Situation Analysis For Dar Es Salaam Charcoal 

Sector: Charcoal Supply And Consumption. Sokoine University Of Agriculture And Wwf Tanzania 

Programme Office, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. 

Mittermeier R.A., Robles Gil P., Hoffmann M., Pilgrim J., Brooks T., Mittermeier C.G., Lamoreux J. 

And Da Fonseca G.A. 2004. Hotspots Revisited: Earth's Biologically Richest And Most Endangered 

Terrestrial Ecoregions. Cemex, Mexico City. 392 P. 

Perkin, A., Leonard, C. and Doggart, N. (2008a). Landscape Profile: Matumbi / Kichi Hills. Document 

prepared as an input to the GEF PPG process to develop a full sized proposal for the Tanzanian 

Coastal Forests. Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 

Perkin, A., Leonard, C. and Doggart, N. (2008c). Landscape Profile: Kilwa. Document prepared as an 

input to the GEF PPG process to develop a full sized proposal for the Tanzanian Coastal Forests. 

Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 

Perkin, A., Leonard, C. and Doggart, N. (2008c). Landscape Profile: Rondo / Noto Plateau. 

Document prepared as an input to the GEF PPG process to develop a full sized proposal for the 

Tanzanian Coastal Forests. Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 

Prins, E., and Clarke, G.P. 2006. Discovery and enumeration of Swahilian Coastal Forests in Lindi 

region, Tanzania, using Landsat TM data analysis. Biodivers. Conserv. 16:1551-1565. 

Olson, D. M. And E. Dinerstein 1998. The Global 200: A Representation Approach To Conserving The 

Earth's Most Biologically Valuable Ecoregions. Conservation Biology 12:502-515. 

Rodrigues A.S.L., Akcakaya H.R., Andelman S.J., Bakarr M.I., Boitani L., Brooks T.M., Chanson J.S., 

Fishpool L.D.C., Da Fonseca G.A.B., Gaston K.J., Hoffmann M., Marquet P.A., Pilgrim J.D., Pressey 

R.L., Schipper J., Sechrest W., Stuart S.N., Underhill L.G., Waller R.W., Watts M.E.J. And Yan X. 

2004a. Global Gap Analysis: Priority Regions For Expanding The Global Protected-Area Network. 

Bioscience 54: 1092-1100. 

Rodrigues A.S.L., Andelman S.J., Bakarr M.I., Boitani L., Brooks T.M., Cowling R.M., Fishpool L.D.C., 

Da Fonseca G.A.B., Gaston K.J., Hoffmann M., Long J.S., Marquet P.A., Pilgrim J.D., Pressey R.L., 

Schipper J., Sechrest W., Stuart S.N., Underhill L.G., Waller R.W., Watts M.E.J. And Yan X. 2004b. 

Effectiveness Of The Global Protected Area Network In Representing Species Diversity. Nature 

428: 640-643. 

Shemdoe, R.S., J.M. Abdalah. 2011. Socio-Economic Baseline Surveys For Selected Coastal Forest 

Landscapes In Tanzania. Draft Consultancy Report Submitted To WWF Tanzania, 1-87 

84


Serikali ya Mapinduzi ya Zanzibar 2007. Environmental Management for Sustainable Development 

Act, 1996, Part 1 to the Zanzibar Government Gazette Vol CVI No 5743 of 31 st May 1997 

Serikali ya Mapinduzi ya Zanzibar 2007. The Forest Resources Management and Conservation Act No 

10 of 1996, Part 1 to Zanzibar Government Gazette Vol. No. 5769 of 6 th December 1997 

Serikali ya Mapinduzi ya Zanzibar 2005. National Forest Policy, 1995. Ministry of Agriculture and 

Natural Resources, Zanzibar. 

Serikali ya Mapinduzi ya Zanzibar 2002. The Environmental Polciy of 1992. Ministry of Water, 

Construction, Energy, Lands and Environment, Zanzibar. 

Sritharan, S And Burgess, N.D. (2011). Gaps In The Protection Of Important Bird Areas In Tanzania. 

African Journal Of Ecology Doi: 10.1111/J.1365-2028.2011.01295.X 

St. John, F. A. V. (2007). A Review of Existing Biodiversity Data and the Use of Disturbance Transects, 

METT and TRA as Monitoring Tools for the WWF Lowland Coastal Forests Project . Consultancy 

Report Submitted to WWF Tanzania Programme Office. i – v + 88 pp. 

Stattersfield, A. J., M. J. Crosby, A. J. Long, And D. C. Wege 1998. Endemic Bird Areas Of The World. 

Priorities For Biodiversity Conservation. Birdlife Conservation Series No. 7. Birdlife International, 

Cambridge, UK. 

Timberlake, J., D Goyder, F. Crawford, J. Burrows, G.P. Clark, Q. Luke, H. Matimele, T. Muller, O. 

Pascal, C. De Sousa, And T. Alves. 2011. Coastal Dry Forests In Northern Mozambique. Plant 

Ecology And Evolution 144: 126-137 

White, F. 1983. The Vegetation Of Africa, A Descriptive Memoir To Accompany The 

Unesco/Aetfat/Unso Vegetation Map Of Africa (3 Plates, Northwestern Africa, Northeastern 

Africa, And Southern Africa, 1:5,000,000). United Nations Educational, Scientific And Cultural 

Organization, Paris, France. 

WWF-EARPO 2006. Coastal Forests Of Eastern Africa: Conservation Strategy And Action Plan. WWF 

East Africa Regional Project Office, Nairobi. 

United Republic of Tanzania 2006. The National Environment Plan. Division of Environment, Vice- 

President’s Office. 

United Republic of Tanzania 2005. National Strategy for Grwoth and Poverty Reduction. Ministry of 

Finance and Economic Affairs. 

United Republic of Tanzania 2004. The Environmenal Management Act. Division of Environment, 

Vice-President’s Office. 

United Republic of Tanzania 2001. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Division of 

Environment, Vice-President’s Office. 

United Republic of Tanzania 1998. Forest Policy of Tanzania. Forestry and Beekeeping Division, 

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. 

United Republic of Tanzania 1999. The Village Land Act, No. 5, 1999. Ministry of Lands and Human 

Settlements Development. 

United Republic of Tanzania 1997. The National Environment Policy. Division of Environment, Vice- 

President’s Office. 

United Republic of Tanzania 1996. National Development Vision 2025. Planning Commission, Office 

of the President. 

United Republic of Tanzania 1994. National Environmental Action Plan. Division of Environment, 

Vice-President’s Office. 

85

ANNEXES: TANZANIA’S COASTAL FORESTS 2011 

8 Annexes 

8.1 Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) Scores 

Table 28: Summary METT Scores by Protected Area 

Forest Reserve Landscape Total Rank 

Kisangi Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 71 1 

Imbende-Nainokwe Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 70 2 

Liwiti Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 70 3 

Namajongoo Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 70 4 

Jozani Chwaka Bay National Park Zanzibar 63 5 

Mihima Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 62 6 

Mtene Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 61 7 

Nahoro (Milola magharibi) Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 61 8 

Nndawa Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 61 9 

Mchonga Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 60 10 

Saadani National Park Other 60 11 

Somanga Simu Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 59 12 

Ulabo Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 59 13 

Liganga Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 59 14 

Nambidi (MuunganoII) Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 59 15 

Njau (Mnamba) Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 59 16 

Kianika Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 58 17 

Namangale Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 58 18 

Kilwa Mangroves Forest Reserve Kilwa 57 19 

Nawelewele (Makonde) Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 57 20 

Ruaha Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 57 21 

Tawi Village Land Forest Reserve Matumbi 57 22 

Lwii (Chiwerere) Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 56 23 

Nyamwage Village Land Forest Reserve Matumbi 56 24 

Yelya Village Land Forest Reserve Matumbi 56 25 

Lipadang'ombe (Hingawali) Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 55 26 

Litutu (Mtumbya) Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 55 27 

86



Sanduku-Marendego Village Land Forest Reserve Lindi 55 28 

Mbwara Village Land Forest Reserve Matumbi 55 29 

Mtanzamsona Village Land Forest Reserve Matumbi 55 30 

Kibambo Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 54 31 

Nambawala-Kipindimbi Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 54 32 

Lindi Mangroves Forest Reserve Lindi 54 33 

Kilungulungu Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 53 34 

Mtende Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 53 35 

Nambunju Village Land Forest Reserve Matumbi 53 36 

Kiwengwa Forest Reserve Zanzibar 53 37 

Ngezi-Vumbawimbi Nature Forest Reserve Zanzibar 53 38 

Mkoko Village Land Forest Reserve Matumbi 52 39 

Utunge Village Land Forest Reserve Matumbi 52 40 

Naulai Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 51 41 

Kiwawa Local Authority Forest Reserve (proposed) Kilwa 50 42 

Lung'ou-Likawage Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 50 43 

Miteja Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 50 44 

Rondo Forest Reserve Lindi 50 45 

Tegwe-Matipwili Village Land Forest Reserve Other 50 46 

Kichi Local Authority Forest Reserve Matumbi 50 47 

Hotelitatu Local Authority Forest Reserve (proposed) Kilwa 49 48 

Kandawale Local Authority Forest Reserve Kilwa 49 49 

Mangarengare-Likawage Local Authority Forest Reserve Kilwa 49 50 

Ruahatwe Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 49 51 

Tong'omba Local Authority Forest Reserve Kilwa 49 52 

Mitialambuko Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 48 53 

Mitole Local Authority Forest Reserve Kilwa 48 54 

Mlola 'A' Forest Reserve Other 47 55 

Migeregere Village Land Forest Reserve Kilwa 46 56 

Gongo Village Land Forest Reserve Other 46 57 

Mbwebwe Village Land Forest Reserve Other 46 58 

Pande Game Reserve Other 46 59 

Mkange Village Land Forest Reserve Other 45 60 

87



Masingini Forest Reserve Zanzibar 45 61 

Nandundu Forest Reserve Matumbi 44 62 

Kitope Forest Reserve Kilwa 43 63 

Kumbi Forest Reserve Matumbi 43 64 

Nerumba Forest Reserve Matumbi 43 65 

Mlola 'B' Forest Reserve Other 42 66 

Ruhoi Local Authority Forest Reserve Matumbi 42 67 

Katundu Forest Reserve Matumbi 41 68 

Utete warm spring Forest Reserve Matumbi 41 69 

Msitu Mkuu Forest Reserve Zanzibar 41 70 

Pugu Forest Reserve Other 40 71 

Rufiji Mangroves Forest Reserve Matumbi 40 72 

Rupiage Forest Reserve Matumbi 40 73 

Mpanga Forest Reserve Matumbi 39 74 

Mtanza Forest Reserve Matumbi 39 75 

Makangara Local Authority Forest Reserve Lindi 38 76 

Ngulakula Forest Reserve Matumbi 38 77 

Kipo Forest Reserve Matumbi 37 78 

Kikale Forest Reserve Matumbi 36 79 

Mtita Forest Reserve Matumbi 36 80 

Nyambawala Village Land Forest Reserve (proposed) Matumbi 36 81 

Ras Kiuyu Forest Reserve Zanzibar 36 82 

Dimba Forest Reserve Lindi 35 83 

Litipo Forest Reserve Lindi 35 84 

Mbumi Forest Reserve Matumbi 35 85 

Minganje Village Land Forest Reserve (proposed) Matumbi 35 86 

Mtunda Village Land Forest Reserve (proposed) Matumbi 35 87 

Ruaruke Village Land Forest Reserve (proposed) Matumbi 35 88 

Urembo Village Land Forest Reserve (proposed) Matumbi 35 89 

Kiwengoma Forest Reserve Matumbi 34 90 

Nyamitandai Village Land Forest Reserve (proposed) Matumbi 34 91 

Nzenge Village Land Forest Reserve (proposed) Matumbi 34 92 

Jogoobahari Village Land Forest Reserve (proposed) Matumbi 33 93 

88



Mangwi Village Land Forest Reserve (proposed) Matumbi 33 94 

Mbingo Village Land Forest Reserve (proposed) Matumbi 33 95 

Mchungu Forest Reserve Matumbi 33 96 

Mkupuka Village Land Forest Reserve (proposed) Matumbi 33 97 

Msubugwe Galafuno Forest Reserve Other 32 98 

Muyuyu Village Land Forest Reserve (proposed) Matumbi 32 99 

Utete Forest Reserve Matumbi 32 100 

Chitoa Forest Reserve Lindi 31 101 

Semdoe Forest Reserve Other 31 102 

Ngumburuni Forest Reserve Matumbi 31 103 

Segoma Forest Reserve Other 30 104 

Marenda Forest Reserve Matumbi 30 105 

Bamba Ridge Forest Reserve Other 29 106 

Ruvu South Forest Reserve Other 29 107 

Simbo-Msinune Forest Reserve Other 29 108 

Muhoro Forest Reserve Matumbi 29 109 

Nyamakutwa-Namuete Forest Reserve Matumbi 29 110 

Tamburu Forest Reserve Matumbi 29 111 

Malehi Forest Reserve Kilwa 28 112 

Mbinga Kimaji Forest Reserve Kilwa 28 113 

Mitalule Forest Reserve Kilwa 28 114 

Mitundumbea Local Authority Forest Reserve Kilwa 28 115 

Ngarama North Forest Reserve Kilwa 28 116 

Ngarama South Forest Reserve Kilwa 28 117 

Rungo Forest Reserve Kilwa 28 118 

Matapwa Forest Reserve Lindi 28 119 

Nyangamara Local Authority Forest Reserve Lindi 28 120 

Gwami Forest Reserve Other 28 121 

Mlungui Forest Reserve Other 28 122 

Kazimzimbwi Forest Reserve Other 27 123 

Kikoka Forest Reserve Other 27 124 

Kingoma Forest Reserve Matumbi 27 125 

Gendagenda Village Land Forest Reserve Other 26 126 

89



Kwamgumi Forest Reserve Other 26 127 

Kwani-Tongwe Forest Reserve Other 26 128 

Masanganya Forest Reserve Other 26 129 

Uzigua Forest Reserve Other 26 130 

Pindiro Forest Reserve Kilwa 25 131 

Muhoro River Matumbi 24 132 

Mtama Local Authority Forest Reserve Lindi 23 133 

Mchungu Forest Reserve Matumbi 23 134 

Kirengoma Forest Reserve Matumbi 22 135 

Kolokole Forest Reserve Other 20 136 

Vikindu Forest Reserve Other 20 137 

Ruawa Forest Reserve Lindi 19 138 

Amboni Caves Historical Site Other 18 139 

Genda Genda Forest Reserve Other 15 140 

Kwa Marimba Forest Reserve Other 14 141 

Ruhoi Forest Reserve Matumbi 14 142 

Kambai Forest Reserve Other 12 143 

Manga Forest Reserve Other 12 144 

Kisiju Forest Reserve Other 11 145 

Nyambawala B Village Land Forest Reserve (proposed) Matumbi 3 146 

90


Table 29: METT Scores by Landscape and Category 

Category 

Kilwa 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Others 

Average 

Score 

Lindi 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Matumbi 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Zanzibar 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Max 

Score 

Kilwa 

Landscape 

% Score 

Others 

% Score 

Lindi 

Landscape 

% Score 

Matumbi 

Landscap 

e % Score 

Zanzibar 

Landscape 

% Score 

Ordinal Scores 

Percentage Scores 

91 

TOTALS 51.38 48.58 30.91 39.46 51.00 102.00 50% 48% 30% 39% 50% 

1 Does the protected area 

have legal status 2.65 2.67 2.88 2.20 2.83 3 88% 89% 96% 73% 94% 

2 Are there good 

regulations to control 

landuse & activities 2.12 2.25 1.69 1.44 2.17 3 71% 75% 56% 48% 72% 

3 Can managing staff 

sufficiently enforce 

protected area rules 1.06 1.33 0.84 0.50 1.83 3 35% 44% 28% 17% 61% 

4 Is management 

undertaken as per agreed 

objectives 2.21 1.75 1.44 1.78 2.00 3 74% 58% 48% 59% 67% 

5 Is the PA design optimal 

for species & ecosystem 

function 2.65 2.29 2.06 1.88 2.33 3 88% 76% 69% 63% 78% 

6 Is the PA boundary 

known & demarcated 2.26 2.71 2.13 1.68 2.00 3 75% 90% 71% 56% 67% 

7 Is there a management 

plan & is it being 

implemented 0.97 2.29 0.91 0.72 1.33 3 32% 76% 30% 24% 44% 

7a Planning process allows 

adequate stakeholder 

participation 1.00 0.63 0.31 0.72 1.00 1 100% 63% 31% 72% 100%


Category 

Kilwa 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Others 

Average 

Score 

Lindi 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Matumbi 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Zanzibar 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Max 

Score 

Kilwa 

Landscape 

% Score 

Others 

% Score 

Lindi 

Landscape 

% Score 

Matumbi 

Landscap 

e % Score 

Zanzibar 

Landscape 

% Score 



7b Established schedule & 

process for review of 

mngmt pln exists 0.71 0.75 0.22 0.50 0.17 1 71% 75% 22% 50% 17% 

7c Monitoring research & 

evaluation are used to 

update mngmt pln 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.33 1 0% 0% 6% 0% 33% 

8 Is there a regular work 

plan & is it being 

implemented 0.71 0.75 0.56 0.50 1.50 3 24% 25% 19% 17% 50% 

9 Do you have enough 

information to manage the 

area 1.59 2.50 0.66 1.16 1.67 3 53% 83% 22% 39% 56% 

10 Are systems in place to 

control resource use 1.79 1.71 0.88 1.28 1.83 3 60% 57% 29% 43% 61% 

11 Is there a programme 

of management-orientated 

research 0.88 1.21 0.78 0.22 1.17 3 29% 40% 26% 7% 39% 

12 Is active resource 

management being 

undertaken 1.26 1.75 0.78 0.50 1.50 3 42% 58% 26% 17% 50% 

13 Are there enough staff 

for the protected area 2.15 2.04 1.06 1.24 1.50 3 72% 68% 35% 41% 50% 

14 Are staff adequately 

trained for management 

objectives 1.97 2.00 0.91 1.48 1.33 3 66% 67% 30% 49% 44% 

15 Is the current budget 0.76 1.42 0.25 0.88 1.17 3 25% 47% 8% 29% 39% 

92


Category 

Kilwa 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Others 

Average 

Score 

Lindi 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Matumbi 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Zanzibar 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Max 

Score 

Kilwa 

Landscape 

% Score 

Others 

% Score 

Lindi 

Landscape 

% Score 

Matumbi 

Landscap 

e % Score 

Zanzibar 

Landscape 

% Score 

sufficient 



16 Is the budget secure? 0.91 0.50 0.28 0.86 0.83 3 30% 17% 9% 29% 28% 

17 Is the budget managed 

to meet critical 

management needs 1.41 0.54 0.28 0.86 1.33 3 47% 18% 9% 29% 44% 

18 Is equipment sufficient 

for management needs 0.59 0.88 0.31 0.26 0.83 3 20% 29% 10% 9% 28% 

19 Is equipment 

adequately maintained? 0.59 0.13 0.09 0.44 1.00 3 20% 4% 3% 15% 33% 

20 Is there a planned 

education programme 

linked to management 1.68 1.04 1.00 1.12 1.00 3 56% 35% 33% 37% 33% 

21 Is land & water 

planning integrated with 

PA needs 2.56 0.29 0.69 1.80 1.50 3 85% 10% 23% 60% 50% 

21a Land & water planning 

for habitat conservation 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.72 0.50 1 21% 21% 19% 72% 50% 

21b Land & water planning 

for connectivity 0.82 0.54 0.09 0.66 0.50 1 82% 54% 9% 66% 50% 

21c Land & water planning 

for ecosystem services & 

conserving sp 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.90 0.33 1 100% 100% 3% 90% 33% 

22 Is there cooperation 

with adjacent land & water 

users 0.06 0.00 1.06 0.08 2.00 3 2% 0% 35% 3% 67% 

93


Category 

Kilwa 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Others 

Average 

Score 

Lindi 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Matumbi 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Zanzibar 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Max 

Score 

Kilwa 

Landscape 

% Score 

Others 

% Score 

Lindi 

Landscape 

% Score 

Matumbi 

Landscap 

e % Score 

Zanzibar 

Landscape 

% Score 



23 do indigenous / local 

peoples input into 

management decisions 2.41 2.29 1.56 1.94 1.17 3 80% 76% 52% 65% 39% 

24 Do local communities 

input into management 

decisions 2.41 2.29 1.59 1.78 1.17 3 80% 76% 53% 59% 39% 

24a Communication & 

trust between 

local/indigenous pple & 

mngers 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.92 0.67 1 100% 100% 34% 92% 67% 

24b Programmes to 

enhance community 

welfare implemented 0.76 0.67 0.38 0.90 0.50 1 76% 67% 38% 90% 50% 

24c Local/indigenous 

people actively support 

the protected area 1.00 0.92 0.06 0.92 0.83 1 100% 92% 6% 92% 83% 

25 Is the protected 

providing benefits to local 

communities? 1.12 1.54 1.13 0.94 2.17 3 37% 51% 38% 31% 72% 

26 Are management 

activities monitored 

against performance? 1.12 1.00 0.63 1.14 0.83 3 37% 33% 21% 38% 28% 

27 Are visitor facilities 

adequate? 0.00 0.08 0.22 0.00 1.00 3 0% 3% 7% 0% 33% 

28 Do tour operators 

contribute to protected 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.06 0.67 3 0% 0% 15% 2% 22% 

94


Category 

Kilwa 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Others 

Average 

Score 

Lindi 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Matumbi 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Zanzibar 

Landscape 

Average 

Score 

Max 

Score 

Kilwa 

Landscape 

% Score 

Others 

% Score 

Lindi 

Landscape 

% Score 

Matumbi 

Landscap 

e % Score 

Zanzibar 

Landscape 

% Score 

area management? 



29 If fees are applied, do 

they help protected area 

management? 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.50 3 0% 0% 7% 0% 17% 

30 What is the relative 

improvement of status of 

key PA values? 2.00 1.83 1.38 1.76 2.33 3 67% 61% 46% 59% 78% 

30a The assessment of 

values is based on research 

/ monitoring 1.00 0.13 0.25 0.90 0.17 1 100% 13% 25% 90% 17% 

30b Programmes are 

implemented to address 

threats to values 1.00 1.00 0.22 0.92 0.83 1 100% 100% 22% 92% 83% 

30c Activities to maintain 

values are routine 1.00 0.67 0.06 0.90 0.67 1 100% 67% 6% 90% 67% 

95

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 

Population trend 


8.2 Lists of endemic, near-endemic and threatened species of birds, mammals, reptiles and 

amphibians in the Coastal Forests 

The lists that follow in this section are still ‘works-in-progress’ and should not be regarded as definitive. 

Table 30: List of threatened plant species 

Family Genus species 

det. by 

(Herbarium), 

date 

TOTAL SPECIES COUNT 133 51 55 32 

ALOACEAE Aloe boscowenii 0 0 0 0 - CR D 3.1 2006 unknown 

ALOACEAE Aloe pembana 0 0 0 1 - CR 

B1ab(iii,v) 

+2ab(iii,v); 

C2a(ii) 

3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Monodora hastipetala 0 0 1 0 

T. L. P. 

Couvreur 

(WAG) 2006 

CR 

B1ab(iii) 

+2ab(iii) 

3.1 2008 unknown 

ANNONACEAE Uvaria puguensis 0 0 0 0 

R. E. Gereau 

(MO) 2006 

CR B1ab(iii) 3.1 2006 decreasing 

COMBRETACEAE Combretum tenuipetiolatum 0 0 0 0 FTEA: TYPE CR B1+2c 2.3 1998 not stated 

FABACEAE Cynometra gillmanii 1 0 0 0 

F.M. Mbago, 

1992 

CR - - - - 

ARACEAE Culcasia orientalis 0 1 0 1 FTEA DD - 3.1 2009 unknown 

CAPPARACEAE Maerua acuminata 0 1 0 0 FTEA DD - 2.3 1998 not stated 

EBENACEAE Diospyros capricornuta 0 0 1 0 FTEA DD - 2.3 1998 not stated 

EBENACEAE Diospyros occulta 0 0 0 0 FTEA: TYPE DD - 2.3 1998 not stated 

96

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 




det. by 

(Herbarium), 

date 

SAPINDACEAE Haplocoelopsis africana 0 0 1 0 - DD - 2.3 1998 not stated 

TILIACEAE Grewia goetzeana 0 0 1 0 - DD - 2.3 1998 not stated 

ANNONACEAE Asteranthe lutea 0 0 1 0 - EN B2ab(iii) 3.1 2008 unknown 

ANNONACEAE Isolona cauliflora? 0 0 0 0 - EN 

97 

B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) 

+2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) 


ANNONACEAE Isolona heinsenii 0 0 1 0 - EN B1ab(iii) 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Monodora carolinae 0 1 1 0 

T. L. P. 

Couvreur 

(WAG) 2006 

EN 

B1ab(iii) 

+2ab(iii) 


ANNONACEAE Polyalthia tanganyikensis 0 0 1 0 - EN B1ab(ii,iii,v) 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Sanrafaelia ruffonammari 0 0 0 0 

ANNONACEAE Uvaria pandensis 0 0 0 0 

ANNONACEAE Uvariodendron pycnophyllum 0 0 0 0 

ANNONACEAE Xylopia collina 1 1 0 0 

ANNONACEAE Xylopia mwasumbii 0 0 1 0 

C.J. Kayombo, 

1999 

F.M. Mbago 

& H.O. 

Suleiman, 

1989 

F. M. Mbago 

(DSM) 2006 

C.J. Kayombo 

(NHT) 2003 

D. M. 

Johnson, 

1999 

EN 

B1ab(iii) 

+2ab(iii) 


EN B1ab(iii) 3.1 2006 decreasing 




ARACEAE Amorphophallus stuhlmannii 0 0 0 0 FTEA EN B2ab(iii) 3.1 2006 unknown

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 




det. by 

(Herbarium), 

date 

ARACEAE Gonatopus marattioides 0 0 0 0 FTEA: TYPE EN B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ARACEAE Stylochiton bogneri 0 0 0 0 FTEA: TYPE EN 

BIGNONIACEAE Fernandoa lutea 0 1 0 0 

98 

Type of 

Fernandoa 

magnifica 

Seem. var. 

lutea Verdc. 

B1ab(iii) 

+2ab(iii) 


EN B1+2bc 2.3 1998 not stated 

BORAGINACEAE Ehretia glandulosissima 0 1 0 0 FTEA: TYPE EN B1+2c 2.3 1998 not stated 

CANELLACEAE Warburgia elongata 0 0 0 0 FTEA: TYPE EN B1+2c 2.3 1998 not stated 

CLUSIACEAE Garcinia bifasciculata 0 0 0 0 FTEA: TYPE EN - - - - 

COMBRETACEAE Vismia pauciflora 0 1 0 0 - EN - - - - 

DIPTEROCARPACEAE Monotes lutambensis 0 1 0 0 FTEA: TYPE EN B1+2c, C2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

EBENACEAE Diospyros magogoana 0 1 0 0 FTEA: TYPE EN B1+2bc 2.3 1998 not stated 

EBENACEAE Diospyros shimbaensis 0 0 0 0 

Daniel K. 

Abbiw (GC), 

1993 

EN - - - - 

EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia wakefieldii 0 0 0 0 - EN - - - - 

EUPHORBIACEAE Lingelsheimia sylvestris 0 0 0 0 - EN - - - - 

FABACEAE Baikiaea ghesquiereana 0 0 1 0 - EN - - - - 

FABACEAE Baphia pauloi 0 0 0 0 

W.R.Q. Luke 

(EA) 2007 

EN - - - - 

FABACEAE Baphia puguensis 0 0 1 0 K. Vollesen EN - - - -

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 




det. by 

(Herbarium), 

date 

FABACEAE Bussea eggelingii 0 1 0 0 

(K) 2002 

L.B. 

Mwasumbi 

(DSM), 1984 

EN - - - - 

FABACEAE Cynometra ulugurensis 0 0 0 0 

FABACEAE Gigasiphon macrosiphon 0 1 0 0 

99 

R. Gereau 

(MO) 2004 

R.C. Wingfield 

(DSM), 1978 

EN - - - - 

EN - - - - 

FABACEAE Tessmannia densiflora 0 0 1 0 FTEA EN - - - - 

MELIACEAE Lovoa swynnertonii 0 0 1 0 FTEA: TYPE EN A1cd 2.3 1998 not stated 

MELIACEAE Turraea kimbozensis 0 0 0 0 - EN C2b, D 2.3 1998 not stated 

RUBIACEAE Cuviera schliebenii 0 1 0 0 - EN B1+2bc 2.3 1998 not stated 

RUBIACEAE Leptactina papyrophloea 0 1 0 0 

RUBIACEAE Rytigynia longipedicellata 0 1 0 0 

R. E. Gereau 

2004 

Y.S. Abeid 

2000 

EN B1+2c 2.3 1998 not stated 

EN B1+2bc 2.3 1998 not stated 

RUBIACEAE Tapiphyllum schliebenii 0 0 0 0 - EN B1+2c, C2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

BORAGINACEAE Cordia subcordata 0 0 0 0 - LR/lc - 2.3 1998 not stated 

MORACEAE Milicia excelsa 1 1 1 0 

R.E. Gereau, 

1994 

ALOACEAE Aloe leachii 0 0 0 0 - VU 

ALOACEAE Aloe massawana 0 0 0 1 - VU 

LR/nt - 2.3 1998 not stated 

B1ab(iii) 

+2ab(iii) 

B1ab(iii) 

+2ab(iii) 


3.1 2006 decreasing

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 




det. by 

(Herbarium), 

date 

ANNONACEAE Lettowianthus stellatus 1 0 1 0 

100 

C.J. Kayombo 

(NHT) 2003 

VU - 3.1 2006 not stated 

ANNONACEAE Mkilua fragrans? 0 1 1 1 FTEA VU B1ab(iii) 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Monanthotaxis trichantha 0 1 1 0 - VU B2ab(ii,iii,v) 3.1 2006 unknown 

ANNONACEAE Ophrypetalum Odoratum 1 0 0 1 0 FTEA: TYPE VU B1ab(ii,iii,v) 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Ophrypetalum Odoratum 2 0 0 1 0 FTEA: TYPE VU B1ab(ii,iii,v) 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Ophrypetalum odoratum 0 1 1 0 FTEA: TYPE VU B1ab(ii,iii,v) 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Polyalthia stuhlmannii 0 0 0 0 FTEA VU B1ab(ii,iii,v) 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Polyceratocarpus scheffleri 0 0 0 0 

ANNONACEAE Toussaintia orientalis 0 0 1 0 

Greenway 

1951 

Y.S. Abeid, 

1999 

VU B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) 3.1 2006 unknown 

VU B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Uvaria tanzaniae 0 0 0 0 - VU B1ab(iii) 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Uvariodendron gorgonis 1 0 0 0 

D. Johnson 

(OWU) 2006 

VU B2ab(iii) 3.1 2006 unknown 

ANNONACEAE Uvariodendron kirkii 0 0 1 1 FTEA VU B1ab(iii) 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Uvariodendron oligocarpum 0 0 0 0 

ANNONACEAE Uvariodendron usambarense 0 0 0 0 

K. Vollesen 

(K), 1999 

I. Rajabu 

Hizza, 1998 

VU B1ab(iii) 3.1 2006 decreasing 


ANNONACEAE Xylopia arenaria 0 0 0 0 - VU B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ARACEAE Gonatopus petiolulatus 0 0 0 0 

W.R.Q. Luke 

(EA) 2006 

VU B2ab(iii) 3.1 2006 decreasing

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 




det. by 

(Herbarium), 

date 

ARACEAE Stylochiton crassispathus 0 0 0 0 FTEA: TYPE VU 

101 

B1ab(iii) 

+2ab(iii);D2 


ARACEAE Stylochiton euryphyllus 0 1 0 0 FTEA: TYPE VU B2ab(iii) 3.1 2006 unknown 

ARECACEAE Dypsis pembana 0 0 0 1 

R. E. Gereau 

2003 

VU - - - - 

BUXACEAE Buxus obtusifolia 0 0 0 0 - VU - - - - 

CANELLACEAE Warburgia stuhlmannii 0 0 0 0 

R. Gereau 

(MO) 2006 

VU B1+2c 2.3 1998 not stated 

CLUSIACEAE Allanblackia stuhlmannii 0 0 0 1 - VU - - - - 

CLUSIACEAE Garcinia acutifolia 0 0 0 0 FTEA VU - - - - 

CLUSIACEAE Garcinia semseii 0 0 0 0 E.A.H VU - - - - 

EBENACEAE Diospyros amaniensis 0 0 0 0 MW, 1983 VU B1+2bc 2.3 1998 not stated 

EBENACEAE Diospyros greenwayi 0 0 0 0 KEW 1981 VU B1+2c 2.3 1998 not stated 

EUPHORBIACEAE Aristogeitonia monophylla 0 0 1 0 - VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

EUPHORBIACEAE Croton jatrophoides 0 0 0 1 

H. J. Esser (M) 

2004 

VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

EUPHORBIACEAE Drypetes sclerophylla 0 1 0 0 FTEA: TYPE VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

EUPHORBIACEAE Meineckia paxii 0 0 0 0 - VU - - - - 

EUPHORBIACEAE Micrococca scariosa 0 0 0 1 Syntype VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

EUPHORBIACEAE Mildbraedia Carpinifolia 3 0 0 0 1 FTEA VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

EUPHORBIACEAE Mildbraedia Carpinifolia 4 0 0 1 0 

R. E. Gereau 

(MO) 2006 

VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 




det. by 

(Herbarium), 

date 

EUPHORBIACEAE Mildbraedia carpinifolia 0 0 0 0 RW 1976 VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

EUPHORBIACEAE Pycnocoma littoralis 0 0 0 0 

EUPHORBIACEAE Shirakiopsis trilocularis 0 0 0 0 

102 

W.R.Q. Luke 

(EA) 2006 

M.A. 

Mwangoka 

2001 


VU - - - - 

EUPHORBIACEAE Sibangea pleioneura 0 0 0 0 A.R.Smith VU - - - - 

EUPHORBIACEAE Suregada lithoxyla 0 0 0 0 

FABACEAE Angylocalyx braunii 0 0 0 0 

W.R.Q. Luke 

(EA) 2006 

K. Vollesen 

(K) 2003 


VU - - - - 

FABACEAE Baphia kirkii 1 0 1 0 - VU - - - - 

FABACEAE Bauhinia loeseneriana 0 1 1 0 - VU - - - - 

FABACEAE Berlinia orientalis 0 1 0 0 

K. Vollesen 

(K) 2002 

VU - - - - 

FABACEAE Cynometra brachyrrhachis 0 0 0 0 - VU - - - - 

FABACEAE Cynometra engleri 0 0 0 0 

P. Ezrom 

(NHT) 2006 

VU - - - - 

FABACEAE Cynometra suaheliensis 0 0 0 0 FTEA VU - - - - 

FABACEAE Cynometra webberi 1 0 0 0 

FABACEAE Dalbergia acariiantha 0 1 0 0 

A. 

Randrianasolo 

(MO) 2001 

A. 

Randrianasolo 

VU - - - - 

VU - - - -

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 




det. by 

(Herbarium), 

date 

FABACEAE Dalbergia vacciniifolia 0 0 0 1 

FABACEAE Dialium holtzii 0 1 1 0 

(MO) 2001 

A. 

Randrianasolo 

(MO) 2002 

L.B. 

Mwasumbi 

(DSM), 1979 

VU - - - - 

VU - - - - 

FABACEAE Erythrina sacleuxii 0 0 0 0 

103 

D. Johnson 

(OWU) 2007 

VU - - - - 

FABACEAE Guibourtia schliebenii 0 1 0 0 FTEA VU - - - - 

FABACEAE Intsia bijuga 0 0 0 1 - VU - - - - 

FABACEAE Julbernardia magnistipulata 0 0 0 0 

FABACEAE Millettia bussei 0 0 1 0 

M.A. 

Mwangoka 

(NHT) 2003 

F.M. Mbago 

& H.O. 

Suleiman, 

1990 

VU - - - - 

VU - - - - 

FABACEAE Millettia elongatistyla 0 0 0 0 - VU - - - - 

FABACEAE Millettia micans 0 0 0 0 

FABACEAE Millettia sacleuxii 0 0 0 0 

FABACEAE Newtonia paucijuga 0 1 1 0 

I. Rajabu 

Hizza, 1999 

C.J. Kayombo 

(NHT) 2003 

Y.S. Abeid 

2000 

VU - - - - 

VU - - - - 

VU - - - -

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 




det. by 

(Herbarium), 

date 

FABACEAE Stuhlmannia moavi 0 0 0 0 

FABACEAE Zenkerella egregia 0 0 0 0 

MELIACEAE Khaya anthotheca 0 0 0 0 

104 

O. Kibure 

2000 

W.D. Stevens 

2002 

M. Thulin 

(UPS) 2003 

VU - - - - 

VU - - - - 

VU A1cd 2.3 1998 not stated 

MORACEAE Mesogyne insignis 0 0 0 0 FTEA VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

RUBIACEAE Afrocanthium siebenlistii 0 0 0 0 - VU - - - - 

RUBIACEAE Aoranthe penduliflora 0 0 1 0 - VU B1+2bc 2.3 1998 not stated 

RUBIACEAE Canthium impressinervium 0 1 0 0 - VU B1+2b, D2 2.3 1998 not stated 

RUBIACEAE Coffea costatifructa 1 0 0 0 

RUBIACEAE 

Coffea 

Pseudozanguebariae 

RUBIACEAE Gardenia transvenulosa 1 1 1 0 

R. Gereau 

(MO) 2007 

VU D2 2.3 1998 not stated 

0 0 0 1 FTEA VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

M.A. 

Mwangoka 

(NHT) 2003 


RUBIACEAE Kraussia speciosa 0 0 0 0 - VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

RUBIACEAE Multidentia castaneae 0 0 0 0 

RUBIACEAE Pavetta holstii 0 0 0 0 

R. Gereau 

(MO) 2002 

M.A. 

Mwangoka 

2002 



RUBIACEAE Pavetta tarennoides 0 0 0 0 H. J. Esser (M) VU - - - -

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 




det. by 

(Herbarium), 

date 

RUBIACEAE Psychotria cyathicalyx 0 1 0 0 

2004 

M.A. 

Mwangoka 

2002 


RUBIACEAE Psydrax faulknerae 0 1 0 0 - VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

RUBIACEAE Psydrax kibuwae 0 0 0 0 

G. 

McPherson, 

1994 

VU B1+2b, D2 2.3 1998 not stated 

RUBIACEAE Psydrax micans 0 1 0 0 

C.J. Kayombo 

(NHT) 2004 


RUBIACEAE Rothmannia macrosiphon 0 0 1 0 - VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

RUBIACEAE Rytigynia binata 0 1 0 0 

RUBIACEAE Tarenna drummondii 0 0 1 0 

RUBIACEAE Tricalysia acidophylla 0 0 0 0 

Y.S. Abeid 

2000 

C.J. Kayombo 

(NHT) 2004 

R. Gereau 

(MO) 2003 




RUBIACEAE Tricalysia pedicellata 0 0 0 0 - VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

RUBIACEAE Tricalysia schliebenii 0 1 0 0 

RUBIACEAE Vangueria bicolor 0 0 0 0 

RUBIACEAE Vangueria pallidiflora 0 0 0 0 

I. Darbyshire 

(K) 2007 

C.J. Kayombo 

(NHT), 1995 

Y.S. Abeid 

2001 


VU B1+2c, D2 2.3 1998 not stated 

VU - - - - 

105

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 




det. by 

(Herbarium), 

date 

RUTACEAE Vepris sansibarensis 0 0 1 0 

RUTACEAE Zanthoxylum deremense 0 1 0 0 

106 

K. Vollesen 

(K), 1995 

K. Vollesen 

(K) 2002 



RUTACEAE Zanthoxylum Holtzianum 5 0 0 0 0 - VU B1+2d 2.3 1998 not stated 

RUTACEAE Zanthoxylum holtzianum 0 1 0 0 - VU B1+2d 2.3 1998 not stated 

RUTACEAE Zanthoxylum lindense 0 0 1 0 

SAPINDACEAE Allophylus chirindensis 0 0 0 0 

Darbyshire & 

Vollesen (K) 

2008 

W.R.Q. Luke 

(EA) 2008 


VU - - - - 

SAPOTACEAE Mimusops acutifolia 0 1 0 0 - VU - - - - 

SAPOTACEAE Mimusops obtusifolia 1 0 0 1 FTEA VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

SAPOTACEAE 

Pouteria 

Pseudoracemosa 

SAPOTACEAE Synsepalum kaessneri 0 0 0 0 

SAPOTACEAE Vitellariopsis cuneata 0 0 0 0 

SAPOTACEAE Vitellariopsis kirkii 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 FTEA VU B1+2b, D2 2.3 1998 not stated 

A. 

Randrianasolo 

(MO) 2001 

A. 

Randrianasolo 

(MO) 2001 

F.M. Mbago, 

1993 



VU - - - - 

STERCULIACEAE Cola scheffleri 0 0 0 0 R. E. Gereau VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 




det. by 

(Herbarium), 

date 

STERCULIACEAE Sterculia schliebenii 0 1 0 0 

(MO) 2005 

F.M. Mbago 

& L.B. 

Mwasumbi 

(DSM) 2007 

VU D2 2.3 1998 not stated 

VERBENACEAE Premna hans-joachimii 0 1 0 0 FTEA VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

VERBENACEAE Premna schliebenii 0 0 0 0 - VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

VERBENACEAE Premna tanganyikensis 0 1 0 0 FTEA: TYPE VU B1+2b 2.3 1998 not stated 

VERBENACEAE Vitex amaniensis 0 0 0 0 

VERBENACEAE Vitex zanzibarensis 0 0 0 0 

D. Frodin, 

1997 

W.D. Stevens 

2001 



ANNONACEAE Asteranthe asterias 0 0 0 0 FTEA: TYPE NT - 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Asteranthe asterias 1 0 0 1 

L.B. 

Mwasumbi 

(DSM), 1978 

NT - 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Asteranthe asterias 1 0 0 1 - NT - 3.1 2006 decreasing 

ANNONACEAE Monodora minor 0 1 0 0 - NT - 3.1 2006 unknown 

ANNONACEAE Uvaria kirkii 0 0 1 1 

ARACEAE Callopsis volkensii 0 0 0 0 

R. E. Gereau 

(MO) 2006 

R.C. Wingfield 

(DSM) 

NT - 3.1 2006 unknown 

NT - 3.1 2006 decreasing 

CYCADACEAE Encephalartos hildebrandtii 1 0 0 1 FTEA NT - - - - 

107


Notes: infraspecies 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

subsp. Longip-edicellatum 

subsp. odoratum 

var. carpi-nifolia 

var. strig-osa Radcl.-Sm. 

subsp. Holtzi-anum 

108

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 

Notes 

Synonyms 



Red List version 

Year assessed 



Table 31: List of threatened amphibians 

Genus 

Species 


Phrynobatrachus ukingensis 0 0 1 0 

Afrixalus sylvaticus 0 0 0 0 

Afrixalus uluguruensis 0 0 0 0 

Small range in 

Malawi 

otherwise 

only known 

from 

Tanzania. 

If the 

Kazimzumbwi 

record is 

correct - this is 

exciting as this 

is the first 

record outside 

Kenya and a 

"considerable" 

range 

extension 

Tanzania 

endemic, 

mainly 

highland 

species. 

a 

DD - 3.1 2004 unknown 



109

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 

Notes 

Synonyms 




Year assessed 



Genus 

Species 

Hyperolius rubrovermiculatus 0 0 0 0 EN B1ab(iii) 3.1 2004 decreasing 

Stephopaedes sp. 0 0 0 0 

Afrixalus sp. 0 0 0 0 

Arthroleptis affinis 0 1 0 1 

Bufo lindneri 0 0 0 0 

Bufo steindachneri 0 0 0 0 

Hyperolius mitchelli 0 1 0 1 

110 

Localised 

Tanzania 

endemic. 

Only a very 

few records. 

Few and very 

scattered 

records 

Wieczorek, 

Drewes, and 

Channing 

2000, J. 

Biogeograph, 

27: 1241, 

provides a 

map and a 

considerable 

altered 

concept of 

Stephopaedes 

howelli ?? 

Afrixalus 

dabagae? 

Arthroleptis 

adolfi-friederici 

ssp. leleupi 



LC - 3.1 2004 stable 

Bufo lindneri LC - 3.1 2004 decreasing 

Bufo 

steindachneri 

LC - 3.1 2004 decreasing 

LC - 3.1 2004 decreasing

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 

Notes 

Synonyms 




Year assessed 



Genus 

Species 

this species 

Leptopelis flavomaculatus 0 0 1 0 

Relatively 

widespread in 

eastern Africa 


Mertensophryne micranotis 0 1 1 1 

Localised in 

East Africa. 

Kenya and 

Tanzania 

endemic. 


Spelaeophryne methneri 0 1 0 1 

Tanzania 

endemic. 

Distribution: s 

and e 

Tanzania 

LC - 3.1 2004 unknown 

Stephopaedes loveridgei 1 1 1 1 

Localised in 

East Africa. 

Tanzania 

endemic. 

Stephopaedes 

loveridgei 


111

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 

Synonyms 




Year assessed 



Table 32: List of Threatened Birds 

Genus species Authority 

Anthreptes 

Anthus 

pallidigaster 

sokokensis 


Sclater & Moreau, 

1935 

van 

1921 

Someren, 

0 0 0 0 EN 

B1ab(i,ii,iii,v); 

B2ab(i,ii,iii,v) 


0 0 0 0 EN B1ab(i,ii,iii,v) 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Otus ireneae Ripley, 1966 0 0 0 0 EN B1ab(iii) 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Zoothera guttata** (Vigors, 1831) 0 1 0 0 

Turdus fischeri 

|Zoothera 

fischeri 

EN C2a(i) 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Anthreptes rubritorques* Reichenow, 1905 0 0 0 0 VU B1ab(i,ii,iii,v) 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Apalis chariessa Reichenow, 1879 0 0 0 0 VU B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v) 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Bubo vosseleri Reichenow, 1908 0 0 0 0 VU B1ab(ii,iii,v) 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Otus pembaensis Pakenham, 1937 0 0 0 1 VU C2a(ii) 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Swynnertonia swynnertoni (Shelley, 1906) 0 0 0 0 VU 

B1ab(ii,iii,v); 

C2a(i) 


Treron pembaensis Pakenham, 1940 0 0 0 1 VU C2a(ii) 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Anthreptes reichenowi Gunning, 1909 1 1 0 0 NT - 3.1 2008 - 

Circaetus fasciolatus Kaup, 1850 1 1 1 0 NT - 3.1 2008 - 

112

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 



Sheppardia gunningi Haagner, 1909 0 1 0 1 NT - 3.1 2008 - 

Table 33: List of Threatened Mammals 

Genus Species Authority 

Notes 


Cephalophus adersi Thomes, 1918 0 0 0 1 CR A4cd 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Diceros bicornis Linnaeus, 1758 1 0 0 0 CR A2abcd 3.1 2008 increasing 

Galagoides rondoensis 1 1 0 0 CR B1ab(ii,iii) 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Gramnomys 

caniceps 

Hutterer & 

Dieterlen, 1984 

Miniopterus minor Peters, 1866 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 DD - 3.1 2008 unknown 

Check the ZMUC database 

literature for a Kenya record 


Pipistrellus permixtus 0 0 0 0 DD - 3.1 2008 unknown 

Scotoecus albofuscus Thomas, 1890 0 1 0 0 

Check the zmuc literature 

(Aggundey & Schlitter 

1984(279); Ansell & Dowsett 

1988(274); Uganda University 

1997(562); Kearney & Taylor 

1997(730); Kock pers. comm. 

1997(810)) for a record on the 

Ke/Tz border 


113

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 




Notes 

Kerivoula africana Dobson, 1878 0 0 1 0 

LAH comments: MacPhee and 

Flemming (1999) consider this 

species to be extinct. The matter 

has been referred to the 

relevant Specialist Group for a 

final decision (ref: MacPhee, 

R.D.E. and Flemming, C. 1999. 

Requiem Æternam. The last five 

hundred years of 


Procolobus 

kirkii 

Waterhouse, 

1838 

0 0 0 1 EN B1ab(ii,iii,v) 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Rhynchocyon chrysopygus GŸnther, 1881 0 0 0 0 EN B1ab(iii) 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Hippopotamus amphibius Linnaeus, 1758 1 1 0 0 VU A4cd 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Loxodonta 

africana 

Blumenbach, 

1776 

1 1 1 0 VU A2a 3.1 2008 increasing 

Myonycteris relicta Bergmans, 1980 0 1 1 0 VU A4c 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Panthera leo Linnaeus, 1758 1 1 1 0 VU A2abcd 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Pteropus voeltzkowi Matschie, 1909 0 0 0 1 VU D2 3.1 2008 increasing 

Rhynchocyon petersi Bocage, 1880 0 1 1 1 

[] ref is 

http://www.york.ac.uk/res/celp 

/webpages/projects/ecology/co 

astal%20forests/pdf/tanga/MSU 

MBUGWE%20FOREST%20RESER 

VE.pdf 

VU B1ab(iii) 3.1 2008 unknown 

114

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 




version 

Year assessed 




Notes 

Taphozous hildegardeae Thomas, 1909 0 0 0 1 VU B1ab(iii) 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Eidolon helvum Kerr, 1792 0 0 0 1 NT - 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Otomops martiensseni Matschie, 1897 0 0 0 0 NT - 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Panthera pardus Linnaeus, 1758 1 1 1 1 NT - 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Rhinolophus deckenii Peters, 1867 0 1 1 1 NT - 3.1 2008 decreasing 

Rhynchocyon cirnei Peters, 1847 1 1 1 0 NT - 3.1 2008 unknown 

115

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 

ENDEMIC 




Year assessed 



Table 34: Threatened List of Reptiles 

Genus species Authority Site 

Notes 


Elapsoides 

Lygosoma 

Prosymna 

Melanoseps 

116 

nigra 

mafianum 

janii 

ater 

Gűnther, 

1888 

Broadley, 

1994 

Bianconi, 

1862 

GŸnther, 

1874 

Elapechis niger 

|Elapsoidea 

sundevallii 

Rhinotyphlops 

feae |Typhlops 

principis 

Herpetosaura 

atra 

0 1 0 0 

Broadley 

mention that 

it "inhabits 

lowland 

forest. 

Include? 

EN B1ab(iii) 3.1 2009 unknown 

0 1 0 0 EN B1ab(iii) 3.1 2009 unknown 

0 0 0 0 E LC 3.1 2009 unknown 

0 1 0 1 

Pangani falls 

is a records 

from 

Lorogwe, 

Pangani 

River 

E LC 3.1 2009 unknown 

Acontias plumbeus Biaconi, 1849 Acontias niger 0 0 0 0 LC 3.1 2009 unknown 

Chamaeleo d. dilepis Leach, 1819 

Chamaeleo 

angusticoronatus 

|Chamaeleo 

bilobus 

0 0 1 0 LC 3.1 2009 stable

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 

ENDEMIC 




Year assessed 




Notes 

Homopholis 

Loveridgea 

Lycophidion 

117 

wahlbergii 

ionidesi 

capense 

loveridgei 

A. Smith, 

1849 

Battersby, 

1950 

Laurent, 1968 

Natriciteres olivacea Peters, 1854 

Thelotornis 

capensis 

mossambicanus 

Bocage, 1895 

|Chamaeleo 

capellii 

|Chamaeleo 

planiceps 

Geko walbergii 

|Homopholis 

macrolepis 

|Homopholus 

wahlbergi 

|Platypholis 

walbergii 

Amphisaena 

ionidesii 

Lycophidion 

capense 

Coronella 

olivacea |Natrix 



olivaceus 

|Neusterophis 

atratus 

|Tropidonotus 

olivaceus 

Dryiophis oatesi 

|Thelotornis 

kirtlandi 

0 1 0 0 LC 3.1 2009 unknown 

0 1 0 0 LC 3.1 2009 unknown 

0 0 0 0 LC 3.1 2009 unknown 

0 1 0 0 LC 3.1 2009 unknown 

0 0 0 0 LC 3.1 2009 stable

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 

ENDEMIC 




Year assessed 




Notes 

Aparallactus 

Bradypodion 

Bradypodion 

turneri 

mlanjense 

tenue 

Loveridge, 

1935 

Broadley, 

1965 

Matschie, 

1892 

0 1 0 0 E NE - - - - 

0 1 1 1 E NE - - - - 

0 1 0 0 E NE - - - - 

Gastropholis prasina Werner, 1904 1 1 0 0 E NE - - - - 

Gastropholis vittata Fischer, 1886 0 1 1 1 

Leptotyphlops 

macrops 

Broadley & 

Wallach, 1996 

0 1 0 0 

Supposed to 

occurr costal 

area of Tz 

and N 

Mozambique 

& Kambai 

forest (0838 

D3). Lah 

comments: 

Spawls et al. 

2002 

mentioned 

that that 

there are 

some 

problematic 

specimens 

from the 

Kenya 

E NE - - - - 

E NE - - - - 

118

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 

ENDEMIC 




Year assessed 




Notes 

highlands. 

Kenya and 

Tanzania 

endemic. 

Lygodactylus broadleyi Pasteur, 1995 0 0 0 0 (also Amani) E NE - - - - 

Lygodactylus 

conradti 

Matschie, 

1892 

0 0 1 0 

Kambai and 

other sites in 

East 

Usambaras 

E NE - - - - 

Lygodactylus kimhowelli Pasteur, 1995 0 1 0 0 E NE - - - - 

Lygodactylus 

rex 

Broadley, 

1963 

0 0 1 0 E NE - - - - 

Lygodactylus viscatus Vaillant, 1873 0 0 0 0 E NE - - - - 

Lygodactylus 

Melanoseps 

Natriciteres 

Philothamnus 

williamsi 

rondoensis 

variegata 

sylvatica 

macrops 

Loveridge, 

1952 

Loveridge, 

1942 

Broadley, 

1966 

Boulenger, 

1895 

0 1 0 0 

In Kimoza 

not kisiju 

(ermias) 

E NE - - - - 

0 1 1 0 E NE - - - - 

0 1 1 0 E NE - - - - 

0 1 1 1 E NE - - - - 

119

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 

ENDEMIC 




Year assessed 




Notes 

Philothamnus 

natalensis 

A. Smith, 

1848 

0 1 0 0 E NE - - - - 

Rhinotyphlops lumbriciformis* Peters, 1874 0 1 0 0 E NE - - - - 

Scelotes 

Scelotes 

duttoni 

insularis 

Broadley, 

1990 

Broadley, 

1990 

0 1 0 0 E NE - - - - 

0 1 0 0 E NE - - - - 

Sepsina t. tetradactyla Peters, 1874 0 1 0 0 E NE - - - - 

Typhlops 

Aparallactus 

Aparallactus 

Bitis 

rondoensis 

guentheri 

werneri 

g. gabonica 

Loveridge, 

1942 

Boulenger, 

1895 

Boulenger, 

1895 

DumŽril & 

Bibron, 1854 

0 1 0 0 E NE - - - - 

0 1 1 0 E NE - - - - 

0 1 0 0 E NE - - - - 

0 1 1 1 E NE - - - - 

Cnemaspis barbouri Perret, 1986 0 1 1 0 E NE - - - - 

Cnemaspis uzungwae Perret, 1986 1 1 1 1 E NE - - - - 

Crotaphopeltis tornieri Werner, 1908 0 0 0 0 E NE - - - - 

Dendroaspis 

angusticeps 

A. Smith, 

1849 

0 1 0 0 E NE - - - - 

120

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 

ENDEMIC 




Year assessed 




Notes 

Holaspis laevis Werner, 1895 0 1 0 0 

Elevated to 

species by: 

Broadley 

(2000) 

African Herp 

News, 31: 

13-14, 

however see 

also Kroniger 

etc. (2001) 

Podarcis 2 

(3): 72-80 

E NE - - - - 

Lygodactylus uluguruensis Pasteur, 1964 0 0 0 0 E NE - - - - 

Melanoseps 

Natriciteres 

loveridgei 

variegata 

pembana 

Brygoo & 

Roux, 1981 

Loveridge, 

1935 

0 1 0 1 E NE - - - - 

0 1 0 0 

Endemic to 

Pemba 

island. LAH 

comments: 

you have a 

record from 

Dondo (in 

Moz), this is 

very 

interesting - 

as the 

species 

E NE - - - - 

121

KILWA 

LINDI 

MATUMBI 

ZANZIBAR 

ENDEMIC 




Year assessed 




Notes 

Prosymna 

Rhampholeon 

Rhampholeon 

Rhampholeon 

122 

semifasciata 

brachyurus 

brevicaudatus 

platyceps 

Broadley, 

1996 

GŸnther, 

1893 

Matschie, 

1892 

GŸnther, 

1893 

0 1 0 0 

was/is 

believed to 

be endemic 

to Pemba. 

What is the 

source to 

this record? 

Tanzania 

endemic. 

Types from 

Kwamgumi 

Forest 

Reserve 

(0438 D3). 

Lah 

comments: 

this is in the 

E Usambaras 

E NE - - - - 

0 1 0 0 E NE - - - - 

0 1 1 0 E NE - - - - 

0 0 0 0 E NE - - - - 

Typhlops obtusus Peters, 1865 0 1 0 1 E NE - - - - 

Urocotyledon wolterstorffi Tornier, 1900 0 1 0 0 E NE - - - -


8.3 Annex 3. List of Reserves Containing Coastal Habitats in the Relevant Coastal Districts of 

Tanzania 

Table 35: List of Forest Reserves Containing Coastal habitat 

District Name of Forest JB Ownership Area in Hectares Declaration Variation Revocation Remarks 

Reserve Productive Protective G. N. No. G. N. No. G. N. No. 

Gwami 421 T. T. 5,633.0 364/25/7/1958 

Kikoka 415 T. T. 1,655.0 399/15/8/1958 

Bagamoyo 

Mangroves 

-Bagamoyo - T. T. 9,184.0 Cap. 132 p. 1947 

Mtakuja 

(Ruvu F. R.) 1054 T. T. 1,249.3 Sch. 321 of 1958 

Pongwe 1052 T. T. 875.0 Cap. 132 p. 1354 

Msakulembe 

/Simbo RE/B/1/1 T. T. 609.5 Sch. 374/20/7/1958 

Simbo - 

Bagamoyo 413 T. T. 591.0 365/25/7/1958 

Uzigua 431 T. T. 24,722.0 466/26/9/1958 

Goyo 2409 V. F 547.0 

Mbwebwe 2411 V. F 61.0 

Matipwili 2410 V. F 

123




70.0 

Zaraninge 2281 L. A. 17,869.0 426/26/8/1998 

Kazimzumbwi 2242 T. T. 8,011.0 306/24/5/1954 Need Var. 

Kiregese 1045 T. T. 799.7 Sch. 360/24/8/1962 

Kisarawe 

Kola (South 

Partly 

Ruvu) 331 T. T. 3,108.0 159/1/1/1958 

Ruvu N. 

Bagala Proposed 6,000.0 Proposed 

Dendeni Proposed 200.0 Proposed 

in 

Kisarawe 1044 T. T. 613.5 Cap. 132 p. 1349 113/15/4/1966 

Mangroves - 

Kisarawe T. T. 6,051.0 Cap. 132 p. 1346 

Marenda 1050 T. T. 184.0 Sch. 349/1995 

Masangania 104/1040 T. T. 2,599.0 Cap. 132 p. 1349 

Mkonore 1042 T. T. 824.4 Cap. 132 p. 1349 444/20/9/1963 

Mogo 14/477 T. T. 157.0 Sch. 153/3/6/1966 

Mpiji Valley E/K/2/1 T. T. 654.4 Sch. 415/6/9/1963 

Hundogo 150/1195 T. T. 1,012.0 162/29/5/1950 

Part in 

Kinondoni 

124




Pugu - Kisarawe 32/606 T. T. 2,410.0 Cap. 132 p. 1348 Cont. Ilala 

Ruvu South 1460 T. T. 35,500.0 Sch. 81/29/6/1979 

Tongoro E/K/2/1 T. T. 659.7 Sch. 444/20/9/1963 

Vikindu 1051 T. T. 1,599.0 Cap. 132 p. 1347 

Kibaha Bana/N. Ruvu 261/665 T. T. 31,930.0 309/13/9/1959 128/8/9/1978 

Mafia 

Rufiji 

Mangroves- 

Mafia T. T. 4,365.0 153 of 1930 

Mlola 2352 

Marine 

reserve 2,596.0 Proposed 

Bumi E/R/2/1 T. T. 519.8 Sch. 415/17/7/1964 

Kichu Hills L. A. 4,000.0 

Katundu 1086 T. T. 4,727.0 155/3/6/1966 

Kikale 1983 T. T. 1,000.0 Cap. 132 p. 1351 

Kireungoma RE/R/6/1 T. T. 34.0 Sch. 413/17/7/1964 

Kiwengoma 2310 T. T. 3,561.0 

545 of 

28/8/1998 

Kipo 1084 T. T. 1,749.0 Cap. 132 p. 1351 

Kumbi E/R/2/1 T. T. 27.9 Sch. 433/24/7/1964 

125




Rufiji Delta 

Mangroves 634 T. T. 67,612.0 Cap. 132 p. 1350 

Mohoro 615 T. T. 2,349.0 Cap. 132 p. 1349 

Mohoro River 602 T. T. 49.0 204/22/7/1966 

Mchungu 1082 T. T. 1,000.0 Cap. 132 p. 1352 

Mpanga 1959b T. T. 900.0 

Mtanza 1959b T. T. 4,922.0 

Cap. 132 p. 

1352/1947 

Cap. 132 p. 

1352/1947 

Mtita 1026/RE/R/7/1 T. T. 2,998.0 Cap. 132 p. 1350 329/26/7/1960 

Mandundu RE/R/2/1 T. T. 29.9 Sch. 414/17/7/1964 

Namakutwa 610 T. T. 3,748.0 Sch. 

Nerumba E/R/2/1 T. T. 23.1 Sch. 434/24/7/1964 

Ngulakula L. A. 2,399.0 Cap. 132 p. 1352 331/15/7/1960 

Nyamuete 610 T. T. 400.0 Sch. 

Nyumburuni L. A. 2,999.0 Sch. 330/15/7/1960 

Ruhoi River 508 L. A. 444/26/10/1962 

126




68,639.0 

Rupiage - T. T. 4,118.2 Sch. 

Tamburu 1620 T. T. 5,997.0 Cap. 132 p. 1351 

Utete 625 T. T. 949.0 Cap. 132 p. 1351 

Namakutwa 

/Namute 2320 T. T. 4,705.0 Need Var. 

Tawi V. F. 2351 V. F 2,775.0 Proposed 

Nambuufu V. F. 2353 V. F 1,996.0 Proposed 

Mbwara V. F. 2354 V. F 600.0 Proposed 

Ilala 

127 

Mangroves along 

Msimbazi 

302,841.7 64,324.7 

T. T. 25.3 

Kinondoni Pande 1039 T. T. 1,226.0 327/14/11/1952 862/25/11/1988 Game 

Sanctuary 

Hundogo 150 T. T. 1,012.0 162/29/5/1953 863/25/11/1988 Kiluvya 

village 

Kunduchi Creek 

Mangroves 

Basi Kilimani 

Mangroves 

T. T. 68.7 Sch. 

T. T. 20.2 Sch.




Temeke 

Mbweni 

Mangroves 

Mangroves along 

Mbezi 

Near Mbuyuni 

Mangroves 

Shungu 

Mtundila 

Mangroves 

bay 

Ras Dege 

Mangroves 

Mbwamaji 

Mangroves 

Mji Mwema 

Mangroves 

Mtoni 

Mangroves 

T. T. 100.0 Sch. 

T. T. 570.3 Sch. 

T. T. 476.7 Sch. 

T. T. 270.8 Sch. 

T. T. 245.0 Sch. 

T. T. 29.6 Sch. 

T. T. 80.9 Sch. 

T. T. 378.4 Sch. 

- 4,503.9 

Kilwa Kitope 323 T. T. 3,387.0 312/12/9/1957 

Kisangi 469 T. T. 310.8 Ger. Res. 251/14/2/1961 

Maleh 398 T. T. 38,850.0 175/25/4/1957 

Mangroves - 

Kilwa 1003 T. T. 36,737.0 Ger. Res. 

128




Mbinga Kimaji 450 T. T. 1,874.0 103/27/-/1959 

Mtarure 328 T. T. 60,484.0 313/13/9/1957 

Mitundumbea 353 T. T. 8,547.0 376/15/11/1957 

Nampekeso 

Naminange 

994 T. T. 

599.8 

Sch. 

Ngarama North 244 T. T. 3,110.0 1,528.0 400/11/11/1955 

Ngarama South 286 T. T. 1,848.0 170.0 300/12/9/1957 

Pindiro 1009 T. T. 9,295.0 2,500.0 Cap. 132 p. 1363 

Rondondo -Kilwa 464 T. T. 380.6 Sch. Revoked 

Rungo 293 T. T. 22,586.0 319/2/11/1956 

Tangomba Old 14/965 T. T. 307.6 Sch. 251/14/7/1961 

Tongomba New 2337 T. T. 1,987.0 250/14/7/1961 Need Var. 

Lindi 

Chitoa 591 T. T. 590.9 180.0 Cap. 132 p. 65 

Liwengula 1022 T. T. 2,983.1 Sch. 287/2/12/1960 

Litipo 488 T. T. 999.6 Sch. 

Kitunda Proposed 237.0 Proposed 

129




Mpigamiti Proposed 30,000.0 Proposed 

Mmongo Proposed 19.5 Proposed 

Makangala 417 L. A. 1,271.0 554/19/12/1958 

Matapwa 657 T. T. 16,493.0 Cap.132 p. 1363 

Nyangamara 2289 T. T. 920.0 

Mangroves -Lindi T. T. 7,301.0 G.N. 21 of 1930 

Mnacho 452 Proposed 1,129.1 Proposed 

Mtama 418 L. A. 1,026.7 554/19/12/1958 

Nandimba 425 L. A. 1,250.5 554/19/12/1958 

Nanguile 288 Proposed 650.6 Proposed 

Nyangedi 287 Proposed 4,540.7 Proposed 

Ndimba 1010 T. T. 7,530.6 Cap. 132 p. 1364 

Rondo 464/2380 T. T. 14,630.2 Cap. 132 p. 1364 354/20/11/1959 

Ruawa 2349 T. T. 2,949.0 Cap. 132 p. 1363 

Liwale Lungonya 320 T. T. 208,380.0 233/5/7/1957 

130




Nyera/Kiperere 274 T. T. 80,423.0 18,000.0 79/30/3/1956 

Nachingwea 

Lionja 441 T. T. 28,490.8 551/19/12/1958 

542,042.6 82,455.5 

Masasi Hills 2085 L. A. 1,628.0 271/26/8/1988 

Masasi 

Mbagala 333 T. T. 28,490.0 143/11/4/1958 

Mchonda 426 T. T. 6,216.0 552/19/12/1958 

Kambona 560 L. A. 29.9 124/6/3/1964 

Nagaga 236 L. A. 1,653.2 78/30/3/1956 

Ndechela 442 T. T. 6,216.0 551/19/12/1958 

Mangroves 

(Mikindani) 1023 T. T. 13,350.0 21 of 1930 

Mtwara 

Naliendele 239 T. T. 404.7 355/30/9/1955 

Ziwani 383 L. A. 667.7 216/23/6/1961 

Newala 

Chilangala 479 L. A. 7.3 137/29/3/1963 

Liteho 481 L. A. 1,400.2 255/15/6/1962 

131




Mahuta 478 L. A. 1,489.3 379/3/11/1961 

Makonde Scarp I 474 Proposed 1,748.3 Proposed 

Makonde Scarp II 475 Proposed 1,554.0 Proposed 

Makonde Scarp 

III 476 Proposed 1,434.7 Proposed 

Mtiniko/Mniwata Proposed 1,736.0 Proposed 

Mtuli/Ninju Proposed 296.0 Proposed 

Namikupa 493 L. A. 1,050.2 512/12/12/1962 

Mkunya river 989 Proposed 4,797.3 Proposed 

56,356.6 17,812.2 

Handeni 

Bondo 1614 L. A. 328.0 273/12/8/1988 

Derema 788/1673 T. T. 3,928.0 133 of 1934 

Gendagenda 2401 T. T. 3,139.0 Cap 389 p. 59 

1958 

24/7/3/1980 Need Var. 

Handeni Hill 783 T. T. 544.0 426/23/9/1960 

Kilindi 623 T. T. 153.8 4,974.2 45/28/2/1969 

Kiriguru 580 T. T. 548.4 Sch. 

Korogwe Fuel 297 T. T. 10,805.0 383/22/11/1957 

132 

Kwamarukanga 269 T. T. 181.3 330/4/10/1957




Kwasumba 789 T. T. 2,933.3 Sch. 

Kwasunga - I 1910 L. A. 230.0 262/12/8/1988 

Kwasunga - II 1627 L. A. 200.0 261/12/8/1988 

Kwediboma 466 T. T. 270.3 14.2 Sch. 

Mkuri 524 T. T. 599.8 Sch. 

Luhanga 630 L. A. 630.0 260/12/8/1988 

Magambazi 658 T. T. 749.5 Sch. 

Mkuli Exten. 524 T. T. 2,931.2 Cap. 389 p. 

32/33/1958 

Mkongo 523 T. T. 984.6 Cap. 389 p. 

33/1959 

576/22/11/1963 

187/20/3/1964 

Mkoro 581 T. T. 90.0 Sch. 

Mbwegere 484 T. T. 372.0 392/2/9/1960 

Mtunguru 483 T. T. 3,305.2 Supp. 59 Cap. 389 314/8/9/1961 

Msingeho Hill 522 T. T. 115.0 Sch. 

Jungu 1896 T. T. 261.0 259/12/8/1988 

Nguru North 619 T. T. 14,041.5 133 of 1934 

Pumula 540 T. T. 1,062.0 Sch. 346/29/9/1961 

Rudewa South 449 T. T. 555.6 Cap. 132 p. 1337 341/22/7/1960 

Handeni village 2311 V. F. 156.0 

133




Muheza 

Bamba Ridge 393 T. T. 1,109.0 409/22/9/1958 

Bassi 531/805 T. T. 1,197.5 Cap. 132 p. 1947 

Bwiti 313 T. T. 3,006.7 Cap. 132 p. 1947 207/17/5/1963 

Gombero B/Print T. T. 2,399.1 Cap. 389 Vol VI 166/20/5/1960 

Kihuhwi 802/803 T. T. 488.5 105 of 1941 

Kihuhwi Sigi 302 T. T. 393.0 511.5 43 of 1934 

Kihuhwi Teak 205 T. T. 26.3 194/3/6/1955 

Kilanga 29/270 T. T. 379.2 154/25/5/1956 

Kolekole 427/807 T. T. 301.0 411/22/8/1958 

Kwamgumi 204 T. T. 170.0 978.9 195/3/6/1955 

Kwamkoro 796 T. T. 2,209.6 24/20/1/1961 

Kwamrimba 189 T. T. 200.7 601.8 Sch. 

Kwamsambia 1583 T. T. 404.7 1,415.6 95/23/4/1954 

Kwani 271 T. T. 2,545.1 248/28/8/1956 

Longuza 115 T. T. 1,541.5 194/9/7/1954 

134




Magogoni 514 T. T. 2,541.5 Cap. 389 p. 138 146/28/4/1961 204/17/5/1963 

Magogoni 

Msaimbazi B/Print T. T. 3,396.2 Cap. 389 p. 139 146/28/4/1961 

Mleni 2095 Proposed 95.0 Proposed 

Manga 2282 T. T. 1,635.0 112/25/3/1955 

Mangroves B/Print T. T. 12,931.0 Sch. 

Mtai 2241 T. T. 3,107.0 306 of 1967 25/26/1/1968 

Nkombola 325 T. T. 191.8 38/1/2/1957 

Sigi Knee B/Print T. T. 779.4 Sch. 1951 Blueprint 

Magoroto 2270 T. T. 1,124.0 

Mgambo 2291 T. T. 1,346.0 546/28/8/1998 

Tongwe 271 T. T. 1,560.0 249 + 288 of 1956 

Mlinga 2213 T. T. 840.0 443 of 6/12/1996 

Kambai 2100 T. T. 1,050.0 310/12/8/1994 

Steinbruch 268 T. T. 353.3 155/25/5/1956 145 of 1976 Var. JB 1094 

Segoma 220 T. T. 1,100.0 113/25/3/1955 

Mpanga 2273 L. A. 24.0 542/28//8/1998 

135 

Mlungui F. R. 2247 T. T. 200.0




Semdoe/Msige 2261 T. T. 980.0 547/28/8/1998 

Pangani Garafuno 693 T. T. 

195.0 

Sch. Cap. 132 p. 

1331 

Jasini 775 T. T. 117.7 Sch. 168 of 1960 

Mangroves - T. T. 9,184.0 Sch. 

Msumbugwe 2402 T. T. 4,410.0 Sch. 1947 

Var. 

required 

58,654.8 62,488.7 

136


8.4 Socio-economic Information and Livelihoods Strategies 

8.4.1 Household Characteristics 

Analysis of socio-economic data at district level in the selected case study coastal districts, shows that 

majority of interviewed respondents were males (61.5%, Table 32). Although the nature of these areas 

is that they are male dominated as indicated in the number of respondents, the team solicited 

information from a substantial number of women (38.5%). This implies that the reported socioeconomic 

issues in the districts have included both men and women’s feelings and perceptions. 

As presented in Table32, the majority of the interviewed respondents in the districts where data were 

collected are married (79.1%). Cases of divorces were very low in all districts - with the exception of the 

Magharibi District (Zanzibar) and Lindi (Main land) District, where the number of widows was high. The 

remaining districts had low number of widows. 

Levels of respondents’ education in the case study districts differ. Generally, half (50.7%, Table 32) of 

the interviewed respondents had primary school level of education. The other major group were those 

with no formal education (30% Table 32), followed by those with secondary school education level. The 

dominance of the community segment with primary school education followed by those with no formal 

education, implies that the level of dependence of locally available natural resources such as forest, 

fisheries and agricultural resources was very high as these were the kind of people who had few 

alternatives for income generation. 

In the area, respondents varied from 36 to 45 years with the overall mean age being 41 years (Table 32). 

Table 5y the people who were actively involved in the production and that, for any intervention that 

may be taken in ensuring coastal forests are conserved, could involve the people who are actively 

engaged in the production and use of natural resources in the area. 

137


Table 36: Household Characteristcs in the Case Study Districts 

Characteristics 

Kaskazini 

(n=39) 

Kati 

(n=18) 

Kilwa 

(n=59) 

Lindi 

(n=90) 

Magharibi 

(n=37) 

Micheweni 

(n=90) 

Rufiji 

(n=83) 

Total 

(N=416) 

Respondents’Sex (%) Male 71.8 88.9 67.8 65.6 78.4 26.7 72.3 61.5 

Female 28.2 11.1 32.2 34.4 21.6 73.3 27.7 38.5 

Marital status (%) Married 74.4 94.4 84.7 75.6 67.6 86.7 74.7 79.1 

Widow 10.3 0.0 3.4 10.0 24.3 7.8 6.0 8.7 

Divorced 7.7 5.6 5.1 4.4 2.7 5.6 2.4 4.6 

Single 7.7 0.0 6.8 10.0 5.4 0.0 16.9 7.7 

Education level (%) Primary 28.2 16.7 69.5 70.0 43.2 20.0 71.1 50.7 

Secondary 48.7 50.0 5.1 5.6 45.9 12.2 12.0 17.8 

No formal 23.1 33.3 20.3 24.4 10.8 65.6 15.7 30.0 

Adult 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.2 1.4 

Mean age (years) 36 42 42 44 45 40 36 41 

138


Socio-economic analysis at village/shehia level revealed that there were higher figures of divorce in 

Mopofu Shehia compared to the rest of villages/shehias. Higher incidences of widows were 

observed in Muungano (Lindi Rural) and Dole (Unguja Magharibi) compared to other villages/shahia 

(Table33). 

Table 37: Marital Status by Village/Shehia 

Sampled 

Village 

Village/Shehia Number of 

respondents 

% Married % Single % Divorced % Widow 

Rufiji Mbware 21 76.2 4.8 9.5 9.5 

Rufiji Utunge 32 65.6 25.0 0.0 9.4 

Rufiji Nyamwage 30 83.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 

Kilwa Hotel 3 28 89.3 0.0 3.6 7.1 

Kilwa Kiwawa 31 80.6 12.9 6.5 0.0 

Lindi Rural Ndawa 25 84.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 

Lindi Rural Mihima 35 77.1 11.4 8.6 2.9 

Lindi Rural Muungano 30 66.7 10.0 3.3 20.0 

Magharibi Dole 37 67.0 5.7 2.7 24.8 

Kati Uzing’ambwa 18 94.4 0.0 5.6 0.0 

Kaskazini Upenja 40 75.0 7.5 7.5 10.0 

Micheweni Kiuyu 30 96.7 0.0 3.3 0.0 

Micheweni Wingwi 20 85.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 

Micheweni Mapofu 22 63.6 0.0 18.2 18.2 

Micheweni Msuka 17 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total 416 79.1 7.7 4.6 8.7 

Table 34 indicates that respondents’ education levels from the sample villages were relatively low. 

Most of respondents (50%) had attained primary education. Very few (17.8%) had attained 

secondary education, while a sizeable (30%) had no formal education. Respondents in Wingi Shahia 

were the least educated at 15.0%. Kiuyu, Wingwi and Mapofu had very high proportion of 

respondents (63%, 65% and 72.6%, respectively) with no formal education at all. An insignificant 

percentage had attained tertiary education. This group comprised teachers and local government 

employed members of staff residing in the villages. In general, this implies that many people in the 

project area had limited opportunities to access income generating activities that demand 

educational skills. 

139


Table 38: Levels of Education by Village/Shehia 

District 

Village/ 

Shehia 

Number of 

respondents 

Primary 

education 

% 

Secondary 

education% 

Adult 

education 

% 

No formal 

education% 

Rufiji Mbware 21 61.9 4.8 0.0 33.3 

Rufiji Utunge 32 75.0 9.4 3.1 12.5 

Rufiji Nyamwage 30 73.3 20.0 0.0 6.7 

Kilwa Hotel 3 28 71.4 0.0 0.0 28.6 

Kilwa Kiwawa 31 67.7 9.7 9.7 12.9 

Lindi Rural Ndawa 25 76.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 

Lindi Rural Mihima 35 62.9 5.7 0.0 31.4 

Lindi Rural Muungano 30 73.3 10.0 0.0 16.7 

Magharibi Dole 37 43.3 45.9 0.0 10.8 

Kati Uzing’ambwa 18 16.7 50.0 0.0 33.3 

Kaskazini Upenja 40 27.5 47.5 0.0 25.0 

Micheweni Kiuyu 30 16.7 20.0 0.0 63.3 

Micheweni Wingwi 20 15.0 10.0 10.0 65.0 

Micheweni Mapofu 22 18.2 9.1 0.0 72.6 

Micheweni Msuka 17 35.3 5.9 0.0 8.8 

Total 416 50.7 17.8 1.4 30.0 

Analysis of education by wealth categories shows that the middle group formed a majority of the 

primary school leavers at 49.1%, followed by the poor and well-off groups at 42.8 % and 8.1%, 

respectively (Table 35). As expected, the well-off group had more people with secondary education 

at 66.7%, followed by the middle group at 33.3%. The middle and poor groups were the least 

educated in the study area with 51.5% and 44.3% of the respondents having not attended any 

schooling at all. 

140


Table 39: Education Level by Wealth Categories 

Village Name 

Respondents 

education 

Wealth categories 

Well-off % %Middle wealth % Poor 

Hotel 3 Primary 5.0 55.0 40.0 

No Formal 

Education 

0.0 37.5 62.5 

Kiwawa Primary 11.8 52.9 35.3 

Secondary 33.3 66.7 0.0 

No Formal 

Education 

0.0 66.7 33.3 

Adult Education 0.0 100.0 0.0 

Mbware Primary 7.7 53.8 38.5 

Secondary 100.0 0.0 0.0 

No Formal 

Education 

0.0 42.9 57.1 

Mihima Primary 9.1 59.1 31.8 

Secondary 50.0 50.0 .0 

No Formal 

Education 

9.1 54.5 36.4 

Muungano II Primary 9.1 50.0 40.9 

Secondary 66.7 33.3 .0 

No Formal 

Education 

.0 60.0 40.0 

Ndawa Primary 5.3 42.1 52.6 

No Formal 

Education 

.0 50.0 50.0 

Nyamwage Primary 4.5 36.4 59.1 

Secondary 83.3 16.7 .0 

No Formal 

Education 

.0 50.0 50.0 

Utunge Primary 12.5 45.8 41.7 

Secondary 66.7 33.3 .0 

No Formal 

Education 

25.0 50.0 25.0 

Total Primary 8.1 49.4 42.5 

Secondary 66.7 33.3 0.0 

No Formal 

Education 4.3 51.5 44.3 

Adult Education .0 100.0 .0 

141


On average, a high proportion of respondents was aged 41. Hotel Tatu, Mbware and Mihima 

villages/shehia had the highest number of aged respondents, while Nyamwage and Utunge had the 

lowest number of elderly Households (Table 36). 

Table 40: Respondents’ Age by Village 

Village 

Mean 

Hotel 3 46.11 

Kiwawa 39.58 

Mbware 47.1 

Mihima 46.83 

Muungano II 42.77 

Ndawa 42.84 

Nyamwage 32.2 

Utunge 33 

Total 41.07 

8.4.2 Average Land Size Owned and Used for Crop and Woodlots 

Land is the basic resource depended upon by a majority of rural communities in Tanzania. The 

amount of land owned and/or operated varies between communities’ dependence on the 

availability of land resources and the nature of social structures governing access to land. In the 

selected districts, the average land size owned by individual households ranged from 2.8 to 6.1 acres 

with the overall mean land size being 4.8 acres (Table 37). The main use of the land is crop 

production and very small land sizes have been set for woodlots. The main crops that are being 

grown in these districts are maize and rice. In these districts, the average land size set for maize 

production range from 0.6 acres to 2.2 acres with an overall average being 1.6 acres. As for rice 

production, the average land size used for production range from 0.3 acres to 1.8acres with an 

overall average land size being 1.1acres (Table 37). 

Regarding the land size set for woodlots in the surveyed district, results indicate that, in some 

districts, (Lindi and Micheweni), individual households did not set aside land for woodlots. The 

overall mean size for the districts whereby individual households set aside land for woodlots was 0.1 

acres. The implication of households that had no land set aside for woodlots or having small land 

sizes for woodlots was that most of the wood resources such as charcoal, firewood and other related 

wood products are obtained from surrounding forests hence a high pressure is imposed to the 

existing coastal forests in the districts. 

142


Table 41: Average Land Size Owned and Used for Crop and Woodlots 

Land size 

Kaskazini 

(n=39) 

Kati 

(n=18) 

Kilwa 

(n=59) 

Lindi 

(n=90) 

Magharibi 

(n=37) 

Micheweni 

(n=90) 

Rufiji 

(n=83) 

Overal 

(N=416) 

Land 6.1 5.9 5.7 3.2 5.5 4.5 2.8 4.8 

Acres with 

woodlot 

Acres 

maize 

Acres 

rice 

with 

with 

0.23 0.17 0.15 0 0.16 0 0.1 0.1 

2.18 2.08 1.42 1.12 1.88 1.6 0.63 1.6 

1.67 1.70 0.78 0.33 1.84 0.98 0.6 1.1 

Contrary to literature, the well-off category reported small land size holdings (Table 38) across all 

villages compared to other wealth groups. Although many households from the very poor category 

reported ownership of larger land size holdings, it was clear that not every household could fully use 

their land. Lack of inputs for agricultural production tends to limit de facto access to land to the few 

well-off groups leaving a majority of the poor households struggling the best they can with the land 

that they can operate. Therefore, any intervention should consider the very poor category. 

Table 42: Land Ownership by Wealth Groups and Villages 

Village Name 

Land Size in Acres Relative to Group Wealth 

Well-off Middle wealth) Very poor 

Hotel 3 2.0 6.9 4.3 

Kiwawa 3.5 6.7 2.6 

Mbware 2.0 2.9 5.1 

Mihima 2.0 2.6 3.5 

Muungano II 4.5 3.5 3.9 

Ndawa 2.8 3.2 3.2 

Nyamwage 5.0 2.3 3.0 

Utunge 1.5 1.9 2.1 

Average 2.9 3.7 3.5 

8.4.3 Livestock Ownership 

In these districts, types of livestock kept by the studied communities include cow, goat and poultry 

(chickens and ducks). Results indicate that, in these districts, the average number of cow ranges 

from 0 to 1 and those of goat are between 1 and 2. With regard to poultry, the number of 

chickens/ducks owned by individual households ranged from 5 to 9 (Table 39). This baseline 

information indicates that people in these areas heavily depend on crop production and extraction 

of other natural resources such as forest products for their livelihoods. These lead to a need for 

establishing alternative income generation activities intended to help people reduce forest product 

overutilization and their associated resources if forest conservation is to be attained. 

143


Table 43: Average Number of Livestock Owned by Individual Households 

Type of Livestock 

Kaskazini 

(n=39) 

Kati 

(n=18) 

Kilwa 

(n=59) 

Lindi 

(n=90) 

Magharibi 

(n=37) 

Micheweni 

(n=90) 

Rufiji 

(n=83) 

Number of cattle 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 

Goat 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 

Poultry 9 8 9 6 9 8 5 

A comparison across wealth groups across villages (Table 40) shows that a majority of livestock 

(mainly goats) are owned by the well-off group, followed by the middle group, and then the poor. 

The poor were mainly confined to keeping of smaller stock such as goats and chickens. Livestock is 

vital to economies of many areas in the country. Animals are a source of food, more specifically, 

protein for human diets and income. For low income producers, livestock can serve as store of 

wealth. 

Table 44: Livestock Ownership Across Wealth Categories in the Sample Villages 

Wealth status Village Name Cattle Goats Chicken/Duck 

Well off Hotel 3 0 21 10 

Kiwawa 4 3 6 

Mbware 0 20 18 

Mihima 0 0 12 

Muungano II 0 6 10 

Ndawa 4 0 9 

Nyamwage 0 6 14 

Utunge 0 0 8 

Middle wealth Hotel 3 0 20 14 

Kiwawa 0 3 11 

Mbware 0 0 9 

Mihima 0 18 18 


Ndawa 0 0 8 


Utunge 0 0 7 

Very poor Hotel 3 0 0 10 

Kiwawa 0 4 11 

Mihima 0 0 4 


Ndawa 0 0 6 


Utunge 0 0 4 

144


8.4.4 Type of Houses Based on Roofing Materials 

In the case study districts as indicated in Table 41, majority (86.5%) of households own houses that 

are grass thatched with 56% having well thatched grass houses and 30.5% having dilapidated grass 

thatched houses. Moreover, a majority of these houses were constructed using poles, which are 

among the timber products that are harvested from the surrounding coastal forests. In the surveyed 

villages in these districts, whereas 12.3% of the interviewed households possess houses that are 

roofed using corrugated iron sheeting, only 1.2% of the total interviewed respondents own houses 

that were roofed with tiles. This implies that communities in these areas benefit a lot from forest 

based products for shelter, hence the need to conserve forests. 

Table 45: House Types Based on Roofing Materials 

Type of 

roofing 

material 

Kaskazini 

(n=39 

Kati 

(n=18) 

Kilwa 

(n=59) 

Lindi 

(n=90) 

Magharibi 

(n=37) 

Micheweni( 

n=90) 

Rufiji 

(n=83) 

Total 

(N=416) 

Tiles 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 1.10 2.40 1.20 

Iron sheet 15.40 11.10 13.60 10.00 13.50 11.10 13.30 12.30 

Thatched 

grass 84.6 88.9 86.4 87.8 86.5 87.8 84.3 86.5 

Annex 6 shows sampled villages and the roofing materials used. The information in Annex 6 is 

consistent with the data in Table 41. Most of the village households had main houses built using 

grass as main roofing material, followed by iron sheets. Besides, Mbware Mihima Muungano II and 

Nyamwage villages had reported higher percentages of houses being roofed with iron sheets 

8.4.5 Energy Sources for Cooking 

Energy is an important aspect for communities to survive in the respective areas. In the case study 

area, the main types of energy sources for cooking include firewood, charcoal and kerosene. 

Findings from this study indicate that majority of households (84.6%, Table 42) in all selected villages 

in the respective districts use firewood as the main source of energy for cooking. Very few (14.9%, 

Table 42, see also Annex 7) reported using charcoal and less than 1% were using kerosene as a 

cooking energy source (these villages included Ndawa, Wingwi, Kiuyu, Muungano II, Upenja and 

Utunge). More than 90% of households were using firewood as the main source of energy for 

cooking. This implies that communities in the respective villages in the selected districts depend 

entirely (with an exception of 0.4% from Rufiji district) on forest products as a source of cooking 

energy which justifies the need for ensuring that forest resources are sustainably managed for the 

well-being of these communities in the coastal areas of Tanzania. 

Table 46: Energy Sources for Cooking 

Type 

Kaskazini 

(n=39 

Kati 

(n=18) 

Kilwa 

(n=59) 

Lindi 

(n=90) 

Magharibi 

(n=37) 

Micheweni 

(n=90) 

Rufiji 

(n=83) 

Total 

(N=416) 

Kerosene 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 0.4 

Charcoal 10.3 11.1 18.6 16.7 10.8 15.6 14.5 14.9 

Firewood 89.7 88.9 81.4 83.3 89.2 84.4 83.1 84.6 

145


Table 42 compares the main source of cooking energy across wealth categories. As expected, the 

well-off tend to mix charcoal and firewood. Firewood energy for cooking dominated the middle and 

very poor categories (Table 43). Forest Reserves are situated in the vicinity of these villages. Their 

uses are restricted by the law, but were being accessed by those communities that live adjacent to 

them for charcoal and firewood. 

Table 47: Energy for Cooking by Wealth Categories 

Well-off (%) Middle (%) Very poor (%) 

Kerosene 0 0 0.5 

Charcoal 45.5 13.9 11.1 

Firewood 54.5 86.1 88 

8.4.6 Sources of Water for Domestic Use 

In the surveyed villages, the existing sources of water for domestic purposes include wells, rivers, 

springs and taps. As indicated in Table 44, half (50%) of the households interviewed in the selected 

coastal areas depend on wells as sources of domestic water followed by those depending on rivers, 

springs and very few (4.3%) with access to tap water. 

Table 48: Source of Water for Domestic Use 

Source 

Kaskazini 

(n=39) 

Kati 

(n=18) 

Kilwa 

(n=59) 

Lindi 

(n=90) 

Magharibi 

(n=37) 

Micheweni( 

n=90) 

Rufiji 

(n=83) 

Total 

(N=416) 

Wells (%) 56.4 55.6 59.3 47.8 54 42.2 48.2 50.0 

River (%) 38.5 38.9 35.6 33.3 40.5 43.3 41.0 38.7 

Spring (%) 5.1 5.6 5.1 13.3 5.4 8.9 1.2 7.0 

Tap (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 5.6 9.6 4.3 

Although the main water source is wells, the poor categories use fewer choices of water sources 

compared to the well-off and middle wealth groups (Table 45). This implies that, by all means, there 

was a need for ensuring that forests are conserved as they act as the catchments for all these water 

sources on which the community depends. 

Table 49: Source of Water for Domestic Use by Wealth Categories 

Water source Well-off (%) Middle (%) Very poor (%) 

Well 35.7 60.8 90.9 

River 0.0 28.9 52.1 

Spring 0.0 6.6 8.5 

Tap 9.1 3.7 3.7 

146


8.5 Financial Score Cards 

Table 50: Scores for elements of Legal regulatory and institutional frameworks assessed in the selected coastal forests in Tanzania 

Component element Mainland Zanzibar 

Element 1: Legal, policy and regulatory support for revenue generation by coastal forests 

(i)Bylaws or policies are in place that facilitate revenue 

mechanisms in the coastal forest 

(ii)Financial instruments such as taxes on tourism and water or 

breaks existing to promote coastal forest financing 

Rufiji Kilwa Lindi Central 

District 

North 

Unguja 

2 0 0 2 1 2 

0 0 0 1 0 2 

Element 2: Legal policy and regulatory support for revenue retention and sharing within coastal forest systems 

(i)bylaws or policies are in place for coastal forest revenues to be 

retained by central government and at the local level 

(ii)Bylaws or policies are in place for coastal revenues to be 

retained at the specific coastal forest level 

(iii)Bylaws or policies in place for revenue sharing at the coastal 

forest site level with local stakeholders 

1 1 0 2 2 2 

0 2 0 0 0 2 

0 1 0 1 0 2 

Element 3: Legal and regulatory conditions for establishing funds (endowment, sinking or revolving) 

i)A fund has been established and capitalized to finance the forest 

activities in this district 

ii)Funds have been created to finance the forest activities in this 

district 

iii)Funds expenditures are integrated with national forest financial 

planning and accounting 

2 1 2 0 2 0 

2 1 1 0 0 0 

1 0 0 1 3 0 

Western 

Urban 

Average total 

Element 4: Legal, policy and regulatory support for alternative institutional arrangements for Coastal forest management to reduce cost burden to the 

government 

147



i)There are bylaws or policies which allow and regulate 

concessions for forest resources in the district 

ii)There are bylaws or policies which allow and regulate comanagement 

of forests in this district 

iii)There are bylaws or policies which allow and regulate local 

government management of the forest 

iv)There are bylaws which allow, promote and regulate private 

Forest Reserves in the coastal areas 

Element 5: National Forest financing policies and strategies 


District 

North 

Unguja 

0 2 0 0 0 2 

0 2 2 2 0 2 

0 2 2 2 0 3 

0 0 2 2 1 3 

(i)There are key forest financing system 1 0 1 0 0 0 

-Comprehensive, standardized and coordinated cost accounting 

systems (both input and activity based accounting) 

1 1 1 0 0 0 

Revenue generation and fee levels for forests in the district 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Allocation of forest budgets to district forest department (criteria 

based on size, threats, business plans, performance etc) 

Safeguards to ensure that revenue generation does not adversely 

affect conservation objectives for forest areas in the district 

1 1 2 1 0 1 

0 1 1 1 0 1 

District forest management plans exist 1 1 1 0 0 0 

(ii)Degree of formulation, adoption and implementation of a 

district financing strategy 

Element 6: economic valuation of coastal forests 

(i)Economic valuation studies on the contribution of forest to local 

and national development are available at the district level 

(ii) Forest economic valuation 

decision making 

influences local government 

1 1 1 0 0 0 

0 0 0 1 0 0 

0 0 0 2 0 2 

Western 

Urban 

Average total 

148



Element 7: Improved government budgeting for district forest systems 

(i)Local government policy promotes budgeting for Forest based 

on financial need as determined by forest management plans in 

the district 

(ii) Forest budgets including funds to finance threats reduction 

strategies in buffer zones (e.g. Livelihoods of communities living 

around forests) exist in this district 

(iii)Administrative (e.g. procurements) procedures facilitate budget 

to be spent, reducing risk of future budget cuts due to low 

disbursement rate in the district 

(iv)District plans to increase budget over the long term to reduce 

the forest financing gap in this district 


District 

North 

Unguja 

0 2 1 0 0 3 

0 2 1 2 0 3 

0 0 1 2 0 3 

0 2 1 3 3 3 

Element 8: Clearly defined institutional responsibilities for financial management of forest in the district 

(i)Mandates of public institutions regarding Forest finances are 

clear and agreed in this district 

Element 9: Well defined staffing requirement, profiles and incentive at the district level 

(i)There is an organizational structure with a sufficient number of 

economists and financial planners to help forest department in 

this district 

ii)District Forest officer responsibilities include, financial 

management, cost-effectiveness and revenue generation 

(iii) Budgetary incentives motivate district forest officers to 

promote district level financial sustainability (e.g. sites generating 

revenues do not experience budget cuts) 

(iv)Performance assessment of district forest officers includes 

assessment of sound financial planning, revenue generation, fee 

collection and cost-effective management 

0 2 1 0 0 0 

0 2 1 0 0 0 

0 2 2 0 0 1 

0 1 0 0 0 1 

0 1 1 0 0 1 

Western 

Urban 

Average total 

149




District 

North 

Unguja 

(v)There are is auditing capacity for district forest finances 0 2 2 0 0 0 

(vi)District forest officers have the possibility to budget and plan 

for long term (e.g. over 5 years) 

1 2 2 1 0 0 

Western 

Urban 

Total score for component 1 15 36 29 26 12 39 26.17 

Total possible scores 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 

% 15.79 37.89 30.53 27.37 12.63 41.05 27.54 

Benchmarks used in determining the existence and application of the legal regulatory frameworks 

Not existing 

Underdevelopment 

Developed but needs improvement 

Developed and implemented 

Average total 

150


Table 51: Scores for business planning tool for cost effective management as a component to the 

elements of financing systems 


Element 1: District level badness planning 

(i)District 

Forest 

management plans 

includes conservation 

objectives, management 

needs and costs based on 

cost-effective analysis 

(ii)Forest management 

plans are used at the 

district level 

(iii)Forest business plans, 

based on standard formats 

and link to forest 

management plans and 

conservation objectives are 

developed in this district 

(iv) Forest business plans 

are implemented in this 

district (degree of 

implementation measured 

by achievement of 

objective) 

(v)Forest business plans for 

forests contribute to 

system level planning and 

budgeting at the district 

level 

(vi)Costs of implementing 

management and business 

plans in this district are 

monitored and contributes 

to cost-effective guidance 

and financial performance 

reporting 


District 

North 

Unguja 

1 0 2 1 0 1 

2 0 1 0 0 0 

1 0 0 0 0 0 

2 0 0 0 0 1 

2 0 0 0 0 1 

2 0 1 1 0 1 

Element 2: Operational, transparent and useful accounting and auditing systems 

(i)There is a transparent 

and coordinated cost 

(operational 

and 

investment)accounting 

system functioning for 

coastal forest system 

(ii)Forest revenue tracking 

systems in the district is in 

place and operational 

1 0 2 0 0 1 

1 0 2 1 0 1 

Western 

Urban 

Average 

total 

151


152 


(iii)There is a system so 

that accounting data 

contribute to system level 

planning and budgeting 


District 

North 

Unguja 

2 0 0 0 0 0 

Element 3:Systems for monitoring and reporting on financial management performance 

(i)All district forest 

revenues and expenditures 

are fully and accurately 

reported by district 

authorities to stakeholders 

(ii)Financial returns on 

tourism 

related 

investments are measured 

and reported where 

possible (e.g. track increase 

in visitor revenues before 

and after establishment of 

a visitor center) in this 

district 

(iii)a monitoring and 

reporting in place to show 

how and why funds are 

allocated across the district 

and the central authority 

(iv)A reporting and 

evaluation system is in 

place to show how 

effectively this district use 

its available finances (i.e. 

disbursement rate and 

cost-effectiveness)to 

achieve management 

objectives 

3 0 3 0 0 0 

1 0 0 1 0 0 

1 0 3 0 0 0 

1 0 3 0 0 0 

Element 4: Methods of allocation funds across individual coastal districts 

(i)National budget is 

allocated to districts based 

on agreed and appropriate 

criteria (size, threats, 

performance) 

(ii)Funds raised by comanaged 

coastal forests do 

not reduce government 

budget allocation where 

funding gap still exist 

0 0 2 0 0 0 

0 0 0 2 0 2 

Western 

Urban 

Average 

total 

Element 5: Training and support networks to enable coastal forest managers to operate more costeffectively 

(i)Guidance on cost- 1 1 0 0 0 0



effective management 

developed and being used 

in the respective districts 

(ii)Inter-district level 

network exist for district 

forest managers to share 

information with each 

other on their costs, 

practice and impact 

(iii)Operational and 

investment 

cost 

comparison between the 

districts complete, 

available and being used to 

track coastal forest 

manager performance 

(iv)Monitoring and leaning 

systems of costeffectiveness 

are in place 

and feed into system 

management policy and 

planning 

(v)District forest officers 

are trained in technical 

management and cost 


(vi)District forest financing 

system facilitates different 

coastal forest districts to 

share cost of common 

practices with each other 

and with the FBD 


District 

North 

Unguja 

1 1 1 1 0 0 

1 1 1 0 0 0 

1 1 0 0 0 0 

1 1 0 0 0 0 

2 2 0 0 0 0 

Western 

Urban 

Actual total scores for 

component 2 27.00 7.00 21.00 7.00 0.00 8.00 11.67 


% 44.26 11.48 34.43 11.48 0.00 13.11 19.13 

Average 

total 

Benchmarks used in determining the existence and application of the business planning tool for cost 


Not existing 


Developed but needs improvement 

Developed and implemented 

153


Table 52: Scores for tool for revenue generation as a component to the elements of financing 

systems 



District 

Element 1: Number and variety of revenue sources used across the district 

(i)An up – to – date analysis of 

revenue options for the district 

to complete and available 

including feasibility studies 

(ii) There is a diverse set of 

sources and mechanisms, 

generating funds for the forest 

activities in the district 

(iii) Districts are operating 

revenue mechanisms for forests 

that generate positive net 

revenues(greater than annual 

operating costs and over longterm 

payback initial 

investment cost) 

(iv) Districts forest authorities 

enable local communities to 

generate revenues, resulting in 

reduced threats to the forests 

North 

Unguja 

0 1 1 0 0 0 

0 0 1 1 0 0 

0 2 1 0 0 0 

0 1 1 2 0 0 

Element 2: Setting and establishment of user fees across the district forest systems 

(i)A system wide strategy and 

action plan for user fees is 

complete and adopted by the 

local government 

(ii)The national tourism industry 

and Ministry are supportive and 

are partners in the forest 

service’s user fee system and 

programmes existing in the 

district 

(iii)Tourism 

related 

infrastructure investment is 

proposed and developed in the 

district based on analysis of 

revenue potential and return on 

investment 

(iv)Where tourism is promoted 

district forest officers can 

demonstrate maximum revenue 

whilst not threatening coastal 

forest conservation objectives 

(v)None tourism user fees are 

applied and generate additional 

0 1 0 1 0 1 

1 1 0 1 0 0 

1 1 0 0 0 1 

3 1 0 0 0 1 

1 1 0 0 0 1 

Western 

Urban 

Average 

total 

154


155 


revenue in the district 


District 

Element 3: Effective fee collection systems in the1 district 

System wide guidelines for fee 

collection are complete and 

approved by district authorities 

Fee collection systems are being 

implemented at the district level 

in a cost-effective 

manner 

Fee collection systems are 

monitored, evaluated and acted 

upon by the district councils 

Coastal forest visitors are 

satisfied with the 

professionalism of fee collection 

and the services provided 

North 

Unguja 

1 2 2 0 0 1 

1 1 1 1 0 1 

1 3 2 1 0 1 

0 0 1 0 0 1 

Western 

Urban 

Average 

total 

Element 4:Marketing and communication strategies for revenue generation mechanisms at the district 

level 

(i)Communication campaigns 

and marketing for the public 

about tourism fees, 

conservation taxes etc are 

widespread and high profile at 

district level 

(ii) Communication campaigns 

and marketing for the public 

about forest fees are in place in 

this district 

1 1 0 0 3 1 

1 2 3 0 0 1 

Element 5: Operational Payment Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes in this district 

(i) A system wide strategy and 

action plan for PES is complete 

and adopted by the local 

government 

(ii) There is a pilot PES schemes 

developed in this district 

(iii) Operational performance of 

(PES) pilots is monitored, 

evaluated and reported 

(iv) Scale up of PES in the district 

is underway 

0 0 0 1 0 0 

0 0 0 1 0 0 

1 0 0 0 0 1 

0 0 0 0 0 1 

Element 6:Concessions operation within coastal forests in the district 

(i) A system wide strategy and 

implementation action plan is 

complete and adopted by local 

1 0 0 1 0 1



government for concessions 

(ii) Concession opportunities are 

operational at the district level 

(iii) Operational performance 

(environmental and financial) of 

pilots is monitored, evaluated, 

reported and acted upon 

(iv)Scale up of concessions 

across the district is underway 


District 

North 

Unguja 

1 0 0 0 0 1 

2 0 0 1 0 1 

2 2 0 1 0 1 

Element 7: District Forest training programmes on revenue generation mechanisms 

(i) Training courses run by the 

government and other 

competent organizations for 

forest officers on revenue 

mechanisms and financial 

administration 

1 1 1 0 0 1 

Western 

Urban 

Average 

total 

Actual total scores for 

component 3 19.00 21.00 14.00 12.00 3.00 17.00 14.33 


% 26.76 29.58 19.72 16.90 4.23 23.94 20.19 

Benchmarks used in determining the use of revenue collection tools 

The tool does not exist 


Developed but not used 

Developed and used 

156


Forms Used for the Socio-economic Studies 

Table 53: Wealth Group Ranking Criteria in the Sample Villages 

Wealth Group 

Ranking Criteria 

Well-off 

Middle 

Poor 

Have at least one off-farm business; able to buy and sell goods, engaged in businesses 

such as shops; own big businesses within and outside of the villages. 

Own up to 50 acres of land; have farm implements such as ox ploughs and tractors. 

Extensive use of fertilizers. 

Own a modern house with cement plastered brick walls and floors plus corrugated iron 

sheet roofs. 

Highly food secure; managing three meals per day. 

Have more cattle 

Can own motor vehicles such as trucks, cars, or a motorbike. 

Can afford school fees for their children. 

Own some milling machines. 

Own 5-10 acres of land. 

Own and/or rent farm implements such as ox ploughs and tractors. 

Uses fertilizers and farmyard manure. 

Own motorbikes and bicycles for transportation of goods. 

Own normal house made of bricks and corrugated iron sheets roof; sometimes the ironroofs 

have stones placed on top to prevent wind blows. 

Food secured and can manage at least 2 meals in a day. 

Livestock: have heads of cattle. 

Normally run small businesses such as shops, kiosks, etc. 

They can meet basic needs such as food, education, and can educate their children. 

Most have primary level of education or more. 

Own land size 0.5 - 2 acres, but cultivates only 1 acre; renting the rest to middle group 

farmers; uses a hand hoe for farming; no fertilizers are applied in the farms. 

Do not have any livestock. 

Have poor grass-thatched houses. 

Food insecure; can manage only one meal per day. 

Dependent on casual labour; a source of cheap labour for middle and well-off groups. 

Many who live near forest resources indulge in charcoal production. 

Illiterate (both parents and children). 

Can’t meet basic needs and are often dressed in tattered clothes. 

157


158

Neil D. Burgess, Paul Harrison, Peter Sumbi, James Laizer, Adam ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?