Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa Policies, incentives and options
|
|  Yüklə 2.25 Mb.
|
4ConclusionsTraditionally, because of the low levels of use, high degree of selectivity, high rates of woodland regeneration, and respected and responsive community structures there was little need for conventional silvicultural sustainable yield regulation systems, or other external management interventions in miombo woodlands. In Section 2 we presented a summary of the range of ways in which local users of miombo actively or passively facilitate ongoing supplies of essential products through selective clearing, highly selective harvesting practices, seasonal, cultural and spiritual harvesting controls and a wide range of demand management measures. Studies have shown that woodland use and management practices are highly responsive to resource availability (e.g. Arnold & Dewees 1995, Campbell et al. 2002, Mutamba in prep.), suggesting that in many areas at least, there is still considerable scope to stay within sustainable harvesting limits merely through providing additional support to these practices. The advantages of such an approach are that minimal changes are required and therefore they are therefore more likely to succeed, and they have potential to strengthen local capacity for management through building on existing practices and institutions. There is a growing body of success stories from throughout the region, where local communities have been assisted to improve the management and productivity of their woodlands through small but effective changes to the status quo. It follows that the type of support and intervention required will vary from place to place, and comprise a number of different elements, depending on the specific opportunities that exist there, and key constraints faced. Likewise, a step-wise sequential approach is advocated, beginning with the most obvious and pressing interventions, and progressing to more complex interventions as the situation demands. Where institutional change or support are unlikely or difficult, for example, planting of key tree or non-tree species on land allocated to households, such as in fields and near homes, is likely to be a better option than community-type initiatives. Despite a fairly large body of literature calling for the introduction of conventional silvicultural systems for miombo management (Hofstad 1993, Werren 1995) backed up by technical recommendations from silvicultural systems trials, there are no reports of such practices having being successfully implemented within communal lands, which comprise the bulk of the miombo region. Whilst the principles and techniques of conventional silviculture have much to offer in terms of improvements to current harvesting practices, the application of these to the complex social and multiple use systems that exist within communal lands has yet to be explored. Current models and recommendations are limited to the harvest of a narrow range of wood products, and there are still very little known about multiple harvesting systems, trade-offs, complementarities and sustainable harvesting levels. Research agencies (with a couple of exceptions) seem to be stuck in a narrow technical paradigm focusing on a few resources and have failed to contextualize resource use within dynamic models and understanding of how people actually use and rely upon the miombo for their very existence. We have presented stark number in this report indicating the significance of miombo products to rural livelihoods, which constitute a compelling case for the broadening and reorientation of the silvicultural research agenda in the miombo region. Some illustrative examples include (i) up to one-third of livelihood incomes come directly fro miombo products, (ii) the contribution of GDP to charcoal is almost ten times that derived from commercial high value timber, and (iii) the returns to labour from harvesting and sale of wild fruits are greater than those to either agriculture or livestock husbandry. There are many other examples beyond these, which service as a more than adequate rationale for greater attention to be directed at the full range of miombo products and species and the means to optimise production and reduce negative consequences of trade-offs. There is a need to make the resource users key stakeholders in the research and management processes. Adaptive, participatory research approaches need to become the norm (Sayer & Campbell 2004). The very fact that miombo provides so many goods and services, and in significant amounts, to local livelihoods is also the primary management challenge for both local and government institutions. We have demonstrated above that there are both complementarities as well as competition in the supply of different resources. For example, complementarities include how the provision of construction timber also makes available wood for implement handles and fuelwood; maintenance of trees for fruits in arable fields provides litter as fertiliser; the thinning process resulting from continuous harvests results in faster regrowth rates. On the other hand competition is evident in managing for increased woody cover, which results in decreased forage production; harvests of large rings of bark for bee-hives results in tree mortality meaning other products from that tree cease; burning for fodder production impact on woody plant recruitment. Research and management needs to seek avenues to enhance complementarities and minimise competition. This will require extensive local stakeholder consultation and participation because the relative “importance” of different goods and services differs between communities (Lynam et al. 2003). Whilst recognising that local residents engage in a range of passive and active approaches to enhance the sustainability and productivity of key miombo resources, much of this is at the household scale. Traditional management approaches at a larger scale, for tracts of miombo and land around villages, are eroding in many areas with modernisation, growing resource commercialisation increasing human population densities, and increasing vulnerability to external shocks and stresses. Commercialisation is particularly virulent as in many instances it involves outsiders supplying urban areas. Outsiders may have little interest in long term measures to minimise any decline in resource productivity. Although the wider social and economic drivers of resource use and management have not been the focus of the preceding sections of this paper, their overriding significance needs to be acknowledged. Unless local residents have adequate governance and enforcement structures and mechanisms the most likely long-term scenario is one of declining resource supply and increasing vulnerability, irrespective of resource management know-how. Recent innovations in developing institutional alternatives to common property regimes, many of which are in transition to open access systems, need further attention (Kowero et al. 2003). Control of resources by local communities also requires that they undertake basic monitoring of trends in resource supply and use, and when necessary adjust local regulations to meet the needs of local users but in a sustainable manner. Typically, rural resource users do monitor in an informal fashion and thus are well aware of changes and trends in the supply of key resources. But this individual monitoring is rarely institutionalised, and so there is no collective response when trends are discerned. Once again, this requires that functional and effective governance structures are in place. The usefulness of any research programme aimed at facilitating informed and sound management options for miombo can be measured to some extent by the degree to which it is based on a dynamic understanding of what constitutes “a livelihood” for most miombo dwellers, and how such livelihoods evolve and adapt in response to a number of macro and micro drivers. A research and management approach seeking to prescribe static and mechanistic activities to provide a prescribed volume or amount of a particular good ad infinitum will be outdated before it has even commenced. A number of modeling initiatives have been developed over the last few years from the qualitative or conceptual to the quantitative (Campbell & Byron 1996, Gambiza et al. 2000, Campbell et al. 2000, 2002), providing varied insights into the dynamic nature of livelihoods, and the primary drivers. In terms of overall livelihood vulnerability, the seminal work of Campbell et al. (2002) showed that the three major drivers were the state of the macro economy and people’s links to it, rainfall, and the effectiveness of community institutions. Relative to these three, all other variables were negligible. The first two are beyond the control of local people and management agencies, but research can assist in developing and demonstrating approaches and policies to minimise adverse livelihood impacts in times of low rainfall or poor macro economic performance. The third one is definitely locally based and is within the hands of local people and communities. It is telling that only in the last couple of decades has there be meaningful and systematic research conducted on the nature and dynamics of rural livelihoods in the miombo region (Campbell 1996, Campbell et al. 2002). Only now are integrated portrayals of livelihoods and their adaptability emerging, providing the impetus for greater understanding of traditional silvicultural approaches and thereby identifying potential synergies with conventional ones. But whatever this picture and understanding may be, it is already being clouded by the inexorable progress of climate change and ravishes of HIV/AIDS. Much of the miombo, already characterised by strong seasonality of rain which limits options during the dry season, will get warmer and even drier, although some areas may become wetter (Scholes & Biggs 2004). In those areas that will become drier, farmers and foresters will face further limitations to agricultural and miombo productivity, potentially undermining existing livelihood options and exacerbating vulnerability, especially of the poorer sectors of rural society. It is important that current and near-term future silvicultural research and intervention programmes immediately begin to take this into account. One avenue requiring thorough investigation is the potential for carbon credit payments through avoided deforestation. Indeed, greater understanding of the flows and value of all ecosystem services is required, facilitating improved examination of trade-offs between different land uses, and hence the context within which evaluation of new silvicultural practices and approaches can be gauged. In overall conclusion, this paper has shown that despite there being a significant amount of ecological and silvicultural research from the miombo region it is of narrow content and geographic focus. Only in the last decade or two has there been a growing contextualization of management orientated research towards user needs. Whilst this shift is to be welcomed, and this review attempts to collate such work, it is readily apparent that enormous knowledge gaps remain to be addressed. Yet it is abundantly clear, that the greatest gains are likely to be in the realm of institutions, governance and co-operation rather than silvicultural guidelines. But for those agencies involved in silvicultural research a welcome shift to examine the growth rates and responses to harvesting of a wider suite of species and products would be welcomed, including non-timber species. Key focus products and species for such a research efforts should be those most used by rural communities rather than just high value timber species. At the habitat or community level, the impacts of current management systems and harvesting practices on biodiversity of all taxonomic groups, and trade-offs with the delivery of other ecosystem goods and services would be informative. |