The management of protected KS teak forests in Zimbabwe dates back to the 1900s. Due to the extraordinary economic and ecological importance and uniqueness of the Baikiaea forests, interest in their conservation and management developed as early as the 1900s when the colonial regime settled in the country. Commercial timber exploitation was taking place in these forests by 1904; the first forest officer was employed in 1920; fire management activities were instituted in 1930; while schemes to deal with previous occupiers of the forests took place around the 1960s. Wildlife management and the development of related tourism activities began in selected forests in the late 1950s (Judge, 1975). More recently, participatory forest management has been taken on board.
The Forest Department was established in the then Southern Rhodesia in 1920 under the Ministry of Agriculture but it was not until later that a forest officer was posted to manage the Baikiaea forests in western Zimbabwe. The immediate terms of reference for the forest officer were to develop plans for the control of timber concession activities, fire protection and a working plan for the protected forests in western Zimbabwe (Judge, 1975; 1986).
Four main management objectives were set out in order to achieve sustainable management of the KS teak forests: (i) to produce exploitable timber of the main commercial species on a sustained yield basis; (ii) to increase productivity through multiple land use practices including utilisation of minor forest products; (iii) to increase the soil and water conservation value of the forests; and (iv) to develop the amenity value of the forests. Over the last few decades, the role of the protected forest reserves towards the conservation of biodiversity and their contribution to rural livelihoods has been increasingly highlighted (Matose and Clarke, 1993; Forestry Commission, 1994b; Mutsiwegota and Mudekwe, 1998; Cunliffe, 2000). These management objectives have not changed much since then. In practice the objectives focused on timber and wildlife production and enhancing the ecological services of the forests. The multiple land use practices implied in these objectives have not been developed to the fullest. The problem then, as now, has been how to put these ideals into practice given the then focus on a protectionist management approach to the forests and the lack of specialist staff to implement the ideals. Judge (1986) makes an interesting observation with respect to the potential multiple uses of the forests. He notes the early recognition that wildlife and timber production, livestock grazing, tenant agriculture, livestock production and the use of minor forest products all had roles to play in the development of the Baikiaea forests. He further comments that “when one examines the economics and ecological services, particularly the return per unit generated by each of the multiples, it is clear that to adopt any policy other than multiple land use would be foolish”. However, forest management in protected forests has remained focused on production of timber and wildlife, fire protection and protection from unauthorised local use.
In the very early days of forest management it was elaborated that sound management depended on the proper understanding of the basic factors of the environment, e.g. soil, rainfall, temperature, frost, topography and drainage. It was important to gain knowledge and understand the floristic composition of the vegetation strata. The silvicultural characteristics of the individual species, including flowering, seeding, methods of and requirements for natural regeneration, pests and diseases, responses to varying degrees of disturbances such as grazing, fires, subsistence harvesting and logging had to be understood to achieve sustainable forest management. Methods of artificial regeneration, including sound forest nursery techniques were to be investigated. It was also important to understand the ecological significance of wildlife, domestic livestock and anthropogenic activities. These protected forests were viewed in the broad perspective of the overall pattern of land use in the region in which they occurred. It was recognised that the forests were not isolated islands and the broad lines of development in them would impact on adjoining private lands, communal and resettlement areas, game reserves, tourist areas and local industry. Liaison had to be maintained with other stakeholders so that the FC’s activities and advice could be turned to good benefit for all. These pointers became the focal areas for the current management systems of the protected KS teak forests.
