Anda di halaman 1dari 15



in collaboration with IRINGA DISTRICT COUNCIL

Matumizi Bora ya Malihai Idodi na Pawaga
Sustainable Use of Wild Resources in Idodi and Pawaga

19-22 MAY 1999

Report No.MVR1
May 1999


Kate Forrester Kibuga (ed.), consultant

Dorothy Bikurakule, MBOMIPA Project
A. D. Longo, District Game Office
Jackson J. Mackoba, District Fisheries Office
J. J. Mchomvu, District Forestry Office
Venance Mwaikambo, District Community Development Office
T. N. Mwampashe, District Forestry Office
Elisabeth Ng’unga, District Community Development Office
Hassan Zayumba, District Agriculture Office

Iringa District Natural Resources Office
P.O.Box 398
Tel: 061-702686; Fax: 061-702807










Comments on the process 11

Recommendations for next time 12


maps and diagrams are not included in this draft pdf version



Mafuluto is a village of farmers and livestock keepers with a diverse tribal mix -
resident tribes include Hehe and Maasai as the original inhabitants (the village
appears to have been colonised for the first time perhaps in the 1950s), Bena and
Gogo as more recent arrivals, and Barabaig and Sukuma as migrant pastoralists
entering the village from time to time. There are five subvillages in the village -
Majengo, Mseketule, Kibuduga, Magoya and Mchepenge - with a total population of
1900 people and 320 households (according to village statistics). The area of the
village is large and the population comparatively small.


There is a large population of livestock in the village, including cattle (indigenous

breeds), goats and sheep. Livestock owners keep the animals in rough kraals during
the night and take them out to graze during the day. The issue of livestock seems to
be a priority problem, although the people often did not state it as such (when asked
what their problems are they don’t necessarily come up with it, but in discussions it
comes out as one of the most prominent problem areas). The livestock keepers can be
divided roughly into two groups - the local settled ones who are permanently present,
and the migrant pastoralists who come and go. All agree that the number of livestock
in the village has decreased in the last few years, due mainly to the combined effects
of drought and disease (see timechart - diagram 2).

Four main problems concerning livestock were brought up:

1. Grazing areas

There is no specific area set aside for grazing in the village, although some said that in
the past there was. This leads to conflict, as livestock keepers herd their cattle over
people’s fields, causing both damage to growing crops (punishable by a fine) and
damage to the condition of the field itself, through compaction and erosion because of
the constant passage of the animals - fallowed fields are particularly prone to damage.

The difficulties of finding suitable grazing for livestock have increased in recent years
because of the drought - there is not enough rain to produce enough green material to
sustain the herds throughout the dry season. Some livestock keepers say that they
have been forced even to leave the village for several months to seek better pasture in
other villages, e.g. Kiponzelo to the south. Other livestock keepers say that they used
to graze their cattle in the area which is now Lunda, which was ideal since they had
access to the Great Ruaha river for watering the animals. Now they are not able to

make such use of that area to the west of the village, since any water sources are

2. Migrant pastoralists

No one had a good word for these people. Local people say that in the years when the
pasture is good, and sufficient for village use, the Sukuma and Barabaig pastoralists
come in and use it up. Once it is finished, they move on. At the moment they are not
present in Mafuluto, because of the drought. If there are plans for setting aside
grazing areas, they are ignored by these pastoralists. There does not seem to be a
functioning system to control their entry - they come with permits, but these permits
are issued by villages which they are leaving, and they are not constrained to seek
permits from the villages they are entering. Some people said that the village
government doesn’t listen to their own people on this issue, and deliberately let
migrants in, since they are only interested in the amount they can tax them, rather than
the effects they are having on the village. Another complaint about these migrants
was that their cattle bring in diseases which are not present in the village. A recent
example is CBPP (contagious bovine pleuro-pneumonia) which has been brought
down from Dodoma, ostensibly by itinerant pastoralists.

3. Theft

People complain that many of their cattle are stolen. They point the finger at two sets
of people - the inhabitants of Kipera, a local village, and the resident Maasai. People
from Kipera are notorious for being bandits and poachers who make frequent raids on
Mafuluto - their main target is game, but if they fail to poach any game, they console
themselves with local cattle. They come in large groups of 40-50 so it is very difficult
to do anything about them.

The Maasai have a belief that all cattle on earth inalienably belong to them (and this
was confirmed in discussions with a group of Maasai and other livestock keepers) and
that anyone else who has cattle is just borrowing them, thus the Maasai have the
perfect right to go and reclaim their legitimate property at any time. The Maasai
themselves explained that they have a system of inviting other members of their tribe
from Pawaga division to whom they explain the location and movements of cattle
belonging to Hehe or Gogo people - it is thus easy for raids to be planned and
executed. The system of invitations is reciprocal, and Mafuluto Maasai go to Pawaga
to avail themselves of cattle there.

4. Disease

There are many diseases prevalent which have apparently decimated the numbers of
livestock (though there still seem to be an awful lot of them around....). These
diseases are either new and unknown ones brought in by migrant pastoralists who
make no effort to control any disease amongst their herds, or familiar diseases which
they are no longer able to treat, since the number of vets has decreased in recent years,
and medicine which used to be freely available is now expensive and can only be
purchased in distant Iringa.

People’s suggestions to combat these problems

 most groups thought that specific areas should be set aside for grazing livestock
(see maps 4 for suggestions). Many groups complained about the damage
livestock do to fields, then it turned out that they themselves are both farmers and
livestock keepers.... so the solution was very much in their hands, for them to
come up with a solution.
 a systematic scheme of taxation should be worked out so that a tax is levied on
migrant pastoralists in every village they pass through
 a strict register of all livestock owners should be established in the village, so that
if anyone comes into the village with livestock, it is immediately obvious that they
are newcomers. A system of control should be worked out as to how much
grazing the village pasture can take, and the number of migrants controlled
accordingly. Villagers should be encouraged to report any newcomers sighted on
village land.
 all migrant pastoralists wanting to come into the village area should have
vaccination certificates for their livestock.
 the sungusungu should be resurrected (but carefully controlled) to cope with thefts
of livestock
 a fund is in the process of being established, paid into by livestock keepers, which
they can draw on if their livestock are stolen. The delay caused by the victim
rushing around to find money before setting out in pursuit is often enough to
guarantee that the thieves will get away unapprehended. If money were readily
and quickly available, more livestock would be recovered.

One important point was that many livestock keepers did not see that their herds
damage the environment. They were quick to blame farmers, particularly shifting
cultivators, and honey hunters and hunters themselves, for setting the forests on fire,
but saw themselves as living in blameless harmony with the environment.


The main crops grown in Mafuluto are maize, sorghum, rice in an irrigated valley,
and occasionally groundnuts. Local types of maize and sorghum are planted. Many
people cultivate rice for sale, and with the proceeds they buy maize, since they say
that you can’t live all year on rice. There is no shortage of land as yet, and each
household has as much land as it needs. The system of farming is largely shifting
cultivation. Many farmers said that they rotate the use of fields within their own area
of land, slashing and burning a field, using it for about two years, then leaving it
fallow for 7-8 years before returning to it. Other people said that some farmers just
cut areas out of the forest wherever they feel like it, and indeed from the place where
we were talking, we could see a huge swathe of forest had been cut down on a steep
hillside. Farmers say that in five years, if forest is left to regrow, it is impossible to
tell the difference between the original forest and the area which has been cut, so they
don’t really see that the issue is a problem (see problem ranking diagram 5). Nobody
uses manure on their fields, and they say that because of the system of shifting
cultivation, declining fertility isn’t a problem.

The biggest problem mentioned by everyone was that of drought, which brings with it
hunger (see problem ranking diagram 5). This year has been particularly bad, but the
previous five years (with the exception of last year’s El Niño effects) have all been
much drier than previously. Most do not link the drought with the destruction of the
forests, since they still see that there is a huge forested area within their village.

The other big issue to come out of discussions on agriculture was the irrigated area
where people grow rice. An irrigation ditch was dug in 1973, bringing water from the
Little Ruaha to a large valley. The water was originally used to irrigate areas for
growing potatoes and vegetables during the dry season, but in the early nineties,
seeing the example of neighbouring villages, people began to see the possibilities
inherent in the cultivation of rice during the rainy season. Production is reportedly
good, although some say that fertility has declined and where previously 17 bags were
harvested per acre, now it is more like 9-12. We saw many sacks of rice awaiting
transportation to market in Iringa. However, this area is apparently not big enough for
everyone in the village to have an area for themselves, and many people complained
that some farmers have huge areas while many others have none at all. The farmers
with the large areas often rent out smaller areas to other farmers, but the rent can be as
much as 30,000/-, which is beyond the means of young people just starting out in life.
It also happens that the big farmers don’t even live in the village - they may have
migrated to Iringa town - and they often leave large areas without cultivating them at
all (e.g. one has 10 acres but only cultivates 3), which rankles with the local people.
There is another valley which would be ideal for rice cultivation, and in the past the
people have made attempts to dig a ditch to take the water there, but they have always
come up against a large area of solid rock, through which they have failed to dig.
This rock is seen as the key obstacle in ensuring food security in Mafuluto (see
diagram 6 - map).

The gender patterns of land ownership follow those of most of Tanzania, i.e. that
women do not own land, and although they farm their husbands’ field, and sometimes
even have a field allotted for their own use, they have no power of decision making
over the land. A very few women are reported to have bought their own fields, and in
this case they have full control over them.

Suggested solutions to problems

 experts should be brought in to survey the rock obstructing the proposed irrigation
ditch, then it could be dynamited, a pipe or channel constructed over the gully,
then the water could flow freely into the next valley, and everyone would have an
area in which to cultivate rice.
 land in the present valley should be redistributed to those living in the village who
need it. Alternatively, heavy taxes should be imposed on those with large areas of
land, which might have the effect of encouraging some to give land up
 drought resistant or early maturing strains (90 days) of crops (sorghum and maize)
should be publicised and made readily available.
 farmers should be encouraged to plough their fields with cattle (of which there is
no shortage...) rather than practising the zero tillage method which many do at the
moment, which is easier and less labour intensive. A ploughed field retains its
fertility for up to 10 years, whereas zero tillage ensures that the fertility will have

declined after only 2-3 years. Moisture retention is also greater in a ploughed
field. (this was a suggestion by the agricultural extension worker)
 people should gradually stop practising shifting cultivation, and should start to use
the large amounts of animal manure available to maintain the fertility of a
permanent field.


The area of natural woodland in Mafuluto is extensive, and as yet, there have been no
outside disturbances in the form of tobacco farmers cutting firewood for tobacco
curing, charcoal burning for sale in town or commercial timber felling. Women say
they use the forest for collecting firewood, for building poles, and they say that roots
and fruit help greatly in times of hunger.

Few people see that there are any problems connected with this issue. Women admit
that in the recent past they could collect firewood virtually from their doorsteps, but
that now a two hour round trip to the hills on the margins of the village is necessary,
however, they do not see that this is a major problem, since the amount of firewood
available in these areas is more than sufficient for their needs. The increase in
distance required to collect firewood is as a result of an influx of people in recent
years all of whom have cleared areas out of the forest for fields. Many people have
come down from Dodoma with their cattle, forced out by drought, more have
migrated from Njombe where there is considerable pressure on land, and in the 1960s
the population of the national park and the game controlled area was moved out, and
some came to settle in Mafuluto. Women say that they go to collect firewood on
average once every two days or so, but if they go with their children, they can come
back with enough to last for a week. They never cut live wood, and claim that it
wouldn’t burn, not even if they left it for months to dry. When asked to make
projections about the future of the forest, most women said they had no idea. Some
suggested that it would disappear, but that this would be because of the drought, and it
would just dry up, or because of overgrazing by livestock. Overuse was not
considered to be a problem. Some mentioned that forest fires were a problem, set by
honey hunters, or ordinary hunters.

Planting trees is not something that the people in this village do, but several people
mentioned that they liked the planted trees at the school (Senna siamea, Melea
azadirach) and would be interested in planting trees for use as poles, or for medicine
in the case of neem. One group of older men said that in the past there had been a sort
of forest reserve alongside the Little Ruaha river, but that its status had lapsed.

Suggested solutions

Since the issue of the forest was not really considered to be problematic, there were
few solutions put forward:

 limit the practice of shifting cultivation

 clearly demarcate village areas, so people don’t farm in forest areas, nor bring
livestock in to graze.

 revive the forest reserve to protect the banks of the Little Ruaha, but make it a
sustainably managed forest, rather than a reserve with no access for anyone.


Mafuluto has a large area of hifadhi within its boundaries (?) adjacent to the Great
Ruaha river. Much wildlife is reportedly present, although numbers have declined
greatly since the village was first settled (see timechart - diagram 2). People were
vehement that the presence of wildlife on their land was a boon, since it afforded them
access to a lucrative source of income from selling hunting quotas, which
subsequently was used for village projects such as rebuilding the school, building a
dispensary, even providing bus fares for village officials to go to town on village
business. Some regrets were voiced for the loss of an important grazing area, and
requests were made that livestock at least should be given access to the Great Ruaha
for watering. Two main issues came up on this topic - that of destructive animals
coming into the village area, and that of poaching.

Some people complained that animals come out of the hifadhi to raid their fields,
especially kwale, guinea fowl, baboons, wild pigs, and hippos. However, apart from
the case of hippos, it seemed to be a problem which could be kept under control by
guarding the fields at risky times. A couple of women even suggested that their diets
were occasionally supplemented by a nice bit of meat, as a result of animals coming
onto their fields...

A big problem is poaching - people say that the inhabitants of Mafuluto do not poach,
and it is large bands of poachers who come from the neighbouring village of Kipera.
There are so many of them, and they are well armed with sophisticated weapons, so
the village scouts are no match for them. There were even stories of the scouts being
taken hostage by the poachers and forced to carry the meat from the poached animals
for them. Raids have been made on Kipera village, and the problem then declines, but
after a pause, it starts again.

Suggested solutions

 scouts need better means of communication e.g. short wave radio, so that if they
spot a large group of poachers, they can communicate with other scouts, Ruaha
National Park people, etc.
 scouts should have guns...


There were several points of conflict mentioned within the village, but it does not
seem that there is anything very serious.

 conflict between livestock keepers and farmers - since these are often the same
people, it should be relatively easy to solve. What is more difficult is the conflict
between migrant pastoralists and residents

 there is a boundary dispute between Mafuluto and Pawaga division to the north of
the village. However, it is not well known, and some said it was only some petty
wrangling between a couple of livestock keepers.
 many people were disapproving of the way the village government carried out
their job. They say they don’t listen to the people, and they have no leadership
skills, and their actions (or inaction...) are often the cause of village problems (see
chapati diagram 6)
 there is some tribal friction e.g. Maasai vs other livestock keepers due to their
penchant for thieving cattle; other tribes vs Bena, since they are seen as the most
fortunate members of the community, e.g. they are the main landowners of the
irrigated area, the village chairman is a Bena; resident tribes vs. Sukuma and
Barabaig pastoralists


This is a major problem in the village. A gravity scheme was installed in the early
1990s (?) but it no longer functions. There does not seem to be any particular reason
why it should not start to function again, except that the scheme attendant refuses to
mend it since he is no longer paid an allowance. He is not paid, since people have not
paid their contributions to the scheme. A group of women in Majengo said that they
were ready to pay (although there was disagreement to whether the rate was 200/- or
500/- per year, evidence that the whole system is badly run) but that they were
annoyed that people from Mseketula come to collect water from their water points,
and refuse to pay the contribution. Mseketula people have a water point, but it
doesn’t work, so they don't see why they should pay. When accused of collecting
water from Majengo water points, they say they collect it from the river. So Majengo
women don’t see why they should subsidise Mseketula women, so they have refused
to pay too, thus the whole system has collapsed. Women now go to collect water
from the Mloa river, which dries up in about July, then they have to dig for water.
Women in Kibuduga complain that they participated in digging the trenches for the
water system, and an engineer came to survey their village to place a water point, but
it was never built. Many meetings have been held, but no solution reached. People
blame the village government for not sorting a comparatively simple problem out, and
also for not motivating the water committee to get on with its work. The water
committee itself apparently does nothing, and people also commented that there is
only one woman (out of six) on the committee, and men are not as committed as
women to having a dependable water supply. Several effects of not having a proper
water system were mentioned: during the dry season water becomes a real problem,
children at school (where there is a water point) go thirsty, or are forced to drink
contaminated water, it is hard work and even dangerous digging deep pits in the river
bed when the water dries up, and there is a danger of outbreaks of diseases like
cholera and dysentery.


People are generally pleased with the school and are happy to see the improvements
to it, care of the hunting quota - everyone knows where the money is coming from.
However, Kibuduga residents say that during the rainy season, it is impossible for

their children to cross the Mloa river to reach the school, and they cannot rejoin their
classes until the waters have subsided.

The story of the dispensary is less happy. People say that an mzungu came to build a
dispensary on the Kibuduga side of the river Mloa (since the lorry with the drugs
wouldn’t be able to cross the river during the rainy season to supply the dispensary if
it was built on the other side). Villagers made bricks in preparation, but then the local
MP came with iron sheeting and promises of more help, and apparently the village
chairman decided he would be a better bet than the mzungu. They started building a
dispensary in Majengo, but then the project collapsed and no one knows when they
will get their dispensary. The mzungu went off to Pawaga where a dispensary was
built and is already in use. People use this as an example to show how useless their
village government is.

There does not appear to be a council of elders in the village, but instead there is a
council located at ward level, whose job it is to solve minor problems such as fining
people for allowing their cattle onto fields, petty theft, interfamilial disputes, fights,


The team working in Mafuluto consisted of nine people, as follows:

Dorothy Bikurakule MBOMIPA Project

Kate Forrester Kibuga consultant
J. J. Mchomvu District Forestry Officer
Jackson J. Mackoba Fisheries Officer
Venance Mwaikambo CDA, Idodi division
Elisabeth Ng’unga CDA, Mlowa ward
A. D. Longo Game Assistant, Idodi division
Hassan Zayumba Divisional Ag./Livestock Officer
T. N. Mwampashe Divisional Forestry Officer

The calendar of the village activities was as follows:

19th May Drove to Mafuluto

Met village government representatives and members of the natural
resources committee. We explained why we were there, and that we
wanted the natural resources committee to work with us for the four
days that we would be in the village.

Group discussions with village government, natural resources

committee members and some inhabitants of Majengo subvillage in
three groups:

 village government drew a map

 women drew a seasonal calendar
 men drew a map

Every evening when we returned to our lodgings (in Nzihi village) we

sat together as a team and discussed what we had learnt that day, which
seemed to be the important issues emerging, the direction of the next
day’s work, including any issues that needed following up, and how to
deal with any problems which may have occurred.

20th May Meetings and discussions with people from Majengo and Mseketula
sub-villages (no one from Mseketula turned up) in three groups:

 women drew a map

 young men discussed problems affecting the village and
their lives
 older men drew a time chart

We were not able to continue with our discussions later, since it was
market day (mnada) in the next village and many people were planning
to attend it. So we decided to go ourselves, at least to observe another
aspect of village life.

21st May Meetings and discussions with people of Kibuduga and Magoya
subvillages, in three groups:

 women drew a map and a chapati diagram

 men problem ranking
 livestock keepers (mostly Maasai from Magoya subvillage)
drew a time chart

In the afternoon, we went to see the famous ‘stone’ we had heard so

much about (blocking the development of an irrigation ditch) and the
area of irrigation for rice cultivation

22nd May Meeting with the village government and natural resources committee
to review the issues which had come up over the previous three days,
and to make the village action plan (see table at end). We began by
eliciting the important issues from the group, which were as follows:

 irrigation channel
 poaching and guards
 wild animals
 livestock thieves
 unplanned cutting down of the forest
 fast maturing seeds
 destructive animals
 migrant pastoralists
 tree planting
 land tenure
 boundary disputes

These issues were clustered into the following categories, which then
became the basis for making the plans:

 land use
 wild animals

We had to explain that since we were concerned with land use

planning, important issues such as the water system could not be
included in our plan, but there was nothing to stop them making their
own plans to solve these problems.

We then held a public meeting to present the plan to the community,

and to invite comments and criticisms. The public meeting was

opened by Mr. Mwenda, the chairman, and facilitated by Mr.

Return to Iringa/Idodi village.

Comments on the process

In general, the process went well, and the methods were effective. We also felt that
we had enough time to understand the main issues at stake and the most pressing
problems. People responded well to the PRA methods and diagrams, and we got
plenty of information, and found that people were ready to analyse their problems and
try to come up with solutions.

The only day when we really ran into problems was on the last day. This was chiefly
caused by lack of time, as we were late starting the first meeting, which meant we
were very late starting the public meeting, and as a result felt rushed. We realise now
that it would have been better to hold the village government/natural resource
committee meeting on the previous afternoon.

We should have planned the facilitation more tightly to ensure everyone had the
opportunity to make contributions, rather than those who felt confident enough to
speak in front of a large group. We also realised that we should have emphasised at
the beginning that the whole point of the natural resource committee coming round
with us was to listen to people’s problems and feed them into the final meeting. In
this instance, they were just coming out with issues which they themselves felt were

The listing of problems was to an extent ‘facipulated’ (facilitated in a manipulative

way) with us mainly imposing our pre-prepared list. This is a problem, and perhaps if
we had had more time and had briefed the natural resources committee better, we
would have been more successful in eliciting the issues, since these issues needed
bringing out and had been repeatedly brought out in all our discussions in the village.
The planning of the action plan was even more ‘facipulated’ with mostly us and
occasionally a couple of members of the village government contributing suggestions.
The follow up duties sometimes went to outsiders, unknown to the community, with
the result that control of some aspects of the situation was taken from the village and
specially from the natural resources committee, who should be central players in these

There should have been a more detailed level of planning, e.g. the setting aside of
land between forest, agriculture, livestock, etc. use. In the plan it was agreed that a
plan should be made by the village government and the community service and self-
reliance committee. We could have gone one step further by sketching out possible
areas (after all, we had been listening to people’s views on this matter and asking for
their suggestions) and left it with the implementers to check out the areas for
suitability (water sources, gullies, erosion, etc.) and draw up the final plan. In
addition, none of the implementers had taken part in village discussions so they
wouldn’t have anything to draw on. The natural resources committee needs to be
involved much more in these plans.

At the public meeting, to which a sizeable group of people came, a member of the
natural resources committee presented the plan, and the floor was opened, issue by
issue, for questions. There was much lively discussion about several of the points,
particularly the issue of irrigation and division of land, but in general the plan was
approved of. No women could be persuaded to say anything (hence the importance of
talking to them separately on the previous days, to ensure that their views would be

As a final round up, we felt that as the first pilot village, the process had gone well,
many people had been given the opportunity to express their views, a workable plan
has been drawn up, and there is a follow up structure in place. The final day could
have been better, but the CDA has been briefed on how to set right the flaws, and next
time, with better planning and timing, we should be able to improve the process.

Recommendations for next time

 Brief the natural resources committee more thoroughly on what is expected of

them, and emphasise that they will be required to feed what they have heard
during the three days of discussions and meetings into the final planning meeting.
 Hold the village government/natural resource committee meeting on the afternoon
of day 3, and then start the following day with the public meeting. This gives
everyone a chance to go through the process as slowly as is necessary, and
prevents the planning being done in a rush by the team of outsiders.
 In the planning meeting, put participants in small groups to begin with to
brainstorm the issues - this serves the purpose of making the situation less
threatening to people who are not used to this way of working, and of building up
their confidence from the beginning.
 Make sure that as much of the responsibility for the activities to be carried out as
possible remains with people from the community and not with outsiders. If
divisional people are used to implement an activity, the natural resources
committee or village government should be the ones to supervise it.


Activity Who will do it When will it be done Who will supervise it Who will follow up
To dig irrigation ditches in All villagers June-September 1999 M. Mwenda (chairman) Mwaikambo
order to extend the irrigated B. Mwenda (irrigation Ng’unga
area chairman) Zayumba
To distribute land in the Community service and self June 1999 M. Mwenda, D. Toirani Mwaikambo
irrigated area more evenly reliance committee (VEO), E. Meteli Ng’unga
To make available early Zayumba Oct 1999 M. Mwenda, D. Toirani Mwaikambo
maturing seeds and dawa Ng’unga
To bring shifting cultivation Zayumba, July 1999-2000 Mchomvu Natural resources committee
under control Mwampashe Mpwehwe,
Mwaikambo Mbuma
Land use
To set aside areas for different Community service and self- June 1999 M. Mwenda, D. Toirani Zayumba
uses reliance committee Mwampashe
Wild animals
To institute regular patrols Village scouts Continuously Natural resources committee Maliva
To control destructive wild Field owners Continuously Field owners Maliva
animals by guarding fields
To provide education on Zayumba, Mwampashe, July 1999 onwards Natural resources committee Mwaikambo
sustainable management of the Ng’unga
To compile a list of all livestock D. Toirani June 1999 M. Mwenda Zayumba
To provide treatment for and Zayumba, Kilumba Continuously M. Mwenda Mgumba, Ng’unga
prevention of disease