Search

• Charcoal kiln soils double the amount of Soil Organic Carbon and Total Nitrogen. • The different woodland types in the study have the same benefits in SOC and TN sequestration. • SOC content found in the studied woodlands is less than half of other semi-arid woodlands. • The findings are important for the SSA countries implementing monitoring, report and verification methods (MRV). African woodland ecosystems function as important reservoirs for soil organic carbon (SOC) and total nitrogen (TN). However, these ecosystem functions are particularly sensitive to social-ecological factors, the impacts of which remain understudied. Here, we examine how SOC and TN and other soil properties vary across woodland types and how charcoal production, the main source of woodland disturbance in the study area, changes these factors in dry woodlands of southern Africa, focusing on three woodland ecosystems that represent the main types in southern Mozambique: Androstachys forest, Combretum woodland and Mopane woodlands. Drawing on data from soil surveys at 0–5 cm and 0–30 cm depth in different vegetation types as well as both distant from and proximate to sites of active charcoal production, we estimate that these woodlands in Mabalane District store on average 19 ± 10 (±SE) Mg ha−1 of SOC, and 2.2 ± 0.9 Mg ha−1 of TN at 0–30 cm, significantly lower than values reported for other woodlands in the region such as Miombo. Our analysis shows that the woodland types do not differ in terms of the amount of SOC and TN stored in soil, and that soil in the charcoal kilns had twice the amount of SOC (30.0 ± 1.8 Mg ha−1) and TN (4.5 ± 0.5 Mg ha−1) compared with non-charcoal soils. This study adds to our understanding of the impact of charcoal production on soil SOC and TN in dry woodlands of southern Africa, and demonstrates some localised impacts of charcoal production. We discuss the implications of our findings in the light of emerging carbon-based payments for ecosystem services programmes in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Improvements in wellbeing coincided with higher rates of land use intensification with smallholder commercial and subsistence agricultural expansion. • No changes to wellbeing were observed with the intensification of charcoal production. • Improvements in the wellbeing of the poorest were only found under circumstances of higher market integration. • Sustainable and inclusive markets were required alongside land use intensification to improve wellbeing for all households. • We advocate for broader framings for land use intensification, to reflect smallholder-dominated landscapes and critically engage with discussions around sustainable development. Intensifying land use is often seen as a corollary of improving rural livelihoods in developing countries. However, land use intensification (LUI) frequently has unintended impacts on ecosystem services (ES), which may undermine the livelihoods of the same people who could benefit from intensification. Poorer households are disproportionately dependent on ES, so inequalities may also rise. A disaggregated analysis of LUI is thus fundamental to better understand how LUI can progress in an equitable manner. Using a suite of multi-scale, multidisciplinary social-ecological methods and operationalising multidimensional concepts of land use intensity and wellbeing, we examine three case studies in rural Mozambique. Drawing on interviews, focus group discussions, 1576 household surveys and geospatial data from 27 Mozambican villages, we assess how wellbeing and inequality change with three common LUI pathways: transitions to smallholder commercial crop production, charcoal production, and subsistence expansion. Wellbeing improved with intensification of smallholder commercial and subsistence agriculture, inequality did not change. Unsustainable intensification of charcoal production showed no overall effect on either wellbeing or inequality. Improvements in wellbeing amongst the poorest households were only found with intensification of commercial crop production, where villages had better access to markets. Our findings suggest that socioeconomic benefits from agricultural intensification and expansion may overcome localised environmental trade-offs, at least in the short term. However, unsustainable charcoal resource management and limited productive investment opportunities for rural households resulted in both reduced market access and limited wellbeing improvements. Sustainable and inclusive markets are therefore crucial developments alongside LUI to sustain wellbeing improvements for all households, to ensure that no one is left behind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • Rural charcoal producers were heterogeneous in production scales and demographic characteristics. • The size of the urban market affects both the type of rural producer and their scales of production. • Rural producers were highly dependent on charcoal income, contributing 38–95% of total gross household income. • Small-scale producers were proportionally the most dependent on charcoal income. • The existence of households 'trapped' in low production may be a consequence of larger urban markets. Abstract Sub-Saharan Africa's charcoal sector is rarely considered a mechanism for rural development or poverty alleviation; instead, current regulations often marginalise rural producers. The development of a sustainable sector, that does not further marginalise rural populations, is restricted by limited understanding of these stakeholders. We assess the heterogeneity of rural producers supplying two differentially sized urban charcoal markets in Mozambique. Drawing on data from 767 household surveys, our findings suggest that the size of the urban market affects the type of rural producer and their scales of production. Overall household income of producers supplying the larger urban market were proportionally more dependent on charcoal for income generation; small-scale producers in particular relied most on charcoal income, contributing >95% of household incomes. In contrast, producers supplying the smaller market had more diversified incomes, and were thus less dependent on charcoal income. Larger-scale producers were generally wealthier; their absolute incomes were higher and they were proportionally the least dependent on charcoal income. Further findings suggest that rural charcoal production was not necessarily the domain of the poorest of the poor and the existence of producers trapped in small-scale production may be a consequence of larger urban markets, rather than an intrinsic characteristic of the sector. Predicted growth of smaller urban areas and associated higher demand for charcoal will provide substantial opportunities for rural income generation, most likely leading to shifts in producers and production scales. Rather than transferring existing formal approaches, which marginalise rural stakeholders, small urban areas provide opportunities to develop equitable production systems, with potential to deliver sustainable energy and rural development. The heterogeneity of rural producers calls for better-targeted interventions that incorporate the importance of charcoal production for rural livelihoods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]