Contribution of Tree Farming on Improvement of Livelihood Assets to Smallholder Farmers in Njombe District, Tanzania

1. Introduction

Around the globe, there are around 2.9 billion poor people living in poverty and about 873 million still live in life-threatening poverty (World Bank, 2022). It is estimates that around 9.7% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty. Extreme poverty is defined as living on less than $1.90 a day. Out of these, nearly 75 percent live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their subsistence. Ninety five percent of the rural poor live in South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia where most of these poor people are smallholders and household farmers. 325 million people among the poorest in the world are said to be in the Sub-Saharan region which is ranked as the second region with the greatest number such people globally. According to the World Bank (2020), income has stood to be lower in the sub-Saharan region going below the poverty line of $1.25 per day for most countries. Actually, two thirds of the population leave in the rural areas and small-holder farmers account for 80% of the poor where 45% lives on less than $1 per day. It is established that Burundi, Somalia, the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, Mozambique, Liberia, Malawi, Madagascar and Chad in descending order are the countries worst hit by absolute poverty in the sub region (World Bank, 2020). As a coping mechanism to income poverty reduction, people are engaging in commercial agricultural (agribusinesses) Thus, through available natural resources, such as forests, uses of modern agricultural technology are urgent needed to improve the welfare of the population of the sub region.

As a coping mechanism to income poverty reduction, people in the rural areas are engaging in commercial farm activities commonly known as agribusinesses including tree farming. Tree farming is the practice of creating, conserving and scientific management of forests and the utilization of their resources for various uses, including commercial, social, agricultural, and environmental. It includes all thinking and all actions pertaining to creation and management of forests, including harvesting and utilization of all forest products and services (FAO, 2019). On the other hand, smallholder farmers are categorized by farm size average of landholding size estimated variously at 2 hectares (5 acres) and 1 to 3 hectares (2.5 – 7.5 acres) (FAO, 2019). According to FAO (2016c), to be poor is to be deprived of the means for a decent life. Deprivations in poverty include income which is the lack of means to acquisition of basic goods and services; consumption which means inadequate access to basic goods such as food and water; capability which means insufficient knowledge, health or skills to fulfill normal livelihood functions and living conditions which means poor housing, unhealthy or dangerous environment, and bad social relations. According to URT (2015) poverty is categorised into two aspects; income poverty and the non-income poverty. The income poverty is when a person or a portion of population experiences a shortage of income to meet basic needs. The non-income poverty is when a person or a proportion of the population experience deprivation of social needs and services such as health services, education, water, sanitation, environmental care and decision making.

Studies show that, in Tanzania almost three-quarter (72%) of the poor are dependent on agriculture (Kimambo et al., 2020; Arvola, 2020; Hingi, 2018). This is an indication that, household income poverty reduction means confronting the problems that farmers face in generating income within their households. Hingi (2018) for example indicated that, agricultural growth must be accelerated with a quick speed if poverty is to be reduced especially in the rural settings. This can be achieved through assistance to smallholder to engage in profitable agricultural enterprises including tree farming in order to improve their livelihood capabilities so that they can be able to afford balance diet, better health services, education costs, transportations costs and general livelihood assets.

Tanzania’s forest and woodland products such as firewood, honey production, wild fruit and construction material, account for some 40% of total household consumption in some areas. To enhance the usage of and support of these requirements, the World Bank helped to bring 4.1 million hectares (13% of Tanzania’s forests) under sustainable participatory management including village forest reserves (Arvola et al., 2019). In spite of all these efforts, there is an annual increase of poverty in many rural areas where majority fails to afford education costs, better health services, transportations and poor food diet (Kimambo et al., 2020). This is attributed by most farmers’ dependence on short-lived crops such as rice and maize, and lack of stable marketing price (Arvola, 2020). The poverty level among households in rural areas continues to be very high at 31.3% than in urban areas which is 15.8% (Snyder et al., 2020).

Therefore, in light of this scenario, this study aims to investigate on how tree smallholder farmers in Njombe district had reduced their household income poverty through tree farming by only assessing livelihood assets improvement. The novelty of this study is that, many researchers in the forestry sector had concentrated their studies on forests management, quality of timber industries and tree plantation (Mbwambo et al., 2013; Kiptot, 2015; Bankole et al., 2012), challenges and opportunities (Ernest, 2013; Khanal, 2011 and Sonwa et al., 2011). Less of the studies have been done on contribution of tree farming on household asset improvement as an indicator of poverty reduction something which this study focuses upon. As a result, this study findings will help policy makers at District Regional and country levels on developing strategies for smallholder farmers especially those involved in tree farming.

2.2. Empirical Literature Review

Tree farming, particularly on smallholder farmers' have shown significant impacts on livelihoods, the environment, and local economies. Hawkes and Sumari (2018) in their study on the contribution of smallholder farmers to forest raw materials base in Tanzania who linked their findings with household poverty, they found that, child labour is a reflection of poverty by a large number of children working in tree farms in Njombe District. According to Hawkes and Sumari (2018), the main cash crops in in Njombe district include timber from plantations and other wood products, pyrethrum and tea. Other crops produced include vegetables, tomatoes and green maize, which is produced in the valley bottoms locally known as Vinyungu. Forestry activities are of great importance in the district where wattle, eucalyptus and pines are grown heavily (Private Forestry Programme, 2017). It is estimated that, the whole Southern Highlands have a total of 207,000 Ha of forest plantations. More than 70% of the plantation areas are located outside the large government and company-owned plantations, which is a fact suggesting the significant potential of smallholder woodlots. Mufindi, Makete, and Njombe are the districts with the greatest forest plantation coverage in Tanzania (Private Forestry Programme, 2017).

Likewise, Martin (2022) in his study on integrative and exclusionary roles of trust in timber value chain in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania using a multiple linear regression found that, in order to shrink poverty among the poor rural households, agribusiness and its prominence and level of adoption have not been well understood in most parts of the rural areas in Tanzania. Furthermore, the study by Martin (2022) suggested that, agroforestry as a multipurpose land use and as a flexible system has been suggested as a resolution to achieve sustainability in land use and as a supplement to the prevailing land use management systems. The study concluded that, agroforestry has numerous benefits including; protection of soil fertility, control of soil erosion and improvement of biodiversity; improving crop yields, enhancing level of income to farmers, provision of fuel like woods and charcoal, fruits for balanced diet, silage and building materials to households and commercial.

Furthermore, Cunningham et al., (2016) studied on impacts of timber on poverty reduction among small scale traders in Mufindi District Tanzania using descriptive statistics. Findings of the study indicated that, trade in timber and non-timber forest products are important contributors to agricultural and economic development through the revenue farmers generate for the government and the income they provide to rural households. The study concluded that, in selecting eco-regions, forestry is the highest income earning sector especially for rural households residing around forest land or plantations in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Likewise, FAO (2020) reports that, trees resources contribute to food security as they include provision of commercial opportunities and employment to the poor. Thus, tree farming plays a significant role in the livelihoods of millions of the rural populace, principally as a sustenance safety net, but also as a source of cash income, capital asset, and a source of employment. Tree farming is often central to the development of good local governance (MNRT, 2018). Thus, the removal of obstacles that prevent forests and trees from contributing to livelihoods of the poor as well as support for emerging opportunities is important to realize fully advantage of the tree farming sector.

3. Findings and Discussion

3.1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

With regard to the demographic characteristics of respondents, it was found that two third of the respondents were male hence the study was dominated by male respondents than women. This may be due to the fact that, land ownership in Africa and so in Tanzania male family members dominates. As a result, more men are expected to engage in tree farming than women. About age of respondents, it was found that, tree farming is dominated by farmers aged 30 years and above indicating that this is a farm activity dominated by matured population in the study area. Likewise, two third of the tree smallholder farmers were married showing that tree farming is there to support households; and the household size was 6 members and above indicating that, tree farming is an endeavor to support livelihood of many people in respective households in the study area. As for the level of education, majority of respondent had acquired primary education and few achieved at least secondary school education level and with more than 16 years of farming experience as indicated in Table 2.

3.2. Smallholder Farmers Livelihood Asset Improvement

Nine pairs of assets owned by stallholder farmers were used for the study which included ownership of radios, bicycles, sofa sets, televisions, houses, motorcycles; motorcars, source of energy and mobile phones. Findings in Table 2 indicate that, the overall mean was increasing before the smallholder farmers engaged in tree farming and after engaging. The increase in mean of diversification of economic activities could mean that, there was significance improvement in smallholder tree farmers in Njombe district in incomes obtained from this farm activity. However, this mean increase cannot give assurance whether such improvement in farmers’ livelihood was due to engagement in tree farming or not. Further analysis was required on the effect of land size (eta squared) in each variable to confirm the indication of improvement of farmers’ livelihood as a result of tree farming activities. The eta squared (ղ²) was calculated by the formula shown below and the results have been merged with Paired sample test table (Table 3).

A paired sample t-test was conducted for nine pairs of livelihood assets that were included for smallholder tree farmers in the study area. First asset ownership was evaluated the possession of houses before and after smallholder farmers being involved in tree farming activities. Findings in Table 3 shows that, there was a statistically significance increase in house ownership before engagement in tree farming (M= 1.80, SD= 0.752) and after engaging in tree farming (M=2.00, SD= 0.199), t(269)= 8.706, p<0.0005(two-tailed). The mean increase score of houses ownership was 0.2 with 95% confidence interval ranging from -0.433 to 0.033. The eta squared statistic (0.219) indicated a strong effect on tree farmers’ livelihood in study area. This is indications that, tree farming by smallholder farmers lead to improvement in their livelihood status by improving housing status. This may be attributed by lamp sum of money they receive from tree product sales like timber and transmission poles. Through this, most of them managed to improve their houses to modern houses from traditional ones such as mud pole roofing to iron sheet roofing. Some of them have managed to construct new modern houses for their families and for business through renting. The findings are supported by that of Snyder et al, (2018) who acknowledged that, although poverty is a multi-dimensional issue, it is directly associated with household’s income, asset holding, and other economic activities that mutually generate a household’s livelihood strategy and outcomes. As a result, it is important to underpin the underlying mechanisms related to rural poor’s livelihood strategies in order to achieve the poverty reduction goals for the country.

Likewise, the second asset ownership was about radio possession. Findings indicated statistically significant increase in radio ownership before involving (M=0.61, SD=0.489) in tree farming and after (M=0.90, SD=0.301, t(269) = 7.522, p<0.05 (two-tailed). The mean increase score of radio ownership was 0.293 with 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.216 to 0.369. The eta squared effect is 0.174 indicating strong effect on radio possession which in turn improved their livelihood asset ownership. Smallholder tree farmers had no radios and some had small radios before engaging with tree farming. After engaging in tree farming, they managed to buy large and new modern radios which also gave them access to information which they were not able to get before. This may imply that, tree farming has improved the smallholder tree farmers to the extent of owning large and modernized radios which may be used to access more information about tree farming opportunities hence improve their tree farming activities. These findings are similar with the findings by Arvola (2020) who found that, about 60% owned radio worth more than Tanzania Shillings 60,000 whereas about 80% had cell-phones worth above Tanzania Shillings 60,000. Arvola (2020) further indicated that, 85% of respondents had bought their radio and cell-phones respectively using incomes earned from timber businesses. This is evidence that timber trading contributes significantly to the ownership of such assets in the tree farmers households. One of the key informants also informed that;

‘Through tree farming, most if the farmers are able to purchase good radios and music systems in their homes. Also, most of the tree farmers own smart phones which are said to be expensive than the button phone’.

The explanation by the key informant is evidence that the purchasing power of smallholder tree farmers for radios a livelihood asset has improved from the level before participating in tree farming to the current status.

Table 4. Paired Samples Test (n=270).

		Paired Differences					t	ղ2	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
Pair 1	House	.200	.673	.053	-0.433	0.033	8.706	0.219	269	.000
Pair 1	Radio	.293	.639	.039	.216	.369	7.522	0.174	269	.000
Pair 2	Bicycle	.204	.751	.046	.114	.294	4.456	0.069	269	.000
Pair 3	Smartphone	.600	.665	.040	.520	.680	14.835	0.449	269	.000
Pair 4	Sofa Set	.500	.501	.030	.440	.560	16.401	0.499	269	.000
Pair 5	Motor cycle	.307	.644	.039	.230	.385	7.846	0.186	269	.000
Pair 6	Motor vehicle	.104	.703	.043	.019	.188	2.423	0.02	269	.016
Pair 7	Education	-.000	.401	.024	-.248	-.152	0.201		269	.000
Pair 8	Energy source	1.189	1.717	.105	.983	1.395	11.375	0.325	269	.000

Table 4. Paired Samples Test (n=270).

		Paired Differences					t	ղ2	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
Pair 1	House	.200	.673	.053	-0.433	0.033	8.706	0.219	269	.000
Pair 1	Radio	.293	.639	.039	.216	.369	7.522	0.174	269	.000
Pair 2	Bicycle	.204	.751	.046	.114	.294	4.456	0.069	269	.000
Pair 3	Smartphone	.600	.665	.040	.520	.680	14.835	0.449	269	.000
Pair 4	Sofa Set	.500	.501	.030	.440	.560	16.401	0.499	269	.000
Pair 5	Motor cycle	.307	.644	.039	.230	.385	7.846	0.186	269	.000
Pair 6	Motor vehicle	.104	.703	.043	.019	.188	2.423	0.02	269	.016
Pair 7	Education	-.000	.401	.024	-.248	-.152	0.201		269	.000
Pair 8	Energy source	1.189	1.717	.105	.983	1.395	11.375	0.325	269	.000

As far as bicycle possession is concerned, findings indicates statistically significant increase in mean before tree farming (M=0.50, SD=0.501) and after (M=0.70, SD=0.459, t(269)=4.456, p<0.05). The mean increase score was 0.204 at 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.114 to 0.294. The eta squared effect was 0.069 indicating a moderate effect on bicycle possession before and after engaging in tree farming. Basically, most of the smallholder farmers owned bicycle even before engaging in tree farming as a normal household possession used as a major means of transport in short and medium distance travelling. Therefore, this may imply that, tree faming has slightly influenced smallholder tree farmers to own more bicycles thus their livelihood assets ownership has slightly improved in terms bicycle ownership.

Concerning smart phone possession, there was statistically significant increase in mean score before tree farming was (M=0.30, SD=0.270) and after involving (M=0.90, SD=0.270, t(269)= 14.835, p<0.05). The mean increase was 0.60 at 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.520 to 0.68. The eta squared effect was 0.449 indicating a strong effect on smartphone possession. It is a fact that, smartphone has become popular in recent years due to overwhelming innovation in developed countries. Before engaging in tree farming which is about 10 years past, smart phones were yet popular and expensive while currently prices are cheap and affordable in African countries as found out by Kimambo et al, (2020). Therefore, this effect also can also be a result of technological advancement making smartphone possession affordable to more smallholder farmers. Taking all other things constant, this implies that, tree farming has enabled smallholder farmers to own smartphone which improved their communication and instant receipt of news and knowledge about their business through social Medias accessible through their smartphones.

Likewise, findings of the study revealed that, there was statistically significant mean increase of sofa set ownerships before engaging with tree farming (M=0.20, SD=0.40) and after engaging (M=0.70, SD=0.459, t (269) =16.401, p<0.05). The mean increase was 0.500 at 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.440 to 0.560. The eta squared effect was 0.499 indicating a strong effect on sofa set possession after the engaging in tree farming. This could mean that, smallholder tree farmers have improved their livelihood in terms of sitting assets as sofas. As the matter of fact, smallholder tree farmers are producing timbers which are used as raw materials. Thus, it facilitates sofa making at low costs lowering the final price of the final product. This imply that, smallholder tree farmers have improved their livelihood by being equipped with home facilities like modern siting sets.

About motorcycle possession, the results indicated a statistically significant increase in mean before involving with tree farming (M=0.30, SD=0.459) and after involving with tree farming (M=0.61, SD=0.489, t(269)= 7.846, p<0.05). The mean increase was 0.307 with 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.230 to 0.385. The eta effect was 0.186 indicating moderate effect on motorcycle possession as a result of tree farming. This might be due to effect of other factors like easily availability of motorcycles at low price which enable smallholder tree farmers to own them even if they we are not involved in tree farming. These motorcycles have simplified tree farmers movements in their tree farming businesses. The findings imply that, tree farmers’ livelihood improvements in terms of transport which is an important service for them to use a short time to travel from one point to another.

Furthermore, in this study a comparison of the motor vehicle mean increase before and after involving in tree farming was done. The results in Table 3 indicate that, there was statistically significance increase in mean before (M=0.20, SD=0.401) and mean after was (M=0.30, SD=0.461, t(269)= 2.423, p<0.05). The mean increase was 0.104 with 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.019 to 0.188. The eta effect was 0.02 indicating very small effect on motorcar possession. This means that, tree farming by smallholder farmers has not yet enabled many farmers to own motorcars. This may be attributed by high cost of purchasing cars and running cost being high compared to farmer’s income of which they may not afford. This is indications that, a large number of stallholder tree farmers are not yet in a position to own motorcars. Only few farmers with proportionately large income can afford.

Concerning the level of education, findings shows that there was no statistical significant increase in the mean as it remained the same before (M=0.30, SD=0.459) and after involving in tree farming (M=0.30, SD=0.459, t(269)=0.00, p<0.05). This may be true due to the fact that, majority of tree farming are aged 30 years and above of which if one was not educated before engaging in tree farming activities, may not be possible to go back to school. This may further imply that; tree farming activity do not influence smallholder farmers to increase their education levels. If this study could have aimed at looking in the family education status, this could be statistically increase in mean due to the fact that, smallholder farmers now are able to manage education costs for their children even in private schools where it is expensive compared to public schools’ education. One of the key informants reported that,

‘Smallholder tree farmers may not be much educated, but the incomes they get from tree farming have transformed their lives and spending by sending their children to even more better and expensive schools.’

It was also found that, there was statistically significance increase in mean of source of energy before was (M=2.00, SD=1.343) and after (M=3.19, SD=1.080, t(269)= 11.375, p<0.05). The mean increase was 1.189 at confidence interval of 95% ranging from 0.983 to 1.395. The eta squared effect was 0.325 indicating a strong effect on improvement of source of energy for cooking and lighting. This may be true due to the fact that, smallholder tree farmers are able to connect electricity lines from Rural Electricity Accessibility (REA) and ability to buy solar energy as well as gas equipment. Therefore, this may imply that, tree farming has influenced smallholder farmers to access better sources of energy which have improved their livelihood in term of lightening energy and use of electronic equipment.

Findings in this study are in line with the findings by Hingi. (2018) put forward that, contribution of the tree farming sector in Tanzanian cannot be underestimated. However, there seems to have been little exploration on how Tanzania’s’ tree farming business improve smallholder tree farmers’ incomes to enhance livelihood assets ownerships specifically in the rural areas. Forestry and forest industry in Tanzania are to certain extent acknowledged in keeping ample employment opportunities to the rural population as well as urban residents. The largest part of the employment opportunities is generated by the natural forests though the plantation forests also have a great potential for livelihood assets improvement (Mlowe, 2017). Further, forests act as a saving account for people living in and around them and provide a range of products for subsistence. Forests should not be considered in terms of economic value of timber alone as they draw on local knowledge to learn a full range of their benefits and functions and how different groups use them. For instance, it helps in assessing the impact of interventions on livelihoods by studying and analyzing the complex interactions between local people and forests (FAO, 2020).

4.0. Conclusion and Recommendations

The study has confirmed that, by looking on livelihood assets of smallholder tree farmers before and after involving in tree farming, a significant improvement was observed. Therefore, since improvement in livelihood assets have significant role in a certain livelihood strategy like assets improvement or capabilities; and winning in a certain livelihood strategy has positive impact on livelihood outcome (Shanta et al., 2018), the findings of this study conclude that, smallholder tree farming contributes much on household assets improvement which is an indication of income poverty reduction. It is recommended that; the government should control the market of forest products and ensure price stability so that smallholder farmers can maximize their profit and enhance more their livelihood assets. Also, the government should make initiatives to promote other tree products since they have huge potential to increase smallholder farmers’ productivity.