The decisions that follow are for those who have expressed, through Question 12, that they seek value addition options from harvesting.
|Value addition||Logistic consideration||Environmental consideration|
|Firewood||Preferable if transport logistics are difficult. For transporting, costs
will be much lower than for charcoal transport.
|Minimal pollution; if used locally no
|Charcoal production||Distance from sources to
of transport; transport costs will be lower than for firewood and
wood chips if firewood and wood chips require transporting. Low
overheads compared to wood chips production
|Increased risk of uncontrolled fires on
farms; air pollution; non-use of fines
means there is an opportunity for “fines”
. Areas harvested should be
monitored to ensure that no protected
species and trees with
cm are harvested.
|Wood chips for energy
|Initial outlay costs are high. Wood-chipper is expensive. Transport
costs are high and are dependent on the distance to the supplier.
Although demand exceeds supply, supply likely to be sufficient
within a 100km radius of current users, hence limiting the number
of farmers who will benefit. Expansion of opportunities likely in the
|Unlike charcoal production, wood chips
are not reliant on larger trees. However,
the fact that the operation can use
most wood means that “fines” nurseries
are less likely to be left behind.
|Milling / with an option
of pelletising for bush
|Fodder can be used locally; milling machine needs to be purchased
or hired. Pelletising is only an option if a pelletiser is available
nearby. Pellets last longer than
|If milled and fed to livestock, nutrients
remain in the ecosystem.