Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa - PROFOR

3
DIAGNOSIS: WHY IS MIOMBO NOT BETTER MANAGED
The many opportunities for expanding the use and management of miombo to meet specifi c
market demands and reduce rural poverty pose a compelling question: Why is miombo so poorly
managed What is causing its degradation, and why have institutions and organizations not been
able to effectively respond to the pressures being placed on it
The barriers that are preventing miombo from being better managed can be characterized in four ways:
• First, biophysical barriers, which can simply refl ect the limits posed by ecology for improving
productivity;
• Second, there are clear policy barriers which can be tackled by governments, but which are
preventing better management of miombo;
• Third, economic barriers can limit the incentives for improving management; and
• Last, the capacity for managing miombo is sometimes hobbled by both organizational and
institutional barriers.
3.1 BIOPHYSICAL BARRIERS TO SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF MIOMBO
The inherently low productivity of miombo and the problem of managing it for the production of
multiple products pose some of the most important biophysical barriers to its sustainable management.
Low inherent productivity
Limited research has been done on miombo productivity, but the available data suggest that
productivity is low. This is because miombo woodlands are located on some of the poorest soils in
some of the driest regions Africa.
Frost (1996) has compiled available yield data. Dry miombo coppice plots in Zambia had yields
of about 2 m³ per ha per year. In some of the best remaining miombo in Africa, Marzoli (2007)
estimated yields (in Mozambique) ranged from 2.0 to 4.8 m 3 per ha per year for all species. Lower
yields were found in open woodlands in drier regions, while higher yields came from wet miombo
woodlands of northern Mozambique. In Tanzania, Misana et al. (2005) estimated yields of 2.3
m 3 per ha per year from regrowth of miombo woodland, suggesting that it takes 8 to 15 years for
degraded woodlands to recover for charcoal production. 16 Although growth is slow, strong coppicing
occurs, so coppice management is possible (Luoga et al. 2004). Indeed, miombo regenerates
relatively easily. Provided that miombo is not permanently converted to farmland, regeneration
can be robust and requires relatively few silvicultural interventions. Caro et al. (2005), however,
16 Providing that trees are allowed to grow to a minimum size of greater than 10 cm dbh (diameter at breast height)
before burning to charcoal.
POLICIES, INCENTIVES, AND OPTIONS FOR THE RURAL POOR
35