Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa: Policies, Incentives and Options for the Rural Poor

Figures & data

Figure 1. Forestry and poverty relationships in Malawi and Mozambique. Inset shows the distribution of miombo woodlands.

Table 1.  Deforestation rates in countries where miombo woodland predominates (FAO 2007)

Country	Total forest (2005)	Annual rate of change
		1990–2000		2000–2005
	1,000 ha	1,000 ha/yr	Percent	1,000 ha/yr	Percent
Angola	59 104	−125	−0.2	−125	−0.2
Malawi	3 402	−33	−0.9	−33	−0.9
Mozambique	19 262	−50	−0.3	−50	−0.3
Tanzania	35 257	−412	−1.0	−412	−1.1
Zambia	42 452	−445	−0.9	−445	−1.0
Zimbabwe	17 540	−313	−1.5	−313	−1.7
Notes: The similarity of the data between the two periods points to the lack of reliability of such estimates. Miombo and other forest types are not distinguished in the data.

Table 2.  Trends in decentralization and devolution in some of the miombo countries

Trend	Malawi	Mozambique	Tanzania	Zambia	Zimbabwe
Decentralization policy	Decentralization policy in place since 1998	Decentralization implemented (Salomão & Matose, in press)	Decentralization implemented and considerable progress in most sectors	Decentral-ization launched in 2004 but no enabling laws	Decentralization in place
Forestry and decentralization	Decentralization not adequately addressed in the forest policy	Forestry policy (1998) and act (2002) call for delegation of responsibility to the lowest level. Land and wildlife/forestry laws contradictory with respect to tenure	Forestry policy (1998) and forest act (2002) indicate clear commitment to decentralization. Forest and land policy closely aligned	Forestry policy (1998) and forest act (1999) only allow for community involvement in local forests (not national). Policy disenabling (Gibbon et al. 2005)	Policies for local control in place for wildlife but not forestry
Commitment toimplementation	Few practical results (Blaikie, 2006). Devolution in forestry less successful than other sectors. Forestry slow to approve local forest management plans	Commitment at policy level, but many implementation problems. Devolution fragmented and limited by sector-related barriers and lack of procedural guidelines. More successes for wildlife than forestry	Implementation extremely impressive with large numbers of villages and large forest areas already covered (Blomley & Ramadhani, 2006)	Implementation mechanisms vague	Decentralization to district councils only. Committees often collapse when projects end. More successes for wildlife than forestry
Benefit sharing	Government retains powers to define the type and location of resources that communities may manage	Very restricted benefits from concessions; and often benefits do not reach communities	Village Forest Reserves are fully devolved; communities receiving full revenue rights (Wily & Dewees, 2001)	Limited benefits to local communities. Elite capture by traditional leaders	Benefits end with the district council. Elite capture by traditional leaders
Mainstreaming	Projects the norm	Projects the norm	Forestry devolution mainstreamed	Projects the norm	Projects the norm; though wildlife was mainstreamed
Note: Based on information collated by Fiona Paumgarten for the Center for International Forestry Research.

Table 3.  Budget allocation to different sectors: the case of Malawi and Tanzania 2007/08

	Malawi		Tanzania
Sectoral budget line	Total recurrent and capital budget (US$ million)	Spending (% of total budget)	Total recurrent and capital budget (US$ million)	Spending (% of total budget)
Forestry	4.7	0.4	7.2	0.2
Agriculture	149.8	13.5	291.9	6.3
Education	125.5	11.3
Health	130.7	11.8	453.8	10.0
Irrigation and water development	36.7	3.3	835.5	18.0
Lands and natural resources	23.2	2.1
Tourism, wildlife and culture	5.3	0.5
Local government and rural development	12.0	1.1
Other	487.9	56
Total budget	1108.6	100
Source: Based on information collated by Fiona Paumgarten for the Center for International Forestry Research.

FAO . 2007 . State of the World's Forests 2007 , Rome : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations .

 Google Scholar

Salomão , A. and Matose , F. in press . “ Towards community-based forest management of miombo woodlands in Mozambique ” . In Managing the Miombo woodlands of Southern Africa , Edited by: Dewees , P. Washington, DC : World Bank .

 Google Scholar

Gibbon , H. , Mbithi , D. , Mugo , E. N. and Phiri , M. 2005 . Forest and woodland management in East and Central Africa: emerging models for improvement in livelihoods and natural resource management in Kenya and Zambia . International Forestry Review , 7 : 193 – 207 .

 Google Scholar

Blaikie , P. 2006 . Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana . World Development , 34 : 1942 – 1957 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blomley , T. and Ramadhani , H. 2006 . Going to scale with participatory forest management: Early lessons from Tanzania . International Forestry Review , 8 : 93 – 100 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wily , L. A. and Dewees , P. A. 2001 . From Users to Custodians: Changing Relations Between People and the State in Forest Management in Tanzania , Policy Research Working Paper WPS 2569, Environment and Social Development Unit Washington, DC : World Bank .

 Google Scholar