Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo Consequences of charcoal production and commercial agriculture on local wellbeing and poverty alleviation (Mabalane and Gurue cases) Pedro Zorrilla-Miras1, Mansour Mahamane2, Almeida Sitoe2, Marc Metzger1, Genevieve Patenaude1, Sophia Baumert1, Frank Vollmer1, Emily Woollen1, Casey Ryan1, Isla Grundy, Ana C. Luz2 1The University of Edinburgh, School of GeoSciences 2Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Faculty of Agronomy and Forest Engineering Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo 9 March 2017

Charcoal production in Mabalane: poverty and woodland degradation

Mabalane case study Mabalane district Main source of charcoal for Maputo. -7 small villages -low levels of human development - smallholder agro-pastoralism - Poor agricultural potential (Arid climate and poor soils) -90% of woodland cover Big production of charcoal by large producers and by locals - Main source of charcoal for Maputo 90% of woodland cover, although currently a big part is degraded (Mopane) and a larger part is becoming degraded (Combretum dominated woodland)

Aim and method We constructed a model to evaluate the potential consequences of different charcoal–related policy options We used: - Local data - Satellite data - Hypothesis based on references

We used the model+scenarios to reply to different questions What if this happen

Interventions included in the model (based on stakeholder workshops and fieldwork) Improve forest technical capacity of communities Develop forest management plan Improve institutional capacities of communities Improving forest control/Enforce forest legislation Facilitate access of communities to licensing process Promotion of non-charcoal based income generation activities

Definition of scenarios - Scenarios are not predictions - Scenarios are a exploratory exercise to check the consequences of very radically different combinations of interventions - Need to be consistent combinations of interventions and plausible futures

3 scenarios used: combination of interventions to check their consequences in 2035 Private Small scale Balanced Interventions Facilitate access to licensing of communities Improve technical capacity of communities Improve institutional capacities of communities Develop forest management plan Improve forest control Promote of non-charcoal income activities External variable Urban charcoal demand = = = = = = = = = =

How do the changes in ecosystem services supply affects its use? Private Small Balance scale Private Small Balance scale Two surprising outcomes: 1- The data from Mabalane shows that under scenario A, after a high charcoal production during a long period, the charcoal production would be higher than under scenario B, with low production along time. If there is less woodlands, could be reasonable to expect a lower production. Why: A) Because we studied 7 villages that still have availability of charcoal (still can produce all that they want) B) The villages where there is less mopane now, have been producing charcoal over a longer period, this means that more villagers are producing charcoal. Meanwhile, in the villages with a lot of mopane woodland, they have started to produce charcoal soon, and only a small number of villagers are doing it yet. C) We estimate that external operators produce much more charcoal than villagers (and they provide the “know how”): in the villages after the charcoal peak, only the villagers produce charcoal: overall production is smaller than some years ago (because external operators have already gone), but villagers production is bigger. 2-The data from Mabalane reflect that the time spent in the collection of firewood and the amount of livestock owned is not influenced by ES availability…. But then, what influences that? Private Small Balance scale

Aspects influencing the use of ecosystem services: charcoal production Gender Farmers/forest associations Factors like gender, participating in associations, formal education and poverty have a big influence on how the available ecosystem services are used. Poor, Male headed hh, Highly educated, and Associated, produce more charcoal than the opposite. Non poor, Male headed hh, Highly educated, and associated, produce more charcoal than the opposite. No differences in the time spent collecting firewood. Charcoal production Charcoal production

Combined social factors with an influence on charcoal production

Associations and different income streams: catalysts when charcoal production arrives to the village Villages in the peak of charcoal production Villages Starting charcoal production Charcoal production

Key messages more resilient to shocks and higher number of personal assets Charcoal producing households no differences in multidimensional poverty Multidimensional poverty index 3 Dimensions 9 Indicators Human capital Sanitation Water Health 1: under-five mortality Health 2 (access to health care) Formal Education (illiteracy, highest qualification achieved) Social capital 6. Food security 7. Access to services, associations and credit Economic capital 8. Assets owned 9. Housing (floor, roof, walls)

Key messages more resilient to shocks and higher number of personal assets Charcoal producing households no differences in multidimensional poverty Large-scale charcoal operators profit most from charcoal production. Unequal distribution of income from charcoal within villages Locals obtain generally small revenues Lorenz Curve Charcoal Income Harvesting for charcoal production is highly selective and currently the area has still a high forest cover. Both things allow a continued provision of ES such as firewood, grass, construction materials and even charcoal.

Agricultural promotion in Gurue: poverty and deforestation

General objective: To understand how the livelihoods of rural people in the woodlands change as the landscape is converted from woodlands to agriculture

10 villages selected along a gradient of land use intensity in Gurue district Different agricultural schemes Small farmers – non soya producers Small soya farmers Emergent farmers Within each gradient, we select 7-10 villages with attempts to keep some aspects of the social ecological system relatively constant,

Resulting causal diagram from workshops, used to build a probabilistic model to assess scenarios about agricultural development in Gurue Interventions e.g. extension services, seeds provision, micro-credits, et.c Land use/land cover change e.g. farmland, woodland, villages, rivers, etc. Ecosystem services e.g. firewood, wild animals, grazing, crop production Access processes and barriers e.g. education level, being part of associations, etc. Well-being components e.g. food security, assets owned, level of education, access to healthcare, access to water, etc.

Construction materials and tools from trees 1. Consequences of decreasing ecosystem services supply on local well-being Higher use of: Hunting Construction materials and tools from trees + Smaller time collecting firewood High supply of ES No change on quantity of fruits from trees 3. Consequences of decreasing ecosystem services supply on local well-being (Effect of land use change) 4. Consequences of interventions on well-being: improvement from subsistence agriculture to commercial agriculture and emergent farmers?

Mabalane district Gurue district Charcoal production Number of cattle owned Time spent collecting firewood Woodland Woodland Woodland Social factors Gurue district Wild fruits Hunting Construction materials

2. Do the poor live worse when they have less ES 2. Do the poor live worse when they have less ES? (changes its use of ES with access to woodland?) It depends on the ES: 3. Consequences of decreasing ecosystem services supply on local well-being (Effect of land use change) 4. Consequences of interventions on well-being: improvement from subsistence agriculture to commercial agriculture and emergent farmers?

2. Do the poor live worse when they have less ES 2. Do the poor live worse when they have less ES? (changes its use of ES with access to woodland?) It depends on the ES: Tree food: - Poor HH use less fruits than non-poor HH - The quantity used is independent of supply of fruits (woodland cover, access or availability) 3. Consequences of decreasing ecosystem services supply on local well-being (Effect of land use change) 4. Consequences of interventions on well-being: improvement from subsistence agriculture to commercial agriculture and emergent farmers?

2. Do the poor live worse when they have less ES? (changes its use of ES with access to woodland?) Construction materials and tools from forest: More poor HH use materials than non-poor HH Its use is independent of supply (woodland cover, access or availability) 3. Consequences of decreasing ecosystem services supply on local well-being (Effect of land use change) 4. Consequences of interventions on well-being: improvement from subsistence agriculture to commercial agriculture and emergent farmers?

2. Do the poor live worse when they have less ES 2. Do the poor live worse when they have less ES? (changes its use of ES with access to woodland?) Hunting and firewood: -Poor HH do more hunting and spend more time collecting firewood than non-poor HH, -For both ES Poor HH benefit from high supply (woodland cover, access or availability) 3. Consequences of decreasing ecosystem services supply on local well-being (Effect of land use change) 4. Consequences of interventions on well-being: improvement from subsistence agriculture to commercial agriculture and emergent farmers?

2. Do the poor live worse when they have less ES 2. Do the poor live worse when they have less ES? (changes its use of ES with access to woodland?) Subsistence and commercial agriculture: Some reduction of woodland benefit production (because farms are bigger), but the villages with less woodland cover have smaller agriculture production: Issues of land scarcity: high reduction of woodland produces a limitation of land for agriculture 3. Consequences of decreasing ecosystem services supply on local well-being (Effect of land use change) 4. Consequences of interventions on well-being: improvement from subsistence agriculture to commercial agriculture and emergent farmers?

Key messages from Gurue Poor benefit from some ES when they have more woodland Great loss of woodland/high population density reduces agricultural production Promotion of small scale would increase deforestation but would decrease poverty Increase sustainable practices in agriculture Conservation measures to protect woodland

Muito obrigado! pedro.zorrilla-miras@ed.ac.uk