Introduction
Locally protected forests/woodlands are essential for biodiversity conservation on the African continent (Sheridan 2009; Kossi et al. 2021). The 1997 UNESCO programme on sacred sites (UNESCO 2006) spurred research on locally protected biological areas and their inter-linkages with heritage and biodiversity (Bhagwat et al. 2005; Ormsby and Bhagwat 2010a; Verschuuren et al. 2010; Ormsby and Ismail 2015). These places can range from individual trees (Dafni 2006) to large-scale forest/woodland areas (see Carpenter 2006; Kokou et al. 2008; Baker et al. 2009; Sadowski 2012).
Though the protection of forests/woodlands is a common practice in the African continent (Kokou et al. 2008; Sheridan and Nyamweru 2008; Sheridan 2009; Kibet 2011; Kossi et al. 2021), they remain poorly documented on national and regional levels. The role of customary protection of landscape patches for biodiversity conservation is underappreciated on the continent (see discussion in McCann 1999; Fairhead and Leach 1996, 2003; Ekblom et al. 2019). The traditional systems of authority and customary rights are recognised in several national legislations in Africa, however formal procedures are not always adapted to accommodate customary land and resource rights. Decentralisation policies and new land laws across sub-Saharan Africa (Barrow et al. 2016) offer legal protection to locally protected old-growth forests, and woodlands. For instance, in Benin, biocultural heritage areas are protected through national legislation. Since 2012, more than 2000 areas have been listed, covering a total of 18 360 ha (hectares) and representing a wide diversity of heritage practices (Juhé-Beaulaton 2008; Kraus 2012; Alohou et al. 2016; Bello-Bravo 2020). In Kenya, the recognition of community rights opened to formalise locally protected areas (Adam 2012). Positive examples are the Karima Forest (Adam 2012) and the process of the UNESCO listing of the Kaya forests (Githitho 2003, 2016). In southern and eastern Africa, some community associations have also organised to proclaim sacred natural sites as protected (Bakulumpagi 2021).
Advertisement
In Mozambique, community practices of forest/woodland protection are recognised but have been given limited attention nationwide (see however Virtanen 2002; Izidine et al. 2008; Simbine 2020). Community protection of forest areas in Mozambique was first reported by the ethnographer Junod (1927, Vol. II, pp. 376–84). Most of these areas are connected to burial places or settlements associated with village or lineage founders. They are protected through the authority of traditional leaders who also monitor and allocate customary resource and land rights in rural areas in Mozambique (Buur and Kyed 2005; Obario 2010). Logging licensing and other land concessions of these attractive old-growth forest areas conflict with local practices of protection (Nhantumbo and Macqueen 2003; Schafer and Bell 2010; Hervey 2012).The lack of monitoring of the logging industry opens possibilities for large-scale illegal logging carried out in parallel and aided by licensed logging activities (Del Gatto 2003; Hervey 2012; Falcão et al. 2019).
This study focuses on addressing the following two questions: (1) what is the conservation status of locally protected forests in Inhambane Province, Mozambique, and (2) what are the main threats to these forests? In this paper, we discuss the status of locally protected forests/woodlands and their main threats in the Inhambane Province, Southern Mozambique, region which has not previously been mapped. The paper is based on fieldwork and data collection from 11 districts of Inhambane. Based on the results from field conversations and a stakeholder workshop we present the challenges local leaders face to protect forests/woodlands areas that are local heritage sites and discuss potential avenues for increased protection in the Inhambane and Mozambique context.
Materials and methods
Characterisation of the study area
Administratively, Mozambique is divided into provinces, districts, administrative posts, and localities. The broad study area is the province of Inhambane, located in southern Mozambique defined in the east by the Indian Ocean (Fig. 1, map A and B). In Inhambane Province, communities have a local governance system represented by a traditional leader (typically the descendent of a village founder and a ruling lineage). Each village is also represented by an elected community leader. The roles of traditional leader and community leader are sometimes aggregated to the same individual. Through decentralisation, districts, administrative posts and localities were given guidelines and power to consult with local authorities (Buur and Kyed 2005; Hervey 2012).
Fig. 1
Location of the study area. Map A represents the location of Mozambique’s provinces and their subdivision in regions, and neighbour countries. Map B illustrates the districts of Inhambane province and the three localities illustrating the conservation status of heritage sites. The background map is from Google and is available as a built-in basemap in the Quantum GIS plugin. Data about the administrative division of Mozambique were derived from the National Cartography and Remote Sensing Centre in Mozambique
×
![]()
Advertisement
Data collection
This paper presents the results of fieldwork carried out by the main author between 2021 and 2023. The aim of fieldwork was to identify locally protected forests/woodlands patches in the province and to map the range of practices and customary rules relating to these areas. As a first step, province and district records on forest areas and heritage sites were consulted to assess the current state of knowledge. Although four protected forest/woodland sites were listed in these official records, there was no available mapping information of these forests. Thus, collaborative mapping activities with local communities were carried out to identify forest/dense woodlands locally protected. In 2021, responsible traditional leaders, community leader and elder councils were contacted. The project was presented to the leaders and elders who gave oral consent to participate in the mapping locally forests protected, and also allowed us to record interviews and use extracts for publication. Interviews were carried out following the oral history methodology (cf. Tonkin 1992; Abrams 2016). The interviewers were conducted as conversational and allowing the interviewee to take control over the conversation with the aim of documenting the knowledge and narratives in and around the forest. The heritage practices in and around the vegetation patches were also documented through visits to heritage places (cf. Pink 2007; Springgay and Truman 2017), and collaborative mapping (cf. Chambers 2006; Kwan 2008).
The focus on traditional leaders is motivated by the fact that they are the guardians of the forests and are authorised by community members in that role (Ekblom et al. 2017). The challenges and possibilities of locally protected areas were discussed in a one-day workshop with traditional leaders and officials held on 18 April 2023. The workshop was attended by leaders from areas where research had been carried out, and members from cultural division at district level and from the Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism of Inhambane. The workshop also included representative of government institutions, and also academics, and civil society organisation representatives. The main objective of the workshop was to present the results of the mapping of locally protected heritage sites and to raise awareness to the local governmental authorities dealing with cultural heritage, and forests. The aim was also for local leaders to exchange experience and knowledge between them. All collected material have been read back and shared with the interviewees who also allowed for further conversations and commentaries. From this collaboration, we were able to map locally protected forests/woodlands areas and heritage sites within them.
Results
Identified local heritage sites
In total 88 heritage sites were mapped, of which 52 were forests/woodlands patches ranging between 0.3 ha and 4632 ha in size. Other heritage sites mapped were 13 burial grounds, ten old settlements, seven caves, five springs and one rocky outcrop (Figs. 2 and 3). All identified heritage sites are surrounded by legends or oral traditions and twenty-nine of all forests mapped in the province have burials used as a place of reverence for the ancestors. Two forests had been used in the past as place to carry out initiation rites, and ten were former settlements that have now become forests. The most common heritage practice relating to the forests is visits to the ancestral burials and offerings to ancestors, by traditional leaders and elders. This is done to solicit the ancestors for their goodwill in activities such as harvesting, building projects, and to invoke the rain.
Fig. 2
Map illustrating land cover type in Inhambane province and the location of local heritages sites, and the three localities being discussed in the text. Labels A, B, and C illustrate respectively the location of Luido, Chitanga, and Mapoka localities, all are case study areas. The background map is from Google and is available as a built-in basemap in the Quantum GIS plugin. Data about the administrative division of Mozambique were derived from the National Cartography and Remote Sensing Centre in Mozambique. Data about land cover was derived from Grinand et al. (2019)
×
![]()
Fig. 3
Categories of recorded local heritage sites in the surveyed districts of Inhambane province
×
![]()
There are few physical identifiers in these ceremonial areas that mark them visually as heritage sites. Burial places and ceremonial places may be marked with a wooden pole or by a collection of old pots, hoes or ivory aggregated by large shade tree. In a few cases an ephemeral structure has been built to mark a burial and/or ceremonial place. To the untrained eye they are easily missed. Though vegetation is cleared in the vicinity of the site, there is a rapid encroachment of shrubs and lianas. Similarly, trails grow over quickly and, in some cases, the heritage places can be difficult to locate even for those familiar with the landscape.
In general, each mapped heritage site represents a certain lineage that has local legitimacy to uphold customary resource and land rights. There are exceptions to this rule where authority is dual or divided between families. The forests/woodlands areas that are listed here are associated with customary norms, which exempt them from exploiting resources. However, the degree of protection and rules surrounding them differs. Below we present three case studies to show the use and customary rules surrounding protected forest/woodland area.
Case study areas
The forests in Luido locality (Govuro district) consist of two separate patches (Nyamuwuka forest and Mafai forest) in total, comprising 1946 ha. The forests are used for small-scale rotational farming and swidden for those who have customary rights (Fig. 2 – A). The periods of rotation (ca. ten years) and use of coppicing allow continuous woodland re-growth, which is why the area still has a dense vegetation cover. The main tree species are Carpodiptera africana, Cleistochlamys kirkii, Fernandoa magnifica, Aclura africana, Xylia torreana, Baphia, Dalbergia, Croton gratissimus, Hymenocardia acida, and Coffea arabica. The locally protected forests in Luido are unusual in the sense that the traditional leader does not have the authority to officiate ceremonies on the heritage places but the descendants of an earlier layer of rulers. Feliciano Massingue, the traditional and community leader of Luido, works with a council of elders and youths consisting of 40 individuals to ensure a broad consensus in the community. Even though the use of resources for those with customary rights is allowed and it is also used for collecting firewood, cutting of trees is forbidden. The forest boundaries are not gazetted, but four forest concessions have been given to external companies, one for natural gas, logging and cattle rearing concessions are already present in the area (Manuel and César 2014).
The forests of Chitanga (Mabote district) consist of nine individual patches, a total of 4665 ha (Fig. 2 – B ).The most abundant tree species are Androstachys johnsonii, Brachystegia torrei, Albizia forbesii, Cleistochlamys kirkii, Combretum mossambicense, Dalbergia melanoxylon, Drypetes mossambicensis, Maclura africana, Pappea capensis, and Strychnos decussata. All the Chitanga forest patches are under the authority of Massingue lineage. The Chitanga forests are surrounded by stricter rules of protection than in Luido. No farming takes place inside the forest, and collection of firewood is not allowed.
Another example is the forest in Mapoka in the Funhalouro district (Fig. 2 – C). The forest is named after Nyamukuku, who is the son of Mapoka the village founder. Though the forest (ca. 456 ha) is mostly composed by Brachystegia spiciformis and Julbernadia globiflora species, there is occurrence of other species such as Pteleopsis myrtifolia, Albizia versicolor, Portulacaria afra (medicinal plants), and Carpolobia suaveolens (which is an endemic plant). Currently, Nyamukuku forest is under the rule of the Manhisse family, which is related to the family lineage of Mapoka.
Threats working against local protection
The character and history of these forests are not known at the district, provincial or governmental level. The ephemeral character of the heritage places and dense vegetation cover makes them less apparent as cultural landscapes; hence, they are easily missed by technicians and officials. The invisibility of local heritage sites means that they are not registered by technicians or officials, even those representing the localities (the locality chief). This problem was discussed in the in the April stakeholder workshop, in this case, relating to the Mafai forest in Luido locality. As explained by Feliciano Massingue:
“When my locality chief arrived here, he didn’t try to find out if there were forests that are locally protected. When the researcher asked my locality chief, my locality chief replied that there are no places used to make rain here. I replied: we have them. There’re in the Mafai forest” (Feliciano Massingue, pers. comm.).
None of the forests mapped here had any form of sign or marking signalling their protected status. Even when the locally protected areas are recognised by district and provincial level, challenges arise when traditional authority and its operation mechanism – customary laws – though recognised by law are not considered in the implementation of the legislation dealing with natural resources. Some leaders feel overwhelmed by such external forces and are disempowered to continue to enforce the local protection of forest areas as they feel that there is no support from the government. João Manhisse, the traditional leader in the Mapoka in Funhalouro district, discussed this lack of support:
“When someone by mistake burns areas of the forest that are prohibited, the person is obliged to bring a goat, drinks and a white cloth to symbolically extinguish the fire and appease the ancestors, but at the governmental level these rules do not work” (João Manhisse, pers. comm.).
This situation leads to generational conflicts. During a field visit, this problem was discussed with Alexandre Massinguile, assistant of traditional leader Arnaldo Massinguile in Chitanga locality, Mabote district. To him it is challenging to convince young people to obey local norms when “we, as leaders, are not having the support from the government in protecting these areas” (Alexandre Massinguile, pers. comm.). Alexandre lamented a conversation he had with some youth who dismissed his authority to ban logging by telling him: “It was not you who planted these trees; these are God’s trees” (Alexandre Massinguile, pers. comm.). On one occasion, while collecting sediments to reconstruct the vegetation history together with the traditional leader, we witnessed young people logging in one of the local heritage sites in the Mabote district. Our arrival led to a debate between the traditional leader and the youth who strongly challenged his authority to stop them from cutting trees.
Because of the economic benefits associated with logging, and above all due to the lack of other opportunities for income, illegal logging will continue. The situation is further complicated by the lack of clarity on the procedure of granting concessions, their territorial boundaries and a general lack of monitoring of licensed logging activities. This problem was also discussed by Feliciano Massingue in the April workshop:
“The [traditional] leaders don’t issue logging licences; the leaders don’t cooperate with the logging companies. […]. People come with licences issued in Inhambane [the provincial capital].When they arrive in the community, they bribe young people. I have already reported several times about illegal logging in our forests, but there was no solution” (Feliciano Massingue, pers. comm.).
As related by Feliciano Massingue in the above quote, licences for forest exploitation might be granted without paying special attention to the concerns raised by local communities during the mandatory procedure of community consultation. In addition, though the boundaries of customary land are well known locally, they are not registered on official maps or known at the district or provincial level; thus, companies requesting and registering concessions and authorities granting them are not well informed about the territorial boundaries of the traditional authorities and of the individual ownership of customary land and resources. There is a general consensus among the traditional leaders who participated in the April workshop that trees are now being cut at a quicker pace than what they are able to mitigate.
Discussion
The heritage sites being described in this paper are often characterised in the literature as sacred sites, sacred forests, sacred places and other allied terminologies (cf. Blain and Wallis 2004; Ormsby and Bhagwat 2010a; Carmichael et al. 2013). Here, we avoided the use of the term ‘sacred’. Even though this term can have strength legally, it may lead to neglect of forests which are protected through customary rules but which may not be circumscribed by practices typically associated with the ‘sacred’ (cf. Dafni 2006; Griffin 1995; Avtzis et al. 2018). Another problematic terminology is the reference to ‘traditional’. This also distracts attention from the intergenerational process and political negotiation which lies behind the customary protection of forests (Junsongduang et al. 2013; Mgaya 2020). Lastly, in our case, the denominator ‘forest’ can also be misleading as protected areas can range from areas of closed forest cover to woodland to scrubland – all serving important biological functions and contributing to landscape patchiness (see, for instance, Bossart and Antwi 2016; Hounkpati et al. 2022). Thus, for our purposes and discussion, we prefer a wider definition and the more neutral term: locally protected forests/woodlands that are connected to what we refer to as biocultural heritage (Maffi 2005; Pretty et al. 2009; Davidson-Hunt et al. 2012; Chen et al. 2015; Swiderska et al. 2018; Poole 2018; Ekblomet al. 2019).
Virtanen’s study in Chôa Highlands of central Mozambique (Manica Province) reports the existence of locally protected forests, which, in contrast to non-protected forests have greater species diversity, a more complex forest structure, and a higher incidence of fire-sensitive species (Virtanen 2002). Closer to the Zimbabwe border (the Chicuei area), a 200-ha protected forest has been reported with sites used for rainmaking, where the tree diversity is high in comparison to other protected areas (Macateco 2015). Another example is the protected forest around Mount Mabu in the Zambezia Province. The area was proclaimed a biodiversity hotspot by biologists after 2005, who stressed the need to upgrade the conservation status (Timberlake et al. 2012; Bayliss et al. 2014). Since the area was promoted as a wilderness area, these researchers gave less attention to Mount Mabu as a locally protected forest and cultural landscape (Matusse 2020).
In the Gaza province, there are protected forests/woodland areas which are formally recognised and linked to particular family lineages. One is Chilaulene (0.6 ha), located south of Xai-Xai Town, which is an open savannah and marshland with single shrubs and trees; another example is the Zongoene forest (7 ha), which is located south of Chilaulene (Simbine 2020). The Chirindzene forest (63.4 ha), also in the Xai-Xai area, is larger and was formally classified as a Forest Reserve in 1974. The forest is associated with the Chirindza lineage, and ceremonies are conducted here by the traditional leader. Chirindzene is currently formally managed by an association of 60 members (Simbine 2020).
In the case of Inhambane Province, and as discussed here, and the type and number of official heritage sites in the database held by the Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism and the results from the mapping activities, the protected areas discussed here are poorly known by the governmental authorities responsible for cultural heritage as well as those managing the forestry sector. When technicians from the cultural division at the provincial and district level were asked about local heritage sites, they associate it with places used to perform rainmaking ceremonies. Most officials know that these areas exist in the local communities, but they do not know their location or connection to the forested areas.
Elsewhere on the continent, there is a growing awareness of the potential for customary practices and heritage sites to promote forest conservation (Sheridan and Nyamweru 2008). The Mijkenda Kaya forests in Kenya are a positive example of stewardship based on local practices of protection and heritage values where local communities and authorities have collaborated to proclaim the area as a World Heritage Site (Githitho 2016). The organisation around the Chirindza forest could potentially be replicated in the context of Inhambane Province and Mozambique in general. It is essential that such a process is led by community representatives and follows local protocols. The negative effects of lack of local anchoring are seen in the example of the Licuáti forest (19 100 ha), which before being gazetted, was under the local protection of the Santaca traditional leader and when customary laws were followed. After being proclaimed as a forest reserve in 1943 to protect the mature trees of pod mahogany (Afzelia quanzensis) it was managed by the district authorities of Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, when the forest is under heavy illegal extraction of both licensed and illegal charcoal production (Izidine 2003). The Santaca family have made attempts to strengthen customary protection anew but it remains a challenging process (Izidine et al. 2008). Similarly, a formal listing of biocultural heritage forests at the moment would risk putting them under the authority of the state departments and their provincial and district offices this might alienate traditional leaders and fragment local system of heritage protection if not carefully thought through.
Another aspect which is clear from the interviews and field visits in this study is that the protection of biocultural heritage forests must be a multigenerational and multigendered process. Traditional leaders for them to function in their role must have a high degree of authorisation from community members. In practice, this means that even though secret or exclusive, the activities taking place inside the forest are of concern to the whole village. In the past, visits to heritage places in the protected forests would be restricted to the representatives of the ruling lineage and the elders of the community. In some cases, even the entry into the forests was restricted. The exclusion of youth from such ceremonies or experience of forest areas may also be a contributing factor to customary rules of protection being less respected among the youth. A more inclusive strategy would perhaps sensitise youths to the forests and their history as part of their identity.
Of relevance to the discussion here is also the legislation and procedure around concessions and logging licensing. The procedural process stands in conflict with customary rights and local protection. Logging companies can apply for either short, one year licences or longer period licenses. In both cases a forest management plan and prior consultancy with affected communities is required. Land titles or concessions are applied for through the SPGC (Serviços Provincial de Geografia e Cadastro – Provincial Mapping and Land Registry Service). Areas up to 1000 ha can be approved by the provincial governor. Larger area concessions are granted through the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development or the Council of Ministers (Hanlon 2004). Though the application process requires consultation and approval of communities with customary rights, consultations are not always carried out, and there is a lack of follow-up (Nhantumbo and Macqueen 2003; Hanlon 2004; Sitoe and Guedes 2015; Macqueen and Falcão 2017). An FAO-funded assessment in 2016 based on interviews with responsible technicians suggests that legislation and procedures are unclear and that there is no little community consultancy when issuing licences or concessions (Profor 2016). The Forestry and Wildlife Law (Law 10/1999 and its amendment in 2002, which was implemented in 2005) stipulates that resource extraction concessions or conservation areas must pay 20% of revenues to community organisations. To claim money, communities must form associations with a formal representational structure and have a bank account, requirements that are difficult to meet in rural areas. There is still a lack of clarity on the organisation required to claim such funds and how to claim funds (Hervey 2012; Sitoe and Guedes 2015).
In addition, the forest industry in Mozambique is riddled with a high percentage of clandestine logging. In 2003, convert logging was estimated to account for 50–70% of the total industry (Del Gatto 2003) and clandestine logging has increased in volume since (EIA 2013; Club of Mozambique 2022). The Provincial Services of Forestry and Wildlife (SPFFB), responsible for monitoring licenses clearly does not have enough staffing and resources to monitor logging activities (Ribeiro 2009; Hervey 2012; Macqueen and Falcão 2017). Despite ongoing efforts to improve the situation, the SPFFB and authorities are still widely understaffed (Profor 2016; Macqueen and Falcão 2017; Club of Mozambique 2022). Local leaders have been experiencing increasing pressure from legal and illegal logging. As governmental or provincial authorities grant concessions and licenses, local leaders struggle to resist such interventions, and district-level authorities who may be better informed are not probed to object to higher authorities. There seems to be a consensus, at least among the traditional leaders who participated in the workshop, that some degree of formalisation of their authority as forest guardians is needed with the pressure of licensed and illegal logging, and this could be a better step to support the SPFFB in monitoring logging activities and implementation of the forest management plan.
Although Mozambique is known as progressive when it comes to legislation (Shannon et al. 2018; Monjane 2023), among them the Land Law (Law 19/1997), the Environmental Law (Law 20/97) and the Conservation Law (Law 16/2014), the current land law and its procedures have long been criticised for its lack of procedural clarity (Nhantumbo and Macqueen 2003; Schafer and Bell 2010; Hervey 2012). Some areas discussed here could be protected through the Cultural Heritage Law (Law 10/88 of December 22, 1988) as a cultural monument or through the Conservation Law under the category ‘cultural and natural monument’ (Sal and Caldeira Advocados 2014). However, until now, old-growth forests outside of formally gazetted conservation areas do not have a conservation status, and no locally protected forests have been listed as monuments in Inhambane.
In Mozambique, customary rights over the land are recognised, but formally, all land belongs to the state, and land and resource legislation promotes forest and resource industry (Hanlon 2004; Buur and Kyed 2005). With the 1997 land law and linked legislation, community associations may obtain formal land rights (known as DUAT: Direito de Uso e Aproveitamento da Terra) though the process of acquiring DUAT is complicated (Norfolk 2004; Wit and Norfolk 2010; Hervey 2012; Cabral and Norfolk 2016). By 2009, only 229 community land claims had been licensed, with 74 cases pending (Wit and Norfolk 2010). To facilitate community-based conservation projects, ‘Community Conservation Areas’ (CCA) were recognised as legal entities, however as with DUATs, the process of registration is a lengthy bureaucratic process; until 2019, no single community organisation had applied to be registered (Matusse 2019) thus struggling to be recognised as legal entities (Virtanen 2005). There is an acute need to develop transparent procedures for applications of DUAT and legalise community organisations as owners of conservation areas in Mozambique. The workshop organised in April 2023 is the first step towards such an initiative, and it allowed traditional leaders to share and exchange experience.
Further studies are recommended on the biological diversity of these forest patches and of the longer-term history of these forests/woodland areas. In addition, similar studies should be carried out in other provinces in Mozambique. There also need to be concentrated efforts to ensure that existing laws and procedures during concessions and logging licences are followed, and continuous monitoring that procedures are followed as specified in applications. The continued existence of locally protected forests requires cross-sectoral work and collaboration that encompasses the entities that deal with forests, heritage and conservation. Separate approaches to forests lead to a fragmented institutional knowledge about the existence of forests with cultural dimension. When forests that have cultural dimension are catalogued, the forestry sector is not informed and when licenses are issued, the provincial directorate of culture and tourism is unaware. This situation endangers the continued existence of the forests and the local conservation system.
Conclusions
In this study we identified and confirmed the existence of heritage sites being used and managed by local communities. These heritage sites included forests patches, old settlements, burial grounds, caves and springs. We focused in forests/woodlands and in three case studies to show that locally protected forests as described by Junod in 1927 still exist in Inhambane and local leaders are the main custodians in the management of these cultural landscapes.
The paper highlighted that the continuous existence of locally protected forest patches must build on local understanding of forests as heritage site or cultural landscapes. The lack of recognition of these sites on district and government level results in the lack of recognition of cultural value of this type of forests and lack of legal support from the governmental authorities to help custodians enforce customary laws. Local leaders, who are the main authorities responsible for enforcing customary rules, reported different levels of challenges. The presence of licensed and illegal logging is a severe problem, resulting in intergenerational conflicts and challenging the continuous existence of these forests. Therefore, any strategy to strengthen forest protection must involve the youth. Additionally, we have argued that local leaders need genuine legal support. This support is not solely intended to keep local heritage alive, but also serves an essential function in conserving biodiversity in these forests.
Neglecting to strengthen the local systems of governing these forests or eroding them by imposing state control without local anchoring will mean, in the long run the disappearance of these heritage forests in Inhambane Province. Thus, further research should focus on analysing the biodiversity of these cultural landscapes and framing different ways of seeing forest patches conservation. Such endeavours must be informed by a holistic philosophy that builds on local understanding and practices and which promotes formal ownership and control of these forest areas from the local community.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.