Content uploaded by Peter A. Dewees
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter A. Dewees
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research
Vol. 2, No. 1, 57–73, January 2010
ISSN 1939-0459 Print/1939-0467 Online © 2010 World Bank
DOI: 10.1080/19390450903350846
RJNR1939-04591939-0467Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, October 2009: pp. 0–0Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research
Managing the Miombo Woodlands
of Southern Africa: Policies, Incentives
and Options for the Rural Poor
Managing the Miombo WoodlandsP. A Dewees et al.
PETER A. DEWEES*, BRUCE M. CAMPBELL**, YEMI KATERERE†,
ALMEIDA SITOE‡, ANTHONY B. CUNNINGHAM§, ARILD ANGELSEN††
& SVEN WUNDER§§
*World Bank, Washington, DC, USA; **CGIAR Challenge Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security (CCAFS), University of Copenhagen; †UNREDD Program Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland; ‡Faculty
of Agronomy and Forestry Department of Forestry, Eduardo Mondlane University, Maputo, Mozambique;
§Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, and School of Plant Biology, University of
Western Australia, Crawley, Australia; ††Dept of Economics and Resource Management, Norwegian University
of Life Sciences, Aas, Norway; §§Center for International Forestry Research, Belém, Brazil
ABSTRACT Miombo woodlands cover vast areas of southern Africa. Of comparatively little interest
for export-oriented commercial logging, they are part of a complex system of rural land use that inte-
grates woodland management with crops and livestock. There is also evidence that woodland
resources are extensively used for household consumption, greatly reducing the risk of households fall-
ing deeper into poverty as a result of environmental or economic stress. New opportunities for improv-
ing the management of miombo woodlands, with poverty mitigation in mind, suggest four policy
options. First, communities are becoming more active in managing local natural resources, a result of
decentralization and land reforms, which suggests that there may be good scope for strengthening
related policy and legal frameworks and the measures to implement them. Second, new and integrated
conservation-development approaches are emerging, which suggests possible scope for providing pay-
ments for environmental services to increase the value of managed woodlands. Third, markets
throughout the region are developing and expanding, which suggests great scope for enhancing for-
est-based markets by removing restrictive legislation and by supporting local producers and forest
enterprises. Fourth, all these opportunities suggest that public forest institutions can be revitalized by
strengthening their service delivery orientations, with poverty mitigation as a main objective.
Introduction
Miombo woodlands are the most extensive tropical seasonal woodland and dry forest
formation in Africa. The miombo region covers around 2.4 million km2. Characteristically,
miombo is found in areas that receive more than 700 mm mean annual rainfall on
nutrient-poor soils, and is dominated by a few species, mostly from the genera Brachystegia,
Julbernardia and Isoberlinia (Campbell et al. 1996; Dewees et al., in press). Miombo
Correspondence Address: Peter A. Dewees, World Bank, 1818 H Str NW, Washington DC 20433, USA.
Email: pdewees@worldbank.org
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
58 P. A. Dewees et al.
woodlands cover substantial portions of southern Africa: Angola, Zimbabwe, Zambia,
Malawi, Mozambique, and Tanzania, and most of the southern part of the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC) (Figure 1).
Miombo woodlands lack the appeal of tropical moist forests and offer little to commer-
cial logging interests. Most miombo has been heavily disturbed, with very little
old-growth woodland remaining, and forest cover continues to decline (Table 1), largely
Figure 1. Forestry and poverty relationships in Malawi and Mozambique. Inset shows the distribu-
tion of miombo woodlands.
Source: Data sources as noted. Main maps from Sunderlin et al. (2007).
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 59104 −125 −0.2 −125 −0.2
Malawi 3402 −33 −0.9 −33 −0.9
Mozambique 19262 −50 −0.3 −50 −0.3
Tanzania 35257 −412 −1.0 −412 −1.1
Zambia 42452 −445 −0.9 −445 −1.0
Zimbabwe 17540 −313 −1.5 −313 −1.7
N
otes: 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.
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
Managing the Miombo Woodlands 59
driven by land clearing for agriculture and wood extraction for energy. In many cases
these forces work in tandem, with wood extraction followed by agriculture. But there is
much variation in the levels and causes of deforestation—and poor understanding of cause
and effect (Abbot & Homewood, 1999; Dewees, 1995; Mwampamba, 2007).
Why then should miombo be of any interest? For one thing, it sequesters an enormous
amount of carbon, and so, from a global perspective, is quite important. Biodiversity is
also significant (Frost et al., 2003). Although the richness and diversity of faunal species
is low, the miombo region has an estimated 8500 species of higher plants, more than half
of them endemic. Species diversity and localized endemism are high in many herbaceous
plant genera.
Miombo is also important for livelihoods. Seventy-five million people inhabit miombo
regions, and an additional 25 million urban dwellers rely on miombo wood or charcoal as
a source of energy (Dewees et al., in press). Most miombo has been heavily disturbed pre-
cisely because it has great local value. It provides dry-season fodder for large livestock
populations and fuelwood for domestic use and rural industry. It offers construction mate-
rial for farm structures and homes for millions. It is a rich source of wild foods and fruits,
reducing the vulnerability of poor rural households from the risks of crop failures. With
few alternative economic opportunities, up to a third of household consumption among
poor rural households can come from dry woodlands.
This paper demonstrates that miombo is indeed worth managing in the first place, that
its immense value to local economies gives it a place of special importance, and that a
range of explicit policy measures can improve its management. It has three main sections.
First, we demonstrate that miombo woodlands contribute significantly to livelihoods. Sec-
ond, we identify some opportunities for improving their management, positing that they
are a significant safety net for poor rural households. Third, we propose policy interven-
tions for removing some of the constraints to managing miombo woodlands and to
improving the potential for the rural poor to benefit from better woodland management.
We focus on four interventions that could contribute to meeting this objective:
•More fully devolving rights and responsibilities for miombo woodlands to the local
level.
•Exploiting opportunities for leveraging transfer payments to achieve environmental
objectives through schemes like payments for environmental services.
•Increasing the value of woodland production and enhancing forest-based markets by
removing restrictive legislation and strengthening local producers and forest enter-
prises.
•Revitalizing forest institutions to reorient them from their largely regulatory roles to
having a much stronger service orientation aligned with the poverty mitigation agenda.
The Significance of Miombo Woodlands
Woodlands are a Valuable Resource
The role of miombo woodlands in rural economies is now better documented. Cavendish
(2000), for example, undertook a pioneering and very detailed case study about woodland
income in Zimbabwe, and this has been followed by several others (Campbell et al., 2002;
Fisher, 2004; Mutamba, in press; Hegde & Bull, in press). These studies all record high
dependence on miombo woodlands, though the variability within countries can be large.
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
60 P. A. Dewees et al.
Jumbe et al. (in press) show that forest income from different sites in Zambia ranges from
less than 10% to nearly 50% of total income. Zambian dependency levels are some of the
highest so far recorded globally (see Vedeld et al., 2004 for a global overview). In the
Zimbabwe studies, woodlands contributed about 15% of total income (Cavendish, 2000;
Campbell et al., 2002).1
The miombo studies show that the poorest of the poor depend more on woodlands.
Campbell et al. (2002) found in southern Zimbabwe found that nearly 30% of income is
woodland-based in the lowest wealth quartile but less than 10% in the top wealth quartile.
Similar conclusions come from Fisher (2004) and Jumbe et al. (in press). For three vil-
lages in Malawi, the addition of woodland income to the household accounts reduces
measured income inequality by 12% (Fisher, 2004). Cavendish and Campbell (in press)
also recorded the inequality-reducing impact of environmental income.
Studies also indicate that miombo woodlands are natural insurance. Using seasonal
household data for rural Malawi, Fisher and Shively (2005) found that households experi-
encing an income boost (from remittances or a good harvest) depended less on forest
product extraction than those not receiving such a boost. Ngaga et al. (2006) record
miombo woodland as the provider of ‘famine foods’. Hegde and Bull (in press) document
how miombo resources help when wildfires and illness hit household assets. With ‘illness’
shocks, households increased their consumption of environmental resources by 42%.
Kayambazinthu et al. (2005) and Barany et al. (2004) point to the importance of dry forest
resources to households afflicted by HIV/AIDS.
For individual products, the importance of forests and dry woodlands is equally
clear. The estimated annual value of the charcoal industry in the four largest urban
areas of Malawi is about US$41.3 million (Kambewa et al., 2007)—slightly less than
the value of the tea industry and about 0.5% of the recorded GDP. Around 76% of
households in the Mozambique towns of Maputo and Matola (with a combined popula-
tion of about 1 400 000 in 2001) were reported to rely partially or exclusively on wood-
fuels for cooking (Pereira, 2001). Per capita woodfuel consumption ranged from 0.92
to 1.00 m3 (Brouwer and Falcao, 2004) and can be even higher when supplies are phys-
ically abundant.
Other products are also of significant value. In Tanzania apiculture provides some
income to about 2 million people (Mwakatobe & Mlingwa, 2005). Large volumes of
miombo wood are used for home construction and livestock enclosures. Despite the low
availability of commercial timber species in Mozambique’s miombo, timber exports
reached around US$65 million in 2005, or 4% of total exports (FAO, 2007).2
Miombo woodlands also help in managing livestock. During wetter times, open grassy
patches within the miombo are sometimes heavily used for grazing, but miombo itself
becomes quite important as these grass patches are burnt over or fully grazed late in the
season. Miombo is seasonal, and loses much of its leaf cover during the winter dry season.
In the early spring, the ‘late dry season flush’ sees the miombo coming back to life, with
vast swathes of the woodland covered in bright red, orange, and yellow foliage. At this
time, when seasonal grazing resources are otherwise highly constrained, miombo comes
into its own as fodder for livestock.
There are strong associated links with agricultural production as well. As cattle tend to
be kept at night in enclosures, manure is accumulated in these enclosures, is composted and
spread on fields. It is sometimes supplemented with leaf litter, collected in great quantities
from miombo woodlands and is used in lieu of expensive chemical fertilizers. Depending
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
Managing the Miombo Woodlands 61
on the availability of leaf litter, this highly valuable soil supplement can yield good returns
(Bradley & Dewees, 1993).
Woodlands Mitigate Poverty
Woodlands are a pharmacy, a supermarket, a building supply store, and a grazing
resource, providing consumption goods not otherwise easily available, particularly in sub-
sistence economies.
Poor rural households depend vitally on miombo woodlands, and spatial analyses of the
distribution of poverty bear this out (Figure 1). In Malawi there is a statistical correlation
between areas with high forest cover and areas with high poverty rates. While not imply-
ing causality, the correlation suggests that miombo can be a safety net in the very areas
where poverty rates are high. Mozambique shows a similar correlation between high forest
cover and high poverty rates, though the correlation extends to less than half the forested
area (Sunderlin et al., 2007).
Arguments in favour of clearing miombo for agricultural expansion as a means of pov-
erty mitigation, are quite weak, and there is a much stronger case for integrated types of
land uses. Land-use intensification in mosaic-like patterns, where fields and woodlands
are found side-by-side, may offer the best least-cost solution to expanding agricultural
production at woodland frontiers.
New Opportunities for Improving the Management of Miombo Woodlands
Resource Rights are Shifting to Local People
In the last few decades, the need for communities to be more active in resource management
has come to the fore, and there is a global trend towards devolving responsibility for
natural resource management to local stakeholders. A wide range of studies on devolu-
tion processes in miombo countries are now emerging, with both positive and negative
outcomes (Balint & Mashinya, 2006; Nemarundwe, 2004; Virtanen, 2003). Wily (2000,
2003) observes that policy or legal commitments to decentralization in the land and for-
estry sectors is widespread in southern Africa, but the experience has not necessarily
been positive. Table 2 summarizes what is happening with decentralization and devolu-
tion in some miombo countries, revealing the high diversity in terms of processes and
outcomes.
Shackleton et al. (2002), drawing on case studies from the miombo region and else-
where, note that devolution has brought advantages. It gives recognition to local people
as legitimate resource users rather than as poachers, criminals and squatters. It provides
new channels for rural dwellers to communicate their priorities to government
decision-makers and, in some places, for improving community-government relations.
It can enhance villagers’ organizational capacity and political capital by encouraging
local people to join new networks and forge new relationships. Where devolution has
been in place longer, local people tend to demand more autonomy, bringing about
reforms that promote local interests. Devolution can also address equity and make
inroads to enhance the participation of marginalized groups and women in
decision-making. Working in Tanzania, Lund (2007) found that decentralizing taxation
to the lowest local government tier could enhance revenue collection from the use of
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
62 P. A Dewees et al.
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 to
implementation 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.
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
Managing the Miombo Woodlands 63
low value natural resources and increase the likelihood of using a share of the collected
revenue to finance public services.
New Integrated Conservation–Development Approaches are Emerging
The miombo region is in some respects at the centre of a range of innovative attempts to
integrate conservation and development. The conservancy model in Namibia (just on the
edge of the miombo region), where community institutions have become deeply engaged
in habitat conservation, is a prime example of how ‘win-win’ outcomes can be fostered for
local resource users and nature (Anderson et al., 2006). Interest in poverty-conservation
relationships has taken on global significance, with much critical thought on what works
and what does not. There is also an expanding range of studies emerging from miombo
countries (Virtanen, 2003; Frost & Bond, 2008).
Interest in the idea of organizing schemes for individuals and communities to receive
payments for environmental services (PES) is also growing globally and in the miombo
region. Under Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programme for
Indigenous Resources), communities and local governments have marketed hunting and
wildlife-viewing rights to safari operators. In turn, communities have set aside large areas
of communal land, under their jurisdiction, for wildlife conservation. From 1989 to 2001
CAMPFIRE generated more than US$20 million for participating communities, 89% of it
from sport hunting (Frost and Bond, 2008). External donors provided substantial addi-
tional finance for local conservation associated with CAMPFIRE, even exceeding the rev-
enues from sport hunting. CAMPFIRE was seen by donors as an entry point for broader
rural development investments and governance initiatives. But because the financial bene-
fits often ended up with district councils rather than participating communities, the incen-
tives to participate were weakened.
Table 3. Budget allocation to different sectors: the case of Malawi and Tanzania 2007/08
Malawi Tanzania
Sectoral budget line
Total recurrent
and capital budget
(US$ 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.
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
64 P. A. Dewees et al.
In Mozambique a similar effort in Sofala Province seeks to link PES with local com-
munity conservation and rural development (Hegde & Bull, 2008). Participating commu-
nities receive conditional payments for carbon sequestration if they adopt various
tree-planting measures and agree to limit woodland clearance. In the medium run this is
likely to raise incomes and diversify livelihoods, but in the short run households have been
reluctant to adopt these measures due to liquidity shortages and risk aversion.
Markets are Developing and Expanding
New niche markets for forest products, rapidly expanding urban markets, new buyers of
old products and new communication technologies can improve market access for the
poor.
New niche markets. Globalization is creating niche markets for miombo woodland prod-
ucts. For example, fruit from the marula tree (Sclerocarya birrea), widely distributed in
the miombo region, has formed the basis for a new global industry for the cream liqueur
Amarula, now sold in around 150 countries. Consumer demand for ‘green’ and ‘fair trade’
products can improve the competitiveness of small-scale producers. Export markets for
wild natural product ‘derivatives’ such as fruit oils (e.g. marula oil and melon seed oil),
also often tied to fair trade initiatives, have high potential. It has been estimated that the
potential regional market for eight oil-producing wild fruit miombo species is around
US$3 billion—if reliable markets can be established. The opportunities for these and other
products, such as organic teas and food additives, are believed to be far from fully
exploited (Mander & le Breton, 2006).
A market for ‘green, clean’ products is emerging for honey, edible mushrooms, and for
art products such as carvings from miombo hardwoods. Certifying commercial timber
production in the miombo region has been somewhat problematic,3 though organic certifi-
cation for miombo products has some promise. In Zambia, for example, wild mushrooms
harvested and exported by Mpongwe Coffee and Organic Stallholder Cooperative are cer-
tified (de Boer, 2003), as are honey and beeswax exported to Europe from northwestern
Zambia. Market development is not always easy though, nor do woodland products
always yield the expected financial benefits.
Expanding domestic markets. Growing urban populations have greatly increased the
demand for charcoal, medicinal plants, wild meat, and construction wood (Shackleton et al.,
2008). The continued strong growth in urban consumption of woodfuels reflects persist-
ently low incomes in Africa, with surveys demonstrating positive income elasticities for
woodfuel at low incomes (Arnold et al., 2006). The Stockholm Environment Institute
(2002) estimated that the consumption of charcoal increased by around 80% between
1990 and 2000 in both Lusaka and Dar es Salaam. The proportion of households in Dar
that reported charcoal as their principal fuel increased from about 50% to 70% over the
same period.
There has also been a massive expansion of medicinal plant trade. Krog et al. (2005)
found 198 medicinal plant traders in three markets in Maputo, up from 10 in 1980. Traders
were selling medicines from some animals and more than 100 plant species, all obtained
from forests and fallow land. Hypoxis hemerocallidea (the African potato), one of the
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
Managing the Miombo Woodlands 65
more important species sold in these markets, is used to treat several ailments including
those related to HIV/AIDS.
New buyers of old products. China’s economic growth has already had significant reper-
cussions for forest product markets in miombo countries. Still in its early days, trade with
China could rise dramatically. It is likelier still that other Asian countries will also enter
these markets as their economies grow. Both China and India have formed strong trade
links throughout the miombo woodland region.
New trade links are being developed even within Africa. South Africa is proving to be a
particular engine of growth, importing timber from other countries in the miombo region,
as well as finished products for domestic sale and export. One notable example is wood-
crafts, where markets in South Africa are now selling large quantities of tree-based prod-
ucts from other countries (Shackleton, 2005). This kind of regional trade is partly an
outcome of better communication technologies.
New technologies and institutions are opening market possibilities. Advances in commu-
nication technology, particularly mobile phones and the internet, are improving informa-
tion flows and strengthening links between small-scale entrepreneurs and markets (Souter
et al., 2005). The mobile telecommunications sector has grown in Africa by an average of
78% a year over the last 10 years. An IFAD project in Tanzania has shown the effect of
mobile telecommunications on the bargaining power of smallholder farmers. Previously
hoodwinked by truck drivers about market prices, they can now independently verify this
information or directly link with buyers in Dar es Salaam (IFAD, 2006).
Policy Options for Improving the Management of Miombo Woodlands
The significant value of miombo woodland products to rural households, both for income
and for a safety net during times of economic stress, suggests that the fairly limited ‘for-
est’ policy options that governments usually put in place to deal with ‘forestry’ issues are
not broad enough for dealing with this much wider scope of product values. What are the
policy options for miombo woodlands? Four particular intervention areas are resonant.4
Devolving Rights and Responsibilities
Devolving control over forest resources, while having much to offer, is not a panacea
(Campbell et al., 2001). Examined here are two elements of devolution: a strong policy
and legal framework and strong implementation measures.
In a number of countries the wider policy framework is simply not conducive to local
control (Blaikie, 2006; Campbell et al., 2001). There is no recently drafted forest law in
Angola, for instance, and the sector still uses a colonial regulatory framework. In Zambia
progress with participatory forest management has been slow because of the lack of a
sound policy and legal framework (Gibbon et al., 2005). In some cases there are good pol-
icies in place (as in Tanzania) and decentralized management has been mainstreamed
throughout the forestry sector. But even then there are critics. For example, Petersen and
Sandhövel (2001) point to lack of clear rights and adverse incentives, while Meshack et al.
(2006) record the high transaction costs of local control, suggesting that they are highest
for the poorest and that policies and legislation need to be simplified to reduce them.
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
66 P. A. Dewees et al.
Devolution has been decidedly more effective when rights of access use, control and own-
ership are completely—rather than partially—devolved to local communities (Wily,
1999).
An enabling policy and legal framework is an important signal, but without strong and
effective local measures it is insufficient. In many places initiatives are still at the planning
and experimental stage, often top-down in design (Wily, 2003; Goldman, 2003). Awkward,
unrealistic, expensive, and overly complex system design lacks the simplicity essential for
widespread adoption and for real local community involvement in woodland management.
Pilot schemes that do not give meaningful power to local actors are unlikely to succeed
(Wily, 1999). Schafer and Bell (2002), based on experience in Mozambique, suggest that
the state’s reluctance to take measures to devolve control over natural resources (regard-
less of what ‘policy’ says) stems from three things: the desire of forestry personnel prima-
rily to protect the forests, the economic interests of state agents in exploiting valuable
natural resources themselves, and the unwillingness of politicians to devolve local control
over natural resources in areas that are politically sympathetic to the opposition.
One manifestation of the lack of commitment to devolution is the focus on degraded
resources rather than high quality woodlands. Another manifestation is the limited bene-
fits that local producers are allocated. In Mozambique the national forest regulation estab-
lishes that only 20% of the taxes from the extraction and use of forests and wildlife should
be returned to the communities living within or close to the forest areas. In 2006 only
US$422 000 of more than $2 million in revenues were returned to the 956 communities
(Almeida Sitoe, pers. comm.).
In many instances, there is a presupposition that earlier community controls over wood-
land use existed and were effective, when this may not have been so. Governments may
give customary authorities control over natural resources that far exceeds their capacity
for management. In other cases they transfer control over resources to a local elite that
uses woodlands mainly for political or economic gain.
Shifting forest management responsibilities to communities requires significant and
sustained investments in social mobilization, institution building and capacity building.
Forestry agencies (and other agencies) are seldom equipped for this task. Communities
also need to see benefits from the forest to build an incentive to protect the resource and
manage it sustainably. Success in devolving forest management may also need to be coupled
with creating broader rural livelihood opportunities.
Developing Payments for Environmental Services (PES)
Devolved rights and responsibilities may not always deliver on management that secures
global environmental values (such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity). As Scholes
(1996) points out, if half the carbon in the top 30 cm of soil and all the carbon in woody bio-
mass were released in half the existing miombo in the next 30 years, the mean rate of release
would be around 200 million metric tons of carbon a year. (Total carbon released from
land-use change around the world is estimated at around a billion tons of carbon a year.)
There would also likely be a decrease in the formation of rain-generating convective storms,
because of increased reflection of solar radiation and decreased surface roughness, increas-
ing atmospheric stability (Xue & Shukla, 1993). For biodiversity, endemism is significant in
the miombo region. While many miombo countries are well covered by national parks, there
is a limited understanding of their effectiveness in conserving biodiversity.
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
Managing the Miombo Woodlands 67
There may be good opportunities to exploit opportunities for transfer payments to
achieve environmental objectives, particularly if carbon markets develop more exten-
sively. The challenge will be to incorporate these types of objectives into multi-dimensional
rural development initiatives and to secure participation by the poor.
PES schemes, seldom straightforward, pose their own challenges, especially for reduc-
ing poverty (Wunder, 2008). The poorest may not be able to get involved in PES schemes
because they lack control over the land and are not in a position to enter a contract for
delivering environmental services. Poor households may lack the capital, skills, and labor,
and the access to credit and technical assistance, to implement the changes required by the
PES scheme. And the transactions costs of PES schemes with numerous smallholders may
be higher than those of schemes that deal with a few large landowners. So PES schemes
may not be pro-poor.
Wunder (2008) argues that PES schemes are most successful when they are based pri-
marily on deals that make sense for the primary goal—environmental service delivery—rather
for subsidiary goals such as poverty reduction. Why? Because carbon markets, operating
in restrictive ways and with single objectives, are less conducive to supporting
multi-objective development operations. Given the overlaps of rights and resources and
their allocation among multiple user and income groups, single-objective PES schemes
can be especially difficult to pull off.
A key question is whether there are any buyers for miombo environmental services.
Tourism, centered on wildlife, offers some good opportunities for communities living
close to wildlife-rich areas. And with climate change, carbon markets may emerge as an
important driver (Chomitz, 2007). Miombo woodlands have lower wood carbon storage
per hectare than tropical forests, but because they cover such extensive areas, their aggre-
gate contribution is large. If effective delivery mechanisms can be devised, woodlands
might be included in REDD5 schemes.
Enhancing Markets for Forest Products
Increasing the value of woodland production through other more conventional markets
will involve two concurrent approaches. First is enhancing forest-based markets by
removing restrictive legislation (say, by allowing communities to harvest resources previ-
ously harvested by state monopolies or freeing up transport regulations) and strengthening
local producers and forest enterprises (say, by strengthening local marketing federations
of producers to provide economies of scale). Second is ensuring that woodland production
can be sustainable so that markets are assured of future supplies.
In some cases the forest regulatory framework has not been aligned with the value of
the resource, making transaction costs too high for poor producers. In others the regula-
tory framework has done little more than give officials a means to extract resources for
personal gain (Mackenzie, 2006). More externally imposed forest rules could provide
more opportunities for undermining local governance. Regulatory simplification would
increase value-added to local forest users.
Regulatory instruments—to prevent the overexploitation of forest resources and raise
government revenues—inadvertently undercut livelihood opportunities for local produc-
ers and traders. For example, many policies prohibit harvesting forest products for com-
mercial purposes from state-owned forests. Ironically, these restrictive institutions have
not prevented resource degradation; in many cases they have removed the responsibility
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
68 P. A. Dewees et al.
for management from the actual users. In addition, revenue generation has been limited
(Jumbe et al., in press).
In Malawi the government put in place measures that, from a policy perspective, were
to control the charcoal market and reduce deforestation (Dewees, 1995). Charcoal became
more costly to produce and to get to the market, reducing demand but also creating good
opportunities for intermediaries to capture extra revenues, usually from bribes. With pro-
duction pushed out of the legal domain, the forestry department had less control over the
process. The forest department could not collect stumpage fees even if charcoal was made
in forest reserves, nor could it advise or train charcoal producers on woodland manage-
ment and charcoal production (because that would have been illegal).
To ensure market participation, well established and effective local organizations are
needed to coordinate ‘bulking up’ of resources, to benefit from economies of scale in
reducing transport costs, to maintain quality standards, to improve market recognition, to
improve supply chain capability and to act as a watchdog against corrupt practices of reg-
ulators (Penrose-Buckley, 2007; Antinori & Bray, 2005). These organizations can
improve market engagement, but in general they are lacking.
Revitalizing Forest Institutions
There is good evidence that woodlands can contribute as much as dryland crop production
to household consumption. In some cases they contribute significantly to the national eco-
nomy as well. Even so, within the overall national policy and budgeting framework, for-
estry is commonly marginalized. And few resources are provided through the budget
process to support sustainable management, to develop appropriate technical information
about management, to enforce realistic and constructive regulations, and to support
devolved management (Barany et al., 2004).
True, forestry spending has to be mobilized in the face of many competing priori-
ties—health, education, transport, and agriculture. But agriculture appears to do better
than forestry. In Malawi it receives 30 times the budget of the forestry sector—and even
more if irrigation is included (Table 3). In Tanzania agriculture receives some 40 times
more than forestry.6 All countries in the region have agricultural extension services, but
forest extension services are either missing or extremely limited. Forestry does not feature
to any significant extent in regional development initiatives, such as NEPAD, and it is
generally lacking in poverty alleviation efforts.
The lack of public spending has meant that forestry departments cannot implement for-
est policies, have limited capacity for regulation where it is needed and provide limited
services to smallholders and communities (though part of the problem also relates to their
lack of service orientation—both a cause and effect of low budget allocations). In theory,
budget rationalization (an outcome of public expenditure reviews) should close the gap
between what policies say and what budgets deliver. But in practice, the lofty goals out-
lined in forest policies (and increasingly in environmental policies) are seldom matched
with real cash. The lack of policy credibility contributes much to the sense of institutional
ineffectiveness.
Marginalized in the budget process, forestry personnel seldom have an adequate plat-
form for ensuring that forestry issues are considered by other branches of government,
whether in energy, agriculture or local government. Solutions to the ‘charcoal problem’
may require energy policy interventions (Dewees, 1995; Kambewa et al., 2007). Agricultural
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
Managing the Miombo Woodlands 69
policies that favour the expansion of crop production into fragile miombo areas—such as
subsidizing fertilizer, promoting tobacco and cotton to bolster national export earnings, and
reforming land tenure can drive deforestation. While forestry policies may declare some
forms of production illegal (as for charcoal in Malawi) another ministry (local government)
allows sales and collects revenue from the trade (Kambewa et al., 2007). Forestry officers in
the field have low salaries, almost no equipment, no current maps, no transport and tiny
operational budgets, and yet are supposed to patrol large geographic areas.
Many forest institutions in Africa were established when there were other policy priorities
and objectives. Largely regulatory, they were never originally designed to be responsive
to the needs of local communities. The idea of forest institutions as organizations with ser-
ious service delivery responsibilities is uncommon in most parts of the world—not least in
southern Africa. Other parts of the public sector—supported by organizations such as
schools and health centres—have a strong rationale for meeting service delivery objec-
tives. Forest organizations in southern Africa continue, largely, to see themselves as relev-
ant simply because of their regulatory functions, not because they are supposed to manage
forests per se.
When forest organizations attend to management, their lack of service orientation is
again evident. They remain locked in old-style forestry focused on timber, plantations, sil-
viculture and on-station work. But miombo woodlands are about honey production, mush-
room collection, wildlife management and using and managing a diverse range of other
natural products. They are also about poverty mitigation. Forestry agencies have been
slow in coming to grips with this reality.
Inventories and management plans, if they are ever done, seldom look beyond timber,
failing to take local livelihood activities into account. The agencies have also been mis-
guided at times, relying on systems that don’t work for miombo. For example, ‘high grading’
of valuable timber species is very common, where only mature trees are felled, possibly
limiting future regeneration (Desmet et al., 1996). Nor does technical information take
into account the new reality that most ‘management’ is likely to be by local people. Rural
development forestry needs to provide local solutions to local problems and to recognize
the influence of diversity in the rural community.
Perhaps the biggest challenge for forest institutions in the region will be to reorientate
their earlier regulatory roles to a much stronger service orientation, aligned with the pov-
erty mitigation agenda. A major client must be the poor. Reorientation should equip the
forest services to take a credible role in reforming legislation and policy, mainstreaming
miombo use in the public welfare agenda, incorporating miombo management strategies
into decentralization, providing technical advice relevant to poor miombo users, and
devising a more effective and realistic national regulatory framework.
Conclusions
Development planning at both local and national levels needs to emphasize woodland
management and the safety net functions of the miombo for the poorest. This isn’t neces-
sarily a question of forest policy. Instead, it is much more about ensuring that macroeco-
nomic policies and processes, captured in national poverty reduction strategies, eliminate
the barriers which undermine the role of woodlands in poverty mitigation. This involves
removing restrictive regulations, devolving rights and responsibilities to local stakeholders
through appropriate policy and support to implementation, and building forest institutions.
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
70 P. A. Dewees et al.
Miombo resources should be recognized as a safety net and managed as such, incorpo-
rated into risk and vulnerability planning through social welfare departments and eco-
nomic planning departments. So, this is more about mainstreaming forestry into the
development agenda than keeping forestry in the forestry department.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded primarily by the World Bank-administered Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially
Sustainable Development (financed by the governments of Finland and Norway) and by the Multi-Donor Pro-
gram on Forests (PROFOR). Additional time for staff at the Center for International Forestry Research was
financed by SIDA.
Notes
1. The figures for Cavendish (2000) were recalculated to exclude non-woodland environmental income (such as
clay and gold).
2. Illegal extraction is not captured in these figures.
3. There is one FSC certificate for the management of Zambezi teak in Zimbabwe, covering 41 574 ha, and two
FSC certificates in Mozambique for the management of unspecified natural forest covering around 71 000 ha.
4. Also the global perspective on these themes in Sunderlin et al. (2007).
5. Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
6. Comparisons of public expenditure across sectors ought to be based on a common numeraire that is sector
specific, sector expenditure as a share of sector GDP. But forestry GDP estimates are exceptionally poor.
Nonetheless, for Tanzania, at the very most (given the forestry GDP under-estimates) the GDP of agriculture
is 11 times that of forestry, and yet budget allocations differ by a factor of 40.
References
Abbot, J. I. O., & Homewood, K. A. (1999) The history of change: Causes of miombo woodland decline in a pro-
tected area in Malawi, Journal of Applied Ecology, 36, pp. 422–433.
Anderson, J., Benjamin, C., Campbell, B., & Tiveau, D. (2006) Forests, poverty and equity in Africa: New per-
spectives on policy and practice, International Forestry Review, 8, pp. 44–53.
Antinori, C., & Bray, D. B. (2005) Community forest enterprises as entrepreneurial firms: Economic and institu-
tional perspectives from Mexico, World Development, 33, pp. 1529–1543.
Arnold, J. E. M., Köhlin, G., & Persson, R. (2006) Woodfuels, livelihoods, and policy interventions: Changing
perspectives, World Development, 34, pp. 596–611.
Balint, P., & Mashinya, J. (2006) The decline of a model community-based conservation project: Governance,
capacity, and devolution in Mahenye, Zimbabwe, Geoforum, 37, pp. 805–815.
Barany, M., Hammett, A.L., Stadler, K., & Kengni, E. (2004) Non-timber forest products in the food security
and nutrition of smallholders afflicted by HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods,
14, pp. 3–18.
Blaikie, P. (2006) Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and
Botswana, World Development, 34, pp. 1942–1957.
Blomley, T., & Ramadhani, H. (2006) Going to scale with participatory forest management: Early lessons from
Tanzania, International Forestry Review, 8, pp. 93–100.
Bradley, P., & Dewees, P. (1993) Indigenous woodlands, agricultural production and household economy in the
communal areas, in: P. Bradley and K. McNamara (Eds.) Living with Trees: Policies for Forestry Manage-
ment in Zimbabwe, pp. 63–138 (Washington, DC: World Bank).
Brouwer, R. & Falcao, M.P., (2004) Woodfuel consumption in Maputo, Mozambique, Biomass and Bioenergy,
27, pp. 233–245.
Campbell, B. M., de Jong, W., Luckert, M., Mandondo, A., Matose, F., Nemarundwe, N., & Sithole, B. (2001)
Challenges to proponents of common property resource systems: despairing voices from the social forests of
Zimbabwe, World Development, 29(4), pp. 589–600.
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
Managing the Miombo Woodlands 71
Campbell, B. M., Frost, P., & Byron, N. (1996) Miombo woodlands and their use: overview and key issues, in:
B. Campbell (Ed.) The Miombo in Transition: Woodlands and Welfare in Africa, pp. 1–10 (Bogor, Indone-
sia: Centre for International Forestry Research).
Campbell, B. M., Jeffrey, S., Luckert, M., Mutamba, M., & Zindi C. (2002) Household Livelihoods in Semi-Arid
Regions: Options and Constraints (Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR).
Cavendish, W. (2000) Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship in rural households: evid-
ence from Zimbabwe, World Development, 28(11), pp. 1979–2003.
Cavendish, W., & Campbell, B. M. (in press) Poverty, environmental income and rural inequality: A case study
from Zimbabwe, in: P. Dewees (Ed.) Managing the Miombo woodlands of Southern Africa (Washington,
DC: World Bank, Technical Annex 5).
Chomitz, K. M. (2007) At Loggerheads: Policies for Development, Poverty Alleviation and Environment in the
Worlds’ Tropical Forests (Washington, DC: World Bank).
De Boer, C. (2003) Certified Organic Mushroom Collection in Zambia (Lusaka: Organic producers and proces-
sors association of Zambia).
Desmet, P. G., Shackleton, C. M. & Robinson, E. R. (1996) The population dynamics and life history attributes
of a Pterocarpus angolensis population in the northern province, South Africa, South African Journal of
Botany, 62, pp. 160–166.
Dewees, P. (1995) Forest policy and woodfuel markets in Malawi, Natural Resources Forum, 19, pp. 143–152.
Dewees, P., Campbell, B. M., Katerere, K., Sitoe, A., Cunningham, A. B., Angelsen, A., & Wunder, S. (in press)
Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa: Policies, Incentives and Options for the Rural Poor
(Washington, DC: World Bank).
FAO (2007) State of the World’s Forests 2007 (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).
Fisher, M. (2004) Household welfare and forest dependence in Southern Malawi, Environment and Development
Economics, 9, pp. 135–154.
Fisher, M., & Shively, G. E. (2005) Can income programs reduce tropical forest pressure? Income shocks and
forest use in Malawi, World Development, 37 (7), pp. 1115–1128.
Frost, P.G.H. & Bond, I., (2008) The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: payments for wildlife services,
Ecological Economics, 65, pp. 776–787.
Frost, P. G. H., Timberlake, J., & Chidumayo, E. (2003) Miombo-mopane woodlands and grasslands, in:
R. Mittermeier, C. Goettsch, P. Mittermeier, P. Robles, G. Gil, T. Fonseca, J. Brooks, J. Pilgrim & W. Konstant
(Eds.) Wilderness: Earth’s Last Wild Places, pp. 183–204 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Gibbon, H., Mbithi, D., Mugo, E. N., & 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, pp. 193–207.
Goldman, M. (2003) Partitioned nature, privileged knowledge: community-based conservation in Tanzania,
Development and Change, 34, pp. 833–862.
Hegde, R., & Bull, G. (in press) Economic shocks and Miombo woodland resource use: a household level study
in Mozambique, in: P. Dewees (Ed.) Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa (Washington,
DC: World Bank, Technical Annex 4).
IFAD (2006) Bringing Markets Closer in the United Republic of Tanzania Update Issue 2. Rome: IFAD.
Jumbe, C. B. L., Bwalya, S. M., & Husselman, M. (in press) Contribution of dry forests to rural livelihoods and
the national economy in Zambia, in: P. Dewees (Ed.) Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa
(Washington, DC: World Bank, Technical Annex 1).
Kambewa, P. S., Mataya, B. F., Sichinga, W. K. & Johnson, T. R. (2007) Charcoal: The Reality: A Study of
Charcoal Consumption, Trade and Production in Malawi (Lilongwe: Community Partnerships for Sustain-
able Resource Management in Malawi).
Kayambazinthu, D., Barany, M., Mumba, R., & Holding Anyonge C. (2005) Miombo Woodlands and HIV/AIDS
Interactions: Malawi Country Report. FAO Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper 6. Rome: Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Krog, M., Falcão, M., & Olsen, C. (2005) Comercialização de plantas medicinais em Maputo. Departamento de
Engenharia Florestal. Faculdade de Agronomia e Engenharia Florestal. Universidade Eduardo Mondlane.
Maputo, Boletim Matéria Prima, 4, pp. 3–12.
Lund, J. F. (2007) Is small beautiful? Village level taxation of natural resources in Tanzania, Public Administra-
tion and Development, 27(4), pp. 307–318.
Mackenzie, C. (2006) Forest Governance in Zambezia, Mozambique: Chinese Takeaway! Final report prepared
for the Forum of NGOs in Zambezia (FONGZA).
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
72 P. A. Dewees et al.
Mander, M., & Le Breton, G. L. (2006) Overview of the medicinal plant industry in Southern Africa, in: N. Diederichs
(Ed.) Commercialising Medicinal Plants: A Southern African Guide, pp. 1–9 (Stellenbosch, South Africa:
Sun Press).
Meshack, C. K., Ahdikari, B., Doggart, N., & Lovett, J. C. (2006) Transaction costs of community-based forest
management: empirical evidence from Tanzania, African Journal of Ecology, 44, 468–477.
Mutamba, M. (in press) Farming or foraging? Rural livelihoods in Mafulira and Kabompo districts of Zambia,
in: P. Dewees (Ed.) Managing the Miombo woodlands of Southern Africa (Washington, DC: World Bank,
Technical Annex 2).
Mwakatobe, A., & Mlingwa, C. (2005) The marketing of bee products in Tanzania. Paper presented at the Bees
for Development Honey Trade Workshop held in Dublin, Ireland, August 2005.
Mwampamba, T. H. (2007) Has the woodfuel crisis returned? Urban charcoal consumption in Tanzania and its
implications to present and future forest availability, Energy Policy, 35, pp. 4221–4234.
Nemarundwe, N. (2004) Social charters and organisation for access to woodlands: institutional implications for
devolving responsibilities for resource management to the local level in Chivi District, Zimbabwe, Society
and Natural Resources, 17, pp. 279–291.
Ngaga, Y. M., Munyanziza, E., & Masalu, H. E. (2006) The role of wild mushrooms in the livelihoods of rural people
in Kiwele village, Iringa, Tanzania: implications for policy, Discovery and Innovation, 18, pp. 246–251.
Penrose-Buckley, C. (2007) Producer Organisations: A Guide to Developing Collective Rural Enterprises
(London: Oxfam GB).
Pereira, C., (2001) Chaposa: Charcoal Potential in Southern Africa – Mozambique Country Report Final Report.
Maputo, Mozambique: Eduardo Mondlane University, Department of Forestry.
Petersen, L., & Sandhövel, A. (2001) Forestry policy reform and the role of incentives in Tanzania, Forest Policy
and Economics, 2, pp. 39–55.
Salomão, A., & Matose, F. (in press) Towards community-based forest management of miombo woodlands in
Mozambique, in: P. Dewees (Ed.) Managing the Miombo woodlands of Southern Africa (Washington, DC:
World Bank).
Schafer, J., & Bell, R. (2002) The state and community-based natural resource management: the case of the
Moribane Forest Reserve, Mozambique, Journal of Southern African Studies, 28, pp. 401–420.
Scholes, R. J. (1996) Miombo woodlands and global change, in: B. Campbell (Ed.) The Miombo in Transition:
Woodlands and Welfare in Africa, p. 13 (Bogor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research).
Shackleton, S. E. (2005) Bowls, spoons and other useful items: the Kiaat woodcrafters of Bushbuckridge, South
Africa, in: A. Cunningham, B. Campbell, & B. Belcher (Eds.) Carving out a Future: Forests, Livelihoods
and the International Woodcarving Trade, People and Plants Conservation Series (London: Earthscan).
Shackleton, S., Campbell, B. M., Lotz-Sisitka, H., & Shackleton, C. M. (2008) Links between the local trade in
natural products, livelihoods and poverty alleviation in a semi-arid region of South Africa, World Develop-
ment, 36, pp. 505–526.
Shackleton, S., Campbell, B.M., Wollenberg, E., & Edmunds, D. (2002) Devolution and community-based
natural resource management: creating space for local people to participate and benefit? Natural Resources
Perspectives (ODI), 76, pp. 1–6.
Souter, D., Scott, N., Garforth, C., Jain, R., Mascararenhas, O., & McKerney, K. (2005) The Economic Impact of
Telecommunications on Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction: A Study of Rural Communities in India
(Gujarat), Mozambique, and Tanzania, IIMA Working Paper Series (No. 2005-11-04). Ahmedabad: Indian
Institute of Management Ahmedabad.
Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) (2002) Charcoal Potential in Southern Africa, CHAPOSA: Final Report
(Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute, INCO-DEV).
Sunderlin, W. D., Dewi, S., Puntodewo, A., Müller, D., Angelsen, A., & Epprecht, M. (2008) Why forests are
important for global poverty alleviation: A spatial explanation, Ecology and Society, 13 (2), p. 24.
Vedeld, P., Angelsen, A., Berg, G. K., & Sjaastad, E. (2004) Counting on the Environment. Forest Incomes and
the Rural Poor: A Study for the World Bank. Paper No. 98. Environment Development Papers. Washington,
DC: World Bank.
Virtanen, P. (2003) Local management of global values: community-based wildlife management in Zimbabwe
and Zambia, Society and Natural Resources, 16, pp. 179–190.
Wily, L. (1999) Moving forward in African community forestry: trading power, not use rights, Society and Natural
Resources, 12, pp. 49–61.
Wily, L. A. (2000) The democratisation of forest management in Eastern and Southern Africa, International
Forestry Review, 2 (4), pp. 287–294.
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010
Managing the Miombo Woodlands 73
Wily, L. A. (2003) Governance and Land Relations: A Review of Decentralisation of Land Administration and
Management in Africa (London: International Institute for Environment and Development).
Wily, L. A., & 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.
Wunder, S. (2008) Payments for environmental services and the poor: Concepts and preliminary evidence,
Environment and Development Economics, 13, pp. 279–297.
Xue, Y., & Shukla, J. (1993) The influence of land surface properties on Sahel climate. Part 1. Desertification,
Journal of Climate, 6, pp. 2232–2245.
Downloaded By: [Dewees, Peter A.] At: 00:27 13 January 2010