The Centre for International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Agricultural University of Norway’s (NLH) twelve departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary Medicine in Oslo. Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Master and PhD programmes) and assignments. The Noragric Master theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the requirements under the Noragric Master programme “Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture” (MNRSA), Development Studies and other Master programmes. The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric. © Bruce Gee Sosola, June 2004 bsosola@yahoo.com Noragric Agricultural University of Norway P.O. Box 5003 N-1432 Ås Norway Tel.: +47 64 94 99 50 Fax: +47 64 94 07 60 Internet: http://www.nlh.no/noragric Photo credits: Poul Wisborg, Ian Bryceson, Jens B. Aune Cover design: Spekter Reklamebyrå as, Ås

i

Declaration

I, BRUCE GEE SOSOLA, declare that this is a product of my own research work, and all

other sources of materials are duly acknowledged. This work has not been submitted to

any institution for an award of any academic degree.

-------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Gee Sosola

Ås, May 2004

ii

Dedication

Geoffrey, Christina, Joe, Arnold, Madalitso, Wisdom, Thokozani, Jennipher, Wilfred and Bridget.

iii

Acknowledgements I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to NORAD for funding my master

programme at Agricultural University of Norway (Norges Landbrukshogskole) from

2002 to 2004. Further thanks are due to Associate Professor Fred Håkon Johnsen for

superb supervision you rendered to me and all other lecturers at NORAGRIC (Centre for

International Environment and Development Studies) and Makerere University for

equipping me for rural development in developing countries. I salute you, all guys there

at NORAGRIC including the librarians. Another platoon of guys worthy thanking is my

fellow 2002-2004 MNRSA students for your cheerful moments you had with me. Yes,

through group assignments in Ås and Uganda. A vote of thanks for you guys is ‘it is

terrible’.

For the thesis to be a success, I am also indebted to thank Mr. Sam Kainja the Deputy

Director of planning of Department of Forestry in the Ministry of Natural resources and

Fisheries. You helped me in basic data collection for my field work in Mvera. Oh! Great

also were my research assistants: George Chonde, Abigail Chalira, Bupe Mulagha, and

Berlington. Thanks for being with me during that hot afternoon at Katengeza when our

automobile got a breakdown. George, you are a good driver. Zikomo, Alfred Kambwiri

for lending out your beautiful automobile. Another Zikomo kwambiri to Mr Victor

Chirvwati Mhoni for housing me during the entire holiday and fieldwork. You were an

asset, man. Mr Patrick Jambo was very supportive in drawing the digital map of Malawi

showing the study area and Thuma Forest Reserve. Your maps are part of the paper.

Thanks to Mr John Ngalande the Deputy Director of Forestry for lending me his only

copy about Thuma Forest Reserve. I partly dedicate this work to the people of Katengeza,

Chilombo, Mpanje, Dzuwa and Malenga engaged in bamboo enterprises in one way or

another. Your livelihood in bamboo enterprises made me exposed to bamboo as a plant

and importance of non-farm rural income activities in rural development.

Last but not least, I say cheers to my parents, brothers and sisters at Mvera for giving me

moral support during my entire life, socially, spiritually and financially. Falls Assembly

of God church, thanks for your prayers when I was in a foreign land but not with a

iv

foreign God, Jehovah. May God richly bless you all I have tried to remember to

acknowledge and failed to remember.

v

Abstract The bamboo enterprises involving handicraft making and culm vending in Mvera, Dowa

district in Malawi were studied from October 2003 to December 2003. The aim of the

study was to examine the significance of bamboo enterprises to rural livelihood security

and how bamboos are managed by the bamboo entrepreneurs themselves and other

stakeholders. The stakeholders in bamboo enterprise promotion and bamboo resource

management and their roles were also identified and assessed. The four villages

Katengeza, Mulenga, Mpanje and Dzuwa were chosen to represent mainly the handicraft

making communities and Chilombo to represent the bamboo culm vending communities.

Eighteen respondents were randomly selected from bamboo culm vending community for

household survey and stratified random sampling was used to select seventy four

respondents from each of bamboo handicraft making villages. Focus groups discussions

on issues of bamboo enterprises were conducted in each of the villages selected.

Perceived stakeholders were consulted to examine their roles in bamboo enterprises. It

was found that an average bamboo handicraft maker used 681 bamboo culms per year

and an average bamboo culm vendor cut 1146 culms per year. It was also found that an

average bamboo handicraft maker obtained MK 20684 per year from the cash sales of

assorted handicrafts and an average bamboo culm vendor obtained MK 10833 per year

from bamboo culm cash sales. An average bamboo entrepreneur obtained MK 3251 from

farm cash sales. However, considering own farm consumption, the average bamboo

entrepreneur consumed own farm produce worthy MK 26679 which was about one and a

half times greater than average bamboo income of MK 18417. All respondents indicated

that the income from bamboo enterprise was mainly for household petty cash i.e. hand to

mouth consumption. No significant bamboo management practices were carried out by

the entrepreneurs. Bamboos were naturally growing in Thuma Forest Reserve where most

of the bamboos were collected. A few stakeholders in bamboo enterprise and resource

management were merely involved in actual promotion of bamboo handicraft industry

and actual bamboo management by their policies and interventions.

vi

Table of contents Declaration.......................................................................................................................... ii Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ iv Abstract .............................................................................................................................. vi Table of contents............................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix Table of Figures ................................................................................................................. ix List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................ x 1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Bamboo management in Malawi .............................................................................. 2 1.3 Goal and Objectives.................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Research Questions................................................................................................... 4

2 Literature Review............................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Botanical background of bamboo ............................................................................. 6 2.2 Household income and livelihood strategies ............................................................ 7 2.3 Rural Non-farm Economy......................................................................................... 9 2.4 Bamboo and household income.............................................................................. 10 2.5 Bamboo management and sustainability ................................................................ 11 2.6 Bamboo enterprise and its institutional environment ............................................. 11

3 Description of the country and study area ..................................................................... 13 3.1 Background information of Malawi........................................................................ 13

3.1.1 Geography and Economy of Malawi ............................................................... 13 3.1.2 Land and Forest Cover..................................................................................... 14

3.2 Thuma Forest Reserve ............................................................................................ 17 3.3 Mvera area .............................................................................................................. 18

4 Methodology.................................................................................................................. 21 4.1 Sample sites ............................................................................................................ 21 4.2 Sampling of individual respondents........................................................................ 22 4.3 Qualitative data collection ...................................................................................... 23

4.3.1 Institutional analysis ........................................................................................ 23 4.3.2 Stakeholder analysis......................................................................................... 23 4.3.3 Focus Group Discussions................................................................................. 24

4.4 Quantitative data collection: Household Questionnaire Survey ............................. 25 4.5 Data analysis ........................................................................................................... 25

5 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................. 27 5.1 Household Characteristics of the Respondents....................................................... 27 5.2 Bamboo enterprises and household income............................................................ 29

5.2.1 Bamboo enterprises.......................................................................................... 29 5.2.2 Extraction and utilization of bamboos ............................................................. 30 5.2.3 History of handicrafts making and bamboo workshops .................................. 32 5.2.4 Bamboo income and household income .......................................................... 33

5.3 Bamboo management and domestication ............................................................... 35 5.4 Institutional and stakeholders analysis.................................................................... 37

vii

5.4.1 Markets ............................................................................................................ 37 5.4.2 Labour regimes and gender.............................................................................. 38 5.4.3 Seasonality of labour........................................................................................ 39 5.4.4 Bamboo workshops.......................................................................................... 40 5.4.5 Handicraft and bamboo culm buyers ............................................................... 41 5.4.6 Dowa District Council ..................................................................................... 42 5.4.7 Salima District Forestry Office........................................................................ 42 5.4.8 National Road Authority.................................................................................. 43 5.4.9 Malawi Chambers of Commerce and Industry ................................................ 43 5.4.10 Appropriate Technology Training Unit for Income Generating Activities (ATTIGA) ................................................................................................................. 43 5.4.11 Forestry Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM) ............................................. 44 5.4.12 Credit institutions........................................................................................... 44 5.4.13 One Village One Product Program (OVOP).................................................. 45

6 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 46 7 Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 48 8 References...................................................................................................................... 50 9 Appendices..................................................................................................................... 53

Appendix 1: Household Survey Questionnaire............................................................. 53 Appendix 2: Checklist for Community and Focus Group Discussions ........................ 59 Appendix 3: Stakeholder Analysis Questionnaire ........................................................ 63 Appendix 4.1 One-Sample T: Household size.............................................................. 66 Appendix 4.2 Chi-Square Test of Sex of the entrepreneur versus literacy level.......... 66 Appendix 4.3: Chi-Square Test of the entrepreneur’s proximity to Thuma Forest reserve versus the perception of bamboo availability................................................... 66 Appendix 4.4: Two-Sample T-Test for bamboo incomes versus farm cash sales........ 67 Appendix 4.5: Two-Sample T-Test: Own farm consumption income versus bamboo incomes ......................................................................................................................... 67 Appendix 4.6: Chi-Square Test of commitment to bamboo enterprise during rainy season between the types of bamboo entrepreneurs. .................................................... 67

viii

List of Tables Table 1: Sampling profile by villages............................................................................... 22 Table 2: Profile of respondents by gender and village ..................................................... 27 Table 3: Age profiles of the respondents by gender ......................................................... 28 Table 4: Educational level of the respondents by gender ................................................. 29 Table 5: Number of bamboo culms used and extracted and entrepreneurs involved by

villages ...................................................................................................................... 31 Table 6: Annual household cash incomes......................................................................... 33 Table 7: Perception of bamboo availability in Thuma Forest Reserve............................. 37 Table 8: Labour regimes by village .................................................................................. 39 Table of Figures Figure 1: Map of Malawi showing regions and Thuma Forest Reserve........................... 16 Figure 2: Map showing Mvera, the study area and Thuma Forest Reserve ..................... 19

ix

List of Acronyms AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

BTN Bamboo Thematic Network

DCDM De Chazal Du Mee

DF Department of Forestry

DFO District Forestry Office

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FRIM Forest Research Institute of Malawi

GNI Gross National Income

GoM Government of Malawi

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

INBAR International Network of Bamboo and Rattan

LADDER Livelihoods and Diversification Directions Explored by Research

MCCI Malawi Chambers of Commerce and Industry

MoAIFS Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Food Security

NEC National Economic Council

NFP National Forestry Policy

NSO National Statistical Office

NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products

NWFP Non Wood Forest Products

OVOP One Village One Product

RATES Regional Agricultural Trade Expansion Support program

RNFE Rural Non-Farm Economy

UNDP United Nation Development Programme

x

1 Introduction 1.1 Background

The rural people in Malawi are reported in much literature to be poor e.g. (UNDP/GoM,

1993; NEC et al., 2002; Ellis et al., 2003). Though poverty would be relative and abstract

in definition, poverty in Malawi has been defined as being ‘characterised by chronic land

shortage, food insecurity, decreased profitability of maize, increased competitive market

pressures, profound income inequality, and generally declined credit use/repayment, law

and order, and infrastructure’ (UNDP/GoM, 1993). These problems and the rapid growth

rate in population are exerting extreme pressure on land, natural resources and labour

market (Kainja, 2000). The factors expressed above are among a myriad of ‘vulnerability

contexts’ (Ellis, 2000) contributing that ‘the number of households below the poverty line

increase’ (Kainja, 2000). Surprisingly, subsistence agriculture is still ‘the most common

occupation for Malawian households though it brings a disproportionately low annual per

capita income’ (NEC et al, 2000). According to the Poverty Analysis of the Integrated

Household Survey, it was found that the household income in most households is mostly

meant for household consumptive uses rather than productive uses (ibid.). This means

that the food expenditures dominate in most Malawian households but particularly in

rural households. However, urban patterns of expenditure and sources of income are

more diverse than rural. Both rural and urban households engage in non-farm activities to

supplement the household income. Trade is the most common non-farm activity. Urban

poor households usually engage in small-scale businesses like street vending whereas the

rural poor engage in various forms of manufacturing (NEC et al., 2000). But for the rural

farmer, engagement in small-scale businesses would usually be a seasonal activity,

undertaken off growing season. The rural poor are the most vulnerable and destitute

economic entity in Malawi because it was found that the average rural poor produces MK

4.62/day and consumes MK 5.09/day (ibid.). In Malawi, rural farmers are diversifying in

various economic activities and studies show that natural resource related economic

activities are explored to diversify rural farmers’ livelihoods (Ebony Consulting and

NSO, 2000). Among the non-farm economic activities is what the rural farmers are

undertaking in Mvera whereupon this thesis report is based. As it is reported that ‘there is

1

increased use of non-timber forest products by rural farmers in Malawi’ (Nyirenda, 1993

and Phiri, 2000), Mvera is an example where such rural economic activities are carried

out. The rural households obtain food, raw materials, income and medicine from the non-

timber forest products (Kainja, 2000).

This thesis report illustrates how rural households exposed to various vulnerability

contexts rationally opt for diversification of portfolios of economic activities. It is so

evident that rural people are rational risk averse in diversifying their economic activities

and portfolio of assets and access and control to such assets (Ellis, 2000). Usually it is the

natural capital that is at the disposal of these vulnerable rural masses. Bamboo is one of

the natural capitals that are predisposing rural farmer to rural-urban trade (Phiri, 2000;

Nyirenda, 1993). Bamboos in Malawi are not planted but collected from Forest Reserves

e.g. Thambani Forest Reserve, Thuma Forest Reserve. There is still a long way for

bamboo plantations to be used as economic supply of timber for industrial purposes,

carbon sequestration sink and export of locally produced handicrafts. As of now, bamboo

is a source of subsistence livelihood for poor rural farmers in these areas. Bamboo as a

non-timber forest product is currently promoted as stipulated in National Forestry Policy

but to a limited scale as it will discussed later in the report. Among the issues that the

National Forestry Policy is promoting is the participation of local communities in the

management of forest resources in Forest Reserves and on customary land (Jere et al.,

2000). These authors report that the Forestry Policy intends to establish appropriate

incentives that will promote community-based conservation and sustainable utilization of

forest resources as a means of alleviating poverty.

1.2 Bamboo management in Malawi

There is increasing emphasis in the study of Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFP) in

Malawi under which the bamboos fall (Phiri, 2000). There is not much research done on

bamboos as an agroforestry crop and a natural plant. The national forestry research body,

Forestry Research Institute in Malawi (FRIM), is currently working mostly on timber

forests research. However, a new focus on NWFP is growing. Despite the growing

interest in NWFP, bamboos are not strongly regarded to be potential NWFP according to

2

a report by Nyirenda (1993). In contrast to this observation, the Bamboo Thematic

Network classifies it as an NWFP.

In order that economic potential of bamboo and sustainable bamboo management are

realised, there is a need for technical, legislative and policy interventions. This can be

facilitated through the initiative of the Ministry of Forestry and Natural Resources and

other relevant Government and Non-governmental Organizations. Surprisingly, there is

limited policy and legislative framework governing the management and exploitation of

bamboo in Malawi (cf. National Forestry Policy). The International Network of Bamboo

and Rattan, the international organisation that is dedicated to improve the social,

economic and environmental benefits from bamboo and rattan (INBAR, 2000), has

projects and adaptive research activities in Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania in East

Africa. Malawi is not a member of INBAR hence no straightforward policies and

practices on bamboo resource management and its related enterprise. This research is

similar to the ‘production to consumption’ systems approach of INBAR (ibid.). The

studies on ‘production to consumption’ systems have been carried out in these four east

African countries. Analyses of economic contributions of bamboo to rural households at

Mvera have been borrowed from those studies in East Africa.

Since the Malawi economy is agro-based and that agricultural production is declining,

enterprise and management of bamboo for sustainable development is an attractive

option. Based on the national gaps in NWFP policy (Phiri, 2000), The Forestry

Department of Malawi recommended the following instruments:

(i) Reduce the pressure on the environment by developing and introducing appropriate

alternative management practices and technologies for the utilization of NWFP from

forests.

(ii) Improve on legislation and provide for the institutional capacities to enforce the

legislation.

(iii) Upgrade the existing extension and training facilities by developing adequate

training programmes and appropriate extension packages and logistics for the various

target groups.

3

(iv) Establish suitable marketing systems and provide the necessary capital for the

development and management of the relevant NWFP.

The above instruments also apply to bamboos as they fall under NWFP or sometimes

referred to as NTFP (Non-Timber Forest Products).

1.3 Goal and Objectives

The goal of this research project was to understand and analyse the potential of bamboo

in improving the livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Mvera.

The objectives of this research project were

1. To identify potential of bamboo enterprises in improving household livelihood

security of smallholder farmers in Mvera,

2. To identify the bamboo management practices by the rural people and other actors

in bamboo culm vending and bamboo handicraft industry in Mvera and their

constraints,

3. To identify stakeholders in Malawi involved in bamboo enterprise and

management in Mvera and their roles.

1.4 Research Questions

The following research questions were used as a bench mark for collecting information in

relation to the research. Each of the questions corresponds with the objectives above,

respectively.

1. How much do bamboo handicraft and bamboo culm vending enterprises

contribute to household livelihood security of rural smallholder farmers in Mvera

as a livelihood strategy to compensate for the dwindling agricultural production?

4

2. What practices by rural people and other stakeholders are put in place for

sustainable bamboo enterprise and resource management?

3. What are the stakeholders and their roles in bamboo enterprise and resource

management in Mvera?

5

2 Literature Review

2.1 Botanical background of bamboo

Bamboo botanically belongs to the grass subfamily of Bambusoideae (Oprins Plant-BTN,

2002). Bamboo is a self-regenerating natural resource. Bamboos occur in the natural

vegetation of the tropical, subtropical and temperate regions, but are found in great

abundance in tropical Asia. While bamboo taxonomy is still incomplete, it has

been recorded that 75 genera and 1250 species occur in the world (Sharma, 1980, 1987

cited in Kigomo, 1988). Only 14 genera and 43 species occur in Africa, all of which

are mainly distributed in the East African region. The East African bamboo cover (and

therefore African cover) totals about 1.5 million hectares compared to the world cover of

14 million ha (Sharma, 1980; Jiping, 1987; cited in Kigomo, 1988). Eighty percent of

the world bamboo resource is distributed mainly in the South Asian tropical region.

Africa and South America are thus poorly endowed with bamboo resources while there is

total absence of the resource in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR),

North America, Central and South Australia and the regions near the poles. Studies show

that about 90% of bamboos are found in Government Forest reserves in East Africa.

There has been no proper inventory of bamboo resources in Africa (Kigomo 1988) since

bamboos are classified as NTFPs as opposed to conventional trees. While 43 species have

been documented as being native to eastern Africa, several species under the genera

Arundinaria, Oreobambos and Oxytenanthera have been described as occurring more

widely. Sterile specimens resembling Arundinaria alpina have been collected in

Malawi (Clayton, 1970 cited in Kigomo, 1988). The occurrence of Arundinaria alpina

in Malawi has, however, been confirmed by Chapman and White (1970) who noted its

growth in scattered clumps in broadleaved montane forest formations (Kigomo, 1988).

Oxytenanthera abyssinica is a medium sized bamboo, widely distributed in eastern

Africa. The young culms are usually semi-solid whereas the older culms are almost

completely solid. It is the hardiest of the three commonly occurring East African bamboo

species. It occurs in open areas in forests and often by rivers at altitudes between 1100

and 2100 m. 0xytenanthera abyssinica is common at the medium altitude in semi-

6

deciduous dry forest formation. In Malawi, however, the species extends into more

forested areas especially on hillsides more exposed to the sun. Oreobambos buchwaldii is

indigenous to East Africa and occurs mainly between 300m and 1930m. The green

hollow culm of the species, which may reach 18 m in height, is weak and poorly erect

(Clayton, 1970 cited in Kigomo, 1988). It is more common in open areas along rivers in

the forest patches of the Shire highlands in Malawi (Kigomo 1988). Eggerling and Dale

(1951) cited in Kigomo (1988) reported that flowering in 0xytenanthera abyssinica

occurs in large areas about once every seven years. After flowering, the clumps die and

new shoots appear after a year. Observations by Williamson (1974) in Malawi, however,

indicated that flowering took place sporadically or in a gregarious manner after which the

plants died.

2.2 Household income and livelihood strategies

Agriculture still remains the main food production activity for subsistence in Mvera as in

the most areas in Malawi (NEC et al., 2000). The sustainability of agriculture’s

contribution to household income or security leaves a lot to be desired. However, in

practice, the farmers have adapted a number of economic activities based on the

prevailing assets they own and have access to. A good number of them are non-farm

activities (Davis, 2003). A good number of them are natural resource based as opposed to

non-natural resource based activities (Ellis, 2002). Much literature has stated the positive

effect of non-farm economy on the livelihoods of the rural farmers (Ellis, 2000; Ellis et

al., 2002; Davis, 2003). The recent empirical research of Davis (2003) has interesting

insights on non-farm economy under which bamboo enterprise falls into. Chihongo et al.

(2000) also found out that bamboo has the potential of improving the livelihood of the

people, particularly those in rural areas and in the informal sector in Tanzania.

A“livelihood” may be understood as comprising the assets (natural, physical, human,

financial and social capital), and activities, and the access to these (mediated by

institutions and social relations) that together determine the living gained by the

individual or household (Ellis, 2000). The rural households maintain and adapt a highly

7

diverse portfolio of activities as rural survival strategies in poor countries. Ellis (2000)

described this phenomenon as livelihood diversification when the rural families include

off-farm wage work in agriculture, non-farm wage work, non-farm self-employment (e.g.

trading), and remittances from urban areas and abroad to supplement their insufficient

and inefficient agriculture. It should be noted that though the terms livelihood and income

are not synonymous, they are nevertheless inextricably related because the composition

and level of individual or household income at a given point in time is the most direct and

measurable outcome of the livelihood process (Ellis, 2000). Income comprises both cash

and in-kind contributions to the material welfare of the individual (ibid). The cash

includes items like crop or livestock sales, wages, rents, and remittances whereas the in-

kind includes consumption of own farm produce, payments in kind (e.g. in food), and

transfers or exchanges of consumption items that occur between households within rural

communities, or between urban and rural households. The following definitions are from

Ellis (2000: 11-12).

Farm income refers to income generated from own-account farming whether on owner-

occupied land, or on land accessed through cash or share tenancy. Farm income, broadly

defined, includes livestock as well as crop income, and comprises both consumption-in

kind of own-farm output as well as the cash income obtained from output sold.

Off-farm income typically refers to wage or exchange labour on the other farms (i.e.

within agriculture). It includes labour payments in kind, such as the harvest share systems

and other non-wage labour contracts that remain prevalent in many parts of the

developing world. It may include income obtained from local environmental resources

such as firewood, charcoal, house building materials, wild plants and so on.

Non-farm income refers to non-agricultural income sources. Several secondary categories

of non-farm income are commonly identified. These are: (1) non-farm rural wage or

salary employment; (2) non-farm self-employment, sometimes called business income;

(3) rental income obtained from leasing land or property; (4) urban-to rural remittances

arising from within national boundaries; (5) other urban transfers to rural households for

8

example, pension payments to retirees; (6) international remittances arising from cross-

border and overseas migration.

This thesis conforms to this nomenclature and emphasises on non-farm income because

that is where bamboo enterprise falls in and in particular non-farm income number 1 and

2. However, Ellis (2000: 12) cautions that there are no hard-and-fast rules governing

income classification and not all investigators follow the same conventions.

2.3 Rural Non-farm Economy

The findings on empirical research of rural non-farm economy (RNFE) and livelihood

create the premise on which this research was based. This creates a theoretical framework

on how bamboo handicraft manufacturing and bamboo stem vending contribute to rural

non-farm economy.

The RNFE is of great importance to the rural economy because of its production linkages

and employment effects, while the income it provides to rural households represents a

substantial and sometimes growing share of rural incomes. Often this share is particularly

high for the rural poor. Davis (2003) noted that there is disproportionate increase in

demand for non-farm output as incomes rise. This agrees with the theory of “economic

transformation” also termed Engel’s Law which says that the share of the farm sector in

gross domestic product (GDP) declines as GDP per capita rises over time.

The role of RNFE as studied by Davis (2003) can be explained in two ways. In one way,

the RNFE alleviates destitution since it becomes a refuge for the poor - and to the wider

rural community when crops fail - but does not necessarily eradicate poverty. In the other

way, clear correlations between the extent of the RNFE and reduced poverty are reported.

For some households with resources, RNF activities are a way out of poverty and indeed

into modest prosperity. But for the majority of rural inhabitants, the RNFE provides a

low-level livelihood, a safety net, and perhaps not even one that lifts them above a

poverty line. It does reduce the depth of their poverty, even if it may not offer a route to

9

any degree of material comfort. However, some non-farm activities (input supply and

crop processing) may enable households to obtain higher returns from agriculture, and in

this sense they may have a positive impact on poverty. Davis (2003) found out that the

majority of RNF activity distributes income as unequally as primary activities.

2.4 Bamboo and household income

Although diversified skills in the use of bamboo are not as developed as in Asia, bamboo

is among the most important grasses to the rural people of the East African region. The

goods and services from bamboo cater for the needs of both village and large scale

national farming development. They also contribute and assist in providing employment

(Oprins Plant-BTN, 2002), basic human needs such as food, construction material for

shelter (thatching, roofing), grain storage structures, scaffolding, walking sticks, basket

making, furniture, fencing material, agricultural implements, and other consumer goods

(Das, 2002). Bamboo leaves are also an important source as fodder, used for ladders,

pipes for water supply and irrigation and beer brewing (ibid). Oprins Plant - BTN (2002)

argue that ‘bamboo is a vital component of development and an effective means to

improve the livelihoods of rural poor people. Over 600 million people generate income

from bamboo; hundreds of millions of people in the world live in bamboo houses.’

According to Das (2002), bamboos are an important component of rural farming system

in eastern Nepal because they play a critical role in rural economy and help sustain

livelihoods of many rural households that include socially and economically

disadvantaged groups. Apart from providing and diversifying employment opportunities

and allowing better income distribution through its wide uses, bamboo plays a crucial

role in protecting environment especially in combating soil erosion in the steep East

African highlands, in landscaping, as windbreaks and hedges and in

reforestation programmes (Kigomo, 1988).

10

2.5 Bamboo management and sustainability

There is already pressure on the existing cover of East African bamboo and a need,

therefore, to protect and manage properly the remaining scattered bamboo resource

(Kigomo, 1988). Kigomo (1988) suggested that generation of information on the proper

management of this resource is a prerequisite for sustainability of bamboo utilization and

livelihoods. Also expansion of the bamboo resource through cultivation of local and

exotic materials will be essential for meeting the needs of the future. He also noted that

exploitation of indigenous stands of bamboo is not controlled by a management order. As

opposed to most forestry programmes on trees, Kigomo (1988) observed that the two

common East African species, 0reobambus buchwaldii and 0xytenenthera abyssinica are

not on the management agenda in most departments of forestry. The lack of proper

information on the biological and regeneration dynamics of local bamboo species in

natural conditions limits proper management of the resource on a sustained yield basis

(Kigomo, 1988). This was also noted with Thuma Forest Reserve as studied by Ngalande

(1999) that it has no current management options for bamboo apart from controlled bush

fires that applies to many ecosystems in Thuma. Estimates regarding future use of

bamboo indicate that there will be a huge shortage for bamboo planting material in

medium and long term (Oprins Plant - BTN, 2002). The only means that sustains bamboo

propagation is the periodic flowering of bamboo plants which is curtailed by

unfavourable germinating conditions. This means of propagation being unsustainable,

cultivation is argued to be the desired management option (Chihongo et al., 2000).

2.6 Bamboo enterprise and its institutional environment

Chihongo et al. (2000) identified in Tanzania that at the production level, the limited

number of species and dwindling resources do not guarantee a sustainable supply of

bamboo for the future. At the processing and utilization level, lack of production skills

and limited markets hinder the generation of greater returns for the collectors, processors

and retailers. However, Chihongo et al. (2000) noted that Government support would

facilitate many opportunities for development with bamboo based subsistence and

11

economic activities. The market for bamboo products in Malawi seems to be growing and

manufacturers feel that they should not be selling from the rural areas because

middlemen are profiting more by selling in town where there are more potential

customers (Phiri, 2000). In eastern Nepal, it was noted that the number of bamboo traders

and handicraft makers increased as the demand for bamboo increased. Much as Das

(2002) found out bamboo enterprise was a viable economic activity among the poor

households, he noted that the information on marketing and income generating potential

of bamboos was lacking in Nepal. This is why Chihongo et al. (2000) found that

‘…market information does not flow from the traders to the processors or vice versa, and

thus the processes seem not to be well coordinated.’ Market of bamboo products went

beyond its local market catchment into national and cross-border trade with neighbouring

countries like India. The market is flooded with bamboos during the peak of its

harvesting season in winter and the bamboo growers receive a lower farm gate price than

they can receive in the off-season (rainy season). Das (2002) found out that the formation

of farmers’ cooperatives and government assistance would help farmers make higher

profits and promote bamboo planting in rural areas.

12

3 Description of the country and study area

3.1 Background information of Malawi

3.1.1 Geography and Economy of Malawi

Malawi is a landlocked country in southern Africa (9˚ to 17˚ S and 33˚ to 36˚ E). It

covers an area of 118,484 km2. The country is bordered to the North and North-east by

the United Republic of Tanzania, to the East, South and South-west by the Republic of

Mozambique and to the West by the Republic of Zambia (Figure 1). Malawi is amongst

the poorest countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. With a per capita GNI in 2002 of US$160, it

ranks seventh from the bottom of the World Bank listings based on that measure (World

Bank, 2003). Life expectancy at birth in 1999 was 42 years, the adult literacy rate was 59

per cent, and an estimated 16 per cent of the population was infected with HIV/AIDS.

The Human Development Index for Malawi at 0.4 in 2000 ranked the country 163 out of

the 173 countries for which this index was compiled (UNDP, 2002).

Rural poverty in Malawi is estimated at 65.3 % (NEC et al., 2000). Poverty is a condition

that is characterised by serious deprivation of basic needs in terms of food, water, shelter,

education and a lack of means and opportunities to fulfil these basic needs (UNDP/GoM,

1993). Factors of history, geography and politics also contribute to poverty reduction

challenges in Malawi (Ellis et al., 2002). Since independence in 1964, the government of

Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda promoted estate agriculture to produce sufficient food for

the country.

Some 85 per cent of the population of 10.8 million lives in rural areas, and most of these

are in small farm households owning land in the range of 0.2 to 3 ha (ibid.). There is a

single growing season lasting at best 4-5 months between November and March, and a

dry season that spans 7-8 months between April and October. Some farmers own dimbas

to make use of residual moisture in dambos in order to practice double cropping to

supplement rain-fed income and food production. The nutrient content of soils is

13

considered to be depleted in many parts of Malawi, and to be declining over time due to

failure to replace organic matter, and low fertilizer use (ibid.).

Maize is the staple food of the most Malawi population. Most households seek to secure

sufficient maize as their primary objective. A paradoxical shortage of labour and idle land

observed on smallholdings results from advantage being taken of short-term wage

earning opportunities on other farms early in the cultivation season in order to purchase

maize (Pearce et al., 1996; Alwang, 1999 cited in Ellis et al., 2002). The chief cash crop

available to farmers in Malawi is burley tobacco, a crop that small farmers were

prohibited from growing until 1990, and that seemed to offer some potential for raising

output value per hectare and cash incomes from farming (Orr, 2000 cited in Ellis et al.,

2002).

However, tobacco production has not proved a pathway for rural poverty reduction; it is

not an option for the huge number of households who can barely achieve food security

from maize production, its prices fluctuate year-by-year, and quality problems mean that

when the market is depressed a lot of the output offered gets rejected at auction or attracts

prices below the costs of production (Ellis et al., 2002).

3.1.2 Land and Forest Cover

Malawi has a total land area of 11.8 million hectares consisting of 2.4 million hectares

under water resources and 9.4 million hectares of land area. Customary land occupy 7.3

million ha (62%), public land 1.7 million ha (14%), private leasehold 0.3 million ha

(3%), freehold occupies 0.1million ha (1%) and the rest 20% is occupied by water

resources. Customary land includes village forestry areas that are areas of customary

land, which are demarcated by the village headman for the benefit of the village

community. Forests and woodlands constitute 39% of the land area. 28% of the area is

domesticated and, comprises crop land (18%) and permanent pasture (20%) (DCDM,

1999).

14

Malawi is moderately well forested with around 35% forest cover of the total 118,480

km2. Around 15 % of the forest is in patches of closed broadleaved forest, of lowland,

sub-montane and montane types. The remaining forest is mainly open broadleaved forest

of "miombo" (Brachystegia-Julbernardia-Isoberlinia association) and "munga"

(Piliostigma-Acacia-Combretum association) woodland types. Remnant areas of

coniferous forests, Widdringtonia and Juniperus species, are found on the high plateaus.

Natural forests consist mainly of “miombo” woodland, dry and deciduous forest

vegetation. The natural forest area includes customary land (24%), forest reserves (28%)

and national parks/wildlife reserves (48%). Ninety percent of the energy supply

(household and industrial) is provided by wood-fuel from forest resources such as

“miombo”. Wood products such as poles, rope, fibre and thatch are used for domestic

purposes, e.g. construction of houses and granaries. It is estimated that 90% of the

population in Malawi depend on forests for their livelihood (DCDM, 1999).

15

Figure 1: Map of Malawi showing regions and Thuma Forest Reserve

16

3.2 Thuma Forest Reserve

Thuma Forest Reserve, 13˚ 45` to 13˚ 57` S and 34˚ 09` to 34˚16` E, lies in Lilongwe and

Salima districts (Figure 2). The Forest Reserve is situated to the North East of Lilongwe

on the escarpment of the Great Rift Valley. It is some 50 kilometers away from Lilongwe

Capital City and covers a total area of 16,395 ha (Ngalande, 1999). Thuma Forest

Reserve was gazetted as a protected forest reserve in 1926. The Department of Forestry

manages and administers the Reserve under the 1997 Forest Act. The northern boundary

is demarcated by Lilongwe River and the southern by the Linthipe River (Figure 2). Hoed

lines and streams mark the western and eastern boundaries. The Forest Reserve is shown

on the Department of surveys topographic maps of 1:50,000 scale (Sheet Numbers

1334C3-Chiwere and 1334C4-Salima). Thuma Forest Reserve is managed by Lilongwe

and Salima District Forest Offices in the North West (10,930 ha) and the East (5,465 ha),

respectively (Ngalande, 1999).

Ngalande (1999) also reported that there is a small herd of elephants, Loxondota

africanus, buffaloes and different species of birds in Thuma Forest Reserve. There are

tourist facilities in Thuma managed by Wildlife Action Group, a German NGO which has

got the contractual license to manage wildlife and tourism in Thuma Forest Reserve. The

higher altitude areas of the Forest Reserve are covered with Brachystegia woodland

whilst the lower altitude areas have a lakeshore type characterised by Acacias. Dense

Hyparrhenia grass growth dominates throughout the Forest Reserve. Bamboos

(Oxytenanthera abyssinica) are also very abundant and farmers from Madaula and

Chilombo also known as Mpala extract bamboos from the Forest Reserve. They obtain

entry fee from the Forest Guards at MK 20 per entry. Salima District Offices realise

substantial revenue through bamboo entry fees for local running of district issues (Salima

DFO, personal communication). However, there is no organised bamboo management

from either the DFO or community side. Illegal tree and bamboo cutting were first

reported in 1973 from Thuma Forest Reserve.

17

3.3 Mvera area

The area under study is Mvera in Traditional Authority Chiwere. The place lies in the

South East of Dowa district and West of Salima district (Figure 2). The area is rocky and

stony with dominating species of Acacia (mthete). The area is endowed with natural

stands of bamboos (Oxytenanthera abyssinica) and granite rocks. However, there are just

scattered pockets of bamboo culms in crop fields and customary land and a lot of bamboo

culms in Thuma Forest Reserve. The main road from Lilongwe, the Capital city to Salima

passes through Mvera (Figure 2). The area is typically rural and dominated by poor

farmers with few livelihood strategies. Dowa district has been known in Malawi for

agricultural production of maize and tobacco in Mponela area and Dowa-Ntchisi

highlands. To the contrary, this area has been known for low productivity of maize and

tobacco as compared to other parts of Dowa district (personal observation). Nevertheless,

Mvera had a good reputation of cotton farming because of its dry hot conditions. This

cotton farming that was contributing to the rural household income was affected by the

decline of cotton demand by the textile industry in Malawi from 1996 to now (MCCI,

2002). Mvera is agroecologically in the Lakeshore belt in which cotton is favoured.

Lakeshore belt is among the three belts in Malawi that were producing cotton seed and

lint for the local and international textile industry. This belt was producing 20% of the

total cotton production (RATES, 2003). The three factors that contributed to the decline

of cotton production nationally were limited resource of income and credit facilities,

weak price incentives by the Government of Malawi due to reduced cotton price at

international markets and reduced extension services (RATES, 2003). The livelihoods of

the farmers in the study area were made vulnerable by the termination of their substantive

incomes from cotton farming.

The farmers were also vulnerable to the promising graphite mining industry that failed.

The graphite mining prospects died a natural death after some farmers lost land without

18

Study area

Figure 2: Map showing Mvera, the study area and Thuma Forest Reserve

compensation in 1995. The land lost is still in the hands of the prospective mining

contractor under the auspices of Geological Society of Malawi. Katengeza, the center of

local bamboo handicraft industry in Mvera, has an estimate deposit of 1.7 million tonnes

of graphite (Malunga, 2002). There is no record of traditional extraction of graphite for

their livelihood. It is through these periods of vulnerability contexts that farmers’

intrusion into the customary land and the nearby Thuma forest Reserve intensified to

diversify livelihood strategies. The lost glories were diversified with firewood/charcoal

trading and bamboo extraction from customary land and Thuma Forest Reserve. It seems

these farmers had found the ‘green gold’ in bamboo to replace dwindling agricultural

production. The bamboo harvesting communities comprising Chilombo and Madaulo cut

bamboo legally and illegally from Thuma Foreset Reserve. They cross Lilongwe River to

get into Thuma Forest Reserve (Figure 2). The bamboos serve the major purposes of

structural construction of barns and houses at tobacco estates in Kasungu, Mchinji and

19

Lilongwe which are about 200 km, 180 km and 70 km, respectively from Mvera. In

Mvera, bamboos are used to construct bamboo handicrafts and house roofing locally.

Bamboos used for structural construction are hollow whereas for bamboo handicrafts are

solid. What differentiates them is still not known because the bamboos are presumably of

the same species. Usually the old and dry bamboos are greatly preferred for young and

green bamboos.

20

4 Methodology

The research study took place from October to December 2003 in Mvera in five villages

namely Chilombo, Dzuwa, Katengeza, Mpanje and Mulenga. The villages are in

Traditional Authority Chiwere in the eastern south of Dowa district. In these villages,

farmers are engaged in various chains of activities of bamboo enterprises. A 4-person

research team (see acknowledgements) carried out the data collection. Secondary data

was also obtained from Forestry Headquarters in Lilongwe and Salima District Forestry

Office (DFO). Salima DFO provided information on the villages extracting bamboo from

Thuma Forest Reserve and entry fee administration into Thuma Forest Reserve. A

document on Thuma Forest Reserve by Ngalande (1999) the current Deputy Director of

Forestry was obtained. However, secondary data on related national bamboo policy and

programs and management options hardly exist in Malawi.

4.1 Sample sites

There are at least eight villages (sites) where there are pronounced bamboo enterprises

taking place in Mvera. Some are Katengeza, Mulenga, Dzuwa, Msungwi, Thonje,

Mpanje, Chilombo and Madaulo. Since in each site there was more than one bamboo

workshop, workshops were aggregated to one sample site. The five villages or sites were

selected among the eight sites where bamboo extraction and handicraft production and

marketing takes place. The sites were conveniently accessible because they are along the

Lilongwe-Salima main road. Four villages were selected to represent the six villages that

are engaged in bamboo handicraft making and its related trade and these were Mpanje,

Katengeza, Dzuwa and Mulenga. Chilombo (Mpala) village was chosen to represent the

two villages extracting bamboos from Thuma Forest Reserve. These sites served as focus

group discussion points with both villagers involved in bamboo enterprise and not.

Dzuwa was a pre-testing site for the tools used in data collection and this helped revise

the questionnaires and checklists for focus group discussion used in the whole research

exercise to suit the prevailing conditions.

21

4.2 Sampling of individual respondents

From each bamboo village site, respondents were selected from workshop clubs

registered in the particular village engaged in bamboo handicraft making and a bamboo

extracting village. Each bamboo workshop had registered members and membership

ranged from 6 to 22 individuals. The leadership of sampled workshops in each site

randomly selected individuals for questionnaire surveys. The sample size depended on

the size of the workshop, period of an individual in bamboo enterprise and age of the

workshop in bamboo industry. However, characteristics were set by the workshop

representatives and research team. In Chilombo village, random sampling was done

regardless of gender. Attendants of the focus group discussion selected the individuals to

be interviewed based on their involvement in bamboo collecting and vending. Before the

survey, the sampling profile was as follows

Table 1: Sampling profile by villages

Village No of Workshop Club

Sample Size Sex* Type of bamboo enterprise**

Katengeza 5 30 M Bb, Bf, Bcv Mulenga 1 9 M Bf, Bb Chilombo 0 18 M and F Bcv Mpanje 3 20 M Bf, Bb Dzuwa 4 10 M Bf, Bb Chipala Women (Mpanje)

1 9 F Bf, Bb

Total 14 96 * M = male, F = female ** Bf = bamboo furniture, Bb = bamboo basketry, Bcv = bamboo culm vending

The sample size was not based on size of the estimated population of bamboo handicraft

makers and bamboo collector-vendors. The sample size used in the analysis of the data

collected changed partly because of failure of sampled respondents to turn up at the

agreed time, a problem which was solved by selecting the available individuals who were

22

not sampled in the first place and partly because of ambiguity of sampled respondents in

some critical questions led to screening out four filled questionnaires.

4.3 Qualitative data collection

A group of qualitative methods were used to collect information namely; Semi-structured

interviews (Focus Group Discussions), stakeholder analysis and institutional analysis.

4.3.1 Institutional analysis

Dynamics and power of the prevailing institutions were analysed during focus group

discussions. Internal and external institutional environments within and without the

bamboo handicraft micro industry were analysed together with the local bamboo

entrepreneurs. The degree of social capital or social cohesion within the communities

engaged in bamboo enterprises was analysed to understand social structure and dynamics.

Gender roles relations were analysed in ‘production to consumption’ continuum of the

bamboo and its related products. This was to understand the gender integration in the

bamboo enterprise and its effects on the household labour regime. Local bylaws

regarding bamboo utilization and management, and bamboo handicraft workshop

management were also looked into to understand their organisational capacity.

Traditional knowledge on biodiversity conservation of bamboo was studied from the

people’s practices done to promote sustainable bamboo industry. Bamboo handicraft

maker’s access to credit facilities for financial management of their enterprise was

analysed.

4.3.2 Stakeholder analysis

Consultations with key informants like the Director of Planning in the department of

Forestry who was the local supervisor and the bamboo communities during focus group

discussions led to identification of potential stakeholders or actors in bamboo enterprise

and management. The potential stakeholders were asked to fill in a questionnaire

23

(Appendix 3) to explain their level of engagement in bamboo enterprise and

management. These are the external actors in the development of bamboo industry and its

resource management. This method was a bit problematic in achieving its objectives

because a number of potential organisations were not yet engaged fully in bamboo

industry and management, though they felt they could be doing something with issues of

bamboo industry and/or resource management. This method analysed the level of

participation of the state (the public sector) and the private sectors in effecting strategies

and mechanisms related to bamboo enterprise issues and its resource management

options. Their positive and negative effects on the bamboo enterprise were also looked

into.

4.3.3 Focus Group Discussions

Seven focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted to collect general information

about bamboo enterprise and its resource management. Local leaders of bamboo

handicraft workshops together with Village Heads organised FGDs by heralding all

members of bamboo workshops and unorganised bamboo entrepreneurs in the particular

village to attend the proposed FGDs. Attendants represented the bamboo enterprising

communities. Both males and females were attending in these FGDs, even if there were

only men in bamboo workshops. Women felt they were still part of the bamboo fraternity

in one way or another. Mpanje provided three FGDs because of its diversity of bamboo

enterprises and the presence of a women bamboo handicraft group. The last four FGDs

were conducted in each of the remaining four villages. The communities were

interviewed on the existing structures and dynamics of ‘production to consumption’

systems of bamboo enterprises and their participation in bamboo resource management.

A checklist (Appendix 2) was used to run these focus group discussions. The checklist

addressed the following issue; historical trends of bamboo enterprise, conflicts and

negotiations with Forestry department guards at Thuma Forest Reserve, resource

mapping of bamboo population dynamics, marketing of bamboo handicrafts,

organisational structure of the community bamboo workshop clubs, perception of the

24

handicraft producers on the effectiveness and efficiency of the potential stakeholders and

their possible interventions on the enterprise production.

4.4 Quantitative data collection: Household Questionnaire Survey

The key informants i.e. the heads of bamboo workshops and Department of Forestry

Headquarters (Planning section) and Salima DFO participated in developing key issues of

the questionnaire (Appendix 1). The questionnaire method extracted the respondents’

demographic characteristics and performances in bamboo enterprise and agricultural

production. Individual’s amount of bamboo used for bamboo handicrafts and extracted or

harvested from Thuma Forest Reserve was collected together with their respective

incomes. Other household incomes from non-natural capital in the one hand and natural

capital in the other hand were also collected. Types of bamboo enterprises undertaken by

individual farmers were identified as well as other natural capital and non-natural

activities. This method helped quantify the economic potential of bamboo enterprise to

supplement agricultural production as a viable rural non-farm income. The household

survey was aimed at collecting both categorical data and numerical data.

4.5 Data analysis

The collected data from FGDs were summarised across the villages and used as

background information for the study area. Summaries of the FGDs on gender, labour,

and other institutions yielded into institutional analysis. Data from household

questionnaire survey were grouped into variables. The ninety two cases of these variables

were entered in SPSS 11.1 version spreadsheet and Microsoft Excel 2002 Spreadsheet.

The remaining four cases were screened out because of irrelevancy and ambiguity. The

categorical data were coded for easy analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed from

the entered variables. Some were cross-tabulated as shown in results and discussion

section. Chi-square and t-significance tests were used to find out significant dependence

and homogeneity, and difference, respectively, between some of the variables. These

25

statistical tests were computed using SPSS 11.0 version and MINITAB 13.1 version.

Some of the statistical null hypotheses tested were;

(i) there are no significant differences between the own farm consumption (crop)

income and bamboo enterprise sales.

(ii) there are no significant differences between the bamboo entrepreneur’s farm

cash income and bamboo enterprise cash incomes.

(iii) the perception of bamboo availability was not dependent on the proximity the

entrepreneur to Thuma Forest Reserve or not dependent on type of the

bamboo enterprise engaged in.

(iv) the commitment to bamboo enterprise during rainy season was not different

among those doing bamboo handicraft and bamboo culm vending enterprises

(v) there are no significant differences of literacy levels between male and female

bamboo entrepreneurs.

26

5 Results and Discussion

5.1 Household Characteristics of the Respondents

Household was the analytical unit used in the research hence its characteristics are

important to understand the structure and dynamics of bamboo enterprises. Of the total 92

individuals interviewed, 16 were female and the rest male. Bamboo enterprises involve

more men than women. It was found that all bamboo handicraft workshops were

patronized by men except in one Chipala Women’s group. Women in Chilombo were

more engaged in collecting bamboo culms from Thuma Forest Reserve than in handicraft

making as they were already firewood fetchers for their households. This shows that

collecting dry bamboos from Thuma Forest Reserve is gender neutral as opposed to

bamboo handicraft and basketry which is mainly a masculine activity. This gives a quite

different picture when referring to the fact that average sex ratio in Malawi is 0.96 (NEC

et al., 2000). The wide deviation of bamboo enterprise sex ratio (4.8) from the national

average sex ratio means there is a factor of gender imbalance in involvement in rural non-

farm activities. Table 2 shows the number of males and females in their respective

villages interviewed.

Table 2: Profile of respondents by gender and village

Gender Village of the respondent

Male

Female

Total

Katengeza 31 0 31 Mpanje 16 8 24 Dzuwa 10 0 10 Mulenga 9 0 9 Chilombo 10 8 18 Total 76 16 92

About 47 % of the individuals involved in bamboo enterprises were in the age category

of 20-35 which is the young age group. Due to the lack of employment opportunities for

the young age group in the area, individuals in the young age group are accommodated in

the bamboo enterprises. If there were other alternative employment opportunities, this

age group would shift occupations. Lack of employment, however, affects all age groups.

27

Bamboo enterprises have a considerable larger number of entrepreneurs whose ages are

more than 35 years. Bamboo enterprises seem to cater for all age groups in Katengeza

area. In an Indian bamboo weaving community in Kerala, most young people join the

construction and government sector as opposed to bamboo weaving done by elderly

people (Krishnankutty, 2000). Table 3 outlines the age categories of the interviewed

individuals and their gender. All but three were married and the three unmarried

individuals were male. An average household size in the study area was found to be 5.62

persons and this is slightly significantly higher than national average household size for

the rural poor of 5 (NEC et al., 2000) at P < 0.05 (Appendix 4.1).

Table 3: Age profiles of the respondents by gender

Gender Age group

Male Female

Total

<20 0 1 1

20-35 38 5 43

36-50 22 7 29

50- 15 3 18

Total 75 16 91*

* Missing case = 1

About 55% of the individuals were literate (above Standard Two). This level of literacy

would let them read and write Chichewa materials and fill forms. This is very important

when transferring applied technology materials of bamboo and others in which ability to

read and write would be paramount to technology adoption. About 39 % (Standard Eight

and above) of the interviewed individuals could read and write and communicate English.

This level of literacy helps them to communicate with tourists and foreigners who

contribute a considerable portion of their market. This would also facilitate adoption of

new technologies and other enterprise interventions that would require a medium

education level e.g. microfinance training. A Chi-square test (Appendix 4.2) showed that

there were not significant differences in literacy level between male and female

entrepreneurs (χ2 = 1.877, d.f. = 1 and P >0.10). However, this contradicts the national

28

literacy figures where males are reported to have a higher literacy levels than the females.

This might be due to small sample of women against men. Table 4 shows the educational

levels of the bamboo entrepreneurs interviewed with respect to gender.

Table 4: Educational level of the respondents by gender

Gender

Education level Male Female

Total

Tertiary 1 0 1

Form Four 3 0 3

Form Two 9 1 10

Standard Eight 19 3 22

Standard Five-Two 13 2 15

Below Standard Two 31 9 40

Total 76 15* 91

* Missing case = 1

5.2 Bamboo enterprises and household income

5.2.1 Bamboo enterprises

During focus group discussions, it was found that the bamboo enterprises took place in

two stages. These are bamboo culm collecting from Thuma Forest Reserve and bamboo

handicraft making which involves mainly furniture and partially baskets. Furniture

handicrafts comprise all furniture-like items such as sofa sets, table chairs, dining table,

coffee tables, wardrobes, beds, shelves, bar stools, television stand, cupboards etc. Basket

handicrafts comprise winnows, flour baskets, fruit bowls, shopping baskets, washing

baskets etc. Bamboo furniture making contributes the higher portion of annual bamboos

used for making handicraft. There is higher turnover in furniture making than basket

making. Consequently, more people are indulging in furniture making than basket

making. It should be pointed out that bamboo handicraft requires a complementary raw

29

material called locally chipapati. Chipapati is a creeping stem plant that is harvested and

used for weaving processed bamboos in construction of handicrafts. However, details on

chipapati were beyond the scope of the study.

These bamboo enterprises are dichotomised based on proximity to source of bamboos

and main road (marketing incentive). Bamboo culm collecting and vending community of

Chilombo is along Lilongwe River approximately two kilometers from Thuma Forest

Reserve and ten kilometers from the main road. Near to Thuma Forest Reserves, there are

Chilombo and Madaulo bamboo culm vending villages. Bamboo handicraft enterprises

take place about 12 kilometers from Thuma Forest Reserve and along the main road.

There are markets in these two villages where buyers and sellers transact. Bamboos

collected from Thuma Forest Reserve serve two major purposes and these purposes

determine the type of bamboo. Hollow bamboos (tsungwa) are used for structural

construction of farms structures, houses, fences etc. Solid bamboos (malailosi) are used

for handicraft making.

5.2.2 Extraction and utilization of bamboos

Hollow bamboos occupy a higher portion of the whole bamboo collected from Thuma

Forest Reserve than solid bamboos. It was found that an average handicraft maker used

882 bamboo culms per year and an average bamboo vendor collected 7031 bamboo

culms per year. This shows that an average bamboo handicraft maker only consumed

approximately 13% of the total bamboo collected by the counterpart collector. The

remaining part was sold to estate farmers, intra- and inter-village trade and urban

dwellers for building farm structures and fences. The detailed explanation of quantities

for the remaining part was beyond the scope of the study. It is also shown that the

bamboo culm vending mainly comprises collecting hollow bamboo than solid bamboos.

Consequently, bamboo vendors are more reliant on hollow bamboos than solid ones. The

handicraft makers are reliant on the solid bamboos because of value addition. Reliance on

different types of bamboo by the two bamboo entrepreneurs would affect the type of

bamboo variety to be planted when bamboo plantation intervention is promoted. The

30

bamboo culm vendors would prefer more of hollow bamboos than solid ones in their

homestead gardens. The handicraft makers would prefer the opposite. However, what

makes some culms hollow and others solid was unexplained and unknown among the

local people. Studies show that there is only one species in Thuma Forest Reserve. The

bamboo culm vendors claimed that the hollow bamboos were more abundant than the

solid bamboos. That is why hollow bamboos and solid bamboos were sold at MK 30-50

per 25 culm-bundle and MK 120 per 25 culm-bundle, respectively. Table 5 shows the

details of quantities of bamboo culms used for handicraft making and cut in the surveyed

villages and the actual number of respondents.

Table 5: Number of bamboo culms used and extracted and entrepreneurs involved by villages

Bamboo culms used (handicrafts and baskets)

Bamboo culms cut

Village N* N

Annual amount

Average amount N* N

Annual amount

Average amount

Katengeza 29 31 36640 1182 (1263) 2 31 2360 76 (1180) Mpanje 22 24 6886 287 (313) 0 24 0 0 (0) Dzuwa 9 10 7750 775 (861) 1 10 18000 1800 (18000) Mulenga 8 9 10826 1203 (1353) 0 9 0 0 (0) Chilombo 3 18 546 30 (182) 13 18 85108 4728 (5006) Overall 71 92 62648 681 (882) 15 92 105468 1146 (7031)

* number of cases which actually engaged in the particular activity.

( ) averages for actual cases engaged in the particular activity.

Though Katengeza village is considered as the centre of handicraft making in Mvera, it

ranked second in the average annual amount of bamboos used per individual to Mulenga

village. These two villages were quite ahead of the overall annual average of bamboo

culms per individual. Chilombo had the lowest average annual bamboo used per

individual because it is mainly a bamboo culm collecting and vending community.

Mpanje was the second lowest in average bamboo usage because it included the women

group of eight individuals who were currently under-manufacturing due to capital

constraints.

31

5.2.3 History of handicrafts making and bamboo workshops

During focus group discussions, it was found that bamboo handicraft making originally

started at Katengeza village which is also perceived to be the centre of bamboo handicraft

making in Mvera. It dates back from 1940’s when people of Katengeza village were

taught by Dutch missionaries at Mvera Mission. During these times, bamboos were

available in their farm fields and customary land. Later, natural stands of bamboos

declined as the number of uses of bamboos increased. Meanwhile, it is only Thuma

Forest Reserve that supplies bamboos to a greater extent. In the late 80’s, the art of

traditional handicraft making was improved through hands-on experience by the local

makers. This was coupled with the transfer of new technology facilitated by Lt. Col.

Kasamale. Initially, local craftsmen were only making baskets. Lt. Col. Kasamale

facilitated the making of furniture using the fancy craft designs obtained from outside

Malawi. The craft designs proved appropriate and adaptive when there was a massive

technical shift to furniture making. The market access improved tremendously with the

improved Lilongwe-Salima road which acts as a marketing apparatus for the local

craftsmen. This attracts tourists, guest house owners and urban dwellers who are the

major buyers of the crafts.

For the past decade (1993-2003), the number of bamboo craftsmen has increased which is

noticed by the rising number of bamboo furniture workshops. These workshops are local

organizations or clubs which have a defined structure and objectives. A bamboo

workshop may combine individuals from more than one village. Usually, the number of

members of the club is not restricted and there is freedom of entry and exit. Each member

contributes MK 2001 per year. Each bamboo club has leadership which comprises a

chairman, a vice chairman, a secretary and a treasurer and sometimes committee

members.

1 One US$ was equivalent to 108 Malawi Kwacha (MK) at the time of research.

32

5.2.4 Bamboo income and household income

All households interviewed were smallholder farmers with average land holding of

approximately 3 acres (1.2 ha). The major crops grown in the area are maize (staple

food), groundnuts, sweet potatoes and cassava. There are also other crops grown which

they did not regard as major crops because they are grown on a small pieces of land e.g.

pulses, pumpkins. Table 6 shows the average gross incomes for all the income sources.

Table 6: Annual household cash incomes

Whole sample

(N)

Actual sample

(n)

Total annual amount (MK)

Average Amount (MK)for

whole sample N = 92

Average amount

for actual sample

(n)Gross cash Farm income Crop cash sales* 92 32 222830 2422 6963Livestock cash sales** 92 30 76235 829 2541Total farm cash sales 92 32 299065 3251 9345 Own farm consumption Maize 92 90 1077360 11710 11971Sweet potato 92 6 189600 2061 9979Cassava 92 2 10400 113 5200Groundnuts 92 77 1177069 12794 15287Total own-farm consumption 92 91 2454429 26679 26972 Bamboo cash sales Handicraft making 92 69 1427180 15513 20684Bamboo culm vending 92 18 195000 2120 10833Bamboo stakes 92 2 27500 299 13750Handicraft ganyu casual labour 92 20 44710 486 2236Total bamboo enterprise income 92 87 1694390 18417 19476 Other Non farm income General trading 92 18 55013 598 3056Firewood and charcoal 92 7 22600 246 3229Non-farm wage 92 2 9500 103 4750Total non-farm income 92 18 87113 947 4840

* comprising maize, groundnuts, cassava, sweet potato sales

** comprising live goat, pig, chicken sales

33

By comparing the average cash incomes from bamboo enterprise sales and other

household cash incomes shown from Table 6, bamboo handicraft making and bamboo

culm vending contribute a considerable economic sustenance of the livelihoods of these

craftsmen and bamboo vendors, respectively. A two sample T test (Appendix 4.4)

showed that there is significant difference in the income contribution to household cash

incomes between the bamboo enterprise income and farm cash sales (T-value = 6.18, d.f.

= 106, P< 0.001). Assuming that there were not bamboos in the area and that the

community was not deriving a livelihood from bamboos, they would have been more

vulnerable. This would be aggravated with declining agricultural production and no

presence of other perceived productive resources in the area. In this analysis, farm

production for own household consumption was not considered as household cash

incomes (cf. MoAIFS, 2003). However, if own farm consumption would be accounted

for, there would be a different interpretation of household incomes. The accounting for

own farm consumption becomes very important in poverty analysis as opposed to a

simplistic cash income analysis like this. When own farm consumption is monetised

based on average crop produce market prices during 2002-2003 growing season, average

crop own-farm consumption was found to be MK 26679. A two sample T test showed

that the own farm consumption income was significantly greater than bamboo enterprise

income at α = 0.05 (T-value = 2.26, d.f. = 176, P = 0.013; also refer Appendix 4.5). The

crops considered in the own farm consumption analysis were maize, sweet potatoes,

cassava and groundnuts with their corresponding market prices as MK 16/kg, MK 10/kg

and MK 55/kg, respectively (source: MoAIFS, 2003). Own-farm consumption would be

seen to contribute more to household income when other crops and livestock consumed

were taken into account. The inclusion of own-farm consumption should however not

undermine the economic contribution of household cash incomes which are more crucial

in money oriented markets than barter markets. Therefore, basing on own-farm

consumption should not prelude the policy makers in biasing on agricultural production

interventions over non-farm activities hence affecting local people’s pathway out of

poverty (Dubey, 2003).

34

Looking on the recent 2001-2002 food crisis in Malawi, 45 % of the bamboo enterprising

households experienced extreme food shortage during growing season, 40 % of the

bamboo enterprising households experienced food shortage soon after harvest and 15 %

did not experience food shortage. Bamboo culm vendors were more affected by the food

crisis than bamboo handicraft makers because the former have less diversified economic

activities than the latter. During the 2002-2003 growing season, an average individual

had maize store that would last 8 months i.e. one would only experience food shortage

and supplement it by buying maize from the market in January to April until they would

harvest another maize stock. Basing on the recall on their maize productivity, 61 % of the

bamboo enterprising households admitted that they consumed more of their own farm

maize than bought maize from the markets. The rest admitted that they consumed more

of the bought maize than their own farm maize. This gives a picture that involvement in

bamboo enterprises did not necessarily affect agricultural productivity holding other

factors constant. Bamboo enterprises were able to supplement income for buying food

when harvest stock had run out.

5.3 Bamboo management and domestication

During focus group discussions and household surveys, it was found that only 10

individuals had homestead bamboos from which they could derive bamboos for their own

uses. Total area of managed homestead bamboos was 11 acres. Traditionally, the bamboo

users have not been domesticating bamboos for household use. They have been just

extracting bamboos without replenishment. The natural replenishment is the only means

that has provided a continuity of bamboo enterprise for decades. The agronomy of

bamboo indicates that bamboo rhizomes are the main propagules. However, it was found

that there were very few bamboo clumps in crop fields and customary land because they

have been over-exploited. The other contribution to depletion of bamboos in the villages

is the flowering of bamboos. Bamboos in the area flowered in 1974 and they died once

they flowered. It was also reported by some bamboo handicraft workers that bamboos

flowered in 2003 when the field work was being carried out. If the new seed does not

germinate and meet favourable conditions, it dies. The bamboo handicraft manufacturers

35

did not indicate willingness to plant bamboos for handicraft production. Others indicated

that bamboos would not do well in crop fields because of unfavourable soil type for

bamboos. However, it was indicated that 20 and more years ago there were bamboos

nearby. This would not support the notion of poor soil type but rather lack of sustainable

management practices of bamboos would affirm the current situation.

Thuma Forest Reserve does not carry out co-management of bamboos with the bamboo

extracting communities. Thuma Forest Reserve itself does not have management

strategies for bamboo apart from control of harmful bushfires and restricted entry to

collect bamboos. Much as the entry fee is used as a restrictive economic instrument and

raises revenue for the Salima District Forestry Office, some integration of pedagogic and

remunerative instruments should have been used to restrict ad libtum depletion of

bamboo. Such instruments would be co-management of bamboo resources in Thuma

Forest Reserve and customary land, domestication of bamboo planting and penalties for

violation of entry into Thuma Forest Reserve.

It was found that 45 % of bamboo users and vendors perceived bamboo availability in

Thuma Forest Reserve to be abundant. This does not account for bamboos in crop fields

and customary land because it is already perceived depleted. The availability of bamboo

in this context meant only access to and presence of bamboos in Thuma Forest Reserve.

However, this did not take into account the availability of bamboos at markets. Looking

at bamboos at market would not have given the real picture of bamboo resource base. A

Chi-square test (Appendix 4.3) showed that the proximity to Thuma Forest reserve

significantly determined the perception of the bamboo entrepreneur (χ2 = 4.5, p ≤ 0.05,

d.f. = 2) i.e. bamboo stem vendors of Chilombo village perceived that the bamboos were

scarce in Thuma Forest Reserve since they are closer to the source than the rest of the

villages.

36

Table 7: Perception of bamboo availability in Thuma Forest Reserve

Village Perception of bamboo availability Abundant Moderate Scarce Total Katengeza 13 15 3 31 Mpanje 13 7 4 24 Dzuwa 6 3 1 10 Mulenga 4 5 0 9 Chilombo 5 8 5 18 Total 41 38 13 92

5.4 Institutional and stakeholders analysis

It was found that there were several actors and institutions affecting the bamboo

‘production to consumption’ systems. The local environment of bamboo production and

consumption is regarded as the internal environment of the bamboo enterprise. The

internal and external environments of bamboo enterprise comprise a number of

institutions and stakeholders.

5.4.1 Markets

Informal markets were observed to exist in both bamboo collecting and utilizing

communities. The main means of exchange in these markets was money. Most household

required money to obtain basic human economic needs. Money is the major media of

accessing household assets and declaring property rights over purchased assets. Two

levels of markets were created by bamboo enterprises. Both intra- and inter-village

markets for bamboo culms and related raw materials were common. Bamboo vendors get

orders from bamboo handicraft maker to collect solid bamboo bundles for them. There is

a fixed market price of a bundle of solid bamboo which is MK 120.00. Each bundle of

bamboo contains 20- 25 culms of solid bamboos. There is also a fixed market price of a

bundle of hollow bamboos for structural construction which is MK 50.00 at the main

road and MK 30.00 at the collecting village (Chilombo). Chipapati markets were also

observed to take place. A good number of individuals usually men go to Salima district to

collect chipapati and sell it to the handicraft makers. A standard round (nkhata) of

37

chipapati costs MK 2.00 and a huge round costs MK 20.00. Most of these chipapati

vendors do not participate in handicraft making and bamboo vending though there might

be some intersections. It was found that a sofa set of two single chairs and one double

chair costs MK 2500.00, a coffee table costs MK 500 and stools MK 400. A sofa set

consumes two bundles of solid bamboo culms. Baskets costs K 100 on average

depending on the size. A sofa set consumes 200 rounds of chipapati and a coffee table

consumes 40 rounds. It was found that an average bamboo handicraft maker uses 2143

rounds (21 kg) of chipapati (an average round weighs 100g).

The other market was labour. Labour wages varied with type of piece work done. Larger

handicrafts fetched higher labour wage. There were intra-workshop labour markets in

which one member would be hired to assist the other when the former lacked money in

his house or when capital to purchase raw materials lacked. No inter-workshop labour

markets were observed. No pronounced reciprocity was observed because most of the

exchange was more monetized than on reciprocity or gift basis. This system resembles

most of business oriented industries.

5.4.2 Labour regimes and gender

In both handicraft making communities and bamboo collecting and vending

communities, data was collected on structures and dynamics of labour. Self-employment,

family labour and hired labour were the types of labour force employed in bamboo

enterprises. Self-employment was found to be the more used labour regime. Eighty nine

percent of the interviewed indicated that they were self-employed in the enterprise. Fifty

four percent indicated that they used hired labour in their enterprise. This means that

there is a labour market in bamboo enterprises. These informal employment opportunities

help solve the income inequality (cf. Botha, 2003). Table 8 shows detailed labour regimes

in specific bamboo enterprise by villages. Male school children often find piece works at

the workshops which are used for their petty cash needs e.g. buying food at break

periods, participating in social tea clubs, buying clothes. This lifts the burden on their

parents whose incomes are very low and uncertain. However, this practice of

38

employment opportunities for male school children should be checked to avoid

culminating to increased school drop-outs. It was also shown that furniture making

contributed to the highest portion of casual labour provision as opposed to bamboo

vending which indicated low opportunities for casual labour. These casual labour

opportunities were highest in Katengeza village and lowest in Chilombo village. Twenty

percent of the respondents indicated that family labour is used in the bamboo enterprises.

The family labour meant that a member of the household was obliged to participate in the

particular bamboo enterprise. Use of family labour was highly pronounced in Chilombo

village. Women and children were also involved in extracting bamboos from Thuma

Forest Reserve and selling them. Access to Thuma Forest Reserve was found to be

gender-neutral in Chilombo village unlike in all furniture workshops which were

dominated by men. During community interviews, it was observed that women had also

control over the incomes obtained from selling bamboos. In other places in Dowa district,

women would not have control over their income (Francis Lwanda2, personal

communication).

Table 8: Labour regimes by village

Labour regimes

Village Self employment Ganyu

Family labour Katengeza 29 23 2 Mpange 22 10 7 Dzuwa 10 8 3 Mulenga 9 7 1 Chilombo 12 2 6 Total 82 50 19

5.4.3 Seasonality of labour

Involvement of bamboo enterprises reaches climax during the dry season. This is the

period when for rain-fed cropping activities come at trough. On average, bamboo

2 Francis Lwanda is Program Manager of Learning, Education and Development Unit at CARE Malawi, Lilongwe

39

enterprises have annual active period of 8-10 months. The remaining 2-4 months are

devoted to rain-fed farming. The supposition that involvement in bamboo enterprises can

have negative impact on the activeness or commitment to farming and hence reduced

crop yields and food security was not tested. However, a Chi square test (Appendix 4. 6)

showed that there were significant differences of commitment to bamboo enterprises

during rainy season among the villages (χ2 = 33.7, p < 0.001, d.f. = 8). It was found that

in Chilombo village mostly bamboo culm vendors had less commitment to their culm

collecting enterprise during rainy season than the bamboo handicraft making villages i.e.

they literally ceased to operate during rainy season. Some of the factors contributing to

less commitment were that the Lilongwe River becomes impassable due to heavy flows.

They are also afraid of elephants in Thuma Forest Reserve. About 32% of the bamboo

entrepreneurs commit totally their time, capital and labour to farming during rainy

season. Only 8% of the respondents admitted to commit totally to bamboo enterprises i.e.

working full time on the particular bamboo enterprise. Some bamboo entrepreneurs

venture into partial commitment to bamboo enterprise in December-March because it is

the leanest period in food security in Malawi. Therefore, bamboo entrepreneurs engage

on part time basis to provide income for their households. Bamboo furniture makers

divert to production of baskets and small furniture for quick cash. Bamboo handicraft

manufacturing during rainy season relies on the bamboo stocks stored during dry season.

5.4.4 Bamboo workshops

Bamboo workshops are the coordinating bodies with defined duties for the members who

belong to it. Workshops had a cross-section of the following objectives and activities.

They act as a forum for sharing ideas and experiences in craftwork. New innovations are

developed and shared among the club members. Workshops also act as means of

collective action. Instead of each craftsman constructing one’s household workshop, they

consolidate in constructing one workshop which is continuously maintained by the club

members using the contribution fees. The workshop club pays MK 2000 as annual

trading tax to Dowa District Council which collects it biannually. The club has

standardized the quality of the handicraft to create commodity uniformity so the club

40

quality checker monitors if the quality of the handicrafts is maintained. A market price is

set by the club for each commodity manufactured. A secretary sells the commodities on

behalf of all craftsmen to control buyer scramble. The owner of the commodity is only

involved if the buyer wants a bargain below the recommended threshold. Usually the

owner agrees with the bargain if he needs the money to cater for urgent needs for his

household.

Since current handicraft making is labour extensive, the club also creates labour market.

When one craftsman has received a quotation or order in bulk quantities, he hires casual

labour (ganyu) from his fellow craftsmen to meet the requirement within agreed period.

This is some sort of reciprocity in labour. Young people who have dropped out of school

were hired to work in the workshops. However, it was found that social cohesion in

informal money loans within the clubs did not exist. This was because few households

could afford to lend out their household income. Access to formal credit was a problem

because handicraft market was seasonal and exogenously dependent on urban dwellers’

willingness to pay for the commodities. Most buyers take advantage that the craftsmen

are vulnerable or destitute and demand price slashes.

The workshops act as secure warehouses for the commodities, processed and raw

bamboos instead of moving them to and from their homes. A duty roster is made for

guarding the workshop during the night.

5.4.5 Handicraft and bamboo culm buyers

The bamboo handicraft enterprise heavily depends on the external buyers who are urban

dwellers and owners of entertainment places. Another group of buyers are tourists and/or

foreigners who buy the handicrafts as Malawian souvenirs. In fact bamboo handicraft

making was perceived by the craftsmen and other stakeholders as a potential tourism

apparatus for the area and Malawi as a whole. The bamboo culm vending for structural

construction also depends on estate farmers and urban dwellers. The urban dwellers use

the bamboo culms for constructing grass fences. If the taste of urban dwellers and other

41

handicrafts buyers for handicrafts plummets, the future of the livelihoods on handicrafts

would be jeopardized. However, the more the city of Lilongwe grows, the more

economically secure the bamboo communities would be. This demographic and

economic growth of Lilongwe and urban areas would create demand for handicrafts. It

was observed during focus group discussions that some of the buyers come from areas as

far as Mzuzu, Blantyre and Mchinji, 420 km, 300 km and 200 from Mvera, respectively.

The handicrafts are also purchased by foreign truck drivers.

5.4.6 Dowa District Council

Any trading individual is obliged to pay market tax and trading tax to Dowa District

Council. The bamboo handicrafts makers were no exception. However, no negotiations

were made with the local people to compromise at the annual trading tax on MK 2000 per

bamboo workshop. Sentiments of dissatisfactions were expressed over imposed taxation

of bamboo handicrafts makers. Bamboo culm vendors did not indicate to be paying tax to

Dowa district council.

5.4.7 Salima District Forestry Office

Salima District Forestry Office was observed to be in contact with bamboo culm vendors.

They were involved in executing entry fees to intruders into Thuma Forest Reserve. The

Forest Guards sometimes confiscate bamboos illegally collected from Thuma Forest

Reserve. The bamboo entrepreneurs in all villages expressed resentment to the research

team as being camouflaged Forest Guards. This sentiment expressed some illegal

extraction of bamboos from Thuma Forest Reserve. The Forest Guards also help in the

natural management of bamboos in Thuma Forest Reserve by use of controlled bushfires

and rotational extraction of bamboos. The Forest guards assign sites of possible

extraction where there are overgrown bamboos and restrict areas where they are young

and green. All the bamboo culms extracted are mandated to be dry and dead.

42

The Wildlife Action Group also maintains the security of bamboo collectors by

controlling the route of elephants that are reported to be threatening lives of bamboo

collecters. One person was killed two months before the research commenced. Wildlife

Action Group also promotes Thuma Forest Reserve as a tourist site for viewing African

bamboos (Oxytenenthera abbyssinica).

5.4.8 National Road Authority

Bamboo handicraft industry has blossomed with the advent of new Lilongwe-Salima

road. The bamboo workshops have been built close to the main road. National Roads

Authority had occasionally contacted the bamboo manufacturers to maintain safety

measures when carrying out their merchandise. A reasonable distance should be kept

from the main road to avoid creating road invisibility and impassability by other road

users.

5.4.9 Malawi Chambers of Commerce and Industry

Malawi Chambers of Commerce and Industry (MCCI) arranges for trade fairs in

Blantyre. They invite and encourage the bamboo manufacturers to exhibit their products

at the trade fairs. However, local craftsmen expressed dissatisfaction with the

arrangements for trade fairs. They complained of high participation fees that were

prohibitive for local entrepreneurs. MCCI also invited bamboo handicraft representatives

to workshops on exhibition at trade fairs.

5.4.10 Appropriate Technology Training Unit for Income Generating Activities

(ATTIGA)

ATTIGA is one of the two technology centres in the Ministry of Gender And Community

Services. They trained Chipala women group in bamboo handicraft making through use

of mechanical devices such as bending vice, chemical treatment of bamboo and planting

43

of bamboo plots. However, ATTIGA has gone business oriented as it manufactures its

own handicrafts creating competition with rural manufacturers. ATTIGA had only

worked with the Chipala women group within the study area.

5.4.11 Forestry Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM)

FRIM is one the potential external stakeholders that was concerned with research in

management of bamboos as stipulated in National Forestry Policy on Non Timber Forest

Products. Since bamboo is an under-researched plant in Malawi, FRIM would play a

leading role in understanding the biology of bamboos hence better domestication and

management of bamboo in individual plots and protected reserves, respectively. At the

time of this research, FRIM and UNDP-UNIDO carried out a national assessment of

bamboo resources in Malawi. Thuma Forest Reserve was one of the survey areas. The

Department of Forestry had also developed a proposal for bamboo resource management

and submitted it to potential donors at the time of this research. This shows that research

in bamboo and its related uses is gaining ground in Malawi. This would improve the

information on bamboo resources and their impact on rural livelihoods and national

economy in Malawi.

5.4.12 Credit institutions

One credit institution recalled by the craftsmen to be Malawi Rural Finance Company

(MRFC) carried out its credit feasibility research in Katengeza but it did not materialize

towards provision of credits to the bamboo handicrafts makers. The respondents

suggested that credit institutions were not able to give out loans because their market was

perceived to be seasonal and risky. The Foundation for International Community

Assistance (FINCA) was observed to offer loans to women groups only but none of the

women interviewed had obtained loan for expansion of her bamboo enterprise. During

need assessment exercise in FGDs, it was frequently mentioned that lack of credit was

hindering them from expanding their merchandise. However, among those interviewed

none had borrowed money from any credit institutions.

44

5.4.13 One Village One Product Program (OVOP)

The ruling United Democratic Front government initiated the OVOP program to promote

economic activities of Malawians. The program advocates for specialization on economic

activities people are efficient on. OVOP identified bamboo handicraft making to be

among the economic activities that rural people in Mvera could be engaged in. At the

time of research, a group of local manufacturers attended a consultative workshop on

possibilities of forming an association of bamboo handicraft makers and modalities of

OVOP. Since OVOP is very new, its activities and impacts on rural livelihoods would be

assessed later. If issues of widening markets for the bamboo handicrafts would be

promoted, the cash incomes from bamboo handicrafts would increase. Such development

oriented approaches should be promoted to increase economic status of rural poor

farmers.

45

6 Conclusions

Bamboo enterprise has been a livelihood strategy for rural people in Mvera for decades.

Recently, bamboo enterprises have increased both in types and number of entrepreneurs.

Bamboo handicraft making and bamboo culm vending are contributing significantly to

the livelihood security in the areas studied. Handicraft making showed gender imbalance

as it involved mainly males expect in one Chipala women’s group which is not also

performing efficiently. Bamboo culm vending involves both sexes. The average bamboo

enterprise cash income contribution to household cash incomes was about six times the

agricultural cash incomes. This is so because the bamboo entrepreneurs rarely sold their

farm produce. However, average own farm consumption was the highest source of

income (in kind). It contributed about one and half times as much as average bamboo

enterprise cash income. The cash incomes from bamboo enterprise were used for

household upkeep (buying food, groceries, transport, hospital expenses), inputs for

agricultural production, and initial capital for small scale business (e.g. wood workshop,

grocery shop, miscellaneous merchandise). Bamboo handicraft industry has also created a

considerable casual labour market in Mvera area. Casual labour at bamboo workshops is

an economic activity benefiting other villagers.

There are no profound bamboo management practices by the bamboo entrepreneurs in

both handicraft making and bamboo culm vending villages. Though bamboos are

depleted in the crop fields and other customary land, bamboo entrepreneurs are endowed

with natural bamboo stumps in Thuma Forest Reserve. The abundance of bamboos in the

nearby Forest Reserve has impeded sustainable management of bamboos by the bamboo

utilizing households. However, the future of handicraft would be threatened when the

natural bamboos die in Thuma Forest Reserve due to over-exploitation of bamboos.

Currently there are no stakeholders working with the communities in sustainable

management of bamboos. Thuma Forest Reserve carries out a general fire management

of the forest and bamboos are thereby virtually managed. The Forest Guards of the forest

reserve also control the entry into the reserve by issuance of bamboo extraction fee to the

bamboo collecting entrepreneurs.

46

The following external stakeholders were perceived involved in bamboo handicraft

industry in one way or another; Malawi Chambers of Commerce and Industry (MCCI),

Dowa District Council, Salima District Forestry Office, National Road Authority and

Appropriate Technology Training Unit for Income Generating Activities (ATTIGA).

Other potential stakeholders identified in bamboo industry were One Village One

Pproduct (OVOP), Department of Forestry, Forestry Research Institute of Malawi, and

credit institutions. The major market catchment of the bamboo handicrafts and the raw

bamboo culms were urban dwellers, tourists and owners of entertainment places, and

estate farms, respectively.

47

7 Recommendations

Since studies on bamboos are very rare in Malawi, it would be helpful for the success of

bamboo enterprises and its resource management that bamboo should be further

researched. The research should be carried out in all possible uses of bamboo. The

biology of Oxytenanthera abyssinica (the bamboo species found in the study area) should

be thoroughly understood to develop appropriate interventions on the particular bamboo

in the area. The mystery of gregarious flowering and death of bamboo culm should also

be studied. In this research, bamboos were only used as a raw material for construction of

structures. There are a lot of uses of bamboos that support livelihood in both rural and

urban sectors.

Since the bamboos in Thuma Forest Reserve are threatened by the growing demand for

bamboos, there should be policy interventions in bamboo plantations both at smallholder

level and commercial level. Department of Forestry management committee should look

into the possibility of co-managing Thuma Forest Reserve with the bamboo culm

harvesting communities to avoid wanton harvesting of bamboo. Department of Forestry

should also start managing strategically the bamboos in Thuma Forest Reserve. MCCI

can play a vital role in promoting the bamboo handicraft industry. Linkages should be

deployed in trade industry to create a conducive trade environment for bamboo, its

handicraft industry and other uses not discussed in the paper.

The management of chipapati should also be looked into since it is a complementary raw

material in the handicraft industry. It has been shown by the entrepreneurs that the

success of bamboo handicraft industry relies on the availability of chipapati. The

chipapati is purported not to thrive in Mvera and this makes the supply of chipapati to

hail from far places like Salima, 30 to 50 km away from the handicraft making area.

Integration of chipapati plantation with bamboo would be desirable.

In exploring the potential options of poverty reduction in the south eastern part of Dowa

district, the presence of graphite deposits should not be overlooked. Though no traditional

48

extraction of graphite was cited by the bamboo entrepreneurs, graphite still remains a

natural resource that can help them out of poverty. Implications of land tenure should

also be followed due to resentment by some people who lost their land to the prospective

mining contractor without compensation. The bamboo would be used for scaffolding

instead of wood in open cast structures thereby promoting local capabilities in improving

their livelihood.

49

8 References Botha B. N., 2003. Looking for A Path Out of Poverty: Causes and Implications for

Policy. The Case of Chimaliro Forestry Reserve, Malawi. A Thesis Submitted in

Partial fulfillment for the Degree of Master of Science in Development and

Resource Economics at Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.

Chambers R. and G. Conway, 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical concepts

for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. IDS, University of Sussex,

Brighton.

Chihongo A.W., S.I. Kishimbo, M.D. Kachwele and Y.M. Ngaga, 2000. Bamboo

Production-To–Consumption Systems in Tanzania. International Network for

Bamboo And Rattan, Beijing.

Das, A.N., 2002. Bamboo Growing and its Market Development Potential for Sustaining

Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction in eastern Nepal. Banko Janakari, 12

(1): 8-19.

Davis, J.R., 2003. The Rural Non-Farm Economy, Livelihoods and their Diversification:

Issues and Options. A report prepared for Natural Resources Institute, Department

for International Development and World Bank.

DCDM, 1999. Wood and Non-wood Forest Products Marketing and Pricing Study. Final

Report Vol. 1. Forestry Department. Malawi.

Dubey L., 2003. Malawi’s Food Crisis: Causes and Solutions, USAID, Malawi.

Ebony Consulting & NSO, 2000. Malawi-National Gemini MSE Baseline Survey 2000.

A report prepared for Department for International Department, Malawi.

Ellis F., 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ellis, F., M. Kutengule and A. Nyasulu, 2002. Livelihoods and Rural Poverty Reduction

in Malawi, LADDER Working Paper No. 17, Overseas Development Group,

University of East Anglia, Norwich.

Jere P., K. Varela & B.Voysey, 2000. Synthesis Study of Initiatives on Co-management

of Natural Resources in Malawi. National Forestry Policy Working Paper No. 1,

National Forestry Policy Co-ordinating Unit, Lilongwe.

50

Kainja S. 2000. Initial thoughts on decentralisation and the future management of

forests goods and services. National Forestry Policy Working Paper No. 2.

National Forestry Policy Co-ordinating Unit, Lilongwe.

Kigomo B. N. 1988. Bamboo Resources in East Africa : In Rao I.V.R., R. Gnanaharan,

C. B. Sastry (eds.), Bamboos Current Research, Proceedings of the International

Bamboo Workshop, 14-18, November, 1988, Cochin, India, (eds), Proceedings of

the International Bamboo Workshop. India

URL:http://www.inbar.int/publication/txt/INBAR_PR_02.htm (accessed on 7-01

-2003)

Krishnankutty, C.N., 2000. Bamboo Weaving Sector in Kerala: Current Status and Future

Possibilities for Rural Development, Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 19 (3),

pp. 399-440 (2000)

Malunga, G.W.P., 2002. Mineral Potential of the Nacala Corridor: Malawi Opportunities

for Mineral Investment, Geological Society of Malawi, Blantyre

MCCI., 2002. Malawi Supply Survey on Textiles and Clothing: Sub-regional Trade

Expansion in Southern Africa, UNCTAD/WTO (ITC), Blantyre

URL: http://www.ratescenter.org/pdf/reports/cotton_malawi_0307.pdf (accessed

02-02-2003)

MoAIFS, 2003. Average Retail Prices for Selected Major food Commodities, Ministry of

Agriculture, Irrigation and Food Security, Lilongwe. (unpublished)

NEC, NSO, CSR & IFRI, 2000. Poverty Monitoring System Brief # 6: The Poverty

Analysis of the Integrated Household Survey, Poverty Alleviation Program of

the Government of Malawi, National Economic Council, National Statistics

Office, Center for Social Research and International Food Research Institute.

URL: http://www.ifpri.org/themes/mp18/malawipms/pmsbrief06.pdf (accessed on

5-02-2003)

Ngalande, J.D., 1999. Thuma Forest Reserve: Forestry Inventory and Management

Option Report, Department of Forestry, Lilongwe (unpublished)

Nyirenda R.W.S., 1993. Non-Wood Forest Product Development in Malawi: A Pilot

Country Study Prepared for the Regional Expert Consultation on NWFP (Non-

Wood Forest Products), Arusha.

51

Nyirongo, C.C., F.B.M. Msiska, H.A.J. Mdyetseni and S. Levy, 2003. Evaluation Module

1: Food Production and Security in Rural Malawi (Pre-Harvest Survey), A final

2002-2003 Extended Targeted Inputs Programme (ETIP) report for the Ministry

of Agriculture, Irrigation and Food Security and the Department of International

Development, Lilongwe.

Oprins Plant-BTN, 2002. URL: http://www.bamboonetwork.org/about%20bamboo.htm

(accessed con 28-03-2003)

Phiri, M. A. R., 2000. Assessment of the Operational Context of NTFP and their Potential

Contribution to Sustainable Forestry Management, National Forestry Programme,

Department of Forestry, Lilongwe

RATES, 2003. Cotton-Textile-Apparel: Value Chain Report of Malawi, Regional

Agricultural Trade Expansion Support Program, Nairobi

UNDP/GOM, 1993. Situational Analysis of Poverty in Malawi. Ministry of Women

and Children Affairs and Community Services, Lilongwe, Malawi.

UNDP, 2002. Human Development Report 2002, Oxford, Oxford University Press for

United Nation Development Programme.

URL: http://www.intracen.org/iatp/surveys/textile/Malawi-Final-Survey.pdf

(accessed on 02-02-2004)

World Bank, 2003. World Development Indicators Database URL:

http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GNIPC.pdf (accessed on 20-02-2004)

52

9 Appendices

Appendix 1: Household Survey Questionnaire

Instructions • The questionnaire has some coded answers. So circle or tick the respondent’s answer

appropriately.

• Some questions need to be filled.

Questionaire ID

No:……………………………………….Date:……………………………………………

Name of Enumerator:………………………………Time Start:………TimeEnd…………

1. Name of

Respondent:………………………………………………………………………................

2. Sex:

1 = Male 2 = Female

3. Age:

4. Educational qualification:

1 = Tertiary education 4 = Standard Eight

2 = Form Four 5 = Standard Five

3 = Form Two 6 = Below Standard Five

6. Marital Status

1. married 3. widow

2. single 4. divorced/ separated

53

7. Total number of persons living in the household?

8. Which are your sources of income in your household?

1. agricultural production

2. casual employment (ganyu of any form)

3. remittances

4. bamboo enterprise

5. trading of any sort e.g. groceries, food

6. trading of charcoal or firewood

9. What is the bamboo enterprise you are involved in?

1. bamboo furniture

2. bamboo basketry

3. raw bamboo stems vending

4. wood/ timber vending

10. For how long have you been in bamboo enterprise?

11. Categorise the availability the natural resources from they are obtained?

Natural resource abundant moderate scarce

bamboo

chipapati

12. What labour do you use in your bamboo enterprise?

1. ganyu worker (paid in cash or kind)

2. family labour

3. myself

54

13. What do you do in times when money is lacking to buy resources for your

enterprises?

1. borrowing from relatives and non entrepreneur friends

2. buy on credit

3. borrow from formal credit institutions

4. internal household/ agricultural income

5. others specify

14. Do you have credit facility in your bamboo enterprise?

1. Yes

2. No

15. Which organisations concerned with bamboo enterprise industry are you affiliated

with?

1. Local bamboo handicraft club

2. TEVETA

3. MRFC

4. Primary Health Nutrition

5. Thuma Forest Reserve Co-management

16. Do you have plantations of bamboo?

1. Yes

2. No

17. If yes, how large is the plantations?

55

18. Specify your household incomes for the past twelve months.

(November 02 to October 03)

Income source Total Yield/month

(unless otherwise

stated)

Annual Income

(MK)

Area grown ( for

crops only)

(a) NR income

1. Crops Yield/ yr 2001-02 2002-03

maize

Tobacco

groundnuts

beans

Sweet potatoes

cassava

2. Livestock Number sold /yr Income/yr Number held

cattle

goats

chicken

pigs

3. off Farm wage

4. Bamboo enterprise

Handicraft weaving

Ganyu @ handicraft

workshop

Bamboo stem

vending

Chipapati vending

Wood pole vending

56

5. Charcoal selling

6. Firewood selling

(b) Non NR income

1. Non Farm

wage

2. Trading

3. Remittances

4. Pension

19. How much bamboo and other raw materials did you use for production of your

basketry for the past twelve months?

Type of natural resource Amount used/ month

(local units)

Total amount used

bamboo

chipapati

20. What type of labour do you use at your farm?

1. ganyu

2. wife/children

3. the whole family

21. Do you commit yourself to bamboo enterprise during agricultural production season?

1. yes, at full extent

2. yes, to some extent

3. not at all

22. Mention ways how you have benefited from the bamboo enterprise?

1. petty cash for household use

2. built a house

3. paying for hospital

4. paying school fees for children

5. buying inputs for agriculture

57

23. Do you have dimba?

1. Yes

2. No

24. How long and intense was the hunger period last year?

Length

1. Jan 02– April 02 (only growing season)

2. July 01 – April 02 (soon after last harvest to next harvest)

3. None (food throughout)

Intensity

1. Not all

2. Mild

3. Severe

25. For how long will or has your maize reserve lasted this year since you harvested?

27. Between maize produced in your fields and maize bought from markets, which is

more?

1. own farm maize

2. market or exchanged maize

58

Appendix 2: Checklist for Community and Focus Group Discussions

1. Organisation and structure of community bamboo groups (15 min)

a. Origin of the club: How? When? Why?

b. Membership of the club: entry and exit procedures? Qualifications?

c. Leadership and structure: length of terms? Style of leadership? Number of

committee members and gender balance? Number of members in the club?

d. Objectives of the club: purpose? Outputs? Activities? Inputs?

Tools to be used

Historical trends

Records review

Open questions

2. Bamboo, and Chapapati supply (15 min)

a. Who supplies what? Why is it so?

b. Description of the specific resources required and supplied

c. Where are the major resources obtained? How?

d. How far is the locality? Specific names of localities?

e. Who are competing buyers of raw bamboo (hollow and non hollow) and specify?

Chapapati?

f. Problems encountered at each resource supply stage: what and who causes the

problems, how are and who solves the problems encountered?

g. Rank the most important resources in handicraft weaving.

h. Rank the most scarce resources among the raw resources.

59

3. Enterprise performance∗ (15 min)

a. Profitability of bamboo enterprise: Compared to crop production? Compared to

other off-farm and non-farm activities? Perceptions? Rank the income sources

b. SWOT analysis of bamboo enterprises: strengths? Weaknesses (constraints)?

Opportunities? Threats (fears)?:

• food security,

• sustainability,

• socio-economic,

• environmental

c. Processing methods of bamboo and other raw materials: How? Why? Needs?

d. Pricing of bamboo products: who controls? How? Seasonality of prices?

e. Costumer profile: coverage, regional or national? Measures to nationalize the

market?

f. Handicraft products: what? Why the product? Most produced product? Why?

Who buys what product? Why?

Tools to be used

Seasonal calendar

SWOT analysis

Pairwise ranking

Venn diagrams

4. Resource exploitation and management (15 min)

a. availability of raw materials: seasonality? Why is so? Locality? Why there?

Management measures taken? Perception of overexploitation of raw material?

Scarcity: which materials?

∗ At all stages of enterprise: handicraft weaving/ vending, raw bamboo, chipapati, wood suppliers, casual labourers at handicraft weaving workshops

60

b. Plantation or planting of bamboo and raw material: what scale? perception of

bamboo planting?

c. Access to raw materials: Who: outsiders or insiders? And where: forest reserve or

customary land? and why? What type of restriction? What measures?

d. Varieties of bamboo: which type for what use? Locality?

Tools to be used

Semi structured questions

Cause-effect analysis

Pairwise ranking

Seasonal calendar

5. Impacts on agricultural production (15min)

a. area of production? productivity of all crops grown? Which are the most grown

crops? Compare with those not involved in bamboo enterprise

b. Use of crop husbandry practices and frequency? Fallow practices? And why

c. Trade off of involvement in bamboo enterprise with agricultural production:

labour? Time? Money allocation?

6. Institutional analysis (10min)

a. Norms, rule and regulations of the club: management? Enterprise?

b. Organizations partnering in bamboo industry: which? How?

c. Government policy to boost the industry: what? How?

d. Partnership with Thuma Forest Reserve: how? On which resources? Co-

management? Problems faced? Solutions?

e. Decision making: resource management? Conflicts within the club? Collective

action, how?

61

Tools to be used

Venn diagramming

Semi structured questions

Stakeholder analysis

7. Household Livelihood security analysis (15min)

a. Trends and shocks (problems) When? Who severely attacked?

b. Asset base: household items: which items acquired? access to credit: where?

Bamboo plantation?

c. Labour balance: farm versus non-farm labour? Effect on dimba culture: how and

why?

d. Food security: in drought times? In plenty times?

e. Cash flow of bamboo income: where directed mostly? And why?

f. Time allocation on other activities?

g. Participation in the community development activities: how? Why?

Tools to be used

Livelihood analysis

Total time = 1 hour 30 min

Maximum time = 2 hours

62

Appendix 3: Stakeholder Analysis Questionnaire

BAMBOO ENTERPRISES, MANAGEMENT AND RURAL HOUSEHOLD

LIVELIHOODS

1. Name of the Organisation

………………………………………………………………………………………………

2. Brief description of the organisation: stating what type of organisation and your

objectives.

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

3. Do you have a section in your organisation that deals with natural resources

management?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

4. If yes, which areas of natural resources who get involved?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. Do you deal with bamboo handicraft industry in one way or another?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

63

6. If yes, which areas do you focus on?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

7. What role(s) do you want to play to promote bamboo handicraft industry in Malawi?

(management of bamboos, academics, policy making etc.)

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

8. What are your organisational opportunities in dealing with bamboo handicraft

industry?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

9. What about your constraints and/or challenges?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

10. Do you work directly with the rural bamboo handicraft entrepreneurs?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

64

11. If yes, what are your activities?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

12. What do you think should be done to promote the bamboo handicraft industry and

sustainable management of bamboo?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Thanks very much

65

Appendix 4: Analysis Tests

Appendix 4.1 One-Sample T: Household size

Test of mu = 5 vs mu not = 5

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean

HHSIZE 92 5.620 2.506 0.261

Variable 95.0% CI T P

HHSIZE (5.100, 6.139) 2.37 0.020

Appendix 4.2 Chi-Square Test of sex of the entrepreneur versus literacy level

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 1.877a 1 .171

Likelihood Ratio 1.865 1 .172

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.856 1 .173

N of Valid Cases 91

a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.59.

Appendix 4.3: Chi-Square Test of the entrepreneur’s proximity to Thuma Forest

reserve versus perception of bamboo availability

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 4.521a 2 .104

Likelihood Ratio 4.022 2 .134

Linear-by-Linear Association 3.865 1 .049

N of Valid Cases 92

a 1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.40.

66

Appendix 4.4: Two-Sample T-Test for bamboo incomes versus farm cash sales

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Farm sales 92 3251 6635 692 Bamboo income 92 18417 22574 2354 Difference = mu Bamboo income - mu Farm sales

Estimate for difference: 15167 95% CI for difference: (10303, 20030)

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 6.18, P-Value = 0.000 DF = 106

Appendix 4.5: Two-Sample T-Test: Own farm consumption income versus bamboo

incomes

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Own Consumption 92 26679 26899 2804

Bamboo income 92 18417 22574 2354

Difference = mu Own Consumption - mu Bamboo income

Estimate for difference: 8261 95% CI for difference: (2711, 17203)

90% lower bound for difference: 3552

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 2.26, P-Value = 0.013 DF = 176

Appendix 4.6: Chi-Square Test of commitment to bamboo enterprise during rainy

season between villages

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 33.720 8 .000

Likelihood Ratio 34.230 8 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 14.040 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 92

a 7 cells (46.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .78.

67