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 transport pollution. |
| 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” nurseries1 . Areas harvested should be monitored to ensure that no protected species and trees with cm are harvested. |
| Wood chips for energy production |
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 near future. |
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 based fodder |
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. |