Social and Economical Aspects of Miombo Woodland Management in Southern Africa: Options and Opportunities for ResearchPeter A. Dewees |
| [Back to
OccPaper Top Page] [Chapter 1] [Chapter 2] [Chapter 3] [Chapter 4] [Chapter 5] [Chapter 6] [Chapter 7] [Chapter 8] |
Woodland management for the marketMany national forest policies in Southern Africa are geared toward limiting the commercial exploitation of woodlands. Control regimes, licensing, traffic checkpoints, roadblocks, and increased royalty collection from users of woodland products from customary or communal lands have all featured prominently in the approaches undertaken by governments to limit woodland exploitation. The reasons for this are largely because there are a very limited number of policy, legal, or market tools which governments can (or are willing to) use to change how woodlands are exploited. Most of these policies focused on regulating woodland use, rather than on creating an enabling environment for woodland management. Indeed, markets for products from woodlands are quite different from markets for agricultural and other commodities because of this. Agricultural commodity markets can be manipulated by a relatively large number of actions on the part of government: pricing policies, subsidies, credit regimes, input supply, labor legislation, and so on. Arguably, many of these policies are geared toward increasing the supply of agricultural commodities. Policies toward forest products, however, are typically geared toward limiting supplies of woodland products. Control regimes are among the more common of responses when forests and woodlands come under pressure, largely because there are few other instruments open to line ministries or departments with responsibilities for environmental protection. [1] In many areas, for instance, the only legal rights which farmers have to exploit trees growing on land allocated to them is the right to cut them down in order to cultivate their land. There is no legal incentive to encourage regeneration or to maintain valuable timber trees until household income is needed or until prices are optimal, because revenues accrue to local authorities and not to households. The approach of limiting woodland exploitation through controls and regulation is largely based on the assumption that the commercial harvesting of woodland products damages woodlands. While this is certainly true for particular types of extractive processes (such as woodland clearance to meet demands for woodfuel for urban markets, for the tobacco industry, or for the railway and mining industries earlier this century), the harvesting of many extractive products poses little threat. It is important, then, to characterize markets for woodland products as falling somewhere between two extremes:
The question of the future of many woodland areas may rest in finding ways to link production for the market with active strategies to encourage their sustainable management. Tapping into markets, and into the process of specialization and exchange, in order to encourage rural households better to manage woodlands has proven to be a challenge for many rural forestry project planners, particularly in the face of counterproductive policy and legal instruments which argue against this approach. High impact extractive industries Markets for products which are harvested as a result of the large-scale extraction and/or clearance of woodlands pose very real problems. Of these, woodfuel markets present the greatest threat. They are probably the easiest to characterize, yet there are very few well-thought out studies of the operation of these markets, and of their impact on woodlands or on trees on farms. These types of large and potentially destructive markets require creative strategies for shifting production to less-intensive forms of management and extraction regimes or to on-farm production. In understanding the policy dimensions of extractive industries, market interactions, and their impacts on woodlands, it is necessary to emphasize that many policies are derived from areas where governments believe they can achieve the greatest political advantage (rather than by the socially or economically-optimal). For example, to strengthen the incentive for food production, governments can either allow prices to rise in the face of shortages, or can subsidize the costs of farm inputs (including the costs of capital and other factors of production). Though pricing policies may be more efficient in securing greater crop production, governments, particularly in Africa, prefer the latter approach because of its political advantages (Bates 1981). Rural subsidies are often coupled with urban price controls. For instance, rather than allow food prices for urban dwellers to rise, governments often choose instead to control prices, and to ration supplies. Rent seeking behavior on the part of food producers and intermediaries forces the market underground, and parallel markets emerge. Similarly perverse effects can result from the application of these types of policies to the management of woodlands or to markets for tree products such as for woodfuels or construction poles. For instance, when urban markets for woodfuel are hit with `shortages', energy planners often rely heavily on price controls to keep prices low and on the rationing of urban energy supplies. Price controls and rationing are often accompanied by heavy subsidies to encourage the use of alternative cooking fuels such as paraffin. Governments may seek to impose stringent penalties on those harvesting and transporting woodfuels to urban areas. The outcome in these markets may be fuel-switching, and the emergence of parallel markets for woodfuel. Woodfuel harvesting, transportation and marketing may be driven underground, increasing potential returns to those willing to take the risk. As with policies which seek to keep the price of urban food supplies low (policies which have little or no impact on encouraging farmers to grow more food) these types of energy policies do nothing to increase the incentive for farmers or communities to manage woodlands to produce woodfuels for the urban market. Another point that should be emphasized is that rural people who engage in these markets are doing so to generate income. To rural households, woodlands and forests may appear to provide relatively abundant supplies of woodfuel which can be harvested and sold in nearby towns. Constraining the market may well jeopardize their livelihoods. The primary incentive of households which are engaged in harvesting woodfuel is for income generation, and not for their own woodfuel consumption (a point often lost on policy makers). A transition to systems of sustainable production, then, may entail heavy investment costs in several respects: in terms of increasing income and employment possibilities for these households; in terms of introducing or strengthening incentives for local communities to protect valuable ecosystems; and in terms of intervening in the market in a way which encourages consumers who are dependent on woodfuel markets for their supplies to either consume less, to shift to the use of other fuels, or to start using woodfuel which is grown or managed on a sustainable basis (often at considerable cost). These types of approaches often go far beyond those allowed by the existing body of policy and legislation, as well as beyond what even the most innovative and well-financed of public sector institutions might be able to undertake. Small-scale forest or woodland based enterprises Markets for other types of woodland products have less pronounced impacts on tree cover, and less obvious impacts on woodland productivity. These markets are often still the subject of government control, regulation, and licensing, though there are growing doubts about the usefulness of this approach viz. the role of these enterprises in the rural economy. Small enterprises can provide rural households with many goods otherwise only available from commercial manufacturers at much higher prices. In terms of employment, they offer significant scope for rural households to supplement and diversify their sources of income, often with low investment and operating costs. Small woodland or forest-based enterprises often operate where transportation is constrained, and where raw materials are dispersed. They are much more dependent on the collection or gathering of inputs, than are most other small-scale enterprises, and value-added is an important feature of these businesses. Pressures on woodland resources and the controls governments place over the extraction of products from woodlands in customary and communal lands have contributed to growing problems in the supply of inputs. Rates of paid employment are usually higher for the traditional forest industries: woodworking, sawmilling, and furniture making. Lower rates of paid employment are found in single operator types of businesses: traditional healers, beer brewing, fish processing, and retailing. Startup costs are low, and relatively easy entry and exit allows households to rely on these enterprises to diversify their sources of income, especially during times of greatest need. [2] At the same time, easy entry into the market increases competition and makes it difficult for small enterprises to make the transition to larger, more viable businesses. Most woodland-based enterprises are too small to draw on rural credit facilities, and those that do find themselves in a policy environment which is geared toward larger industries (Arnold 1992). There have been few programs which have been designed specifically to support small-scale forest or woodland-based industries. Support needs to be geared toward areas of competitive advantage, which probably lie in niche markets where enterprises can specialize in the labor intensive production of goods which cannot be otherwise manufactured (such as handicrafts). Even so, other evidence shows that the traditional forest-based enterprises (such as carpentry and woodworking) are much more able to compete and survive than single operator businesses based on other woodland products, which show only marginal returns to labor (Kilby and Liedholm 1986). The literature about these types of enterprises, and their impact on woodland productivity, is extremely sparse. Perhaps the richest source of information is contained in a series of country studies of micro-, small-, and medium-scale enterprises (MSMEs) which were financed by USAID, and which were carried out in most SADC countries. In Malawi, for instance, of nearly 11,000 MSMEs which were enumerated in a national survey, around 17 percent were dependent, to varying degrees on raw materials from trees and woodlands. Further analysis and development of this existing data set could be extremely useful. These types of studies need to be complemented by other more detailed exercises which assess the structure and function of very specific markets, for instance, for wild fruit or other woodland products such as mopane worms, thatch and cane, and herbal medicines. For policy and planning purposes, the analysis of these markets vis-a-vis the potential involvement of households and communities in woodland management would be extremely useful. Directions for market research We have emphasized that markets have different impacts on woodlands, depending largely on the intensity of extraction. High impact, extractive, industries pose real challenges for policy and planning if a balance is to be maintained between the need for the type of product which is serviced by these markets, the desire to conserve woodland areas, and the need for rural income and employment. Control regimes, licensing arrangements, and so on have largely been geared toward constraining these markets and reducing their impact on woodland cover. Nonetheless, these markets won't go away. They are often a critical source of income and employment in rural areas and provide badly needed goods, such as woodfuel, to urban centers. Governments have consistently found that the high social costs to both of these sectors, which come about as a result of constraining the market, create political and economic difficulties. We have suggested that a transition to systems of sustainable production for these markets will likely entail heavy investment costs in several respects: in terms of increasing income and employment possibilities for rural households; in terms of introducing or strengthening incentives for local communities to protect and manage valuable ecosystems; and in terms of intervening in the market in a way which encourages consumers who are dependent on these markets to either consume less, to use substitutes, or to use supplies which can be sustainably managed. All of these areas pose considerable challenges for the research agenda. Market research needs to be broadly based, and should consider,
These areas of research are also of some relevance to small, woodland-based enterprises which depend on widely dispersed sources of input supply. These markets, however, pose a number of other challenges. Research into the operation of small-scale woodland-based enterprises should consider, developing and expanding upon existing studies of micro-, small- and medium-scale enterprises (MSMEs), with a view to more accurately characterizing the operation of woodland-based enterprises vis-a-vis MSMEs as a whole; and focusing on a number of specific markets for non-timber based products (wild foods, fibre products, etc.), and how they operate. These initiatives should carefully consider household impacts of market operation with a view to exploring the potential of households and communities as woodland managers. As with other elements of this research agenda, linking these initiatives with the policy process is of considerable importance so that an understanding can be developed of how markets can be influenced by policies and legislation. A central and underlying theme which should help to guide market research has to do with who has the rights to benefits from woodland management as discussed above.
|