Challenges and opportunities for carbon management in Malawi...

future science group 159ISSN 1758-300410.4155/CMT.12.14 © 2012 Future Science Ltd

BackgroundIn the run-up to a post-Kyoto agreement and Rio+20, efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change are start-ing to be viewed less as separate endeavors and more as mutually supportive efforts [1]. Such linkages represent a relatively new stance within the climate change regime, which has historically seen a stark separation of mitiga-tion and adaptation efforts [2]. Policy programs such as UN-REDD and REDD+ [3,4], and provisions such as the CDM [5], represent just some of a growing number of international initiatives that embrace the integration of climate change and sustainable development efforts or seek synergy in mitigation and adaptation policies [6,101].

At the local level, interest is growing in farm-based activities promoting land-management strategies that enhance carbon storage in soils and vegetation. These can deliver direct livelihood benefits to the rural poor, even before any carbon payments are provided [7,8]. The opportunity to harness synergy or ‘multi-ple wins’ is also apparent within the rapidly evolving

voluntary carbon market (VCM) [9,10]. The VCM oper-ates in parallel to the regulatory or compliance markets and offers a route for governments, NGOs, business and individuals to buy emissions offsets [11]. The VCM has been small compared with the regulatory market, but is growing rapidly. The State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2011 Report notes that 131.2 MtCO

2-e was

transacted globally in the VCM in 2010, up 34% on 2009 figures [12]. For those sectors of society with high dependency on the natural resource base, the VCM offers the prospect of poverty reduction through alterna-tive and diversified livelihood options if certain land use and management practices are pursued and/or payments are provided. Indeed, evidence suggests that climate change mitigation through forestry linked to carbon payments can boost the incomes of the poor, as well as enhancing opportunities for adaptation and develop-ment [13,14]. For many of the world’s poorest countries, carbon management projects are therefore viewed as a valuable opportunity and are gradually making their

Carbon Management (2012) 3(2), 159–173

Challenges and opportunities for carbon management in Malawi and Zambia

Lindsay C Stringer*1, Andrew J Dougill1, David D Mkwambisi2, Jen C Dyer1, Felix K Kalaba1 & Mtisunge Mngoli2

Policy initiatives targeting carbon management are increasingly linking climate change mitigation and adaptation with efforts to reduce poverty and advance sustainable development. This article draws on empirical semi-structured interview data and documentary analyses to present an assessment of the challenges and opportunities faced by national policymakers and other key stakeholders in achieving these ‘multiple wins’ in Malawi and Zambia. Lessons emerging from these study countries provide a useful basis for informing integrated carbon management, poverty reduction and sustainable development projects more widely in the southern Africa region. The findings reveal that multistakeholder partnerships are increasingly necessary, and we identify examples to illustrate that such collaborations are being established with varying degrees of success. The article suggests that discrete projects need to be adequately coordinated by umbrella organizations operating over larger scales in order to promote the longevity of project impacts at the local scale and to allow experiences and good practices to feed into national policy development. Capacity-building and resource investments across different levels are also shown to be vital.

Special RepoRt

1Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK 2University of Malawi, Bunda College, PO Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi *Author for correspondence: Tel.: +44 113 3437 530; Fax: +44 113 3435 259; E-mail: [email protected]

For reprint orders, please contact [email protected]

Carbon Management (2012) 3(2) future science group160

Special Report Stringer, Dougill, Mkwambisi, Dyer, Kalaba & Mngoli

way into national development strat-egies [9]. This is happening despite skepticism from some quarters and notwithstanding that in 2010 most VCM transactions took place for projects located in the USA or Latin America [12]. The translation of pol-icy rhetoric and international agree-ments into on-the-ground benefits is not straightforward, and in many nations (especially low income countries) policy efforts to inte-grate these priorities remain only at a preliminary stage [15]. Analysis of the institutional and practical con-straints limiting such policy devel-opment and, in particular, related project implementation, is required at a national scale in countries at different stages of the preparatory process for UN-REDD+, VCM and CDM projects, in order to inform policy and practice debates globally. This article draws on interview and documentary data to explore the institutional and practical chal-lenges and opportunities linked to carbon management in the neigh-boring sub-Saharan African coun-tries of Malawi and Zambia. These countries were chosen as the focus of our ana lysis as they have similar agroecosystems, provide contrast-ing levels of UN-REDD Program engagement and build on the authors’ existing research assessing the scientific challenges in assessing carbon sequestration and its links to livelihoods and ecosystem service provision [16].

Malawi is one of the world’s 48 least-developed countries [102], sitting in 171st posi-tion of the Human Development Index according to the most recent Human Development Report [17]. Per capita gross national income is purchasing power parity US$753; and 73.9% of the population is considered to be living below the poverty line of $1.25/day, with 39.3% living in severe poverty [17]. Zambia is in 164th place in the Human Development Index and has per capita gross national income of purchasing power parity $1254. In Zambia, 64.3% of the population live below the poverty line, with 34.8% living in severe poverty [17]. Such poverty levels mean that the natural resource base is a key asset in both countries, with forests acting

as valuable sources of energy (e.g., as charcoal; Figure 1), income and construction material for the growing pop-ulation [18]. Forests also play a role as a safety net, pro-viding nontimber forest products including mushrooms, honey, vegetables, caterpillars and fruits, supporting coping strategies during times of weather-related crop failure [19,20].

In both Malawi and Zambia, miombo is the predom-inant woodland type, with miombo species accounting for almost all natural forest cover [21]. Only a very small proportion of forests in these countries are classified as plantations including soft and hard wood species [22–24]. Deforestation rates in recent years (largely of miombo) have been significant in both Malawi and Zambia. Malawi has seen forest losses of the magnitude 0.9–2.8% per annum, with 13% of the country’s land surface covered by forest being lost between 1990 and 2005, largely due to the rural population’s demand for fuel wood [25]. Such a rate of deforestation means that Malawi lost 33,000 ha of forest cover between 2000 and 2010 [26]. This led the government to record 36.2% of Malawi’s land surface as being national forest cover, compared with a Millennium Development Goal target set at 50% cover [27]. With population growth rates of 2.8% per annum [28], demand for wood (for use as fuel, artisanal timber and in charcoal production) is expected to further increase into the future [29]. Policymakers across the country therefore face a difficult challenge in moving towards a low-carbon future, in which carbon management and poverty reduction efforts work in tan-dem to deliver synergistic benefits that target multiple development challenges.

Neighboring Zambia’s above- and below-ground carbon stored in biomass was recently estimated to be 2.5 billion tonnes, with a further 204 million tonnes in dead wood. 67% of Zambia’s land surface (49,468,000 ha) is currently covered by forest [26]. The rate of forest loss is high, with deforestation rates estimated to be between 298,000 ha per annum and 444,800 ha per annum, between 1996 and 2006, respec-tively, depending on the methods of measurement used [30]. Most recently, the FAO have estimated deforestation rates at 0.3% (or 167,000 ha per annum) between 2000 and 2010 [26]. Particularly alarming rates of forest deg-radation are seen in the Copperbelt Province miombo systems [31], where pressures have been exacerbated by the influx of migrants associated with the development of mining activities across the region [32]. A recent study has highlighted that clear felling on charcoal production sites to meet the growing demands for charcoal in urban areas remains a major challenge [33].

Malawi and Zambia, in principle, are taking fairly similar forest management approaches. Both have forest policies (Malawi, 1996 and Zambia, 1998)

Key terms

UN-REDD: The UN’s collaborative initiative on REDD in developing countries. The Program was launched in September 2008 (in UNFCCC decision 2/COP13) to assist developing countries in preparing and implementing national REDD+ strategies.

REDD+: Goes beyond REDD and includes the conservation and sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. It explicitly recognizes that net negative changes in carbon stocks across all land uses (including agriculture) require a full accounting scheme, though most debate has focused on international financial transfers to incentivize and support the implementation of forest policies in developing countries.

CDM: Defined in Article 12 of the UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol, allows a country with an emission reduction or emission limitation commitment under the Kyoto Protocol (an Annex B Party) to implement an emission reduction project in developing countries. Such projects can earn saleable certified emission reduction credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2, which can be counted towards meeting Kyoto Protocol targets.

Voluntary carbon market: Refers to all purchases of carbon credits not driven by an existing regulatory compliance obligation and includes transactions of credits created for voluntary markets (such as verified emission reductions or carbon financial instruments), as well as regulatory market offsets or allowances that buyers seek, to voluntarily offset their emissions.

Plan Vivo: Plan Vivo Standards are part of a broader Plan Vivo System, which is a framework for planning, managing and monitoring the supply of verifiable emission reductions from community-based land use projects.

Challenges & opportunities for carbon management in Malawi & Zambia Special Report

future science group www.future-science.com 161

that recognize the diversity of stakeholders in for-est management and seek to actively engage them as participants in management activities. In Malawi, for-est policy is enacted via the National Forest Program (2000), which gives regulatory powers to the Forestry Department (under the Ministry of Natural Resources). Natural forests are managed through community man-agement and Village Natural Resource Management Committees. In Zambia, forest policy is enacted though Forests Act 7 (1999), which establishes a range of forest management types (including national, local and joint forest management), with local communities involved to varying degrees in each. Regulation is via the Forestry Department (part of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources) and local communities are engaged through Forest Management Councils. Such commu-nity-empowered management fits well with the rhetoric of many VCM standards, particularly those niche stan-dards such as Plan Vivo that emphasize the importance of co-benefits beyond carbon storage. This offers the potential for resultant financial rewards to be directly beneficial to communities and individuals, and thus offers ‘triple wins’ across climate change mitigation, adaptation and poverty alleviation dimensions.

Despite the similarities in policy approaches in Zambia and Malawi, in practice, the implementa-tion of community-based forest management in the two countries is very different, with varying tenure and management rights [34]. Therefore, integrated carbon management–poverty initiatives face varying implementation challenges, particularly where forest resources are involved. In addition, Zambia has had the advantage of receiving funding from the international community to link carbon management with poverty reduction through its designation as a REDD+ pilot country, as well as hosting CDM projects linked to the regulatory carbon market, targeting climate change mit-igation and sustainable development [29]. The Zambian context, therefore, provides a useful comparator with Malawi in terms of identifying useful potentially trans-ferable lessons. In Malawi, UN-REDD initiatives have received less investment and fewer CDM projects are being implemented, despite Malawi currently assessing six Project Identification Notes and two Project Design Documents linked to CDM proposals.

In this Special Report, we report the results of research in which the team of authors identified and interviewed key stakeholders involved in, or associated with, car-bon management projects across Malawi and Zambia. We aimed to identify the challenges and opportunities that are faced in meeting carbon management, poverty reduction and sustainable development goals, focusing in particular on VCM and CDM projects being imple-mented at the time of data collection. National-level

analyses, such as those provided here, are essential to inform policy development and project implementation debates more widely.

Our focus on sub-Saharan Africa is especially per-tinent, given the high number of the world’s poor in this region [35], its vulnerability to climate change [36] and the recognition of its significant carbon storage potential [37,38]. Many existing analyses tend to focus on Latin America [39–41], where payments for carbon sequestration and broader payment for ecosystem ser-vices schemes have a longer record of implementation [42,43]. Following a brief outline of our methods, chal-lenges and opportunities linked to multistakeholder working and capacity-building and resource invest-ments are discussed, as the two major themes emerging from our data. Based on our ana lysis, we identify policy recommendations that could inform the direction of future perspectives on carbon management in our study countries and more widely across the southern Africa region.

Methods Interviews with 40 stakeholders (20 per country) across different groups and sectors were undertaken in Zambia and Malawi between March and July 2011 (Table 1).

Interviewees were selected as part of a process of stake-holder ana lysis [44]. Initial participant selection was con-ducted following a broad review of the international, Malawian and Zambian policy contexts and identifica-tion of integrated carbon management–poverty reduc-tion projects currently being implemented across the study countries, based on internet searches [29,38,45].

Figure 1. Bags of charcoal for sale at the roadside between Lilongwe and Blantyre, Malawi.



A snowball sampling strategy was then adopted, in which initial participants provided the names and contact details of other possible interviewees who they considered had knowledge of, or a stake in, carbon management and poverty alleviation projects in each of the study countries. Participants frequently suggested further interviewees from institutions and stakeholder groups different to their own. Overall, the data col-lection process was iterative, with documents guiding us towards interviewees, who subsequently guided us towards further interviewees and documents.

At the beginning of each interview, participants were given a verbal explanation of the research. They were informed that their participation was voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw from the research at any time. Participants were then asked for their explicit verbal agreement for the interview to be carried out. Such per-mission seeking and the subsequent storage of data were in accordance with the ethics policies of the lead author’s employer. The ethics policies include the right for par-ticipants’ anonymity to be upheld; hence, information on the interview sample in Table 1 does not provide the names or institutions of interviewees. Interviews were semi-structured and carried out in English. Notes were taken throughout and direct quotes were noted where possible. Categories and codes were then developed around emergent themes that arose repeatedly, in order to draw out key challenges and opportunities during ana lysis. Such themes included: barriers to, and associ-ated benefits of, the greater uptake of land- management practices and projects for enhancing terrestrial carbon storage; details of projects for mitigating climate change and delivering sustainable development; and perspec-tives on new policy and market opportunities for the coming years. These were then broken down into fur-ther subthemes in the analytical process, as explana-tion was sought [46]. Where themes were mentioned by only one interviewee they were discarded, as we sought to develop some degree of comparability around those challenges and opportunities considered by stakehold-ers from a range of groups. Data from all interviewees was treated with the same level of authority and, while we cross-referenced between the responses of different

interviewees and the published and gray literatures, we did not verify the interview data with any primary field measurements.

Results & discussionThis section explores two key themes for further discussion, based on the ana lysis of interview data and docu-mentary evidence. For each theme we provide key information from

interviews and consider the policy and implementation challenges and opportunities that are faced, linked to each. The themes overlap but can be summarized as multistakeholder working, and capacity and resource investments across levels. These emerged strongly from the interview data, being mentioned by several different interviewees, and are corroborated by ana lysis of policy and project documents where appropriate.

� Multistakeholder & multisectoral working A wide variety of groups were found to be involved in car-bon management in both Malawi and Zambia, spanning a range of different levels from the international to the local (Table 1; see also Macqueen in relation to commu-nity forest management initiatives [47]). At the national level in both study countries, key stakeholders include government departments and ministries, NGOs and pri-vate sector companies operating across a range of sectors (including bioenergy, mining and climate finance). Most projects and efforts that stakeholders identified focused on rural areas. However, the opportunity for NGOs working in partnership with other stakeholders in urban areas to contribute to carbon management, poverty reduction and development emerged from the Malawi stakeholder interviews. This builds on the recognition of the important role that urban agriculture can play in livelihoods and food production [48]. For example, with funding from the UN Development Program, NGOs such as the Centre for Community Development and Sustainable Waste Management, in partnership with Bunda College of Agriculture (University of Malawi), Lilongwe City Council and Four Seasons Nursery, have trained and empowered women living in low income and slum areas of Lilongwe to compost organic and human waste since 2009. This not only reduces waste problems that have a climate change impact through the release of methane, but also supports food production and reduces soil erosion, contributing both soil carbon storage and wider ecosystem service benefits. Additional training has been provided in waste collection and sorting at the local level, allowing registration of participants as ‘waste entrepreneurs’ by Lilongwe City Council, and providing them with a new income stream.

Table 1. Number of interviewees and the stakeholder groups to which they belong.

Stakeholder group Number of interviews in Malawi

Number of interviews in Zambia

Government/government related 4 10NGO 7 1Academia 4 4Private sector 2 1Traditional authority 1 2International organization 2 2



Interviewees stressed that these kinds of urban multi-stakeholder interventions are less commonly recognized or rewarded within policy or the VCM. However, they do have the potential to contribute to small-scale climate change mitigation through soil carbon sequestration, as well as adaptation through the enhancement of liveli-hood opportunities and income. This has greater sig-nificance for mitigation if such initiatives are rolled out more widely. None of the stakeholders we interviewed mentioned the possibility of incorporating interventions that target urban areas or rural–urban linkages in their future activities. However, interviewees did suggest that current initiatives are increasingly aiming to work across different sectors, particularly agriculture and forestry, but also with links to energy and water policy develop ment and local institutions. Such multiscale and multistakeholder involvement was largely considered positive by interviewees in both Malawi and Zambia, since it offers the potential for cross-scale and cross-sectoral learning and knowledge exchange, as well as the possibility to deliver multiple wins across different sectors [49].

At the project level in Malawi, multiple government, NGO and private sector groups were found to be work-ing in partnership with local communities and funding agencies in order to reduce deforestation, reduce carbon emissions and enhance carbon storage with a view to gaining Plan Vivo certification to enable sale of carbon credits on the VCM. Although Plan Vivo is perhaps less well known than other standards (e.g., Verified Carbon Standard, Gold Standard and Carbon Fix) it targets a niche part of the market due to its focus on the delivery of co-benefits beyond carbon storage. The Trees of Hope project (funded by the Clinton Development Initiative) represents one such initiative, operating in Neno and Dowa districts of Malawi via the voluntary engagement of community members and targeting household and community-owned land. It involves the establishment, management and use of forestry and agroforestry sys-tems in line with Plan Vivo Standards, to deliver carbon, ecosystem services (e.g., wood, enhanced agricultural yields and nutrient cycling) and associated livelihood benefits, including improved food security. Project activities include the plantation of citrus and mango orchards and wider encouragement of agro forestry prac-tices, woodlots and boundary planting around arable fields. Over 1174 producers are currently engaged in the scheme across the two districts, with a land area of approximately 956 ha and boundary planting of 376 km included in the project [50].

Trees of Hope gained Plan Vivo Foundation accreditation in September 2011 and is the only proj-ect in Malawi to achieve this standard to date. Trees of Hope’s success provides a flagship model for other

carbon management projects within the country and highlights a number of good practices in meeting the standards of VCM accreditation schemes that could help inform future carbon management initiatives. These include a clear acknowledgement of the impor-tance of collaboration and the importance of building on existing institutions, as well as the need for adequate capacity and communication investments. Although the project coordinator is based in Lilongwe, consid-erable support is provided by existing field officers based in the Neno and Dowa Districts. The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development, are formal partners in the project, and the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture already have extension systems and staff operating within the target areas, so the project builds upon existing structures, communication channels and personnel presence. One of our interviewees explained that the involvement of government departments is vital in looking forward, as the Clinton Development Initiative transfers greater responsibility to the community in terms of the proj-ect’s management, operation and monitoring. Field officers, in turn, are supported by farmer volunteers, chosen by community members, who form a network of local program monitors and serve as on-the-ground project leaders, as well as leading monitoring activities [50]. Again, this builds on existing structures, this time at the local level, supplementing the Village Natural Resources Management Committees that were already present prior to the project establishment. Local pro-gram monitors are each responsible for approximately 25 producers and provide general community- based advice on boundary planting, woodlot establishment, dis-persed systematic interplanting and citrus and mango orchards, following significant training and capacity-building investments from field officers, while all stake-holders are offered the opportunity to participate in project design and planning meetings.

Although the Trees of Hope project is a positive suc-cess story (at minimum in terms of attaining Plan Vivo Foundation certification standards), several other proj-ects throughout Malawi found the Plan Vivo bar too high for them to attain accreditation. This was a view raised explicitly by both government officials and NGO staff, with a common complaint being that “there is a lack of case study examples of what is needed to obtain [Plan Vivo] certification or what makes a successful REDD project” (international NGO representative, Malawi). Core concerns focused on the high socio-economic standards and livelihood co-benefits that are required for Plan Vivo accreditation. This matches eval-uations of Plan Vivo in the literature, which praise its high standards in ensuring the delivery of co-benefits.



However, the literature critiques go further than our interviewees, questioning the appropriateness of Plan Vivo’s ex-ante sale of credits, and considering that the carbon stored is less secure than is the case for credits certified by other schemes that are sold ex-post [51,52].

Standards such as Plan Vivo need to set an appropri-ate baseline and are sufficiently strict in their monitor-ing and certification requirements to provide interna-tional investors with confidence that pro-poor carbon storage payments are effective and long lasting, and that additionality is being attained. However, this can mean those efforts not making the standard are viewed less positively, despite having delivered useful carbon and/or poverty reduction benefits, often alongside the development of otherwise successful new partnerships.

One example of such a collaboration that did not receive Plan Vivo accreditation in Malawi is the US Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded COMPASS II project, implemented during 2004–2009 [53]. This project was carried out in the Mkuwazi Forest Reserve and Nyika National Park in the northern part of the country, where forested areas support people’s livelihoods through the harvesting of nontimber forest products, as well as having biodiver-sity value and providing wood for fuel and domestic construction. Yet, these forests have been subject to deg-radation, agricultural encroachment and deforestation [54]. COMPASS II set out to improve the biophysical condition of forest cover in order to achieve biodiver-sity and carbon sequestration goals by protecting and restoring forest areas, while also providing alternative livelihood activities (beekeeping, fish farming and eco-tourism), and developing sustainable bioenergy from woodlots using energy efficient stoves [38].

The partnership approach taken in implementing this project provided a concrete focus for different groups (the Malawi Environmental Endowment Trust, the government-funded Forest Research Institute of Malawi and the Leadership for Environment and Development program) to work together with Bioclimate Research and Development towards Plan Vivo Foundation stan-dards. Project implementation activities included the establishment of community-based participatory meth-ods of ana lysis, which are required in order to secure payments for the carbon sequestered, and local staff and fieldworkers from the community were trained in skills such as mapping, forest surveying and participatory approaches to defining REDD baselines. In explaining the project to communities, one interviewee explained how the co-benefits were emphasized. He stated that: “local communities don’t understand carbon storage, but they do understand the other benefits that can be gained for the environment.” In this case, however, full Plan Vivo standards and the certification of carbon

credits were not achieved in an initial application for accreditation. Subsequently, national government sup-port has sustained the project’s work, implying that it is difficult to demonstrate additional benefits that would ensue from any VCM investments. Consequently, it is unlikely that Plan Vivo Certification will be feasible for this project. The multiple organizations involved and the end of the USAID funding means that the future responsibility for the project efforts is unclear to many who were involved in its development and implemen-tation. Representatives from the institutions involved in this project from which we drew interviewees each stated the need for further input and resourcing from others before they can move forward collaboratively.

While small-scale examples like the Trees of Hope project and the COMPASS II project illustrate that the delivery of poverty reduction benefits in tandem with carbon savings can be facilitated by new partnerships involving multiple stakeholders, few additional oppor-tunities for collaborative working exist beyond the proj-ect level. This creates a challenge in extending benefits outside the single District or Forest Reserve scale of such projects in Malawi. Consequently, the impacts of these new collaborations so far have not been long lasting; nor have they led to significant project developments in neighboring locations. Furthermore, disparate project interventions such as these tend not to be in a position to feed directly into national level policies and their review, restricting the possibility for them to inform the development of policy options. Communications between different groups tend to be on an ad hoc needs basis, providing little opportunity for networking or for the structured development of integrated carbon management–poverty reduction efforts at a national level. This suggests that the mainstreaming of multi-stakeholder working into the core approach of the collaborating stakeholders, necessary for sustainable cooperation, has not taken place.

Our interview data suggest that a more sustain-able institutional infrastructure is in place in Zambia than is apparent in Malawi and that umbrella orga-nizations offer the potential to build multistakeholder partnerships, promote longevity of project impacts and potentially open up new funding avenues [55]. The Zambian Government recognized that some of the chal-lenges we noted in the Malawi case were occurring in Zambia, and established an Environment and Natural Resources Management and Mainstreaming Program (ENRMMP) in an attempt to improve coordination of environmental and natural resource projects [56]. The ENRMMP consists of a steering committee of govern-ment officials and international cooperating partners (UN Development Programme, UN Environment Programme and FAO), acting as an umbrella for all



cooperating partners working in the environment sec-tor. This is supported by a multisectoral technical com-mittee comprising experts in forestry, agriculture and other environmental areas. As the ENRMMP is gov-ernment led, interviewees consider it has greater poten-tial for longevity than if it was linked to a particular project with a predetermined lifespan. The ENRMMP operates on a national scale, whereas projects such as those mentioned in Malawi are based within particular Districts or a single Forest Reserve. The ENRMMP encompasses all projects in the environment sector and provides an opportunity for wider cross-scale and cross-sector planning at the national level. According to one of our Zambian government interviewees, this approach is likely to have an impact on the future development of sectoral policies as the various policymakers have an opportunity to work and interact with experts across sectors. The ENRMMP also has permanent members, providing opportunities for long-term, consistent and progressive planning and monitoring of projects. This contrasts with the Malawi case where communications between different groups have been much more ad hoc.

Although the coordination of institutional infrastruc-ture in Zambia is more advanced, due to the country’s involvement in UN-REDD as a pilot country and the establishment of the ENRMMP, there is evidence of potential for Malawi to build institutional infrastruc-ture that would support multistakeholder partnerships and the coordination of projects in a similar manner. Advocacy bodies, such as the Centre for Environmental Policy and Advocacy (CEPA) in Malawi, offer scope to move towards such enhanced communications between government, NGOs and civil society, though this would be civil-society led rather than government led, as in the Zambian case. CEPA’s work to date has focused on policy reviews and compliance reports [57]. CEPA is also the focal point for the Civil Society Network on Climate Change, which consists of 20 organizations nationally. As such, CEPA could play a key umbrella role in the dis-semination of success stories, facilitating the exchange of best practices between projects and feeding this into the future policy development process. Nevertheless, an important limitation of CEPA’s communication and advocacy approach was reported by our academic interviewees. Our Malawian academic interviewees noted that research stakeholders linked to universities and research centers that are producing new knowl-edge linked to carbon management are insufficiently engaged with both NGOs and government, restricting the provision of empirical data and information in the development of evidence-based policy. These academic stakeholders could play a key role in advancing partner-ships within Malawi. Currently, however, a specific proj-ect focus (i.e., COMPASS II, which worked with the

Chancellor College, University of Malawi) appears to be needed to bring different stakeholder groups, including researchers, together in the absence of a strong umbrella organization, resulting in limited longevity of interac-tions. Malawi’s policymakers could learn from Zambia’s experiences in establishing a more permanent institu-tional infrastructure to guide and facilitate dialogue on integrated carbon storage poverty reduction initiatives at the national level.

� Capacity-building & resource investments across levelsCapacity-building and resource investments emerged from our data as a second major theme. Government policy stakeholders in both of our study coun-tries reported that they have participated in various regional-level capacity-building initiatives linked to the UN-REDD Program in recent years, with the Southern Africa Development Community embracing REDD+ as a future priority for the region. One such capacity-building workshop was an FAO People and Forests Program regional meeting held in 2009, mentioned by government officials in Malawi. During interviews they explained that this meeting enabled knowledge shar-ing between forestry officials and allowed Malawian participants to hear the perspectives of officials from REDD+ pilot countries such as Tanzania and Zambia. Preparatory projects bringing together national and international partners in Malawi following the regional capacity building have been initiated in relation to the development of appropriate methodologies for imple-menting a future REDD+ mechanism [58]. However, international efforts beyond this that directly follow-up to assist national UN-REDD preparedness strategy were generally felt to be lacking.

The slow progress, according to some of our Malawian government interviewees, is perhaps due to the need to bring together personnel from across different Ministries to mobilize the capacity that has been built. More than half of our government interviewees explained that staff from the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development, and their field extension staff (who have primary responsibility for agricultural adaptation poli-cies) need to work closely with staff from, for example, the Department of Forestry and the Department of Environmental Affairs, both of which fall within the authority of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Environment. Collaboration across different minis-tries, sectors and departments is thus vital but remains a significant challenge – particularly if there is no single project focus around which clear roles can be defined. This issue was also reitereated by the NGO represen-tatives in Malawi. In Zambia, despite advances and the establishment of the ENRMMP, our interviewees



reported that conf licts continue to arise between national policies on energy, agriculture and forestry [59–61]. For example, interviewees noted that priorities of those Zambian ministries concerned with economic development and those concerned with environ mental aspects were often at odds. One government interviewee stated that, “Sometimes it hard for us to justify why carbon benefits are more important than converting forests to other competing land uses. Other people say why should we conserve forests while trees are sitting on copper, which when mined will contribute greatly to the country’s economy?” Zambian government interview-ees also suggested that further changes are required in order to draw on existing capacity to advance sectoral policies to match national statements made in relation to UN-REDD+, the UNFCCC, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

Limited capacity also creates problems for CDM projects in Zambia. The country has one active CDM project at the time of writing (running from 2009 to 2019), according to one of our government interviewees, which seeks to reduce charcoal consumption in urban households in Lusaka through the use of high-quality cooking stoves, which use renewable biomass (twigs) from forestry maintenance and plantations. The stoves aim to enhance livelihoods by reducing fuel costs, improve health by enabling cleaner cooking conditions and reduce forest loss by avoiding deforestation for charcoal production. The project is targeting 30,000 low-income households in Lusaka. One of our govern-ment interviewees explained that in Zambia a desig-nated national authority has been established, which is responsible for reviewing CDM project proposals and providing approval in the form of supporting let-ters to the CDM Executive Board. Approval is given if various criteria are met across social, economic and environmental dimensions, as the receipt of government approval is contingent on the fact that the project will contribute to the country’s sustainable development. Several constraints to developing CDM projects, both internal and external, were mentioned. There is a lack of expertize at the national level to develop project con-cepts in collaboration with developed country partners, a lack of validators to confirm emissions reductions and a lack of awareness-raising and sensitization of the private sector to encourage more active participation in carbon markets. External constraints include that it is expensive to develop a project up to registration level, with interviewees estimating that it can cost up to $200,000. The processes of project approval are also bureaucratic and complex, particularly at the level of the CDM Executive Board. Similar observations are reported for other developing countries besides Zambia

[62,63]. One of our Malawian government interviewees suggested the main challenge faced by Malawi’s desig-nated national authority is limited funding and a lack of capacity to review project design documents. As a result of constraints such as this, to date only 2% of CDM projects registered by the UNFCCC are in Africa [35].

Another challenge that was repeatedly mentioned by stakeholders from all groups is the gap between build-ing national capacity to prepare for the implementation of REDD+ initiatives, and the mobilization of knowl-edge and information to ensure it is shared with other stakeholders, through capacity building and training of extension staff to enable them to deliver benefits on the ground [64]. This is necessary in order to lay the foundations for local awareness raising and capacity building that promotes understanding of carbon man-agement projects, as well as technical skills develop-ment for monitoring and a sense of bottom-up project ownership at the local level [49]. An interviewee from an international organization in Malawi underlined that in addition to capacity building across all levels, appropriate communication and knowledge exchange channels are needed [65]. Through its designation by the UN-REDD Program as one of 14 countries receiving direct support to National Program activities, Zambia has been actively working towards REDD readiness in its planning and policies, taking a multistakeholder approach to carbon management involving both gov-ernment and other stakeholders. REDD+ efforts in Zambia are currently focused on identifying deforesta-tion hotspots and understanding the main drivers of deforestation. However, some of our interviewees made a similar point to Mwape and Gumbo, who note that communities and civil society organizations have not been actively involved in processes so far, with capacity-building and preparatory activities largely remaining confined to government ministries [66]. This represents a similar issue to that presently seen in Malawi, in that efforts to build and mobilize capacity are yet to deliver on-the-ground benefits. More regular communication and knowledge sharing activities across scales that could be facilitated by the Zambian ENRMMP may yet take place, but adequate personnel and financial resourcing are also necessary and appear to be a repeatedly men-tioned sticking point according to Zambian government interviewees.

Personnel and resourcing constraints both within gov-ernment ministries and field extension services emerged as key barriers preventing ministerial collaboration from advancing beyond the project level in both study coun-tries. One international interviewee in Malawi stressed that, “Lack of resources and human capacity is prevent-ing advances, and ministries are reluctant to share infor-mation with one another.” The implications of sticking



points linked to government are significant if future external donor investments in such development activi-ties are to continue [64]. Global donors (i.e., USAID in the COMPASS II project example) need to see that their outlays can lead to concrete results, which requires them to be willing to investigate sticking points in govern-ment systems as part of their activities. This would help donors to target field-level support teams, as shown to be successful in the Trees of Hope project, ensuring their investments have longevity in terms of impact and that the wider geographical coverage of benefits are realized. Such efforts to engage field extension officers are even more critical given that observations like this are not new for Malawi. Past research has highlighted a lack of collaboration and communication between ministries alongside inadequacies of extension services’ interac-tions with farmers at the local level [67]. Reports suggest farmer to extension staff ratios of over 2000:1 in some parts of the country [68]. These findings are particularly relevant in light of recent research that highlights the importance of regular and consistent communication in information dissemination to farmers [69,70].

Experiences from biofuel projects in Malawi that set out to achieve climate change mitigation, adapta-tion and development goals offer a further example of the importance in providing capacity-building invest-ments in necessary equipment, extension, community training and access to markets [70], as well as reiter-ating some of the good practices seen in the Trees of Hope project (e.g., the importance of building on exist-ing institutions). The NGO Janeemo has worked in southern Malawi to promote cultivation of the biofuel crop Jatropha curcas as a living fence, together with the on-farm plantation of neem (Azadirachta indica) and moringa (Moringa oleifera) trees (Box 1 & Figure 2A & 2B). Janeemo’s goals have been to reduce deforestation and improve livelihoods by providing an alternative income to charcoal production (see [70,71] for a more detailed ana lysis and empirical evaluation). The NGO worked in close collaboration with government extension services enabling the reinforcement of core messages regarding the cultivation and management of Jatropha. This is important because, as noted by our Malawian tradi-tional authority interviewee, “For a farmer to start grow-ing a new crop, they need an advisor and communica-tion lines to be open to know what to do.” Training in added value processing skills, such as soap and paraffin making, as well as access to a manual oil press and local trade fair markets, have allowed promising livelihood benefits to be realized [70,71]. Janeemo demonstrates that capacity-building activities, coupled with appro-priate information and resource provision through col-laborative working across stakeholder groups, can lead to action and real returns from investments in carbon

management–poverty reduction activities in rural areas where appropriate levels of institutional support and market systems have been established [70]. Indeed, one of our Malawi government interviewees stressed that, “It’s [Janeemo’s] a good partnership … as we see it one of the problems of NGOs is they employ people who are not well versed in the field – who are not extension workers. Now when you are going to the local commu-nities you need to well versed with extension otherwise you may mislead people and maybe confuse the entire program. This way we provide the extension and the NGO provides the resources.”

Similar good practices to the Janeemo case emerge from carbon management efforts in Zambia through conservation agriculture initiatives. For example, one of our interviewees outlined the activities of the Golden Valley Agriculture Research Trust (GART), an autono-mous public–private partnership initiative created by the Government of Zambia in partnership with the Zambia Farmers’ Union to promote conservation agri-culture. GART aims to transfer knowledge on conser-vation farming to rural people, using already existing extension services in the Ministry of Agriculture and the Famers’ Union. As found in Malawi’s Trees of Hope project and the Janeemo NGO project, building on existing institutions and the provision of sufficient training to land users is considered vital to the project’s success. Farmers are trained in agroforestry technologies promoting nitrogen-fixing, multipurpose agroforestry species such as M. oleifera and Faidherbia albida, which are used as fodder, food and have other medicinal uses [72]. Studies have highlighted that farmers appreciate trees and conserve biodiversity where they perceive that the trees are also accruing additional benefits other than just improving soil nutrient levels and carbon storage [73]. At the local level, GART provides extension services to farmers on conservation farming, while communities are also mobilized in raising tree seedlings. Finally, our interviewee reported that GART is raising awareness through its Conservation Farming Unit, encouraging farmers to shift to zero tillage, a method of cultivation that involves digging holes in which crops such as maize are planted, which is showing significant benefits across the region [74].

For projects trading verified emissions reductions on the VCM, procedures of project approval attempt to build on existing capacity and minimize bureaucracy, working from the bottom up, to harness multiple ben-efits across climate, livelihood and other ecosystem service dimensions, depending on the particular focus of the standard. Standards such as Plan Vivo and that of the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (alongside others) make use of more informal and often customary institutions that exist to govern small-scale



resources [75] and rely on simple, community-based monitoring with a view to avoiding large investments in building new capacity. While the Plan Vivo system is considerably less complex than, for example, CDM methodologies, further research is nevertheless needed to enhance the user-friendliness of monitoring and veri-fication approaches, and promote the best practices and lessons learned in project implementation. This requires partnership working between researchers, practitioners and communities in order to develop appropriate and acceptable methods and training, especially with a view to developing locally appropriate monitoring, recording and verification systems [76]. Indeed, one of our local

government interviewees from Zambia noted the need for simple, rapid monitoring methods to prevent proj-ects from interrupting communities’ other livelihood and income-generating activities. A number of scientific evidence gaps also remain, linked to the accuracy of car-bon accounting, attributable largely to a lack of data and the uncertainties associated with models of carbon stor-age and flux [77,78]. This was noted by an academic inter-viewee from Malawi. It is therefore vital that as scientific knowledge and assessment advances are made, they are simplified and translated into local monitoring methods and tools, so that communities can assess their carbon storage and harness the potential livelihood benefits that

A B

Figure 2. Technological inputs and marketable outputs from the Janeemo project. (A) Entech dryer for moringa leaves. (B) Jatropha products for sale at a local trade fair in Blantyre, Malawi.

Box 1. Janeemo as an example of a community biofuels project in southern Malawi.

� Janeemo has been promoting cultivation of Jatropha, neem and moringa trees on otherwise unproductive lands around homesteads and gardens in a series of local-scale projects focused in southern Malawi. The NGO has provided a manual press for Jatropha seed and a dryer for moringa leaves (Figure 2A) in their ‘model’ village, where many households were already cultivating Jatropha and moringa as live fences.

� The NGO has worked in collaboration with extension officers from the Department of Forestry to provide training and marketing opportunities for farmers. Households have been trained in the management of the trees and on how to use the technology and add value to the crops. A manual has also been produced in the local language, highlighting, for example, predicted timelines for production. Products made from the three trees include Jatropha, neem and moringa soap, moringa powder (valued as a nutritional supplement), moringa oil (for cooking), neem leaves (for medicine) and neem firewood. These products have been sold at local fairs such as the Blantyre Trade Fair (Figure 2B).

� Janeemo was funded by the Scottish Government, as a complementary project to an EU scheme ‘Improved Forest Management for Sustainable Livelihoods’. Initial project activities centered on establishing cultivation of the three trees in southern Malawi. Follow-on funding allowed a focus on linking smallholder farmers with markets for Jatropha-based products. Other partners in the project include Climate Futures, responsible for the business plan and communications, Imani Development, focusing on marketing of the products and the Hutton Institute (formerly the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute), who coordinated the project. Janeemo has also been working closely with private sector organization, Entech, who develop appropriate technologies for smallholder farmers, such as the moringa drier (Figure 2A).



it could deliver, without requiring significant time or capacity-building investments.

ConclusionOur ana lysis has highlighted a wide range of stakehold-ers engaged in carbon management–poverty reduction projects in Malawi and Zambia, located from the local to the international levels. Collaborative working link-ing different stakeholders and sectors appears to be an increasingly common approach. Lessons from recent and ongoing community-based natural resource man-agement schemes across southern Africa (notably in the form of wildlife conservation projects, such as the Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources in Zimbabwe [79,80]) were one aspect that the stakeholders we interviewed failed to mention. These experiences could offer considerable potential to inform the project, institutional and partnership developments required to successfully implement climate finance or REDD+ projects [Dougill AJ et al. Lessons from community-

based payment for ecosystem service schemes: from forests to

rangelands (2012), submitted]. A number of good practices were identified as being

used at the project level by Trees of Hope, Janeemo and GART that could provide broader lessons for those stakeholders engaged in integrated carbon manage-ment, poverty reduction and sustainable development projects. As such, we conclude by recommending that stakeholders should seek to:

� Pursue partnership working, building on existing institutions, structures and personnel across levels;

� Identify clear channels of communication and define roles for each group involved in carbon management–poverty reduction initiatives;

� Invest in training and capacity building (in the form of skills, equipment and market access) and informa-tion sharing and collaboration across ministries and sectors, to help bridge the gap between policy rhetoric and on-the-ground results. Such investments are needed throughout, from the initial development of ideas and policies to the implementation and evalua-tion stages. Donors should be aware of sticking points where capacity is latent following capacity-building investments. To enhance private sector interest in CDM project development, investment is needed in awareness raising and alternative approaches that reduce the costs of developing projects up to the registration level;

� Provide a route for lessons learned to be shared more widely and success stories to be up-scaled, with a view to inform policy development through enhanced net-working. Zambia’s ENRMMP provides a useful

model that could be taken up in Malawi and other places and could be coordinated by other actors such as NGOs, for example CEPA in Malawi, which with government support and buy-in, could help to address the lack of good practice examples reported by many stakeholders;

� Strengthen ties with academic stakeholders who can feed new scientific knowledge into the development of simplified local monitoring approaches and inform the development of methodologies that could inform future accreditation routes. As scientific understand-ing of carbon storage advances, it is vital that com-munities can capitalize on this, as verification meth-odologies provide a key link between communities and offset consumers.

� Consider the opportunities presented by urban areas and the role they could play in hosting interventions that link carbon management with poverty reduction and sustainable development. This is currently a missed opportunity that is not being sufficiently harnessed according our interviewees.

Future perspectiveAdvancing efforts to support climate change mitigation and adaptation through carbon management in line with poverty reduction and sustainable development goals will not be an easy task for policymakers in south-ern Africa to achieve over the coming years, despite the various opportunities that are presented through both the voluntary and regulatory carbon markets. Good practices that emerged from our ana lysis that can be built upon in future activities include: multistakeholder working that builds on existing institutions at all levels (e.g., Trees of Hope and Janeemo projects in Malawi); the development of national level umbrella organizations to promote the longevity of project impacts, facilitate communications and inform the direction of national policy development (e.g., the ENRMMP in Zambia); and investments in capacity building, training and the provision of infrastructure resources (e.g., Janeemo in Malawi and GART in Zambia).

Comparing the situations of our two study countries, Zambia’s additional funding support through its REDD+ pilot country status appears to have yielded some capac-ity and institutional advantages at the ministerial level. However, the challenges the country faces in moving for-ward present many similarities to those in Malawi. Key challenges emerging in the case study projects and from our interview evidence across both countries include: the need for stronger networking and improved communica-tions between stakeholders (despite the ENRMMP in Zambia); the challenge in moving from policy rhetoric towards the delivery of on-the-ground benefits; the need



for sustainable resourcing and financing for all stake-holders; and the challenges associated with measuring and monitoring carbon storage at the local level, given the limited state of current scientific knowledge. Further ongoing research is planned by the authors around case study projects in both of our study countries. This will provide additional empirical evidence, allowing more detailed evaluation of the costs and benefits of projects that aim to link carbon sequestration with adaptation to climate change and sustainable development goals. Extrapolating from our national case studies and draw-ing on the literature, we suggest that the challenges we have identified here may be more widespread throughout the Southern Africa Development Community. These could have important implications for countries’ abilities to benefit from the international opportunities seeking to link carbon management with poverty reduction or sustainable development.

AcknowledgementsSpecial thanks to J Leventon and E Harrison for their editorial sup-port. The authors also thank A Tallontire for her constructive comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Financial & competing interests disclosureThis research was funded as part of the British Council /DFID Developing Partnerships in Higher Education project 334 on ‘Capacity Building for Climate Change Adaptation in Malawi and Botswana’ and from a Commonwealth PhD Scholarship to F Kalaba. Additional support was provided from the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy and the University of Leeds Africa College Partnership. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Executive summary

Background � Climate change mitigation and adaptation are increasingly addressed in conjunction with poverty reduction and sustainable development

efforts, delivering ‘multiple wins’. � Multiple wins require multistakeholder and multisectoral collaboration.

Results & discussion � Challenges in integrated carbon management, poverty reduction and sustainable development activities in Malawi and Zambia link

to the need to work across different sectors, stakeholders and levels, and to mobilize and invest in capacity and resources to deliver on-the-ground action.

� Plan Vivo Standards and accreditation are proving difficult to attain and scientific evidence gaps remain that could inform simplified local monitoring approaches. Despite these challenges, progress is being made in the delivery of multiple wins in both Malawi and Zambia.

Future perspective & conclusion � Integrated carbon management, poverty reduction and sustainable development activities represent a valuable opportunity to build

multistakeholder partnerships, share knowledge, empower local communities and integrate local-level activities into the wider carbon trading system.

ReferencesPapers of special note have been highlighted as:n of interestnn of considerable interest

1 Ayers J, Huq S. The value of linking mitigation and adaptation: a case study of Bangladesh. Environ. Manage. 43(5), 753–764 (2009).

2 Stringer LC, Dyer JC, Reed MS, Dougill AJ, Twyman C, Mkwambisi D. Adaptations to climate change, drought and desertification: local insights to enhance policy in southern Africa. Environ. Sci. Pol. 12(7), 748–765 (2009).

3 UNFCCC. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Thirteenth Session, Held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007. FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1. UN, Geneva, Switzerland (2008).

4 van Noordwijk M, Purnomo H, Peskett L, Setiono B. Reducing Emissions from

Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in Indonesia: Options and Challenges for Fair and Efficient Payment Distribution Mechanisms. Working Paper 81. World Agroforestry Centre, Bogor, Indonesia, 29 (2008).

5 UNFCCC. Report of the COP Serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its First Session, Held at Montreal from 28 November to 10 December 2005. FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.1. UN, Geneva, Switzerland (2006).

6 Barbier E. The policy challenges for green economy and sustainable economic development. Nat. Resour. Forum 35(3), 233–245 (2011).

n Overview paper arguing that green growth will not ensure sustainable economic development as long as worsening problems of ecological degradation continue. It outlines the array of market, policy and

institutional failures that represent challenges and outline a range of innovative financing mechanisms and international policy/market opportunities for addressing these challenges.

7 Garrity DP, Akinnifesi FK, Ajayi OC et al. Evergreen agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa. Food Secur. 2(3), 197–214 (2010).

8 Giller KE, Witter E, Corbeels M, Tittonell P. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’ view. Field Crop. Res. 114(1), 23–34 (2009).

9 Bryan J, Shearman P, Ash J, Kirkpatrick JB. Estimating rainforest biomass stocks and carbon loss from deforestation and degradation in Papua New Guinea 1972–2002: best estimates, uncertainties and research needs. J. Environ. Manage. 91(4), 995–1001 (2010).



10 Bryan E, Akpalu W, Yesuf M, Ringler C. Global carbon markets: opportunities for sub-Saharan Africa in the agriculture and forestry. Clim. Dev. 2(4), 309–331 (2010).

11 Taiyab N. Exploring the Market for Voluntary Carbon Offsets. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK (2006).

12 Peters-Stanley M, Hamilton K, Marcello T, Sjardin M. Back to the Future: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2010. A Report by Ecosystem Marketplace & Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Ecosystem Marketplace, NY, USA (2011).

13 Perez C, Roncoli C, Neely C, Steiner JL. Can carbon sequestration markets benefit low-income producers in semi-arid Africa? Potentials and challenges. Agric. Syst. 94(1), 2–12 (2007).

n Practical reflection on case study projects from across dryland Africa highlighting that, while carbon payments can contribute to rural incomes and provide opportunities for adaptation, potentially detrimental trade-offs with other ecosystem services and livelihood impacts require more in-depth analysis.

14 Versi A. How Africa can earn billions from carbon trading. New African 485, 29–33 (2009).

15 Cerbu GA, Swallow BM, Thompson DY. Locating REDD: a global survey and analysis of REDD readiness and demonstration activities. Environ. Sci. Pol. 14(2), 168–180 (2011).

16 Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Thomas AD et al. Challenges and opportunities in linking carbon sequestration, livelihoods and ecosystem service provision in drylands. Environ. Sci. Pol. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.004 (2012) (In press).

17 UN Development Programme. Human Development Report 2011: Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. UN Development Programme, NY, USA (2011).

18 Kamanga P, Vedeld P, Sjaastad E. Forest incomes and rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu District, Malawi. Ecol. Econ. 68(3), 613–624 (2009).

19 Fisher B, Polasky S, Sterner T. Conservation and human welfare: economic analysis of ecosystem services. Environ. Res. Econ. 48(2), 151–159 (2011).

20 Lowore J. Miombo Woodlands and Rural Livelihoods in Malawi. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia (2006).

21 White F. The vegetation of Africa. In: Natural Resources Research No. 20. UNESCO, Paris, France (1983).

22 FAO. State of the World’s Forests 2001. FAO, Rome, Italy (2001).

23 FAO. Global Forest Resource Assessment. FAO, Rome, Italy (2010).

24 Ministry of Natural Resources Energy and Environment. Malawi State of the Environment and Outlook Report: Environment for Sustainable Economic Growth. Malawi Government, Lilongwe, Malawi (2010).



27 Ministry of Development Planning and Cooperation. Malawi Millennium Development Goals. Government of Malawi, Lilongwe, Milawi (2009).

28 World Bank. World Development Report. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA (2009).

29 Bond I, Chambwera M, Jones B, Chundama M, Nhantumbo I. REDD+ in dryland forests: issues and prospects for pro-poor REDD in the miombo wooldands of southern Africa. In: Natural Resource Issues No. 21. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK (2010).

nn Excellent policy overview of the environmental and developmental challenges facing the miombo woodland systems of southern African region, with particular case emphasis on previous studies across both study countries targeted in the present paper.

30 Kamelarczyk KBF. Carbon stock assessment and modelling in Zambia: a UN-REDD study. In: UN-REDD MRV Working Paper 4. FAO, Rome, Italy (2009).

31 Chidumayo EN, Kwibisa L. Effects of deforestation on grass biomass and soil nutrient status in miombo woodland, Zambia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 96(1–3), 97–105 (2003).

32 Syampungani S, Chirwa PW, Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi G, Ajayi OC. The miombo woodlands at the cross roads: potential threats, sustainable livelihoods, policy gaps and challenges. Nat. Resour. Forum 33(2), 150–159 (2009).

n Review article building from ecological analyses of case studies in miombo systems of the Copperbelt District. This demonstrates that deforestation is not attributable to colonial- or independent-state interventions but has primarily been driven by smallholder agricultural expansion

associated with shifting cultivation. It outlines key policy gaps and challenges, especially in the Zambian context.

33 Malambo FM, Syampungani S. Opportunities and challenges for sustainable management of miombo woodlands: the Zambian perspective. Work. Pap. Finn. For. Res. Inst. 98, 125–130 (2008).

34 Wily LA. Governance and Land Relations: A Review of Decentralisation of Land Administration and Management in Africa. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK (2003).

35 Middleton N, Stringer LC, Goudie A, Thomas D. The Forgotten Billion. MDG Achievement in the Drylands. UN Development Programme, NY, USA (2011).

36 Davies RAG, Midgley SJE, Chesterman S. Hotspot Analysis: Health and Food Secturity Climate Risk Mapping for Southern Africa, One World Sustainable Investments Technical Report 1. One World Sustainable Investments, Cape Town, South Africa (2010).

37 Bombelli A, Henry M, Castaldi S et al. The sub-Saharan Africa carbon balance, an overview. Biogeosci. Disc. 6(1), 2085–2123 (2009).

38 McKenzie F. Terrestrial Carbon Policy Development: Innovative Approaches to Land in the Climate Change Solution. The Terrestrial Carbon Group, Washington, DC, USA (2011).

n Review report collating national case study insights from 20 countries representing a range of circumstances, actions and approaches across Latin America, Asia and Africa. Highlights that for many countries implementation of REDD+ remains at the planning phase and that resource allocation and implementation capacity problems remain.

39 Grieg-Gran M, Porras I, Wunder S. How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Dev. 33(9), 1511–1527 (2005).

40 Bumpus AG, Cole JC. How can the current CDM deliver sustainable development? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change. 1(4), 541–547 (2010).

41 Pagiola S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecolog. Econ. 65(4), 712–724 (2008).

42 Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecolog. Econ. 65(4), 663–674 (2008).



43 Baker TR, Jones JPG, Thompson ORR et al. How can ecologists help realise the potential of payments for carbon in tropical forest countries? J. Appl. Ecol. 47(6), 1159–1165 (2010).

44 Patton MQ. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. SAGE Publications, London, UK (1990).

45 International Institute for Environment and Development. Making Community Based Forest Management Work, Policy Brief 3. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK (2008).

46 Keeley J, Scoones I. Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: Cases from Africa. Earthscan, London, UK (2003).

47 Macqueen D. Supporting Small Forest Enterprises – A Cross-Sectoral Review of Best Practice, IIED Small and Medium Forestry Enterprise Series No. 23. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK (2008).

48 Mkwambisi DD, Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ. Urban agriculture and poverty reduction: evaluating how food production in cities contributes to food security, employment and income in Malawi. J. Int. Dev. 23(2), 181–203 (2011).

49 Reed MS, Buenemann M, Atlhopheng J et al. Cross-scale monitoring and assessment of land degradation and sustainable land management: a methodological framework for knowledge management. Land Degrad. Dev. 22(2), 261–271 (2011).

50 Nyirenda C. Project Design Document for the Trees of Hope Plan Vivo Project. Trees of Hope Project, Lilongwe, Malawi (2011).

51 Kollmus A, Zink H, Polycarp C. Making Sense of the Voluntary Carbon Market: A Comparison of Carbon Offset Standards. Stockholm Environment Institute, Tricorona, Germany (2008).

52 Lopes P. Review of forestry carbon standards – development of a tool for organizations to identify forestry carbon credits. In: Centre for Environmental Policy. Imperial College, London, UK (2009).

53 US Agency for International Development . Final Project Report, Community Partnerships for Sustainable Resource Management (COMPASS II). US Agency for International Development , Bethesda, MD, USA (2009).

54 Sherchand B. REDD Credits Boost Community Partnerships for Safeguarding Conservation in Malawi. US Agency for International Development , Bethesda, MD, USA (2009).

55 Peskett L, Schreckenberg K, Brown J. Institutional approaches for carbon financing in the forest sector: learning lessons for REDD+ from forest carbon projects in Uganda. Environ. Sci. Pol. 14(2), 216–229 (2011).

56 Jumbe CBL, Bwalya SM, Husselman M. Contribution of dry forests to rural livelihoods and the national economy in Zambia. In: XIII World Forestry Congress. Buenos Aires, Argentina (2009).

57 Centre for Environmental Policy and Advocacy. Assessment of Policy Implementation for Environment and Natural Resources Management in Malawi: Analytical Report. Centre for Environmental Policy and Advocacy, Blantyre, Malawi (2010).

58 Southern African Development Community. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in the SADC Region – Malawi. Southern African Development Community, Lusaka, Malawi (2011).

59 Government of the Republic of Zambia. National Forestry Policy. Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources, Lusaka, Malawi (1998).

60 Government of the Republic of Zambia. National Agricultual Policy. Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, Lusaka, Malawi (2004).

61 Government of the Republic of Zambia. National Energy Policy. Ministry of Energy and Water Development, Lusaka, Malawi (2007).

62 Kanowski PJ, McDermott CL, Cashore BW. Implementing REDD+: lessons from analysis of forest governance. Environ. Sci. Pol. 14(2), 111–117 (2011).

63 Corbera E, Soberanis CG, Brown K. Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry programme. Ecol. Econ. 68(3), 743–761 (2009).

64 Akhtar-Schuster M, Thomas RJ, Stringer LC, Chasek P, Seely M. Improving the enabling environment to combat land degradation: institutional, financial, legal and science-policy challenges and solutions. Land Degrad. Dev. 22(2), 299–312 (2011).

65 Chasek P, Essahli W, Akhtar-Schuster M, Stringer LC, Thomas R. Integrated land degradation monitoring and assessment: horizontal knowledge management at the national and international levels. Land Degrad. Dev. 22(2), 272–284 (2011).

nn Important international review paper outlining the links between UN level international agreements and national

policy development, and the importance of (horizontal) knowledge management across government departments, and (vertical) knowledge flows between international policy and community projects.

66 Mwape C, Gumbo D. Communities reorganization for REDD+ implementation in Zambia. In: Pathways for Implementing REDD+. Experiences from Carbon Markets and Communities. Zhu X, Møller LR, Lopez TD, Romero MZ (Eds). UN Environment Programme, Roskilde, Denmark, 127–140 (2010).

67 Thangata PH, Alavalapati JRR. Agroforestry adoption in southern Malawi: the case of mixed intercropping of Gliricidia sepium and maize. Agric. Syst. 78(1), 57–71 (2003).

68 Snapp SS. Innovations in extension from Malawi. Horttechnology 14(1), 8–13 (2004).

69 Achten WMJ, Maes WH, Aerts R et al. Jatropha : from global hype to local opportunity. J. Arid Environ. 74(1), 164–165 (2010).

70 Dyer JC, Stringer LC, Dougill AJ. Jatropha curcas : sowing local seeds of success in Malawi? In response to Achten et al. 2010. J. Arid Environ. 79, 107–110 (2012).

71 Dyer JC. Jatropha curcas as a Livelihood Diversification Strategy in Malawi. University of Leeds, Leeds, UK (2012).

72 Kasolo JN, Bimenya GS, Ojok L, Ochieng J, Ogwal-Okeng JW. Phytochemicals and uses of Moringa oleifera leaves in Ugandan rural communities. J. Med. Plant. Res., 4(9), 753–757 (2010).

73 Kalaba KF, Chirwa P, Syampungani S, Ajayi CO. Contribution of agroforestry to biodiversity and livelihoods improvement in rural communities of southern African regions. Trop. Rainfor. Agrofor. Global Change 461–476 (2010).

74 Marongwe LS, Kwazira K, Jenrich M, Thierfelder C, Kassam A, Friedrich T. An African success: the case of conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 9(1), 153–161 (2011).

75 Paavola J. Institutions and environmental governance: a reconceptualization. Ecol. Econ. 63(1), 93–103 (2007).

76 Palmer Fry B. Community forest monitoring in REDD+: the ‘M’ in MRV? Environ. Sci. Pol. 14(2), 181–187 (2011).

77 Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Thomas AD et al. Linking pro-poor climate change adaptation and mitigation through carbon sequestration: challenges and opportunities for dryland livelihoods and ecosystem



service provision. In: Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper. London School of Economics and Sustainability Research Institute, London, UK (2011).

78 de Brogniez D, Mayaux P, Montanarella L. Monitoring, Reporting and Verification systems for Carbon in Soils and Vegetation in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. EC Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy (2011).

79 Roe D, Nelson F. The origins and evolution of community-based natural resource

management in Africa. In: Community Management of Natural Resources in Africa: Impacts, Expriences and Future Directions. Roe D, Nelson DR, Sandbrook C (Eds). International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK (2009).

80 Blom B, Sunderland T, Murdiyarso D. Getting REDD to work locally: lessons learned from integrated conservation and development projects. Environ. Sci. Pol. 13(2), 164–172 (2010).

� Websites101 REDD-Net. Policy Brief. Making REDD+

cross-sectoral: why, how and what are the potential socio-economic impacts? http://redd-net.org/files/REDD,%20agriculture%20and%20energy%20policy%20brief%20laid%20up.pdf

102 UN-OHRLLS. Least developed countries: about LDCs. www.unorhlls.org/en/ldc/25

Challenges and opportunities for carbon management in Malawi...

Documents

Transcript of Challenges and opportunities for carbon management in Malawi...