Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa - PROFOR

TABLE 4.1. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN MIOMBO MANAGEMENT
APPROACH POTENTIAL IMPACTS CONSTRAINTS AND DRAWBACKS
Devolving rights and
responsibilities for
woodland management to
the local level
When devolution is complete,
the first outcome
is often, effectively,
closure and woodland
regeneration. There can be
strong local redistributive
impacts.
Closure creates winners and losers; objections of other stakeholders
may limit potential; strong need for conflict management
mechanisms in socially and economically heterogeneous
communities.
Policy and legislation may not be conducive to devolution; forestry
may not have a high enough profile to bring about policy change or
the budgets needed to accomplish devolution.
Local capacity for woodland management may be weak.
National institutions may have limited ability to work with communities
to provide guidance.
Incomplete devolution can create opportunities for elite capture
and political interference.
Low margins and few markets for woodland products may give
limited incentives to improve management
Organizing transfer payments
to individuals and
communities in exchange
for providing environmental
services
Increasing the value of
woodland production
through market development
can create increased
value-addition and new
products.
Well-designed schemes
reduce the incentive
for land clearance and
overexploitation of miombo
resources, and can encourage
regeneration. Can
contribute to household
income and reduce impact
of shocks from ill-health
and environment stress.
Generates higher incomes
for poor rural households,
and increases the incentive
to better manage
woodlands for multiple
outputs.
Markets for environmental services are poorly developed.
Leakage: reduced exploitation in one area may simply shift
exploitation to another area.
Need to integrate PES schemes with a range of other servicedelivery
investments.
Weak local and national capacity for working with communities in
meeting these particular objectives.
Policies and legislation may not support these types of
interventions.
Significant market development requires investment capital.
When lucrative markets are developed for miombo products, raw
material oversupply can limit household revenue potential
When rights to resources are unclear, elite capture can threaten
the viability of value-added schemes
Government is poorly placed to aid in product-specific market
development, but can focus on wider policy and legal framework to
encourage forest-based SMEs.
Private sector with the capacity for market development is thin.
Limited local marketing channels for new products require
institutional investments that may be beyond the capacity of the
private sector.
Forest policy and legislation may prohibit the sale of forest
products outside of the conventional regulatory regime.
Trade-offs between extractive and consumption management
options are likely, which will require mediation and conflict
management.
56 MANAGING THE MIOMBO WOODLANDS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA