Natural capital refers to natural resources that are utilized by people to generate means of livelihoods. Natural capital comprises land, water and biological resources that have effects on human welfare. This section will cover the discussion about natural capital endowed in the study area. The analysis of these natural capitals is discussed through four measures that include household total income, household locations, household wealth groups and type of agriculture. Each socio-economic factor will be discussed in the radiance of these four measures.
5.2.1. Analysis of natural capital by total household income
I ran the regression analysis to investigate natural capital in the study villages. The results indicate total land owned and access to commons is significant natural capitals in total household income.
Land by total household income: The average (mode) of 0.8 ha is indicated to be owned by an individual household in the total sample. A positive statistical relationship between total owned land and household total income is shown.
It is important to explain how land is acquired by individuals. As in other part of the country people in the study villages have deep and enduring connections to the land through birth, ancestors and burial grounds. Over t time, farmers have obtained their farms or plots through various means. Means for occupying or owning a land differ according to the situations. Most people have obtained their land through being provided by the village authorities (42%)
58
followed by land owned through inheritance (37%). Purchased land and hired land is not so common access means for occupying land according to the empirical evidence in the villages (Table 5-8).
Table 5-8: Proportional distribution of means of owning land in the study villages at Kilombero District, Tanzania, 2012
Description Inherited Land Given Land Purchased Land Hired Land Average Total Land (Ha) Total Sample 37% 41.66% 12.96% 8.33% 1.6 Mkula Village 64.1% 25.64% 10.2% 0% 0.9 Msolwa A Village 21.7% 50.72% 14.49% 13% 2.0
Currently land shortage is a growing concern; many people are complaining about land shortages according to the focus group discussions. About 36% of people have less than one hectare in the total sample and by the same token the proportional of 67% of the sample shows that households farm are located away from the villages. People are subjected to move far away, between 20 and 50km searching for cultivation land. Areas such as Lungongole, Kiberege, Kisawasawa, Ibiki, Zignali, Liegama, Kisaki, Kilulumo and other have informed to be the best option available, though their locations are remote to the villages. Travelling to and fro consumes more resources (time and cash) the costs are unbearable to many households, especially the poor. We have found that at land through inheritance is common at Mkula village common compared to Msolwa A village. This can be explained by that land scarcity at Mkula especially in irrigation areas makes selling or buying very difficult. At Msolwa A land provision through village government is common.
Access to commons by household total income: Access to commons is significant factor in the household total income. The findings indicate positive relationship between access to commons and household total income. According to the empirical evidences 83% of the total sample has an access to the commons.
59
5.2.2. Natural capital by location
Land by location: The results show the average (median) owned land size of 0.9 ha (Mkula Village) and 2.02 ha and (Msolwa A village). Land occupied through village provision or clan domination based on the customary arrangements has been practiced for ages. Mkula and Msolwa A villages are among villages reformed through people’s the resettlement plan established by the government during 1970’s (Kikula 1997), though the villages existed even before the operation. Most of the elder people who lived in the village for most of their lives have occupied their lands through those means.
Msolwa A village shows a higher number of people who acquired land through village authority or customary arrangements land provision compared to the Mkula village where heritage is key. According to the stakeholders’ analysis the situation is explained by the fact that Mkula village is regarded as a traditional village compared to Msolwa A village which is regarded as a more modern village influenced by ujamaa policy.
Households, who own the land, split their land into small portions and provide them to their family members through inheritance. This group contains men and women who inherited land from their ancestors and will be expected to pass the same land to the coming generation. Passing the land occupation to the next generation has been practiced for a long time.
Land inheritance is more common at Mkula Village compare to Msolwa A village, because that most residents at Mkula village originates from the village according to focus group discussions. As the time passes land then, continue to diminish due to successive subdivision at inheritance.
Land leasing or purchases is another means for occupying or owning a land. Individuals who migrated recently to the villages and those who were not provided or entitled to own land or farm by village officials obtained land through these means. The purchasing or leasing prices are uneven; they depend on mutual agreements between individuals based on their own free consent. This means is not so common in villages because within the villages few individuals have the capacity of hiring land. Another factor is that land scarcity could makes selling or renting land constrained.
Shortage of land within villages can partly be explained by the location of the villages. The villages are located at the middle of Selous Game Reserves, Udzungwa Mountain National Parks and Illovo Sugar Company plantations on the Eastern side. This situation limits the
60
expansion of cultivation land to the bursting rural population. Some few individuals who are able to migrate searching for suitable cultivation land are doing so and have left behind many individuals who have no incentives to do so. The situation is more critical for poor families. Poor people in the villages are most vulnerable to land scarcity and higher prices on hired land.
Access to commons by location: Access to commons is indicated as a significant factor for obtaining livelihoods in the study villages. The results shows that Mkula village 62% report to have access to commons and At Msolwa A village 94% of households have an access to commons. As we have seen on the discussion above poultry is the most common domestic animal found in the villages.
5.2.3. Natural capital by households’ wealth groups
Land by households’ wealth groups: The results show that higher, middle and lower level income groups own an average (mean) size of 3, 1.7 and 1.7 hectares of land respectively. Owning relatively bigger land seems to result in higher income. But the empirical evidence shows that not all owned land is utilized for crop production, part of the land is abandoned (especially by lower income group) because of various reasons including financial constraints and farm locations. The findings indicate that higher, middle and lower income groups utilize the average (mean) size of 2.97, 1.76 and 1.65 hectares of the total land owned respectively. Higher income group utilizes almost all owned land which signifies the larger area owned the more returns from farm activities.
Access to commons by households’ wealth groups: The results shows that the households which have an access to commons and their correspondent wealth groups in the brackets are 67% (higher income group), 95% (middle income group) and 86% (lower income group) As I have discussed above poultry is the common activity in the study villages. The averages quantity of poultry kept by wealth group are 6.97 (higher income group), 8.78 (middle income group) and 8 (lower income group).
The variation can be explained by the fact that poultry as other domestic animals are immediate assets that can be converted into cash. Poultries are kept locally which makes it an easy and low cost production for even low income families. Keeping poultry in the study villages is affordable, providing nutrients and food security as well as easily converted into cash. These circumstances make keeping poultry to be more convenient especially to the lower level income group.
61
5.2.4. Natural capital by type of agriculture
Land by type of agriculture: The findings indicate that the average (mean) size of 1.9, 2.5 and 2.2 hectares of land are used for improved irrigation, traditional irrigation and rain-fed agriculture respectively. Land is scarcer in improved irrigation compared to traditional irrigation and rain-fed agriculture. About 29%, of households are engaged in improved irrigation which is by far most profitable. Traditional irrigation and rain-fed agriculture employ 11.92% and 57.8% respectively in the total sample.
Large numbers of households are in rain-fed agriculture. Most of those farms are located away from the study villages. The remarkable characteristic of remote farms is that there is much low production than in the closer fields. Remote farms are subjected as less measure by improper management as well as endanger of theft, animal destruction and similar reasons. Farmers do apply more efforts in the closer crop fields compared to the remote crop fields (Closer fields are the land/farms which are located within the village areas). Closer fields are mainly managed under improved and traditional irrigation type of agriculture which generates more returns but land is limited. So the synthesis here is that land in remote area is more accessible compared to closer areas but the challenge is less control in term of proper management and high risk of losses.
Access to commons by type of agriculture: The results indicates that households which have an access to the commons with their corresponding type of agriculture in the brackets are 63% (improved irrigation) 92% (traditional irrigation) and 90% (rain-fed agriculture).
5.2.5. Natural capital by livestock
In the study area poultries are dominant domestic animals in the household. The average quantity of poultry and their corresponding type of agriculture households found in the study village are 8 (improved irrigation), 7.3 (traditional irrigation) and 7.95 (rain-fed agriculture). The variations can be explained by the fact that maintaining poultry stock is affordable to most households including poor families. Poultry also provides a source of food in households also it can easily be converted to cash. Rain-fed agriculture provides less returns compared to other types of agriculture households also are linked to low income group. So the large proportions of poultry are kept by households in the rain-fed agriculture households which are characterized to be low income. Low income households keep more poultry than higher income households.
62
5.2.6. Summary of natural capital
The total cultivated area owned by an individual household is a significant asset to sustain livelihoods in the villages. However, farming activities generally rely on some cultivation techniques (inputs application, proper land utilization and others) to maintain land quality and enhance sustainable crop cultivation.
Problem of land and water shortages is observed in the villages. The arrangement for land tenure in rural areas especially villages is not well established which create unequal land distribution. Customary arrangements provided by local authorities are an alternative means to entitle the land ownership in rural areas. The state remains as a provider of legitimacy for land claim through formal or informal arrangements in Tanzania. The 1999 land tenure reform addressed the recognition and registration of existing land use practice and customary arrangements (Ikdahl 2013).
The access to the commons is also an essential natural asset which is significant for generating household earnings. Poultry is common in the study villages.