Children and Wild Foods in the Context of Deforestation in Rural Malawi

Wild foods are components of diets and local economies the world over, from rural Africa (Ncube et al. 2016) to urban USA (McLain et al. 2014). Whilst most people eat wild foods, diversity and frequency vary greatly between and within households, villages, countries, and regions. Thus, while for some the collection or consumption of wild foods may be a daily occurrence, for others it is a seasonal or rare delicacy. Nonetheless, with over 7000 edible plant species and a similar number of edible animal species, the contribution of wild foods to peoples’ diets should not be underestimated (Bharucha and Pretty 2010). In many regions wild foods contribute significantly to household food security, dietary diversity, and nutritional wellbeing (Kajembe et al. 2000) because they add diversity to the mostly starch-based, staple diets of households throughout the world (Uusiku et al. 2010; Powell et al. 2011; Ncube et al. 2016). Without wild foods, global and national levels of food insecurity would be significantly higher (Bharucha and Pretty 2010) and consequently they need to be an integral part of any international and local policies and strategies to address food insecurity.

The high variation in use and acceptance of wild foods is a reflection of their availability and local food cultures (FAO 2010). In many regions diets are in transition as a consequence of globalisation and increasing market access (Pingali 2007; Damman et al. 2008; Ncube et al. 2016). The former is associated with declines in agrobiodiversity, dietary diversity, and knowledge of wild foods and local cultivars. The latter brings exposure to and convenience of new foods that may be easily and constantly available (van Vliet et al. 2015a). At a local scale changes in knowledge and consumption patterns of wild species have been linked to land use change, deforestation, migration from rural areas, and mass schooling (Broegaard et al. 2016; Sylvester et al. 2016).

Land use change and deforestation are particularly pertinent to debates on ecosystem services provision, food security, and the role of wild foods. The expansion of agriculture is often at the expense of forests and other natural landscapes that are noteworthy sources of ecosystem services, including wild foods that diversify diets and contribute essential micronutrients (Poppy et al. 2014). Powell et al. (2011) showed that rural households in Tanzania close to patches of trees or forests had higher dietary diversity and more nutrient dense foods than households far from patches of trees. In Cameroon, Tata-Ngome (2016) found that household food security was greatest in the least deforested zones. Similarly, Ickowitz et al. (2013) reported, after examination of national scale data, that there was a positive relationship between tree cover and dietary diversity and fruit and vegetable consumption for 21 African countries.

Yet, the nexus between forests, land use change, wild foods and nutrition are poorly understood or explored (Broegaard et al. 2016). This is especially so at the local scale, where the benefits of land use change and agricultural intensification are not uniformly enjoyed. Many households continue to experience limited access to land, have to work on lands of poor quality or are economically marginalised and therefore unable to purchase the necessary inputs for intensive agriculture. Such households therefore depend on a diversity of food sources, amongst which wild foods remain key. And there are also those who simply prefer wild foods for their taste or cultural meanings. Consequently, changes in land use that deplete the diversity or abundance of wild foods potentially jeopardise food security and nutrition of some households. For example, van Noordwijk et al. (2014) showed that consumption of bushmeat and wild vegetables declined markedly, as did protein intake, with agricultural expansion and intensification in northern Laos, whilst Timko (2013) argued that in Malawi, forest resources need to be secured to allow many rural households to cope with the ravages of HIV/AIDS.

Nonetheless, there is some academic debate on how deforestation influences wild food availability. Wild food use varies spatially and temporally because availability and use are affected by seasonality, abundance, preferences among different socioeconomic groups (Garcia 2006; Uusiku et al. 2010; Heubach et al. 2011), climatic changes, and environmental degradation (Kamanga et al. 2009). Some argue that forest cover influences availability as noted by studies that reveal a decline in the diversity of wild foods in the diet during the conversion of complex woodland systems to simplified crop land or reduction of forests and woodlands (Scoones et al. 1992; Jonhson et al. 2013) even though this does not apply to all wild food categories. For instance, in three Tanzanian villages there is a negative correlation between the diversity of edible plants being eaten and the degree of deforestation (Scoones et al. 1992) with higher tree cover associated with high diversity of wild food. Similar findings were found in Malawi (Jonhson et al. 2013), Tanzania (Powell et al. 2011) and in Kenya where the last 20 years of land use change to agricultural systems have reduced the availability of Mbeere wild food collection and use (Scoones et al. 1992). Recently, Ickowitz et al. (2013) reported a strong positive relationship between forest cover and household nutrition.

On the other hand, Campbell (1987) indicated that in some contexts deforestation may not significantly affect availability of selected wild fruits because people tend to be selective during land clearing for agricultural production. He showed that the abundance of fruit trees, as measured by percentage canopy cover, showed no relationship to frequency of wild fruits used. This indicates that people living in climax woodland or other complex systems are not basing selection of fruits on mere abundance of fruit trees; they are actively selecting for certain fruit species (Campbell 1987; Kalaba 2007). In many African countries rural households intentionally retain fruit trees in their fields or intensify their density around the homestead (Schreckenberg 1999; Kalaba 2007; Shackleton et al. 2008). In Malawi, the prevalence of cultural restrictions governing the use and exploitation of indigenous trees enables the maintenance of wild fruit species such as Parinari curatellifolia, Strychnos cocculoides, and Uapaca kirkiana around homesteads or crop fields (Syampungani et al. 2009). Thus, despite significant changes in woodlands and their use, their contribution to maintaining health and providing people’s basic needs appears to remain important (Lowore 2006), albeit quantities available and consumed may be affected. In terms of wild vegetables, many species are prominent ‘weeds’ in agricultural fields and so are promoted in more human-dominated landscapes (Powell et al. 2014; Kidane et al. 2015). This points to the need to disaggregate responses by different food types.

In understanding use of wild foods and their contribution to diets and food security it is imperative that all user-groups are considered. While considerable research has looked at poor rural households as major beneficiaries of wild foods (Paumgarten and Shacketon 2009; Heubach et al. 2011; Maroyi 2011), such data need to be further disaggregated using other social classifications such as age, gender, education, and location. Children are often overlooked in this dynamic and rarely feature in dietary surveys and even ethnobotanical research on wild foods (McGarry and Shackleton 2009a; van Vliet et al. 2015b; Sylvester et al. 2016). Yet they are important actors in some situations because they spend a great deal of time outdoors interacting with nature (Alexander et al. 2015) and are also direct collectors and consumers of wild foods (McGarry and Shackleton 2009a; van Vliet et al. 2015b; Sylvester et al. 2016). Some wild food species are regarded as solely or largely children’s foods (McGarry and Shackleton 2009a). Some children engage in collection and sale of wild foods to earn income for themselves or their families (Challe and Price 2009; McGarry and Shackleton 2009a). Children’s use of wild foods is often just part of the family’s broader food procurement strategies (Setalaphruk and Price 2007; Sylvester et al. 2016). But in some instances, such as child-headed households, or where parents are migrant labourers for long periods, or too infirm or elderly to farm or generate income, children may play a leading role in sourcing wild foods (Setalaphruk and Price 2007; Challe and Price 2009; McGarry and Shackleton 2009a). This is particularly common in areas with high HIV/AIDS rates.

Rural Malawi typifies many of these dynamics, which have impacts on local and national strategies to attain food security. Much of rural Malawi has high human population densities, underlying increasing needs for land for agriculture and high reliance on forest products (Kamanga et al. 2009; Timko 2013). Clearing land for subsistence and cash crop agriculture is a major driver of deforestation, with Malawi having one of the highest deforestation rates in sub-Saharan Africa, approximately 2.5% p.a. (Fisher et al. 2010; Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources 2010). Deforestation potentially reduces the supply of wild foods. For example, Maliro and Kwapata (2002) report how the richness and abundance of wild fruit trees declined with deforestation in southern Malawi. Simultaneously, Malawi has suffered high rates of HIV/AIDS, which have debilitated the labour supply in many households and increased dependence on forest resources (Timko 2013).

In Malawi, food security is typically seen as equivalent to adequate production of maize, the country’s staple accounting for more than 60% of total food production (Ecker and Qaim 2010). Standardised surveys indicate that the diets of Malawians are poorly diversified, with over 60% of total food consumption consisting of starchy food, primarily maize (Ecker and Qaim 2010; Chilimba et al. 2012), although few surveys have explicitly included wild foods. Undernourishment affects approximately 3.5 million people (one in five) (FAOSTAT 2017), 37% of children under the age of five are stunted, 3% are wasted, and 12% are underweight (Chirwa and Ngalawa 2008; Government of Malawi 2016). The situation is exacerbated by the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS (Department of Nutrition, HIV and AIDS 2009), and the high incidence of poverty. With such worrisome statistics attaining food security is a concern for policy-makers, health practitioners, and agriculturalists and yet strategies remain focused on promoting the availability of staple foods (Mazunda and Droppelmann 2012; Kerr et al. 2016) with a clear neglect of micronutrient sources.

Within this context, we present here a study of wild food procurement and consumption by children in four villages of differing deforestation status in southern Malawi. Specifically, we sought to answer the following questions: (1) What wild foods are used by children? (2) What is the frequency of consumption of wild foods by children? (3) What are the reasons children consume wild foods? And (4) are these patterns influenced by local level deforestation status?

Our study focused specifically on children. Harvesting of wild foods by adults has been covered in several studies (Cavendish 2000; Vaughan 2007; Shackleton and Gumbo 2010; Paumgarten and Shacketon 2009; Heubach et al. 2011; Maroyi 2011); however, research on harvesting of wild foods by children is limited. Children have usually been ignored in rural environmental research despite being a significant user group and are invisible actors in this field of research (Challe and Price 2009; McGarry and Shackleton 2009a; Alexander et al. 2015). In this regard, children’s consumption of wild foods in their environments and during play (Campbell 1987; Garcia 2006), or as snacks and meals, is hardly quantified and explored despite the awareness that these foods may contribute significantly to their well-being (Lowore 2006; McGarry and Shackleton 2009a). We address this knowledge gap by focusing on children’s as opposed to adults’ harvesting activities.

Among the four villages (Makombe, Kasonga, Mtuluma, and Mpheta; Table 1), Kasonga has higher number of households who are better off compared to the rest, and Mpheta has the least number of better off households. Economic activities vary, but agriculture is the dominant occupation in all four sites.

The mean annual rainfall in Zomba is 2000 mm, making it one of the wettest and agriculturally rich locations in Malawi (Ngongondo 2006). The economy of Zomba district is agro-based, with maize for subsistence and sale being the most common crop, along with tobacco as a cash crop in some areas (Zomba District Assembly 2009). Other common crops include rice, cassava, potatoes, beans, and pigeon peas. Livestock production is mainly for subsistence, based on cattle, goats, pigs and poultry (Zomba District Assembly 2009). The population density within the district is approximately 231 persons per km². Formal employment is limited, and 24% of adult males and 28% of females in the district are illiterate (UN-HABITAT 2011).

A mixed methods approach was adopted in each village, using a combination of household 24-h dietary recall surveys, participatory methods, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions. Standard 24 h recall methods were used to ascertain the number of meals eaten per day, the Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) and the Individual Dietary Diversity Score (IDDS) (Swindale and Bilinsky 2006; FAO 2011). The person responsible for food preparation in the household, most commonly the mother or adolescent girls, was interviewed to provide details of all foods prepared in the household in the last 24 h. These interviews were held firstly in the months of January and February during what are regarded as the end of the food insecure period and secondly in the months of March to April during periods of food security. Foods consumed were coded according to a set of 12 food groups and the HDDS calculated.

The participatory approaches included food diaries and transect walks with children in each village. After ethics approval was granted via Rhodes University and permission was granted for the work by each local village authority and the parents, 150 children (8–18 years old) were selected using a stratified sample across the four villages. Accounting for the different number of households in each village, every fourth house in Mphetha was sampled, every third one in Kasonga and Makombe, and every second one in Mtuluma. Each child within the target age cohort in a sample household was provided with an interactive food diary that they were encouraged to complete on a daily basis for two one-week periods. The first week was in February 2013 and the second in late April 2013, to represent food insecure and food secure periods, respectively. The purpose of the diary was explained to all members of the household and instructions and trial runs were conducted for each household individually. A local assistant from each village was also trained and helped to encourage and motivate completion of the diaries by visiting households every 1–2 days. Data on relative socioeconomic status of each household were available from the larger ASSETS study.

Transect walks were conducted with one or two groups of 3–8 children in each village. The route of each transect walk was planned to cover as many of the vegetation types and land use areas in and around each village as possible. Walks lasted between two and three hours in the afternoons (after school in the mornings). However, several female participants opted out partway through and so were not present for the entire walk. During the walk participants pointed out wild plants and animals that they consume, provided the local name and general information about the species, and how they catch or collect it and eat it. Samples of identified plants were collected for formal identification at the National Herbarium and Botanical Gardens in Zomba. The identification of wild animal species was done through local experts and desk research. The identification of birds was done with the help of the Bird Hunter’s Association from Mpheta. The transect walks could only reveal the species available at that time and would not account for wild species collected in other seasons. In a few instances wild foods named by children could not be validated by community members or experts. For instance, bird names such as daniele and sisisi were only used by children and identification of these species could not be done. Meanwhile, plants such as lububa (Rumex abysinicus) were only known to children and not adults in the village, but could be identified by experts through the samples collected.

Focus group discussions were also conducted at each village. These consisted of general discussions and activities around wild foods with at least two groups comprising 8–15 children. Prior to the general discussion, each child was asked to list as many wild foods as they could within a three minute period. Thereafter, groups were separated by gender and open discussions were held about wild foods, where they are found, how they are accessed, and general attitudes towards them.

Quantitative data collected from the field were entered in Excel and imported into SPSS for analysis. Comparisons of continuous variables between villages were done via ANOVA, and between food secure and food insecure periods via a t-test. Proportion data were compared using a Chi-Squared test.

The gathering and consumption of wild foods are highly diverse activities with respect to species harvested, locations, purposes, preferences, and collection habits. Gathering ranges from infrequent and ad hoc collection during the course of other activities, through to purposeful and extensive collection for the household table or for sale to earn income. As such, it was influenced by a number of factors, including food security of the household (children gathered more during food insecure periods), convenience of gathering, availability, alternatives, and personal attributes such as age and taste preferences. It is clear that this diversity requires greater investigation and disaggregation. The most important would be to understand contextual factors because they are shaped by broader social and economic influences and decisions that may unwittingly affect food availability; for example deforestation.

Social connections are important for wild food gathering practices, as children often learn from their elders and peers about locations to gather and the different varieties of wild foods. As reported elsewhere (Challe and Price 2009), children often accompany elders to gather wild foods and are taught about particular wild food species and their cultural significance (if any). Forty-three per cent of children indicated that they learned of wild foods from their mothers while 24% acquired this knowledge from their grandparents. Peer-group learning was also extensive as children frequently play in and explore local environments in groups.

Our study reveals the low dietary diversity of households and children in the four villages, with HDDS being below four in all but one instance, and IDDS mostly below five. Narratives from the children’s food diaries and focus groups corroborated this, with a standard meal being nsima (maize porridge) with or without a side relish. Consequently, consumption of wild foods adds significantly to dietary diversity. On a 24-h recall basis, 23% of participants had consumed wild foods. When measured over a full week, 82% had consumed wild food, and when asked about consumption frequencies of a full year every child reported that they eat wild foods. Thus, dietary diversity is increased through the consumption of wild foods, which likely contributes positively to higher nutrient adequacy and nutrient density across multiple nutrients (Powell et al. 2011). A wide diversity of wild food species were identified by the children, totaling 119 different species, ranging from 44 to 59 across the four villages. We view these as conservative counts as the surveys and transect walks did not span all seasons of the year. The two villages currently with the highest forest cover had the highest number of wild food species listed by children and the highest diversity (Shannon-Weiner index), and the two with the least forest cover had the lowest total number and diversity, corroborating the findings of Ickowitz et al. (2013). Wild fruit comprised the largest number of species (39), followed by birds (24) and wild vegetables (19). However, the proportional contributions of different wild food types were not uniform across the four villages. The proximity of Kasonga to the Zomba forest reserve may have contributed to the greater number of animal wild foods there. Likewise, we interpret the large number of bird species listed for Mpheta to be a reflection of it being adjacent to Lake Chilwa, which supports large populations of resident and migratory water birds (Mgoola 2007). The two villages with the highest tree cover tended to have more bushmeat and fruit species, whereas the two with the least forest cover had the most vegetable species, suggesting that the effects of deforestation were not uniform across wild food types.

Although the DDS were higher in the FS period than the FI, we found no difference in the incidence of wild food consumption between these two periods, except in Mpheta, where very few species were listed during the food insecure period. Previous research in other southern African countries has revealed differential use and dependence on wild foods during different seasons and in response to food scarcity and periods of household shock (Hunter et al. 2007; McGarry and Shackleton 2009b; Chidumayo and Marunda 2010; Ncube et al. 2016). In Malawi, Fisher et al. (2010) report that forest dependent communities made up to five times greater use of forest resources, including wild foods, during climate related shocks, such as droughts. Of the foods consumed only during famine periods, 25% are wild foods, and mpama, a drought resistant forest yam, is often used (Fisher et al. 2010). Our finding that wild food consumption is no different during the FS and the FI periods may be a reflection of the seasonal availability of some species and/or different needs of household labour in those seasons.

The main reasons children gave for consuming wild foods were good health and nutrition. The respondents indicated that wild foods supplement their diet, prevent diseases, provide energy, and provide proteins and vitamins. However, this study could not determine if this knowledge affects their selection and use of wild food and their overall interest them. There is sufficient information on the superior nutritional value of selected wild foods (Campbell 1987; Grivetti and Ogle 2000; Kajembe et al. 2000). Such information is, however, available for only a few common species, while the nutritional value of many species remains unknown (Ruffo et al. 2002). In addition, children described certain wild foods, especially protein sources such as bushmeat and insects, as delicacies and highly sought after. Knowledge of the health benefits of wild foods could lead to increased consumption of wild foods with concomitant improved nutritional outcomes (Cordeiro 2012).

The importance of wild foods to children (and households) was further demonstrated through one-third of the children reporting at times selling wild foods on local markets and to tourists, and this activity is more common amongst poorer households. Local trade in wild foods has been extensively reported in southern Africa, although rarely acknowledged or aided by authorities. Participation of children in such trade has been noted in other studies (Shackleton 2004; Challe and Price 2009; McGarry and Shackleton 2009a), but the real extent and financial benefits to children and their households have not been systematically investigated.

Most households in the four villages have diets of low diversity, dominated by maize porridge dishes. Much of this diversity is provided by wild foods, of which a large number of species are consumed across a range of food types. Children actively participate in the collection and hunting of wild foods, their consumption and trade. The differences according to deforestation status were not marked, with children making use of what wild resources were suited to the local habitats. However, use of larger wild game species and wild fruit was reduced in areas with low forest cover. Small game, insects, some wild fruits and wild vegetables thrive well in agro-ecosystems and therefore were minimally affected by deforestation but rather by management practices of those systems, and their abundance can possibly be improved through the promotion of agro-ecological farming systems.