Sustainable Timber Harvest Vital
Date: October 14, 2004
Source: The Herald (Harare) Opinion Section
Author: Dr Shakespeare Chigwerewe
The Chronicle's lead article of October 6 2004 "Ecological disaster looms in river basin . . . as concessionaires over-harvest timber," comes hard on the heels of yet another article of September 28 2004 by the same paper, which condemned and criticised the Forestry Commission for authorising the export of rough sawn timber. Both are concern articles focusing on the state of the nation's natural forests.
The decision to allow timber companies to export unprocessed rough sawn timber, in violation of the provisions of Statutory Instrument 112 of 2001 and to auction timber on water catchment areas and ecologically fragile soils is not consistent with the mandate of the Forestry Commission as provided for in the Forest Act [Chapter 19:05] which among others is to regulate the forestry sector, and promote sustainable management of forest resources.
In my opinion, it was a colossal error of judgment on the part of the officials involved. Furthermore, the idea of auctioning timber concessions in the Demarcated State Indigenous Forests such as Gwaai, Fuller, Insieze and Lake Alice is clearly at variance with the protective functions for which the Demarcated State Indigenous Forests were set aside.
Statutory Instrument 112 of 2001 was introduced to promote value addition and to create employment in the process. The ban on the export of unprocessed timber would see the development of value adding industries in Matabeleland North and the Midlands.
This ban will go a long way in ensuring that our furniture industry, which has already diversified into making items out of teak, will not be starved of raw inputs. It was also felt that the ban would save the remnants of mukwa species from liquidation, since unscrupulous timber merchants have been exporting mukwa under the disguise of teak.
It should be borne in mind that every time Zimbabwe exports rough-sawn timber we would be exporting money as well as jobs. When we sell a cubic metre of teak to South Africa we get about R2 000, but if we go through the process of converting it into parquet flooring, for example, the same cubic metre will sell for R4 800.
This means that every time we export a cubic metre of rough-sawn teak we are donating R2 800 to South Africa as well as the jobs that go with the production process.
Maximisation on transport is also lost because we will be transporting waste to South Africa at a cost to ourselves.
Direct employment in value adding industries for Matabeleland alone exceeds 3 800 people and a further 1 200 are employed indirectly through secondary industries. Further employment opportunities exist as the level of investment in manufacturing increases.
The mind boggles as to why the Forest Commission decided to lift the ban given the foregoing.
Additionally, it was also felt that the export of unprocessed timber would lead to serious poaching and unregulated harvesting of timber leading to forest depletion within a short period, therefore, compromising sustainable forest management and utilisation.
Statutory Instrument 112 of 2001 plays a regulatory function in pursuance of inter-generational equitable utilisation in Zimbabwe. As a piece of legislation arising out of the policy formulation responsibilities of the Forestry Commission it should be rigorously enforced to regulate the predatory behaviour of fly-by-night timber merchants.
The Chronicle article indicates that there is a glut of unprocessed timber on the market as evidenced by the number of timber companies allowed to export rough-sawn timber. This gives the impression that timber extraction (productive) has now grossly overtaken the protective function.
It is also puzzling to note that a total of 18 firms were allowed to export timber when, in actual fact, only five companies out of the total list made available to The Chronicle have timber concessions. Where are the rest getting their timber?
One cannot help but conclude that the source could be poaching. As pointed out earlier on the export of unprocessed timber leads to serious poaching, wanton destruction and depletion of all forests within a short period of time.
Suspension of Statutory 112 of 2001, however, temporary was therefore not consistent with the policing and regulatory role of the Forest Commission.
The decision to auction and subsequently harvest timber in Demarcated State Indigenous Forests should be carried out against a backcloth of the mix of functions played by the forests. Natural forests and indigenous trees in general have productive, protective and social functions.
The protective functions of some forests are of equal or greater importance than their productive functions and these protection forests are managed so as to assist in controlling soil erosion, protect water supplies and provide habitat for wildlife. The Indigenous Forests of Matabeleland North and the Midlands were set aside through an Act of Parliament as Demarcated State Indigenous Forests primarily for their protective function.
The Forestry Commission should never ever lose site of this when formulating policy and guidelines whose objectives are meant to protect the forest resource.
As already noted, the functions of managed forests may be classified as productive, protective and social. The most important productive functions of managed forests are to sustain supplies of timber and minor products such as foliage, fruits, dyes and medicinal plants.
The protective functions are concerned with the environment and take several forms, i.e. regulating the quantity and quality of water supplies, conserving wildlife through management of their habitats.
In reality, the relative importance and compatibility of the productive functions depend on the climatic conditions, terrain, and soil that prevail in each area. Over large expanses of land, there is little or no conflict; timber production has priority and the protective functions are associated with it.
When the site conditions are such as to make protection essential, as for instance in forests on important water catchments and the ecologically fragile Kalahari Sands in western Zimbabwe, timber production and or quarrying become an associated function and are said to be subordinate to the protective function.
Now when timber production is subordinate to the protective function, the objects of silvicultural systems are principally to harvest on a yield basis an appropriate part of the forest so that the productivity of the forest ecosystem remains undiminished in the long term.
This is consistent with the objective of sustainable development. If, however, the forest ecosystem is treated without due care the site cannot be restocked, the disturbance caused by felling will lead to forest depletion and is long-lived.
This is precisely what happened in Matabeleland North when the Rhodesia Native Timber Concession (RNTC) carried out logging operations between 1937 and 1987 leading to massive and most recently the near extinction of mukwa.
As a consequence of this harvesting in all indigenous forests, except Mafungautsi, had to be suspended in 1987 so as to arrest the decline in wood yields and overall forest condition.
The problem in our Demarcated State Indigenous Forests is compounded by lack of forest management plans. Unlike the indigenous forests in rural district councils (for example Tsholotsho, which has evolved forest management plans), no clear forest management plans have ever been drawn or implemented in Demarcated State Indigenous Forests.
The object of management for individual or groups of Demarcated State Indigenous Forests is not clearly stated. None of the Demarcated State Indigenous Forests enjoys a package of the whole or most of the technical forestry prescription, i.e. silvicultural system, yield regulation, forest protection, cultural operations, utilisation prescription, etc.
Instead, a broad 40-year felling cycle and general prescription for forest exploitation, which was first introduced in the early 1930s, is still in use.
Fire protection is the only activity common to all Demarcated State Indigenous Forests.
In the absence of Forest Management Plans it is difficult to control harvesting operations and consequently difficult to sustainably utilise the timber resource.
Forest Management Plans are a record of past history, necessary in planning for the future and help improve the understanding of the forest and its dynamics.
They maintain consistency and conformity when there is change of staff.
Economically, they help focus on yield, expenditure, revenue, labour and inputs at the same time ensuring that benefits accrue to those that own and live with the resource. They are, therefore, imperative.
The Forestry Commission's new 20 percent indigenisation policy as reported in The Chronicle is an environmental accident in waiting. The dictates of the policy are that; the concessionaire should harvest 80 percent of the commercial timber in the timber concession area on a month-to-month basis and the indigenous partner the remainder.
The Chronicle, however, informs us that both parties are harvesting 400 cubic metres per month thereby doubling the monthly allowable offtake, hence, the requests by so many to export. It is without doubt an ecological disaster is in the making.
Obviously this is not sustainable utilisation but exploitation and is akin to the rape and plunder of the environment. Clearly, there is no adherence to the policy and guidelines as intended.
The Forestry Commission should not be paternalistic, what should have been done is to outright award 20 percent of all the available productive areas if any to indigenous companies in their own right and ensure that extraction complies with laid down silvicultural prescriptions.
When trees are indiscriminately cut as is happening in the Demarcated State Indigenous Forests, the overhead and side shelter provided by the canopy is lost and the microclimate of the site becomes similar to that of a nearby site, which is without trees.
The range of temperature widens and the desiccative effects of wind have full play. Several processes of the forest ecosystem cease to operate. The hydrological cycle is broken; interception with evaporation and transpiration cease and the water table rises. Wet soils become wetter and dry soils dryer. Surface runoff also increases which leads to erosion, and ultimately siltation.
The consequences for the Zambezi River and Lake Kariba, like The Chronicle reported, are too ghastly to contemplate. If the present generation continues to sanction such profligate extraction of timber this effectively means the Matabeleland Zambezi Water Project is as good as dead before the Gwaai-Shangani dam is completed.
Some of the Demarcated State Indigenous Forests are home to some of the important remaining wildlife reserves in Africa and are the basis for the social function.
In that respect, the social function of forests which provides facilities for field recreation through sport hunting (consumptive safari tourism) and eco-tourism (non-consumptive safari tourism) and employment should take priority over the productive function as return on investment per square kilometre is higher from these activities.
Furthermore, the cost to the environment is minimal compared to opening the forest and exposing it to the vicissitudes of the climate. This function is highly dependent on the forest ecosystem.
Remove the forest ecosystem and you also remove the wildlife, which is the mainstay of the social function of the forest ecosystem.
My thesis on the management of indigenous forests is that; management strategies should acknowledge and focus on the fact that forests can and should perform a variety of productive, protective and social functions.
The critical issue, however, is sustainable use versus abuse. Decisions by the Forestry Commission, as the Scientific and Management Authority should, therefore, be predicated by answers to the following questions:
Which forests are to be used? For what mix of functions? By whom? How? And when? These decisions will shape the future of natural forests and indigenous trees in the new millennium.
Finally, the most critical element in a management strategy for sustainable forestry development is to establish the right policy and one such policy is to halt inappropriate incentives that attract people to the forest to treat it in a predatory, short-term manner.
Statutory Instrument 112 of 2001 currently serves that policy very well and should, therefore, not be sacrificed on the altar of the interests of a few whose actions are driven and guided by unbridled appetites as well as avarice.