Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa Policies, incentives and options
|
|  Yüklə 2.25 Mb.
|
1IntroductionThis Annex focuses on how policies interact with risks and vulnerabilities of the poor in the miombo region. We recognise that ‘the poor’ of the miombo region are highly differentiated and often measured by their relative ability to cope with stress and uncertainty. In the countries of the miombo region this includes food insecurity, income-earning opportunity, asset and land ownership and use of woodland resources (e.g. Devereux, Baulch, Macauslan, Phiri, Sabates-Wheeler 2006; Hegde R. 2007). These characteristics are dynamic: they may be temporal (e.g. seasonal), social (e.g. voice), structural (e.g. culture) or spatial (e.g. geography) and are what makes up the relative vulnerability of a community; household or individual (Box 1). The ‘coping strategies’ employed are mediated both by a household’s individual response and policy interventions (Devereux et al 2006).
The policy implications of vulnerability are broader than efforts to reduce poverty. According to Devereux et al. (ibid.) policy interventions to manage vulnerability can either aim to reduce or spread risk, or to strengthen resilience. In the absence or failure of these measures, public interventions need to deliver safety nets and other forms of social protection to those affected by shocks and processes that they are unable to cope with unassisted. For the purposes of this paper, we assume that the “rural poor” currently use or have the potential to use miombo to reduce their livelihood risks. We also assume that the sustainable management of miombo, instead of its conversion to other potentially more productive land uses, is an appropriate strategy for the poor. The Social Protection function of miombo is well documented: Insecure access to miombo increases vulnerability of the poorest (Abbot 1997; Hegde 2007). Miombo is very good at providing a social protection function at the subsistence level (e.g. Bwalya 2007; Campbell et al 2007). Investment in improved management should enhance its contribution to risk reduction and poverty reduction and this paper explores what can be done to help take that next step? 1.1ApproachFollowing a brief description of the methodology and analytical framework used in the paper, a description of the current institutional landscape is presented. This provides an important basis for understanding how current policy processes affect the way the poor can access and benefit from miombo. Drawing on the published and unpublished (grey) literature, the current policy options for influencing household livelihoods are outlined within the context of opportunities and barriers for miombo use and management. The next section then pulls together implications for development policy. Policy intervention options in relation to risk and vulnerability are subsequently revisited in the concluding section. The paper builds an analytical framework around the opportunities and barriers for the sustainable use and management of miombo, identified in this project by Campbell and others (Campbell et al. 2007). Evidence from the policy research literature is used to review options for strengthening or mitigating the opportunities and barriers respectively. An approach that acknowledges the complex inter-relatedness of policies and their impact is adopted. The framework is developed following the description of the institutional context. The paper employed a broad review of the aid policy literature to draw on experiences and developments in the agriculture, environment and rural development sectors. Empirical evidence from the miombo region was used where it could be found. The paper relied on extracting data from information available in the public domain: time and resource constraints limited the depth of grey literature that could be brought into the scope of the review. There is an extensive literature, both published and unpublished on the use and management of miombo by the rural poor . However, more recent material related to policy, poverty and forestry has tended to focus on the moist forest regions (Congo Basin, C. & S. America, S.E. Asia) and therefore related to high value forestry (in timber and biodiversity sense. E.g. Smith, Colan, Sabogal & Snook 2006; Sunderlin, 2006; Sunderlin & Huynh 2005; Joshi, 1998; Chomitz; Wertz-Kanounnikoff; Thomas; De Luca & Buys 2007; Nguyen 2007; Muller, Epprecht & Sunderlin 2006.) This is, in part, a response to the focus of donor agencies on the forests of these regions over recent years. Many of the instruments being tried and tested in such areas do still have relevance to the miombo biome, albeit in modified form in some cases. Trends and themes emerging from the research and empirical literature were identified and cross referenced if possible for triangulation. |