Potential and Critical, pp 28 to 29, in Non-Timber - RFPP - ETH Zürich

Asian and Himalayan alpine shrub/forests, which hasbeen used in perfumes and traditional medicine of eastAsia for over 5 000 years (Pickrell 2004). Musk is currentlyused, apart from perfumes, in as many as 400Chinese and Korean traditional remedies, and canfetch gram for gram three times more than its weightin gold.For over a century, the most frequently used term wasMinor Forest Products for which, for example, the BritishImperial Institute had published over 450 reportsannually by 1910 on their production, use, processingand commercial potential (Neumann & Hirsch 2000). InBritish India, forest management plans already regularlyincluded a section on management prescriptions forminor forest products, including the rights and responsibilitiesfor collection by the local rural population.2. Overseas Development Assistance,conservation and NTFPs2.1 The upsurge of interest in NTFPs indevelopment and conservation circlesAlthough development and conservation circles havebeen interested in NTFPs for decades, there are anumber of reasons for the general spread and upsurgeof interest amongst them since the 80s, leading to thebelief that the promotion of their sustainable use couldlead to a win-win situation for poverty reduction andbiodiversity conservation.– The demand for many NTFPs is growing fast (e.g.medicinal plants) and their habitats and populationsare increasingly threatened.– Economically viable NTFP harvesting may be lessdetrimental for forest cover and biodiversity thantimber harvesting.– Sustainable incomes from NTFP harvesting andcommercialisation can provide sufficient incentivesfor forest and other natural habitat conservation.– The contribution of NTFPs to the livelihoods of thepoor is often high.– Sustainable NTFP harvesting and commercialisationcan contribute to poverty alleviation and sustainablelivelihoods for people living in and around forests.2.2 What’s special about NTFPs?has also not helped understanding and progress in researchand development. The key specific aspects ofNTFPs, which differentiate them from timber as a naturaland economic resource, are:– What NTFPs are is highly variable and debated (seeBox 1).– Resource assessment of NTFPs is usually complicatedfor both plant and animal products. For plantproducts, unlike timber, few standard inventorymethods can be applied. Species specific populationinventory techniques need to be adapted andcombined with appropriate yield assessment techniquesto arrive at production figures for such diverseproducts as roots, tubers, leaves, fruits, sap,bark, etc.– Sustainable management and harvesting recommendationscan therefore be difficult to develop– they may need to be species specific. Traditionalknowledge exists but is not made enough use of bydevelopment and forestry professionals.– Quality assessment of the resource is difficult whenthe valuable ingredient(s) of the NTFP requires complexchemical analysis (e.g. medicinal properties).Further, the concentration and quality of the commerciallyvaluable active ingredient per dry unit weightof the specific plant part can vary substantially accordingto a number of factors. There is considerabletraditional knowledge on many of these qualitycontributing factors, but it is often being rapidly lostas commercial pressure breaks age old traditionsof collaboration between collectors and specialisttraders/end users (e.g. in Ayurvedic medicine).– The end products of many NTFPs are often the outcomeof a series of successive, varied and sometimescomplex processing measures.– The quality of many NTFPs is not easy to “see” andadulteration is therefore possible and quite frequentin some product types (e.g. plant based medicine).– It is much easier to smuggle valuable/trade-bannedNTFP products under another species/productname than for timber.– Certification and fair trade requirements can be particularlydifficult and/or costly to introduce, giventhe large possibilities to hide the true sources of theproducts.– Assessing the actual value and potential value ofNTFPs is complicated by all the above factors (seeBox 2 for some trade value estimates).A number of issues concerning NTFPs make them adifficult group of products to frame in terms of theircharacteristics and actual potential contribution topoverty alleviation, economic development in generaland to sustainable natural resource conservation. Theambiguity and confusion over the definition of NTFPs

BOX 2: The economic value of botanical NTFPsAny attempt at assessing the global value of NTFPsis obviously fraught with difficulties, be it the value forlocal collectors and beneficiaries or in terms of finalproduct market value. Nevertheless, with the renewedinterest in NTFPs in the 80s, there has been a recognitionthat the collective trade value of forest productsother than timber was large (Belcher op. cit.), and someeven claim possibly larger than the total trade in tropicaltimber. Some indicators from the herbal and pharmaceuticaltrade are telling:– WHO (2003) estimated that the then global marketfor herbal medicines stood at US$ 60 billion, wasgrowing steadily, and 25 % of modern medicines aremade from plants first used traditionally.– In 1997, the world trade in raw materials (and thereforeexcluding subsistence or non-marketed use) forbotanical medicine (including vitamins and minerals)was estimated at US$ 8 billion, with global consumersales at US$ 40 billion (Laird 1999), much of whichoriginating from wild sources including trees; in Indiafor example, 90 % of the plant species used bythe pharmaceutical industry are collected from thewild and 33 % of the total need originates from trees(Chakrabarti & Varsney 2001).– In India, of the approximately 2 500 medicinal plantsused by traditional healers, about 500 are utilizedby pharmaceutical companies (Rao 2001). India’sherbal product industry is said to have had a annualturnover of about US$ 500 million (officially) in thelate 90s with about US$ 100 million‘s worth exported(officially), and was hoping to export 7 times moreby 2005 (Chakrabarti & Varsney op. cit.). The realvolumes and values are probably much higher giventhat much of the harvesting and trade is illegal, dealingalso with species which are officially protected.Several studies show that 20 % to 50 % of the speciesused are now endangered; ratios of the pricepaid up the market chain for the same equivalentamount of raw product are often 1 for gatherers, 5wholesale, 10 exporter and over 1000 for the processedmaterial (Charkrabarti & Varsney op. cit.).2.3 NTFPs’ importance revisitedMore recently, following systematic and comparativeresearch on the correlations between key issues suchas the links between poverty and NTFP use and commercialisation,resource trends and ownership rights,a more differentiated appreciation has emerged betweenthe actual and potential role of NTFPs for sustainablepoverty reduction and biodiversity conservation.A number of factors have been identified whichdetermine the conditions under which efforts to promoteNTFPs for poverty reduction and biodiversityconservation can realistically lead to win-win situationsor indeed may lead to the opposite effect.The working group “Trees and Forests in DevelopmentCooperation” chose to work on this topic to get a clearerunderstanding of the potentials and constraints ofinvesting more in efforts to promote NTFPs as a leverfor sustainable poverty reduction, and to identify thestrategies which would help to increase their potentialand overcome the constraints. While recognizingthe crucial importance of the range of NTFPs in homeconsumption and in support to farming systems, theworkshop aimed to concentrate on NTFPs which havealready or could potentially have a market beyond thearea of harvest/production. As such, little reference ismade to the very high economic value of some verymajor NTFPs such as fuelwood, fodder or small buildingmaterial.3. The workshop’s outcome: “from theEl Dorado to the real power games …”Some of the doubts concerning the potential for NTFPsto have the positive impacts which have been claimedand promoted in the last two decades can be attributedto the usual danger of extrapolating in a generalway from a whole series of location specific situationswith different species and products, with different socio-economicand market integration situations, andwith regional variations in alternative livelihood optionsof different income groups.It also emerges that the hoped for El Dorado of NTFPsfor the poor is jeopardized by the power games of thosefew who do find their El Dorado in NTFPs. This publicationis the outcome of the workshop and includes:– Three main papers;– Five case studies;– And some elements of synthesis.

In walnut tree forests ofKyrgyzstan, fodder is one ofmost important natural resources(Photo by Jean-PierreSorg).References:Belcher B.M. 2003: What isn’t an NTFP. InternationalForestry Review 5, 2: 161–168.Chakrabarti L.; Varsney V. 2001: Trading in contraband.In: Down to Earth 9, 17: 27–34. Society for EnvironmentCommunications, New Delhi.Dharmananda S. 2003: Myrrh and Frankincense.www.itmonline.org/arts/myrrh.htmLaird S.A. 1999: The Botanical Medicine Industry.In: The commercial use of biodiversity – Access to geneticresources and benefit sharing, Earthscan, London,pp. 78–116.Neumann R.P.; Hirsch E. 2000: Commercialization ofNon-Timber Forest products: Review and Analysis ofResearch. CIFOR, Bogor.Pickrell J. 2004: Poachers target Musk Deer for perfumes,medicines. National Geographic News, September2004. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0907_040907_muskdeer.htmlRao K.S. 2001. Foreword. In: Proceedings of the NationalWorkshop on Medicinal Plants, Hyderabad, India.12–14 March 2001. Issued by Conservator of Forests– Hyderabad, A.P., India.WHO 2003: Traditional medicine. Fact Sheet No 134.http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en/

2 Non-TimberPoverty Alleviation and ForestConservation: The Role ofForest ProductsBy Manuel Ruiz Pérez1. IntroductionStructural poverty is one of the most pervasive socialphenomena, whose effect is attracting increasing internationalattention. The definition and assessmentof poverty has evolved from a classical income-basedmeasure (the typical below 1$ per day or any other officiallyestablished income criteria) to a multidimensionalperspective that includes income, health, cultural andsocial resilience, self-esteem and other parameters(World Bank 2003).Poverty analysis tends to distinguish between rural andurban poverty, signalling different causes, symptomsand abilities of people to cope within both situations.This has led to different strategies at international level,which tend to focus on primary sector-based activitiesfor rural areas and on providing infrastructure and generalskills to enter the secondary and tertiary sectorsin urban areas. In both cases, the fight against povertycombines two approaches: a strategic, maximalistapproach of eliminating poverty that confronts thestructure of the system that generates poverty; and atactic, poverty alleviation approach that can be easilyaccepted and carried out within the limits of the system(Angelsen & Wunder 2003). Understanding that theelimination of poverty is the ultimate goal, we concentratehere on the more humble and tractable issue ofhow to reduce or alleviate poverty especially in ruralareas of developing countries, and which has been thefocus of our research for over 15 years.The interest in forest conservation acknowledges theserious pressures on forest, one of the key terrestrialecosystems, with important global values in terms ofclimate and biodiversity. Forests are one of the fastestlosing ground ecosystems. In order to accuratelyportray this process we need to distinguish betweenpermanent and temporary deforestation, forest degradationand forest replacement, normally substitutingnatural forests by plantations (FAO 2001). However, thecommonly used statistics are aggregates of these differentprocesses, and there is therefore little possibilityfor a clear consensus on their real meaning, let aloneon their implications and desirability (Matthews 2001,Kaimowitz & Angelsen 1998).When analysing the pressure on forests we need toseparate the direct from the indirect causes (Barbier &Burgess 2001, Geist & Lambin 2001). Concerning thefirst, we can mention different levels of agricultural activities,from slash-and-burn subsistence to large scaleagro-industry; livestock; mining; reservoirs, roads andother major infrastructures; logging and the aggravationthrough human intervention of some naturally occurringprocesses like fires, hurricanes, etc. Indirectcauses include market pressure and failures (undervaluationof forest goods and services); developmentplans and tax policies that offer incentives to deforest;land use and tenure conditions that tend to confront theState with traditional property rights; macroeconomicpolicies such as structural adjustments that force peopleto depend on forest exploitation to survive and thebroad socio-economic context, including populationgrowth, income distribution and external debt.2. Linking poverty and forests.There have been three complementary ways to combatdeforestation/forest degradation:– To stop it through the creation of protected areaswith different degrees of efficiency and that tend toconfront local populations.– To improve forest management techniques, especiallyin connection to large scale logging operations.– To promote a multifunctional valuation of forests thatwould encourage local actions to protect them.The latter has the highest potential to combine povertyalleviation and forest conservation, based on twofacts: the co-occurrence of forest-rich and economicallypoor territories in different places – from China tothe Congo Basin or the Amazon region – with a clearopportunity to try and find common solutions notwithstandingthe debatable causality link and the convergenceof the agendas of the conservation and developmentgroups since the 80s (Nepstad & Schwartzman1992).This multifunctional valuation is based on three keyassumptions (Myers 1988, Panayotou & Ashton 1992,Wollenberg & Inglis 1998):1. That deforestation is the result of a consistent andpervasive undervaluation of forest goods and services.2. That increasing the monetary value of forests willmake them more attractive than the alternative landuse scenarios based on deforestation.3. That there is a need to develop strategies to addvalue locally in order to increase the monetary valueof forests.This is the basis of different ‘conservation throughcommercialisation’ approaches that became popularat the end of the 80s with conservation and developmentgroups joining actions to try and capitalise on

the seemingly potential synergies (Evans 1993, Stiles1994). These approaches could be separated into twocomplementary groups. On the one hand, the creationof new markets (for example, the promotion of debt-fornatureswaps or the payment for environmental serviceslike water, CO2 or biodiversity). This has been proposedat various levels – from local to national and international– normally linked to compensation schemes(like the Natural Forest Protection Programme in China,or watershed management agreements in differentcountries). A number of international initiatives are nowready to be promoted, with the Kyoto Protocol and theassociated market for CO2 emissions standing out asthe most promising. As with other innovative proposals,there is always some distance between the theoryand reality. Critics of the new market approach stressthe difficulty to allocate a market value to intangibleslike biodiversity or climate, as well as the real willingnessto compensate for global services. Likewise, theissue of national versus international sovereignty hasbeen raised.On the other hand, promoting already existing marketsfor forest products and services (like timber, NTFPs,biodiversity or eco-tourism) has experienced a thrivingand agitated agenda that has had the advantageof the existing experience with such activities. Buildingon them, frequently more empiricist than well plannedactions, has expanded, trying to shorten the path betweenlocal producers and their local, national or internationalmarkets and to reinforce forest-based localincome generation.3. What role for Non-timber Forest Products?NTFPs attracted early attention among practitionersand researchers alike, based on the concatenation ofthree largely untested assumptions:1. That NTFPs are widely distributed, contributing morethan timber to forest people’s livelihoods (Myers op.cit., Panayotou & Ashton op. cit.).2. That their harvesting is ecologically more benignthan alternative forest or non-forest uses (Peters etal. 1989).3. That increasing their commercial value will contributeto an increased appreciation of forests, thereforecontributing both to poverty alleviation and to forestconservation (Clay 1992).Almost two decades of accumulated experience havenow allowed for a more sober and balanced assessmentof the potential contribution of NTFPs to the jointconservation-development agenda (see Neumann &Hirsh 2000, Arnold & Ruiz Pérez 2001 for a review). Wepresent some of those issues below.In connection with the contribution of NTFPs to forestpeople’s livelihoods, the twin questions raised are howmuch and who benefits. The extent of the contribution(‘how much’) has delved into the analysis of forest dependencyand its level (for instance high-low; permanent-sporadic;the role of NTFPs as safety nets). Theirreal level of sustainable use has also confronted differentvisions, from a cornucopian, almost infinite availability(Peters et al. op. cit.), to limited physical and commercialopportunities (Godoy et al. 2000). Likewise, thediscussion on their future potential has spanned from anew El Dorado that would realize their immense potential(Balick & Mendelsohn 1992) to a rather modest andincremental role (Simpson et al. 1996).One of the frequently repeated statements is that NT-FPs benefit mostly the poorest populations (Cavendish2000). However, with regard to the ‘who benefits’ question,some authors have confronted this with the paradoxof the appropriation of the valuable resources bythe rich, while the poor are being left with the crumbsof the feast (Dove 1993). Therefore, it is important tounderstand when the poorest benefit from NTFPs, andwhat types of development opportunities can theseforest products offer to local livelihoods. Our researchbased on 61 case studies of commercial production ofa given NTFP has typified three main situations (later onexpanded to five) with regard to the role of NTFPs in thehousehold economy as part of the general householdEven in forest-rich countries, where logging is seen as the mostimportant forest activity, some medicinal plants represent bigmarkets. Pictured is an example from the Congo Basin (Photo byManuel Ruiz Pérez).

Figure 1: Generalised NTFPbased livelihood strategies (hhmeans household in abbreviatedform). The dots representthe mean value for each group;bars indicate the standarddeviation of the X and Y axisvariables within each group.Modified from Ruiz Pérez etal. 2004a100% contribution of NTFP to hh income50subsistencespecialiseddiversified00 50 100% hh integration in market economylivelihood strategy (Ruiz Pérez et al. 2004a, Belcheret al. 2005): subsistence, with little integration in themarket economy, and mainly through the local commercialisationof the NTFPs; diversified, well integratedin the market but relying on a diversified portfolio ofactivities; and specialised, also highly integrated inthe market and relying to a great extent on the commercialisationof a specialised NTFP (see Figure 1).These strategies can be associated in a general waywith regional macro-features in the three main tropicalregions (Africa – subsistence; Asia – specialised; LatinAmerica – diversified).Another important question raised is the balance betweenfarm (or land) and off-farm based income in forestrelated household economies. Following a generallyrecognised trend in many countries, forest people’slivelihood is increasingly relying on off-farm based activities(Lanjouw & Feder 2001). When the latter representa good opportunity, the shift from farm-land tooff-farm activities tends to be faster in better-off segmentsof the rural population. In general, we hypothesise(Ruiz Pérez et al. 2004b) that when forest resourcesoffer a good opportunity and a dynamic context thistends to be recognised by the better-off; when it is anaverage opportunity it is the middle income group thattakes most of it; whereas when it is an inferior opportunityin a stagnant context, it is the poorest that willtend to concentrate on them (see Figure 2). This posesthe important question of the potential role of NTFPsin rural development and in particular how they canbe used for the benefit of the poorest segments of therural population.The analysis of the environmental benefits of promotingNTFPs has also advanced several nuances with regardto earlier optimistic assessments. It is generallyaccepted that NTFP harvesting tends to maintain forestcover, particularly when compared with other alternativeland uses (Ruiz Pérez et al. 2005). The effects onbiodiversity are variable; NTFP based activities generallymaintain a substantial amount of the species naturallyoccurring, although it certainly affects them, speciallythose most sensitive to human presence or thosewhich are also collected in parallel with the commercialgathering of the main NTFPs (Peters 1994, Freese1997, Bennett & Robinson 2000, Ticktin 2004). This extractioncan also seriously affect the populations beingexploited, particularly in the context of wild gatheringand market expansion. The promotion of commercialuses of NTFPs can then be viewed as a double-edgedsword, with potential and risks (Redford 1992).It is worth stressing the potential conflict betweenshort-term and long-term effects. Thus, commercialcollection of NTFPs may, in the short term, representa good strategy for local populations to maintain theforest condition in a state where it will continue to producea number of subsistence and marketable products.However, the system will only last as long as thealternatives are not perceived as better (Wilkie & Godoy1996) in the longer term – for instance the money10

Figure 2: Theoretical modelof contribution of forest sectorto rural people’s income fordifferent forest developmentcontexts. Modified from RuizPérez et al. 2004b.% of income from forestFarmer’s incomemature forest sector, normal opportunitystagnant forest sector, inferior opportunityexpanding forest sector, superior opportunityearned through NTFPs may be invested in other optionsthat may increase the pressure on the forest inthe long term. That is the case of savings used to increasesmallholders’ livestock assets, the acquisitionof mechanical saws or the improvement of roads thatwill have an increased effect on the expansion of agricultureand other commodity-oriented production atthe expense of forests.4. Concluding remarksForest populations are not static societies that hingeupon an ancestral way of life. They should be viewedas flexible, dynamic and able to create, adapt and respondto new opportunities. Research has showedthat forest based income can sometimes be such anopportunity to improve or to gain access to markets.This role, however, is normally limited and its realizationseems to indicate a relationship between relativelocal social positions and the capacity and resourcesto take the opportunity of the potential offered (knowledgeof markets, possibility to invest in risk, contacts,power relations, time availability, different opportunitycosts and ability to cope with these, rights, etc.). Whileworking on this as a development tool two key considerationsshould be followed: not to raise unrealisticexpectations and not to open opportunities in such away that could increase the level of dispossession ofthe poor.Similarly, NTFP based activities could help preventsome of the environmentally worse-off scenarios whileallowing for a reasonably good level of forest coverage,biodiversity and forest-related environmental services.However, careful monitoring of individual species underparticular pressure, of the risk of increase forestdegradation through the expansion of the range of forestactivities and areas being exploited, and of the potentialtrade-offs between short-term versus long-termprocesses should be implemented.While NTFPs can sometimes be a way to offer developmentopportunities to poor populations in a forestedenvironment, it can also be a poverty trap that wouldlimit people’s options and would risk the future of theforests upon which they live. Applying the generaltrends observed and lessons learnt to the concreteconditions of each particular case is the real challengefor development and conservation practitioners.11

References:Angelsen A.; Wunder S. 2003: Exploring the forestpovertylink: key concepts, issues and research implications.CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 40. CIFOR,Bogor.Arnold J.E.M.; Ruiz Pérez M. 2001: Can non-timber forestproducts match tropical forest conservation anddevelopment objectives? Ecological Economics 39:437–447.Balick M.J.; Mendelsohn R. 1992: Assessing the economicvalue of traditional medicines from tropical rainforests. Conservation Biology 6: 128–30.Barbier E.B.; Burgess J.C. 2001: The Economics ofTropical Deforestation. Journal of Economic Surveys15, 3: 413–432.Belcher B.; Ruiz Pérez M.; Achdiawan, R. 2005: Globalpatterns and trends in the use and managementof commercial NTFPs: Implications for livelihoods andconservation. World Development. September 2005.33, 9: 1435–1452.Bennett E. L.; Robinson J.G. 2000: Hunting of wildlife intropical forests. Implications for biodiversity and forestpeoples. World Bank Biodiversity Series No. 76. WorldBank, Washington D.C.Cavendish W. 2000: Empirical Regularities in the Poverty-EnvironmentRelationship of Rural Households:Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development 28, 11:1979–2003.Clay J. 1992: Why Rainforest Crunch? Cultural SurvivalQuarterly 16, 2: 31–37.Dove M.R. 1993: A revisionist view of tropical deforestationand development. Environmental Conservation20: 17–24.Evans M.I. 1993: Conservation by commercialization.In: Hladik C.M., Hladik A., Linares O.F., Pagezy H.,Semple A., Hadley M. (eds). Tropical Forests, Peopleand Food: Biocultural Interactions and Applicationsto Development. MAB Series vol. 13. UNESCO, Parisand Parthenon Publishing Group, Carnforth, UK, pp.815–822.FAO 2001: The Global Forest Resource Assessment2000. FAO, Rome.Freese C. (ed.) 1997: Harvesting Wild Species: Implicationsfor Biodiversity Conservation. John HopkinsUniversity Press.Geist H.J.; Lambin E.F. 2001: What drives tropicaldeforestation? A meta-analysis of proximate and underlyingcauses of deforestation based on subnationalcase study evidence. LUCC Report Series 4. Louvainla-Neuve.Godoy R.; Wilkie D.; Overman H.; Cubas A.; Cubas G.;Denmer J.; McSweeney K.; Brokaw N. 2000: Valuationof consumption and sale of forest goods from a CentralAmerican rain forest. Nature 406: 62–63.Kaimowitz D.; Angelsen A. 1998: Economic models oftropical deforestation. A review. CIFOR, Bogor.Lanjouw P.; Feder G. 2001: Rural Non-Farm Activitiesand Rural Development: From Experience TowardsStrategy. Rural Development Strategy Background PaperNo. 4, World Bank, Washington D.C.Matthews E. 2001: Understanding the FRA 2000. WorldResources Institute. Forest Briefing No. 1. WRI, WashingtonD.C.Myers N. 1988: Tropical forests: much more than stocksof wood. Journal of Tropical Ecology 4: 209–221.Nepstad D.C.; Schwartzman S. (eds.) 1992: Non-timberproducts from tropical forests: evaluation of a conservationand development strategy. Advances in EconomicBotany 9: vii–xii.With regard to poverty reduction, the impact of NTFPs on povertycannot be generalised. When they are locally processed however,they are usually advantageous for the regional economy (Photo byManuel Ruiz Pérez).12

Neumann R.P.; Hirsch E. 2000: Commercialisation ofnon-timber forest products: review and analysis of research.CIFOR, Bogor.Panayotou T.; Ashton P. 1992: Not by timber alone.Economics and ecology for sustaining tropical forest.Island Press, Washington.Peters C.M.; Gentry A.H.; Mendelsohn R.O. 1989:Valuation of an Amazonian rainforest. Nature 339:655–656.Peters C.M. 1994: Sustainable harvest of non-timberplant resources in tropical moist forest: an ecologicalprimer. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC.Redford K.H. 1992: The empty forest. BioScience 42:412–422.Ruiz Pérez M.; Belcher B.; Achdiawan R.; AlexiadesM.; Aubertin C.; Caballero J.; Campbell B.; ClementC.; Cunningham T.; Fantini A.; de Foresta H.; GarcíaFernández C.; Gautam K.H.; Hersch Martínez P.; deJong W.; Kusters K.; Kutty M.G.; López C.; Fu M.;Martínez Alfaro M.A.; Nair T.R.; Ndoye O.; Ocampo R.;Rai N.; Ricker M.; Schreckenberg K.; Shackleton S.;Shanley P.; Sunderland T.; Youn Y. 2004: Markets drivethe specialization strategies of forest peoples. Ecologyand Society 9, 2: 4. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art4Ruiz Pérez M.; Belcher B.; Fu M.; Yang X. 2004: Lookingthrough the bamboo curtain: an analysis of the changingrole of forest and farm income in rural livelihoods inChina. International Forestry Review, 6, 3–4: 306–316.Ruiz Pérez M.; Almeida M.; Dewi S.; Costa E.; PantojaM.; Puntodewo A.; Postigo A.; Andrade A. 2005:Conservation and development in Amazonian ExtractiveReserves: The case of Alto Juruá. Ambio, 34, 3:218–223.Simpson R.D.; Sedjo R.A.; Reid J.W. 1996: Valuing biodiversityfor use in pharmaceutical research. Journal ofPolitical Economy 104: 163–185.Stiles D. 1994: Tribals and trade: a strategy for culturaland ecological survival. Ambio, 23: 106–111.Ticktin T. 2004: The ecological implications of harvestingnon-timber forest products. Journal of AppliedEcology 41, 1: 11–21.Wilkie D.S.; Godoy R.A. 1996: Trade, indigenous rainforest economies and biological diversity. In: M. RuizPérez, J.E.M. Arnold, eds. Current issues in non-timberforest products research. CIFOR, Bogor, pp. 83–102.Wollenberg E.; Inglis A. (eds.) 1998: Incomes from theforests. Methods for the development and conservationof forest products for local communities. CIFOR– IUCN. Bogor.World Bank 2003: World Development Report 2004.Making Services Work for Poor People. The WorldBank. Washington D.C.13

3 ForestCommercial IssuesRelated to Non-TimberProductsBy Ousseynou Ndoye1. IntroductionNTFPs are essential for the livelihood of forest dependentpeople and they have social, cultural and spiritualimportance. For example, palm wine has been usedfor centuries to entertain social relationships. Furthermore,kola nuts have very important cultural values inmany parts of Africa at weddings and other traditionalceremonies. The commercial issues related to NTFPsand discussed here focus primarily on markets andtheir role in the process of exchange and in assemblingand distributing forest products in space, time andform that is desirable to consumers.In Africa, many NTFPs have been traded for ages. Sheabutter has been traded since the fourteenth century(Schreckenberg 2004) while Aframomum spp. beganto be transported to Europe as a spice and condimentin the early medieval period (Sunderland et al. 2004).The commercialisation of NTFPs is important for severalreasons:– It enables rural dwellers and poor urban householdsto diversify their source of incomes, which contributeto their food security and reduce their level ofpoverty.– It increases the economic value of NTFPs therebyincreasing the awareness and incentives for localcommunities to conserve many forest products.– At the local level, it increases rural employment, especiallyfor women and minorities.– It increases the awareness of decision makers anddonors of the value of forests products other thantimber and therefore may encourage them to reorienttheir policies and approaches in a way that integratesboth timber and NTFPs.– It provides more opportunities for regional tradewithin Africa and between Africa, Europe and NorthAmerica.2. Socio-economic potential of NTFPsNTFPs and poverty alleviationNTFPs are essentially a niche for the poor (Arnold &Ruiz Pérez 1998). That is the reason why any effortaimed at developing the sector will be very importantfor poverty reduction. According to the World HealthOrganisation (WHO 2003), 80 % of the population inAfrica use NTFPs for primary health care and Ndoyeet al. (1999) estimated that 70 % of local communitiesuse several forest products for health purposes. Thereasons are growing poverty and lack of opportunity inrural and urban areas, which prevent rural dwellers andpoor urban households from affording the higher costsof pharmaceutical products.Figure 3 compares the costs of modern medicines andthe costs of traditional medicines to cure, with comparableeffects, different illnesses. On that basis, rural4000040000350003000030000CFA Francs200002500020000150001000010000500000MalariaMeaslesScabiesRheumatismHemorrhoidsCold/coughGonorrhoeaYellow feverBack painType of illnesscost to cure illness using western pharmaceuticals (CFAF)cost to cure illness using traditional medecine (CFAF)Figure 3: Comparison ofcosts of modern and traditionalmedicine14

communities would be more rational in using traditionalmedicines than using modern medicines because theyare cheaper.NTFPs and market examples from AfricaThe market value of NTFPs can be very important. InCameroon, the commercial value of Ricinodendronheudelotii in a single market, New-Bell, Douala, wasestimated at US$ 248 700 in 1998 and US$ 464 235 in1999 (Ngono & Ndoye 2004). The annual value of theAfrican plum (Dacryodes edulis) market in Cameroonwas estimated at over US$ 7 million and exports tothe expatriate African community in Europe and theU.S.A. were valued at over US$ 2.2 million (Awono etal. 2002b). The total commercial value of Irvingia spp.trade in the year 2000 in ten major markets in the forestzone of Cameroon stood at over US$ 825 000.Regional trade remains an important aspect of theNTFP economy in Cameroon. For example, the valueof Irvingia spp. trade to Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeriaand Central African Republic was estimated atUS$ 260’000 in 1997 (Ndoye & Ruiz Pérez 1999). Thesehigh market values are repeated in Rio Muni, in EquatorialGuinea, where Sunderland et al. (1999) reportsthat Irvingia spp. kernels are sold more widely than anyother NTFP. Sales of processed Irvingia spp. kernels tothe United Kingdom, America, and Europe are reported,with about 100 000 potential consumers in thesemarkets (Lesley & Brown 2001).European and American pharmaceutical companiesare increasingly importing NTFPs from Africa for theirchemical properties useful for the production of organicmedicines. Examples include Prunus africana, Pausinystaliajohimbe, Voacanga africana, Strophanthusgratus and Physostigma venenosum (Walter 2001). In1999, the commercial values of Prunus africana andPausinystalia johimbe bark to the economy of Cameroonwere US$ 700 000 and US$ 600 000 respectively(CARPE 2001). For example, Prunus africana extract,used for the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasiain Europe and America, was worth US$ 200 million topharmaceutical companies in 1999 (CARPE op. cit.).Based on a purely illustrative per unit weight comparison(i.e. not production), the prices of some lesserknownNTFPs for local income generation are currentlyhigher than for cocoa in Cameroon (Ndoye & Tieguhong2004). As illustrated in Figure 4, the average price of akilogram of Irvingia spp. and Ricinodendron heudelotiiwere more than 200 % higher than the average price ofthe same quantity of cocoa beans between 1996 and2003. However, to go beyond such price observations,i.e. to assess and compare cocoa’s economic potentialwith that of NTFPs for the same site, one wouldneed to take into account other variables such as unitarea production and their yearly fluctuations, returnson labour input, average product price and their fluctuations,etc.20001500CFA F100050001996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003cocoaIrvingia spp,Ricinodendron heudelotii,YearFigure 4: Illustrativecomparison of the price per kgof cocoa and other NTFPs15

Box 3: Research and training for NTFP marketdevelopment: women traders in CameroonIn 1996, CIFOR started a research program on the marketsof NTFPs in the Humid Forest Zone of Cameroon.1100 traders, twenty-eight markets, selected accordingto their roles in assembling and distributing NTFPs,were included in the research program as well as marketsat the borders between Cameroon and neighbouringcountries. In 2000, CIFOR started training tradersusing the information collected in the market surveys.The training focused on the following modules:Market trends: This module discusses the types ofmarkets (local, regional, national borders, international)as well as the different channels (short, long distances)where NTFPs flow from producers to consumers.Many traders do not realize that they can increase significantlythe price they receive by selling their NTFPsin more distant markets.Product specialization: This module discusses theadvantage and disadvantage of both specializationand diversification.Storage of forest products: The length of storageof NTFPs depends on the perishability of the NTFP, theavailability of adequate storage facilities and the speedat which stocks are rotated. The advantages of storingNTFPs are highlighted in this module (increased profit,reduced risk due to supply shortage).Availability of raw material: Traders have difficultiesidentifying the areas that supply NTFPs. The objectiveof this module is to provide information about villagesand markets that are major sources of NTFP supply toguide the decision-making process of traders.In 2003, CIFOR assessed the impact of the training programwith 72 traders (CIFOR 2003). According to 81 %of the traders, the information that CIFOR provided hadhelped them increase their revenues by an average of55 %. This experience shows that targeted researchcan provide information that can be used to improvethe marketing strategy and incomes of traders.NTFP markets and womenWomen are much involved in the NTFP gathering,processing and commercialisation, which indicatesthat the potential is there for NTFP related activities toempower them and raise their status in the householdand in the community at large. CIFOR research hasshown that women represent more than 94 % of tradersoperating in rural and urban markets in Cameroon(Ndoye et al. 1997). In Ghana, women coordinate85 % of the chew-stick trade. In South Africa, womencarry out more than 80 % of the harvest and trade ofumemezi (Cassipourea flanaganii) (Sunderland et al.2004).3. Economic failuresThere are several shortcomings that are related to thecommercialisation of NTFPs. First of all, there is anincreased pressure on the resource base due tohigher demand and unsustainable harvesting methods.According to Ndoye & Tieguhong (2002), between1983–1985 and 1998, the average intensity of monthlyharvest of Pycnanthus angolensis, used as a cure forbreast cancer, rose tenfold in and around MbalmayoForest Reserve in Cameroon; that of Drypetes gossweileri,used as cure for sexual impotence, rose eightfold.Over-harvesting has led to some species becomingscarcer and such scarcity translates into increasingcosts of treating common ailments. The implication isthat the poor may no longer gain access to medicinalcures as need arises.Many trees exploited by timber companies have importantnon-timber values to local communities forsubsistence, income and health purposes (Laird 1999,Ndoye & Tieguhong op. cit.). 61 % of the top timberspecies exported from Cameroon have non-timbervalues and are used by local communities andpoor urban households (Ndoye & Tieguhong 2004).Thus uncontrolled activities of timber companies arelikely to deplete key forest resources and place highcosts on forest-dependent communities.Another difficulty is related to the road controls by police,gendarmes and municipal authorities leading topayment of “informal taxes” or bribes. For example,according to Awono et al. (2002a), many NTFP tradersin Cameroon are not aware of the levels of taxesthey need to pay when transporting products withinand between countries, leading to widespread briberyand corruption both in the interior of the country andat the borders. Furthermore, CIFOR research showedthat “informal taxes” can represent up to 20 % ofthe traders’ gross revenue. This creates a disincen-16

tive for traders who are obliged to transfer these costsin the form of lower prices to farmers and higher pricesto consumers.4. Potential contribution of markets to povertyreduction in a sustainable wayNTFP markets are often thin, meaning that a small reductionin supply has a large effect on quantity marketed(Ndoye et al. 1999). This changes the assembly anddistribution functions of markets from year to year. Oneway to limit the effect of thin markets is to improve thesupply through technologies like for instance domesticationmethods. Domestication is expected to raise theproductivity of NTFPs far higher than that obtained innatural forests.To achieve win-win outcomes, i.e. to reconcile conservationand development goals, it would be necessary towork with rural communities by informing them aboutthe status of their resources and the need to managethem in a sustainable way. It is also important to explainto communities the sustainable rate of harvestof different NTFPs, the consequences of not definingmanagement norms and the tradeoffs between privategains and social costs of resource depletion. Communitieswould then be helped and taught alternativegathering and harvesting methods that would providemore sustainable outcomes.Improving the marketing strategies and incomes of ruraldwellers involved in NTFP production and commercialisationis an important task in line with the MilleniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs). This can be achievedby stimulating cost effective small-scale forest basedenterprises that will use labour intensive technologiesbased on selected NTFPs. Strategies may include:carrying out feasibility studies on NTFPs based enterprisesand discussing with communities about variousoptions and their profitability, training local communities(including minorities and women) on how tocommercialise their products by assisting them to takeadvantage of selling opportunities in distant markets,how to analyse and capitalize on market trends, howto take advantage of commodity chain analysis andhow to employ strategies such as vertical and horizontalintegration (e.g. cooperation with other small-scaleentrepreneurs).Box 4: Group marketingThe Mapanja Prunus Harvesters’ Union is involved inharvesting and commercialisation of Prunus africanaaround Mount Cameroon. Farmers belonging to theUnion get more development, conservation and financialbenefits compared to those who are outsidethe organization (Tieguhong et al. 2005). The Centerfor International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the WorldAgroforestry Center (ICRAF), the Central Africa RegionalProgramme for the Environment (CARPE) andother partners are working jointly in similar experiencesin the Humid Forest Zone of Cameroon.Many local initiatives and institutional arrangements relatedto harvesting and marketing in groups or cooperativesshould be promoted to make sure the benefitsfrom NTFPs are maximized and shared equitablyfor the prosperity and economic growth of communities.Group marketing enables rural producers tointegrate several marketing strategies and to commandhigher prices along the commodity chain if the qualityof the product is guaranteed. Furthermore, group marketingprovides the opportunity for economies of scalein transport and for better bargaining power to obtainhigher product sale prices.More investment in infrastructure and processing technologiesis needed. Governments and the private sectorneed to invest and develop infrastructures such asroads and storage facilities to improve access for ruralproduction and trade. This will lower transaction costsand increase rural benefits from production and tradeof NTFPs.Secured property rights on land and on the forest resourcesare key elements that will stimulate rural communitiesto invest in tree planting and to adopt improvedtechnologies related to domestication, harvesting,processing, and commercialisation. Without theserights, it will be very difficult to achieve both livelihoodimprovements and resource conservation.5. ConclusionNTFPs are important in the livelihoods of forest dependentpeople and particularly women, who play acrucial role in their collection, processing and trade.Appropriate commercialisation strategies of NTFPs increasethe opportunities for forest dwellers, increasetheir economic value and provide information that willraise the awareness of policy makers and donors of theimportance of these forest products and the need to incorporatethem in official statistics and poverty reductionprogrammes. To maximize the potential contributionof NTFPs to livelihoods, there is a need to explorelocal, national, regional and international markets.17

There are many challenges that need to be dealt withto enable rural dwellers to take more advantage ofNTFP development. These are, among others, providingimproved technologies to increase the productivityof NTFPs, helping organize local communities in groupmarketing and providing a cost-effective market informationsystem. Participatory research, like the experiencethat CIFOR developed with women traders inCameroon, needs to be scaled up in other provincesof Cameroon and in other countries of Central andWest Africa. The capacity of local NGOs should alsobe developed to enable these institutions to scale upthis work with local communities and traders in a sustainableway. Finally governments and the private sectorhave an important role to play by reducing transactioncosts (especially eliminating the unnecessary roadcontrols) and improving road and market infrastructure(security, electrification, storage).Women are not only involvedin harvesting but also intrade, especially in Africa. InCameroon, they represent thevast majority of NTFP traders(Photo by Brian Belcher).18

References:Awono A.; Ndoye O.; Schreckenberg K.; Tabuna H.;Isseri H.; and Temple L. 2002a: Production and marketingof Safou (Dacryodes edulis) in Cameroon andinternationally: Market development issues. Forests,Trees and Livelihoods 12, 1–2: pp. 125–148.Awono A.; Lema Ngono D.; Ndoye O.; Tieguhong J.;Eyebe A.; Tonye Mahop M. 2002b: Etude sur la commercialisationde quatre produits forestiers nonligneuxdans la Zone Forestière Humide du Cameroun:Gnetum spp., Ricinodendron heudelotii, Irvingia spp.,Prunus africana. Report to the FAO, May 2002.Arnold J.E.M.; Ruiz Pérez M. 1998: The role of non-timberforest products in conservation and development,in E.Wollenberg and A. Ingles (eds) Incomes from theForest; methods for the Development and Conservationof Forest Products for Local Communitities, Centerfor International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia,pp. 17–42.CARPE (Central African Regional Program for the Environment)2001: Non-timber forest products: economicsand conservation potential. Congo Basin InformationSeries 10. 4 p.CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research)2003: Science for forests and people. CIFOR annualreport 2003. Bogor, 72 p.Laird S. 1999: The management of forests for timberand non-timber forest products in Central Africa.In Non-wood forest products of Central Africa. CurrentResearch Issues and Prospects for Conservationand Development. Sunderland, T.C.H., Clark, L.E.,Vantomme, P. (eds.). FAO, Rome, pp. 51–60.Lesley A.; Brown N. 2001: Irvingia gabonensis and Irvingiawombolu: A state of knowledge report undertakenfor CARPE. Oxford Forestry Institute. UK. 24 p.Ndoye, O.; 1995: The markets for non-timber forestproducts in the Humid Forest Zone of Cameroon andits borders: Structure, conduct, performance and policyimplications. Unpublished CIFOR Report. Bogor,Indonesia, 86 p.Ndoye O.; Ruiz Pérez M.; Eyebe A. 1997: The Marketsof Non-Timber Forest Products in the Humid ForestZone of Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry Network,Network Paper 22c, ODI, London, 22 p.Ndoye O.; Ruiz Pérez M.; Eyebe A. 1999: Non-woodforest products markets and potential forest resourcedegradation in Central Africa. In: T.C.H. Sunderland,L.E. Clark, P. Vantomme (eds.). Current Research Issuesand Prospects for Conservation. FAO. Rome. pp.183–206.Ndoye O.; Tieguhong J. 2002: Timber harvesting, nontimberforest products and rural livelihoods in CentralAfrica. Actes de la quatrième CEFDHAC, Concilier lagestions des écosystèmes forestiers d’Afrique Centraleet la lutte contre la pauvreté, Kinshasa, 10–13 Juin,pp. 117–126.Ndoye O.; Tieguhong J.C. 2004: Forest resources andrural livelihoods: The conflict between timber and Nontimberforest products in the Congo Basin. Scand. J.For. Res. 19 (Suppl. 4): pp. 36–44.Ngono L D.; Ndoye O. 2004: Njansang and bushmango: Cameroonian seeds in national and internationalmarkets. In: C. Lopez and P. Shanley (eds). Richesof the Forests: For health life and spirit in Africa.pp. 21–24.Schreckenberg K. 2004: The contribution of shea butter(Vitellaria paradoxa C.F. Gaertner) to local livelihoods inBenin. In: Sunderland T., Ndoye O. (eds). Forest Products,Livelihoods and Conservation. Case studies ofNon-Timber Forest Product Systems. Volume 2 – Africa.Chapter 6. pp. 95–113.Sunderland T.C.H.; Clark L.E.; Vantomme P. (eds.) 1999:Current Research Issues and Prospects for Conservation.FAO. Rome, pp. 183–206.Sunderland T.C.H.; Harrison S.T.; Ndoye O. 2004: Commercialisationof Non-timber forest products in Africa:History, context and prospects. In: Sunderland T. andNdoye O. (eds.). Forest Products, Livelihoods and Conservation.Case studies of Non-Timber Forest ProductSystems. Volume 2 – Africa, pp. 1–24.Tieguhong J.; Ndoye O.; Joseph E.E. 2005: Community-basedNTFP production and trade for rural povertyalleviation and resource conservation: Case of Prunusafricana on Mount Cameroon, Cameroon. Paper preparedfor the International conference on NTFPs, communityeconomic development and forest conservation,Victoria, Canada, 25–27 August.Walter S. 2001: Non-wood forest products in Africa:a regional and national overview. FAO working paper.FOPW/01/1. 303 p.WHO 2003: Traditional medicine. Fact sheet No 134,revised May 2003. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en/print.html19

NTFP Development and PovertyAlleviation: Is the Policy Context4Favourable?By Geneviève Michon1. IntroductionFor centuries, people of the tropical rainforest havebeen collecting NTFPs either for their subsistence or inexchange for manufactured products and money. Animportant question for science and development is toassess how far NTFPs presently do, or could, at locallevel, help alleviate poverty and improve the welfareand livelihoods of forest-dependent communities. Inmany parts of the world, subsistence gathering is stillimportant. Hunting, fishing and plant gathering providean important part of the diet and health system of ruralpeople, and an essential part of plant material forhousehold use. NTFP collection for trade (“extractivism”)has been proposed as a promising strategy forpoverty alleviation in forest areas. But how far does realityprovide substantiating evidence for this premise?If “extractivism” – an old practice in the tropical world– has indeed often given rise to the fortunes and socialupgrading of forest product traders, the role of NTFPsin the success of economic or social strategies of localcollectors is less obvious.Part of the explanation for this situation is linked to theevolution of the industrial and economic context. Sincethe Second World War, many commercial NTFPs havelost their economic importance. Some markets persisttoday for niche products, and a collection of naturalchemicals for pharmaceutical or insecticide industriesis emerging as a promising domain. The evolution ofthe global context is itself linked to macro-economicpolicies adopted at national and international levels.But this evolution is only part of the answer. NTFPs,by definition, belong to the forestry sector, which is,historically, a highly regulated sector (see for examplea critical review in Fay & Michon 2005). Forest policiesand regulations do affect the social and economic successof NTFP management at local and national level.They define who has access to which kind of resourcesand in which kind of forests. They determine how benefitsof forest management, collection and trade areshared among stakeholders. Forest policies and regulationsare therefore essential in the determination ofthe social and economic attributes of forest management,including NTFP collection and use. How far dothese policies help NTFP management to benefit localpeople? How can situations be changed? To answerthese questions, it is important to consider the basicstructures of NTFP economics at large, and to discusshow these structures are impacted or even determinedby forest – and non-forest – policies. We will discusshere these structures (who are the primary collectors,where do they collect, for which type of markets, whichkind of relations link collectors to users or traders), andsee which are the main questions that need to be addressed.2. NTFP collection: Who are the collectors?In most forest areas, NTFP collectors are still peoplebelonging to local forest-dependent communities.Subsistence products are collected by various socialcategories, including children, women and elders,whereas the collection of commercial products is usuallydominated by young men. However, more andmore professional collectors from outside enter theforest and compete with local collectors. In Indonesiafor example, these outsiders specialize in the collectionof high value products such as eaglewood andbirds nests (Momberg et al. 2000). Professional collectorsfrom outside deliberately ignore local rules regardingaccess, benefit sharing, or resource management.They collect as much as they can in the shortest timepossible, a very damaging strategy for the resource.These outsiders also specialize in the collection of newproducts for emerging markets (medicinal plants, ornamentalfish and birds, forest pets), which local peopleusually ignore (Michon 2005). They apply a “harvest-exhaust-move”strategy. When local people understandthe potential benefits of the harvest of suchproducts, the resource is already declining, and localbenefits are meager.Policies aimed at reducing this unbalanced competitionbetween locals and outsiders have to consider thedifference in both the logic and the practice of forestproduct collection by the two main categories involved.These issues concern in the first place the theory andpractice of access rights to forest resources. In countrieswith a strong centralization of power and administration,access to forest lands and resources is highlyrestricted and totally ignores local customary systems(Fox 1993, Lynch & Talbott 1995). The granting of collectionrights occurs through temporary permits, orthrough structured concessionary or auction systems,which target outside capital holders more than localpeople. Local people are therefore considered as “illegal”collectors on their own customary lands and forresources they manage under customary rules. Thisunbalanced treatment of local versus outside systemsis experienced by local people as an abuse of power.Besides, the de facto situation of open access whichaffects many forest lands in the tropics increases conflictsbetween locals and outsiders and favours unsustainablecollection practices, and maintains low pricesand therefore low returns for collectors. Communityforest management systems, joint management be-20

tween foresters and local communities, are well triedand documented solutions to integrate local peoplein the management of and benefits from forest lands.However, balanced systems, between local people, legitimateoutsiders, concessionaires and national authorities,must be sought after more systematically.3. NTFP collection: Who are the actualbeneficiaries of collection and trade?NTFP collectors harvest forest products for variousdestinations: local direct consumption or home industry,local traders, regional industries, middlemeninvolved in large trade chains – often for export markets– or official concessionaires. This variety of destinationsmakes it difficult to draw general conclusionsabout the modes of benefit distribution between thedifferent parties involved. In addition, conclusionsabout economic benefit sharing must be confrontedwith the issue of the distribution of social benefits.Some local and still “traditional” collection organizationalsetups remain very unbalanced (for example thenumerous systems of debt creation linking collectorsand middlemen, concessionaires or patrons, with the“aviamento” of the Brazilian “extractivism” as the classiccase study: Aubertin 1996) with patrons drawingthe largest share of the economic benefit and redistributingonly some social benefit. Other systems areeconomically unsatisfactory but are based on satisfactorysocial complementarities, as demonstrated ina case study concerning benzoin 1 collection in NorthSumatra, where the apparent “exploitation” of collectorsby village traders, shown in the low prices given bythe latter to the former, is both explained and balancedby the social attributes linking both categories (Katz etal. 2002). Other systems appear to be very much balancedin terms of economic and social benefit sharing,as demonstrated in the case of damar 2 collection in thesouth of Sumatra: considering inputs – labor, investmentand risk – and outputs – gross and net benefits,collectors receive an advantageous share of the addedvalue generated by the collection, handling, sortingand trade (Michon & al. 2001).Policy issues here mainly concern access to capital forlocal collectors, which is a key point. Facilitating systemsof micro-credit could help alleviate the chronicspiral of poverty of local collectors and relieve themfrom their exclusive relation to their patrons, or at leastincrease their bargaining power.4. NTFP collection: In which “forest” does thecollection take place?The vision of NTFP collection taking place only in untouched,primary forests is somewhat misleading. Forestextraction concerns all kinds of lands, including“primary” and “secondary” forests, but also what isclassified as agricultural lands. A large part of forestcollection is usually carried out in what we have called“domestic forests” (Michon op. cit.): forested areas thatbear trees which have been planted and forests thathave been established and appropriated by local farmers.Domestic forests include managed “natural” forestas well as forest fields and fallow lands, and include“agroforests”, which are mixed stands of trees cultivatedfor commercial purposes – often NTFP production.In Indonesia, domestic forests provide 95 % of the localIn this case from Indonesia, the harvester takes advantage of a treethat his ancestor planted in 1927. Family networks are of crucialimportance with regard to access to resources (Photo by ChristianKüchli).21

fruits marketed in the country, around 80 % of the Dipterocarpresins traded in and outside the country, for asignificant part of the national rattan and bamboo market,an immense part of the firewood used in the country,and the majority of such items as medicinal plantsand handicraft raw materials. Moreover, they ensurethe self-sufficiency of most rural households in complementaryfoods, fuelwood as well as light and heavyconstruction material (Michon & de Foresta 1999).The use of domestic forests is governed by specificrules and obligations, which often enters in conflict withnational forestry policy and regulatory frameworks.Currently, these frameworks apply to areas that aredesignated by law as forests and defined as requiringspecial management, which implies highly restricteduse and management. They are totally counterproductiveto NTFP management in domestic forests (Fay &Michon op. cit.) as they do not accommodate the specificityof these forests, and therefore often lead totheir destruction, and to the loss of a great potentialfor NTFP production. For example, the export restrictionfor raw rattan in Indonesia, that occurred in thelate 80s, and which was officially designed for the protectionof the natural rattan stands, has resulted in thetotal collapse of cultivated rattan forests in Kalimantan(Fried 2000). This policy had been formulated on theassumption that, given the quantities exported, harvestinglevels were undoubtedly totally unsustainable.It had not taken into account that most of the exportedrattan came from planted forests owned and managedby local communities. In Indonesia, policies concerningsandalwood collection on the island of Timor wereso repressive that local people started uprooting sandalwoodwhich had regenerated naturally on their land(Michon op. cit.).NTFP policies should therefore pay particular attentionto all kinds of local initiatives for NTFP intensifiedmanagement and cultivation. They should particularlyconsider the relevance and legitimacy of managementrules underlying cultivation, including:– Access and property rules, including a blend of individualand collective rights and obligations, includingrules concerning lands, but also on specific portionsof space, or on trees or other resources.– Customary management rules and practices.– Local economic, but also social attributes of cultivatedforests: role in livelihood strategies, role insocial cohesion and/or stratification of families andvillage communities.This implies the acknowledgement of local managementas a specific domain of productive activity, independentof the legal domain in which it takes place.5. NTFP collection: For which markets?NTFPs are collected for a great variety of market types.Local, small-scale markets are concerned with productsfor direct consumption – fruits, fish and meat,vegetable and spices – or home industries. Regionalor national markets include “traditional” markets, andemerging urban markets. “Traditional” markets are notuniform. Like local markets, they may directly sell forestproducts to urban consumers: fresh or processedfruits, medicinal plants. Many of these markets aregrowing in importance as urban centers and the urbandemand for forest products are themselves growing: (agood example is the increasing importance of the numerousAmazonian palm berries and juices sold on theBelem market in Brazil (Muñiz-Mirit et al. 1995), or thegrowing bush meat markets in the large cities of centralAfrica (Bahuchet et al. 2001). National markets also targetindustries: medicinal plants for Ayurvedic medicinefactories in India, rattan canes for furniture industriesor benzoin for cigarette factories in Indonesia for example.Emerging urban markets concern “new” products:for example forest pets – turtles, snakes, babymonkeys and civets – and singing or ornamental birds,or tree ferns for orchid growing in Indonesia. Internationalmarkets sell either traditional products in nichemarkets – dragons’ blood for lacquer work, exportedfrom the forests of Sumatra to Chinese factories, rhinohorn exported from Africa and Indonesia to traditionalmedicine factories in China, raw material for large industries– rubber and other latex, resins, gums –, ornew products for emerging markets: plant metabolitesfor pharmaceutical industries, genes for life industries.NTFP collection for local markets has proven relativelysustainable, though not providing important benefitsat local level. The history of forest products collectionand trade for large national or international markets hasshown high instability, linked to great fluctuations inforest product demand by industries. This has entailedopportunistic collection strategies, where collectorsswitch from one product to another (see for examplefor Borneo: Sellato 2001).The value added along the trade chains can be quitesubstantial for products like medicinal plants, but remainslow for others like gums. The percentage of thetotal value captured at local level is also highly variable.The lack of bargaining power of the collectors facingorganized traders and fluctuating international marketsis frequent and results in a low economic profitabilityof the collection activity itself. However, the commonassumption that local collectors or traders are “exploited”by middlemen is not necessarily true, and policiesaimed at reforming existing trade chains must be de-22

veloped very carefully (Michon op. cit.). In Indonesia forexample, the replacement of “traditional” clove traderswho, supposedly, were exploiting local collectors bygovernment-controlled entities has resulted in a seriousdrop in prices, while depriving local people fromthe social advantages of the former organization.Policies targeting better valorization at local level aremore promising. Through administrative and financialsupport they can help the development of localprocessing, which is a good way of adding value tonatural products. Policies targeting the remunerationof property rights (property rights on the resource orintellectual property rights on related knowledge) arestill weak as the legal and financial mechanisms involvedifficult procedures (Vivien 2002). Certificationsystems are certainly promising as green labels, fairtrade and appellations of origin constitute alternativemechanisms for adding value at local level; theseshould be more systematically explored and supportedby national and international policies (Cormier-Salemet al. 2005).What looks like a natural forest is in fact a Shorea agroforestwhich, in addition to producing resin and other products,contributes to maintaining key forest environmental services(Photo by Christian Küchli).6. The numerous levels of regulations andrules for NTFP collection, use and tradeNTFP collection, use and trade are regulated at differentlevels, which include local, national and internationallevels.1. Regulations at local level: are theycompatible with national policies?The first level for NTFP regulation concerns customaryrights and institutions. Even though these systems are,by essence, quite variable from one place to another,they show general characteristics:23

– They do not emphasize uniform rights, but bundlesof specific rights tailored according to resources,users, or uses.– They involve rights AND obligations.– They are quite flexible and adaptive, and easilyevolve as the context or the needs change.– They are recognized and acknowledged by all peopleconcerned in the community.– They are usually not understood/recognized by nationalconstitutions/legislations.It is important to state that these local regulation systemsdo not necessarily target or guarantee sustainability,unless there is a feeling of threat on the possibilitiesto continue the economic activity. However, sustainabilitymay come as a side effect of given accesssystems or management practices. These local regulationsystems do not necessarily guarantee an equitablesharing of economic benefits at the community level.Even if the social benefits or advantages are satisfactoryfor all the various segments of the community, manylocal regulations systems are aimed at strengtheningthe social and political position of community elites,and not to distribute the income derived by forest managementto all members in the community.The main problems arise when national forest regulationsystems ignore these customary systems. Conflictsbetween national laws and local systems entail,among others, unsustainable management or miningof forest resources, abuse of power and grabbing ofeconomic benefits by local elites, and social disintegration.Therefore, policies targeting sustainableNTFP management have to assess the relevance of localmanagement systems, and to find theoretical andpractical ways to accommodate local rights in nationalsystems.2. Regulations at national levelNational public policies targeting NTFP managementare closely related to the national forestry policy framework.In Southeast Asia and in Africa and to a lesserextent in Latin America, these frameworks institute aparticular “forest domain”, distinct from the agrariandomain, administered by the State (in extreme situationsas in Indonesia, local forest people are consideredas squatters on public forest lands: Fay et al.2000, Santosa 2002). They do not recognize the legitimacyof local forest management on forest lands andthe State designates the legitimate managers (generallythe State itself seconded by professionals andcontracted agents).cluding concessionary rights, harvesting restrictionsand market regulations. These norms most often donot take into account the actual situation and practiceof NTFP collection and use at local level. As a result,the practices it defines are often incompatible and/or incompetition with the actual collection and managementby local people, which results in reduction or restrictionof potential income, overharvesting or resourcedestruction. In addition, NTFP regulations affect productsirrespective of the management system in whichthey occur, making harvesting illegal even from cultivatedresources, thereby clearly creating disincentivesfor NTFP cultivation (Michon op. cit.).At national level, it is urgent to set criteria for determiningwhat forest lands/products need to be regulatedand how. This implies re-examining which forestlandsdo not require state regulation, specially with respectto EXISTING local management systems, and the removalof forestry-related policies and restrictions in areaswhere such restrictions are not warranted.3. International policies and regulationsaffecting NTFP managementInternational policies and regulations affecting NTFPmanagement include international market regulations(international trade conventions and rules, propertyrights, labeling systems) or relate to international conventionsrelated to conservation and biodiversity (Conventionon Biological Diversity -art. 8J-, CITES).Policies related to NTFP international trade are markedby a strong lack of transparency (concerning nomenclatures,product quality, trade chains), which entailsdifficulties to improve economic efficiency and benefitdistribution. These policies are tailored for productsother than NTFPs, other types of actors than localforest-dependent communities, and to other types oflogic than modern market logic. Most of them are NOTadapted for forest products, actors and logic, and havemore negative than positive effects on local livelihoodconditions.Regulations evolved from international conventionsmay on the contrary provide opportunities for localcommunities to benefit from NTFP management anduse at an international scale, but practical limitations(precise knowledge on opportunities, ability to arguefor forest-dependent communities at international level)are numerous.Forestry frameworks regulate NTFP collection, use,trade and processing through established norms in-24

4. The accumulation of rights and regulationsIn each single location, NTFP management is affectedsimultaneously by local, national and international regulations.Observations show that these regulations areoften contradictory, or incompatible, and that this accumulationis totally counterproductive. For more benefitsto be obtained by local forest-dependent communities,it is urgent to re-examine the relevance of eachtype of regulation and the compatibility between thedifferent policies, laws and regulations at the differentlevels.7. ConclusionNTFP management strategies are not uniform: variouscategories of people engage in management for a varietyof reasons and in various ways. The social andeconomic benefits derived from this activity are alsohighly varied.In general, NTFP management remains a highly unpredictableoccupation for local forest-dependent communities.This is partly due to the highly fluctuating andfleeting nature of the external demand in forest productsas conveyed by outside traders. Uncertainties arealso introduced by the frequency of abrupt changesin policies – or implementation of policies – affectingNTFPs, such as in Indonesia the imposition of concessionaryor auction systems for the exploitation of ediblebirds nests, or the creation of a unique buying bodyas the buying system established for rattan in the late80s. Such changes may deeply affect prices paid toproducers and lead to the collapse of the collection, ashas been reported for birds nests.the intensity at which the activity is carried-out, butthe present forest conversion dynamics to non-forestuses which do not benefit local people, and which arestrongly determined by global national and internationalpolicies.In any policy support programme, local NTFP managementshould be considered in a global environmentrelating local dynamics to national/international marketand policy trends in short, medium and long term.Today, there is a marked tendency to mine productsin natural forests, and to intensify NTFP managementthrough domestication, cultivation and the creation ofstronger property regimes. It is therefore more importantfor policies to foster the maintenance of a diverse“domestic forest”, controlled by local practices andacknowledged rules that can be used in a flexible way,than to edict policies and regulations aimed at the protectionof specific products. This is essential since thecomplementarity between “forest” and “agriculture” isstill essential in all rural areas where farmers do nothave enough capacity for income accumulation andare still quite exposed to risk. Maintaining patches ofappropriated forests in farmlands, in order to retain theforest/agriculture complementarities is the key for livelihoodimprovement, at least until other strategies canbe used on farmlands. This, again, concerns policiesthat are not strictly restricted to “forest”, but addressesmore globally resource management and land use.Farmers react to this double uncertainty by maximizingthe profitability of extraction. The concern for immediatesustainability is always undermined by the lack ofsustainability in the market and policy environment. Inboom periods, or in times of favourable policies, liketoday with new systems linked to the decentralizationof forest management in many tropical countries, theincentives for harvesting as much as possible – i.e.immediate profit, competition with outsiders, abuseof power from external authorities on local collectors– are obviously higher than incentives for sustainablemanagement. However, commercial NTFP management,considered as an economic activity made of asuccession of collecting booms, often appears to bequite sustainable and profitable for forest-dependentcommunities over long periods of time. The main threatto the future of local NTFP management, and to thebenefits for local communities, is in many cases not25

References:Aubertin C. 1996: Heurs et malheurs des ressourcesnaturelles en Amazonie brésilienne. Cahiers des Scienceshumaines, 32, 1: 29–50.Bahuchet S.; De Maret P.; Grenand F.; Grenand P. 2001:Des forêts et des hommes. Un regard sur les peuplesdes forêts tropicales. Bruxelles: APFT-Université Librede Bruxelles, Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Cormier-Salem M.C.; Juhé-Beaulaton D.; Boutrais J.;Roussel B. (eds.) 2005: Patrimoines naturels aux Suds– Territoires, Identités et Stratégies locales. IRD Editions,Paris.Fay C.; Sirait M.; Kusworo A. 2000: Getting the BoundariesRight: Indonesia’s Urgent Need to Redefine itsForests Estate. Occasional Paper World AgroforestryCenter, Bogor, Indonesia.Fay C.; Michon G. 2005: Redressing Forest Hegemony.Where a Forestry Regulatory Framework is Best Replacedby an Agrarian One. Forest and People, SpecialIssue “Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity”.Fox J. (ed) 1993: Legal Frameworks for Forest Managementin Asia, Honolulu, East West Center.Fried S.G. 2000: Tropical forests forever? A contextualecology of rattan agroforestry systems. In: People,plants and justice. The politics of nature conservation.Zerner C. (ed.). Columbia University Press, New York,pp. 204–233.Katz E.; García C.; Goloubinoff M. 2002: Sumatra Benzoin(Styrax spp.). In: Shanley P., Pierce A., Laird S.A.,Guillen A. (eds.), Tapping the Green Market. Certificationand Management of Non-Timber Forest Products.WWF/UNESCO People and Plants/Kew Gardens,Earthscan, United Kingdom, pp. 246–256.Lynch O.; Talbott K. 1995: Balancing Acts: Community-Based Forest Management and National Law in Asiaand the Pacific Washington DC. World Resources Institute.Michon G. 2005: Domesticating forests. How farmersmanage forest resources. Bogor, Indonesia. IRD-CI-FOR-ICRAF. 170 p.Michon G.; de Foresta H. 1999: Agro-forests: Incorporatinga forest vision in agroforestry. In: Agroforestryand sustainable agroecosystems. Buck L., FernandezE., Lassoie J. Advances in Agroecology Vol. 3. New-York.Michon G.; Foresta H. de; Kusworo A.; Levang P. 2001:The Damar Agro-Forests of Krui, Indonesia: Justicefor Forest Farmers. In: People, Plants and Justice. ThePolitics of Nature Conservation. Zerner C. (ed.). ColumbiaUniversity Press, pp. 159–203.Momberg F.; Puri R.; Jessup T. 2000: Exploitation ofgaharu, and forest conservation efforts in the KayanMentarang National Park, East Kalimantan, Indonesia.In: People, plants and justice: the politics of nature con-servation. Zerner C. (ed.). Columbia University Press,New York, pp. 259–284.Muñiz-Mirit N.; Vamos R.; Hiraoka R.; Montagnini F.;Mendelson R. 1995. The economic value of managingthe açaí palm (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) in the floodplainsof the Amazon estuary, Pará, Brazil. Forest Ecologyand Management 87: 163–173.Santosa H. 2002: Forest Area Rationalization in Indonesia:A Study on the Forest Resource Conditions andPolicy Reform. World Agroforesrty Center, Bogor, Indonesia.Sellato B. 2001: Forest, resources and people in Bulungan.Elements for a history of settlement, trade, andsocial dynamics in Borneo, 1880–2000. Bogor, Indonesia:Center for International Forestry Research.Vivien F.-D. (ed.), 2002: Biodiversité et appropriation:les droits de propriété en question. Elsevier, NaturesSciences Sociétés, collection Environnement, Paris,pp. 87–113.1 Benzoin is a fragrant resin, traditionally collected in the forests ofSoutheast Asia, used in Indonesia in cigarette production, and exportedto the Middle East and Europe for various purposes: incensefactories, pharmaceutical and perfume industries.2 Damar is a resin exported as a raw material for paint and varnishindustries.26

5 ofNTFP Promotion in Vietnam:Practical Experiencesa Development ProjectBy Ruedi FelberThis contribution describes the experiences of the Extensionand Training Support Project 3 (ETSP) in NTFPpromotion in some districts of Vietnam. ETSP is contributingto poverty alleviation in upland areas throughimproved training and extension services in natural resourcemanagement. Its key approaches at local levelare participatory planning and identification and promotionof promising best practices.Vietnam is achieving significant progress in combatingpoverty. However, poverty rates are still very highamongst ethnic minorities who represent 15 % of thepopulation and who are mainly living in rural uplandareas where forest land is dominant. The forest is animportant source of sustenance for the local population.NTFPs play an important role in this regard byproviding food, medicines and construction materials,especially for ethnic groups.Field studies initiated by ETSP (Wetterwald et al. 2004)document that most households collect or cultivateNTFPs and more than 100 species are used in a commune.These NTFPs are of multiple purpose and areused either for home consumption or for trading. Butas soon as there are high market demands for highvalueNTFPs such as bamboo or rattan, they are overexploited.However, there are limited income-generating opportunitiesfrom natural growing NTFPs to significantlyincrease livelihood opportunities. Hindering factorsare the lack of appropriate management techniques,unclear tenure and user right situation and the complexand fragmented market system for NTFPs (manytrading actors, unstable supply, low values and pricefluctuations).Despite the deprived economic situation, there arepromising local initiatives such as small-scale NTFPprocessing initiatives (broom and hat production), cultivationof well-growing NTFPs in home gardens andfields near the villages (bamboo shoot production)and enrichment plantation in natural forest (cinnamon)which prove the potential to develop niche markets.To foster such opportunities, an adapted toolkit forparticipatory field methods is needed to identify potentialNTFPs and adequate management techniquesand to establish efficient links to private sector marketactors.ETSP has been intensively adjusting and applying a setof tools essential for NTFP promotion:Broom production by a women’s group of Nam Dong, Thua Thienprovince (Photo by Ruedi Felber).– Participatory field studies to grasp the potential andproblems regarding the role of NTFPs in the livelihoodsystem of the rural poor.– Commune development planning using PRA toolswith which need-based activities are identified andprioritised.– Rapid Market Appraisal with which valuable NTFPsare identified, their market systems are describedand the basis for market interventions are provided.– Participatory Innovation Development which relieson the diverse knowledge of farmers, extensionistsand researchers. With PID, new technologies andapproaches are identified in experiments and promisingresults are then scaled up through extensionactivities.In ETSP’s experience, community forestry – based onclarified land tenure and user rights – offers a promisingframework to promote the sustainable economic use ofNTFPs respecting the combined goals of benefiting locallow-income producers and maintaining ecosystemservices.Reference:Wetterwald O.; Zingerli C.; Sorg J.-P. 2004: Non-timberForest Products in Nam Dong District, Central Vietnam:Ecological and Economic Prospects. In: Schweiz.Z. Forstwes. 155, 2: pp. 45–52.3 ETSP is financed by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation(SDC) and implemented by Helvetas, Swiss Associationfor International Cooperation.27

NTFPs and Poverty Alleviation inKyrgyzstan: Potential and Critical6 IssuesBy Kaspar SchmidtThe State owned walnut-fruit forests in SouthernKyrgyzstan provide a wide range of different NTFPs,including walnuts, fuelwood, hay, rose hips, wild applesand plums, mushrooms, medicinal herbs, wildfood-plants and berries. Some of these products, inparticular walnuts, wild fruits, fuelwood and hay, play asignificant role in the livelihoods of local people duringthe ongoing difficult process of transition to a marketeconomy. Other potentially marketable products arecurrently not being used, mainly due to lacking marketdemand or very low prices. It is estimated that in 2002about 55 % of the population in the region of these forestsand 44 % of the population nationwide lived belowthe poverty line (UN 2003).The NTFPs collected in the walnut-fruit forests areused to cover subsistence needs and as a source ofincome. Poor households gain most of their NTFP-relatedincome from selling walnuts. Some also makemoney from rose hips and wild apples, whereas onlyfew households sell other NTFPs. They use the incomegained from NTFPs primarily to satisfy basic needs.Only some poor households can additionally invest inother economic activities such as livestock rearing andinto their social network (Schmidt 2005). A good walnutharvest allows a poor family to sustain a living for up toone year. However, walnuts are not a reliable sourceof revenue as there are, on average, only two to fourgood walnut harvests per decade (Müller & Sorg 2001).Therefore, the economic importance of NTFPs for poorhouseholds varies considerably between years, asshown in Figure 5.The potential of NTFPs to contribute to poverty alleviationin the walnut-fruit forests and critical issues canbe summarised as follows using the three dimensionsof the World Bank’s poverty definition (World Bank2001):Opportunity– NTFPs from the walnut-fruit forests and other forestsin Kyrgyzstan clearly offer interesting income opportunitiesto local households.– Poor households have at least some access tocommercially valuable NTFPs, in particular to walnuts.– There is a possibility to generate added value byprocessing NTFPs in local communities.Security– Wide yield fluctuations of walnuts and of some othercommercially interesting NTFPs limit the role of NT-FPs as safety nets for the poor.– It is therefore critically important that poor householdsalso have access to other sources of incomethan NTFPs in order to increase their livelihood security.In fact, people depending solely on NTFPsmay become trapped in poverty.– Market demand for NTFPs is increasing, both interms of the number of products requested as well20Number of points (Y out of 20) allocatedto available sources of income15105020022003livestock rearingtillage, horticulture,beekeepingNTFPsoff-farm activitiessocial benefitsFigure 5: Relative importanceof different sources of incomeand subsistence in 2002 (goodwalnut harvest) and 2003(hardly any walnuts) for poorhouseholds; results of participatoryscoring exercises;N 2002 = 30, N 2003 = 19.28

A Kyrgyz farmer and his sonbringing walnuts from theirforest plot to the village (Photoby Kaspar Schmidt).as their total volume. This might eventually reducethe dependency of poor households on walnuts.– However, access to a given NTFP becomes morecompetitive with its increasing commercialisation.Under these circumstances the poor risk losing userrights, while powerful households tend to profit excessively.Empowerment– The allocation of user rights to NTFPs is often nontransparent and there are tendencies in favour ofrich, influential households. A deliberate focus onproviding and guaranteeing access to NTFPs for thepoor is therefore required to achieve poverty alleviation(Fisher et al. 2004).– Kyrgyzstan has a national poverty reduction strategyto which the State Forest Service is also committed.However, this high-level policy has not yet beentranslated into concrete actions for the empowermentof the poor in the field. One of the reasons forthis is that there is still little understanding of the socialaspects of “sustainable forest management”.Thus, it can be concluded that NTFPs in the walnut-fruitforests can contribute to poverty alleviation providedthat the institutional arrangements governing accessto the products are reformed. This conclusion applies,to a certain extent, also to NTFPs from other types offorest in Kyrgyzstan.References:Fisher R. J.; Schmidt K.; Steenhof B.; Akenshaev N.2004: Poverty and forestry. A case study of Kyrgyzstanwith reference to other countries in West and CentralAsia. LSP Working Paper 13. Livelihood Support Programme(LSP), FAO, Rome. 62 p. http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_040907_en.htm (01/11/2005).Müller U.; Sorg J.-P. 2001: Gestion multifonctionelledes forêts de noyer du sud du Kyrgyzstan: tradition,problèmes actuels, perspectives. SchweizerischeZeitschrift für Forstwesen 152, 3: 138–144.Schmidt K. 2005: Knowledge and strategies of localpeople in forest management. A research project contributingto the development of participatory approachesto forest management in the walnut-fruit forests inKyrgyzstan. Progress report for the Research FellowPartnership Programme for Agriculture, Forestry andEnvironment (ZIL SDC). The University of Reading, ETHZurich, 20 p.UN 2003: Common Country Assessment. The UN Systemin the Kyrgyz Republic, Bishkek, 70 p.World Bank 2001: World Development Report2000/2001: Attacking Poverty. New York, Oxford UniversityPress, 335 p.29

Shea Butter Tree Products:“The Savings Account of Sahelian7 Women”By Jean-Marc Tendon, Mamadou Moustapha Diarra,François Picard, Cissé Djénéba Sow, Fogué Kouduahou& Amidou Ouattara“Le Karité, l’or vert des femmes du Burkina” (a commonsaying in Burkina Faso)1. Context and resource descriptionThe shea butter tree occurs in the sparse dry savannahforests of the sahelo-sudanese zone of Africa. Severalproducts of the tree have important uses, apart fromshea butter which is extracted from the nuts. The fatcontent of the shea butter nuts ranges from 40 to 55 %,its extracted butter is traditionally used in cooking and80 % of the population of both countries consume sheabutter. It is also used as a fuel, for soap, candles andwaterproofing, and the residues used as animal feed.It is used industrially in the manufacture of chocolate,lipstick and other cosmetics.It is in the context of wishing to improve shea buttertree production and its contribution to rural livelihoodsthrough value addition locally, that a project has beenestablished in Burkina Faso and Mali by the CentreEcologique Albert Schweizer (CEAS) and Intercooperation(IC).2. Socio economic importanceSeveral aspects of the socio-cultural environment arean advantage for sustainable harvesting of shea butternuts, traditional products having strong symbolic andsocial value in the region, and the nuts often being thetraditional way of saving in village economies, particularlyfor women.The harvesting and market chain, with its numerouslayers (village, local, regional, national and internationalmarkets), remains “efficient” but does not sufficientlybenefit women who are the actors at the baseof the market chain. The annual turnover of shea buttermarketed in Burkina Faso contributes 10 % of the GDP(and 25 % of the NTFP contribution to GDP). It is one ofthe most profitable products for traders. It is exportedto most EU countries, to Asia and to the USA, whereit is used in the food, cosmetics and pharmaceuticalindustries, as well as to neighbouring Senegal and theIvory Coast.Traditionally shea butter acted as a saving commodityfor women. Due to the small market for home consumptionand the low purchasing capacity of the localpopulation, the development of the food industry alsohas to rely on its export capacity and potential. Beforeall value addition possibilities escape local populations,and particularly women, it would make senseto promote local enterprises which could increase employmentand generate revenue in a way which is sociallyequitable.The potential harvest in both countries from the existingtree resource is estimated to be more than doublethat is actually harvested. The aim of the project to promotelocal processing of shea butter into secondaryproducts, and in particular cosmetic creams and soapfor which the technology is well established, will enablereal local needs to be increasingly satisfied whilegenerating additional income for women.3. The constraints3.1 Resource constraints and other productionaspects of the shea butter treeThe latest studies show a worrying ageing in the populationsof shea butter trees in the whole region, insufficientregeneration, a significant reduction in tree density(due to cutting and natural death) and an high levelof parasitic attack on the trees.3.2 Organisational and marketing constraintsThe quality of shea butter produced with traditionaltechnology varies substantially. Further, the extractionrate is only 50 % of what can be achieved by moremodern technologies. Hence, the large multinationalcompanies, mainly in Europe and Japan, which dominatethe international market, prefer to import raw sheabutter nuts for extraction, thereby preventing value additionlocally. Rural women sell their processed butterin local markets at rates which do not sufficiently compensatetheir arduous labour invested in the harvestand processing.4. Objectives and strategic orientationOn the basis of the current status of the reflections ofproject partners and beneficiaries, the objectives andstrategic orientations can be defined as follows:Overall objective: through the establishment of independentshea butter product chains, but agreedupon according to negotiated commitments withina network of different professions, the competitivenessof local actors is strengthened, the value of the30

Participatory technologydevelopment increases thepotential for local processing.Here the example of the locallydeveloped shea butter churn(Photo by Jean-Marc Tendon).tree and its products is promoted and the species isprotected.Strategic orientations:– Protection and regeneration of the resource (treesand agroforestry systems); apart from techniquesenabling an improvement in the domestication ofthe species, agreed management mechanism of theagroforestry system need to be promoted at villageand community levels.– Quality control of collection and storage of nuts andkernels.– Optimisation of the shea butter production processand its conservation, promotion of markets for qualitykernels.– Promotion of shea based products with appropriatetechnology, including improvement of the qualityand packaging of derived products and value additionof processing residues.– Strengthening of the organisational and financial capacityof the stakeholders through the promotion ofdialogue amongst the actors of the product chain.31

5. Activities – Progress to dateTrainingTraining and capacity building have been undertakenby CEAS for over 900 women from Burkina and Mali onthree major topics:– Collection techniques, product treatment and butterextraction in both workshops and the field.– Soap manufacturing techniques.– Group formation for management, marketing andcommercialisation of shea butter and its by-products.Participatory studies concerning needs andconstraints for the establishment of an organic productmarket chain.Research and developmentR and D in order to reduce labour and energy consumption,to improve and/or ensure product quality, topromote marketing and to improve the tree populationdensity and production potential has already producedthe first results:– Technologies for improved soap production havebeen developed.– An improved shea butter churn has been developedand operates with an extraction yield of 40 to 45 %compared to a maximum 27 % yield with traditionalmanual methods.– Establishment of operational premises in Ouagadougoufor R and D in cosmetics.– Technology and new product development.– Concerning product promotion and marketing, researchhas been undertaken at several trade fairsby the groups initiated by the project, and severalinternational product outlets have been identified.– The earlier studies indicating reduced tree populationsand shea butter nut production have been confirmed,and a better understanding is emerging of thefactors responsible for these reductions. Researchconducted under the aegis of the project show that,to overcome the significant difficulties in productivetree propagation in nurseries due to the long periodbefore fruiting, grafting of more productive individualsis promising. Mechanical parasite control hasalso been found to be feasible and practical.6. Conclusions and prospectsTraditional production system: Given the laboriousnessof shea butter related work, would it not beappropriate to undertake gender sensitisation, in orderto free the time required by women for quality and volumeproduction?Problems concerning local/national processing:What products for which consumers? Analysis of thewhole market chain; procedures and conditions foraccess to international markets. Which technology forcompetitive products?Value addition for by-products: What is the potentialfor cake, pulp and other products from the tree?Quality norms – Fair trade – Organic label certification:Do national and international quality norms existfor shea butter products? Who defines them? Whatare the certification procedures? Do capacities exist atnational level for doing so?In the cosmetics sector, many companies expresstheir interest for fair trade shea butter. Due to the lowvolume available on the market, and its total absencefor refined butter, these companies have to purchasethe butter from food industry multinationals. By gettinginvolved in fair trade for cosmetics, there wouldbe no competition with these big companies since thepotential market involves only 1 % of their required volume.What are the possibilities for benefiting women’sgroups from these opportunities?To enable women to maintain their crucial and traditionalrole in shea butter collection and processing,technical innovations need to be introduced for valueaddition for local and specialised (organic, fair trade)markets. Will the conditions necessary for organicproduct labelling allow for sufficient profitability in theshea butter market chain?Charter of professionals of shea butter: To bringwomen’s groups into a federation and to guaranteethe quality of all the products, a charter of shea butterprofessionals will be established, as requested bybeneficiaries groups. The product label, which shouldemerge from this process, will guarantee humane workconditions and respect for the environment.32

8 ForestCertification and Labelling:Opportunities for Non-TimberProductsBy Heini ConradDue to the market success of many certified organicand fair-trade products in different countries, there hasbeen a growing interest in recent years in certificationand labelling to be expanded to more product sectors.In the forestry sector also, a discussion and experimentsto assess the possible positive impact and sustainabilityof the use of certification and eco-labellinghave started.Most of the existing certification and labelling schemesfocus on different aspects of sustainability in theirstandards. It appears that from the introduced schemesfocusing on ecological, social and economic issues,the following might be of interest for the NTFP sector:– FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) for the ecologicalpractices with forest products including NTFPs.– IFOAM (International Federation of Organic AgricultureMovements) with their guidelines for wild harvestedproducts.– FLO (Fair-trade Labelling Organization International)with their socio-economic approach to relevantproducts for small farmers’ communities.In order to judge the feasibility of NTFP certification,some of the minimal requirements valid for all certificationschemes need to be considered:– Accountable and controllable standards acceptedby the sectorThe complexity of social, ecological and marketingissues raised by NTFPs requires a wide approach;on the other hand the standards and guidelines needto have a clear focus (and simple message) and beas practical (and measurable) as possible and understandableto all actors. Otherwise the system becomestoo complicated and too expensive.– Minimal organisation of primary producersand transparent chain of custodyCertification requires a tracking system to ensurethat products offered come from certified sourcesand are not mixed with non-certified sources ontheir way to the market. This requires a high levelof organization, especially at the primary level, andthe organisation of small holders and their capacityto keep a minimal administrative infrastructure iscritical. Also, all other actors in marketing and transformationalong the value chain of the product needto agree on the required transparency of all transactionsof certified products and to keep records of therequired data.– Third party inspection and clear monitoringproceduresIncreasingly, companies claim to act in an environmentallyand socially responsible way. Only independentthird party certification can ensure accountabilityand alleviate consumer confusion andreward correct management.– Credibility and marketsCertification is a market-based tool. It is valuable onlyin cases where traders and consumers are receptiveto the objectives promoted through a label. The mainmarket opportunities are found in countries wherethe credibility of the label holder is essential for themarket acceptance of any certification and for theirimpact on improved market access.– VolumeThe size and scale of an operation determine the accesspossibility to certification. All added costs ofcertification should be covered through market prices.This means that traders, and at the end consumers,will need to pay more for a certified product inorder to make certification economically viable.Not many NTFPs can actually fulfil the above mentionedrequirements. Although the total market value for NT-FPs is estimated in billions of dollars, a closer look intotrade chains and markets reveals a market subdividedinto many products and in very different, specializedand small markets. This drastically reduces the opportunitieswhich certification may give to NTFPs. Thebest potential for NTFPs are a well-organized producerbackground, a transparent chain of custody, a considerablevolume of trade and a market demand linkedto a widely recognized certification and label. Someproducts that might have these features are: Braziliannut, shea butter, palm heart, chicle and some medicalplants. The best-known credible label in Europe that isrelated to NTFPs is undoubtedly the FSC label.The Rainforest Alliance’s NTFP Marketing and ManagementProject (Shanley et al. 2002) which exploredthe feasibility of NTFP certification affirms in the lessonslearned so far that:– Certification can help market value-addedproductsIt was shown that market positions can be improvedby increasing value, and not volume, by tapping premiumprices as a result of certification.– Opportunities may lie within existing marketand productsCertified NTFPs that reach socially and environmentallyconscious consumers may enjoy increasedmarket access and market shares.– Certification can appeal to certain niche marketsThe successful marketing of certified NTFPs is likelyto identify possible markets, companies, communitiesand consumer groups willing to purchase environmentallyfriendly and fair products.33

These lessons underline the need to identify and assessopportunities for certification of NTFPs from themarket side. Whenever possible it should be throughexisting commercial demand rather than by trying tobuild up new markets. It is about matching an increasingconsumer awareness with producer needs; findingthe trade partners willing to work in a framework thatcan give, equally to consumers and producers, guaranteesfor environmentally sound and fair trade.Reference:Shanley P.; Pierce A.R.; Laird S.A.; Guillén A. 2002:Tapping the green market: certification and managementof non-timber forest products. Earthscan publications.London.34

9MarketingInternationalof NTFPsBy Susann ReinerWith only a few exceptions, international markets forNTFPs are niche markets. This, however, also matchesthe character of most NTFPs, as hardly any of themhave the potential to feed into large markets withoutthus threatening sustainable resource management.The trade sectors that the ‘Regenwaldladen’ (a majorproject of the Rainforest Institute in Germany) accessesconcerning NTFPs are also currently the main tradesectors for NTFPs in general.These are:(a) The fair trade and organic markets, with the mainrequirements of these sectors being that the productsare produced in a socially correct and environmentallyfriendly way and that they meet organicstandards. In general NTFPs should meet the organicstandard without any problem, as they areoften grown wild or in a semi-domesticated waywithout any treatment.(b) The ‘eco’ market, which requires that products areenvironmentally friendly and free from pollutants.In this sector, NTFPs can provide alternatives toconventional products, such as children’s rainwearmade from natural rubber impregnated fabric as asubstitute for the often highly contaminated conventionalrainwear. This sector provides good opportunitiesfor the innovative development of NTFPderived products and for increased value addition.(c) The ‘speciality’ markets, where products serve specialpurposes or applications such as health food,supplements and wellness products.In order to access international markets, it is also essentialfor the producers to have a high level of organisationand clear access rights. Only when theseconditions are met, long-term co-operation at an internationallevel is possible, ensuring also the sustainedavailability of the relevant NTFPs.In addition, producers benefit greatly when NTFPsare locally processed for added value, as this bringsa whole range of advantages to the producer community,e.g. higher earnings, concomitant local capacitybuilding in processing techniques, diversification ofoccupations which then might bring about a genuinedevelopment incentive from within the community andbased on the resources available to the community,which supposedly leads to higher value addition. Suchgenuine local development can then help to supportregional identity building, and eventually also reducespressure on the forest.The characteristic features of the above mentionedtrade sectors are that in all cases:– Markets are relatively small, so they match the capacityof the more widely occurring NTFPs.– Trade chains are short, thus enabling fair price calculationsfor all parties involved and also facilitatingcommunication between the consumer and the producer.The feedback can then speed up improvementand further development of the relevant productsand production methods.For successful international marketing of NTFPs, it isessential to provide substantial general informationon the products, production processes and in somecases also on producers, as unlike with most othertraded goods, little tends to be known about NTFPsabove a regional level. Particularly, the fair trade marketsector also requires general transparency concerningproduction and marketing for the whole chain from theforest to the consumer.35

10 ofNTFPs andDevelopment: ElementsSynthesisBy Jean-Laurent Pfund & Patrick RobinsonThe aim of the workshop was to “clarify the potentialrole of Non-Timber Forest Products in poverty reductionstrategies”. The day’s evaluation by the audiencehighlighted two types of participants and correspondinglydifferent degrees of satisfaction: some “high-level”specialists were slightly disappointed by the lack of“new findings”, whereas students and generalists werevery pleased with the information provided, the “stateof the art”. Based on the speakers’ contributions, wetry here to synthesize what we feel are key elements ofthis “state of the art”, even if it remains very risky to tryto generalize in the domain of NTFPs.The wide variety of species, harvested plant parts,products, collectors and community characteristics,socio-cultural conditions, trade chain characteristics,and marketing situations in producer and destinationcountries makes it very difficult to draw generalconclusions about NTFPs, especially on recommendationsfor equitable benefit distribution between thedifferent parties involved. What the workshop hasachieved is to help highlight a number of keyissues around a number of important themeswhich must be considered carefully when embarkingon NTFP related development support.On the basis of these, it should be easier at least to askthe right questions, and frame them in the appropriatethematic context, so that appropriate interventionscan be developed to concretely tackle together povertyreduction and biodiversity and natural resourceconservation. NTFPs may not be the generalised ElDorado which some people had hoped for, but givencertain conditions they can indeed make a substantialand sustainable difference to the lives of the poor – ifthe right interventions are designed so that they do notremain the often unsustainable El Dorado of the few.NTFPs as safety nets The traditional and still crucial role of NTFPs in ruraland remote areas is their numerous uses for subsistencepurposes. Over and above their regularuse, they also act as safety nets as they provideproducts and even extra income helping to overcomebad years or events and to limit unexpectedresource shortages (Ruiz Pérez this volume). The conflicting aspect of this reliance is that forestsprovide assets useful for the poorest but that, inmany cases, deforestation for agriculture orfor livestock husbandry can be perceived as amore efficient way to reduce poverty – as longas the poor have titles and control over the clearedforest lands, and that the new agriculture and live-stock production systems are sustainable (e.g. thatsoil fertility can be maintained). In some cases, incomesfrom NTFPs might be used for investing inunsustainable activities (Ruiz Pérez this volume), butas highlighted for Kyrgyzstan (Schmidt this volume),poor households use the NTFP derived income forbasic needs and only few can invest in other economicactivities such as livestock rearing or in theirsocial network. Nevertheless, NTFPs’ role in “mitigating poverty” forthe poorest remains vital. According to the WHO,80 % of the population of developing countries useNTFPs for health and nutritional needs (Ndoye thisvolume, WHO 2003). Accordingly, equitable accessto forest resources by local people mustbe a priority for decision-makers and landuseplanners. Unfortunately, existing policy frameworkssometimes prevent this essential contributionof NTFPs, especially where the overriding perceivedcommercial function is that of timber and is the onlyone taken into account in national policies (Michonthis volume).NTFP markets in the “bigger picture” NTFP markets are very diverse and generally specialized.They can be international “big businesses”,for instance for some medicinal plants, or they canremain important locally or regionally. Concerningthe contribution of NTFPs to forest people’slivelihoods, the twin questions raisedare “how much” and “who benefits” (Ruiz Pérezthis volume). For poverty reduction, it may bejudicious to support the NTFP dependent poor toimprove their potential for increasing their earningssustainably through adequate interventions at thelevel of easily accessible local-regional markets, bethey urban or rural. Even if the challenges for improving revenues to localpeople from NTFPs which could be or are alreadytraded internationally are very considerable, someexperiences to date indicate that the potentialbenefits may be large. For those which arealready traded, the key issues are local value additionthrough increasing processing locally, and inlocal people being able to bargain for better pricesin various ways, including being pro-active in accessingdirectly the markets higher up the marketchain. For those which clearly have a potential to betraded internationally, the range of issues whichwill have to be tackled over the years to access“globalised” markets can contribute toessential learning even if these are limited to fewproducts, limited quantities or often unprocessedproducts.36

With regard to the location of the processing activities,Germany, ranked third worldwide as an importerof medicinal plants and also third as a (re)exporterof processed products (and with the most reliabledata on NTFP trade amongst the big trader nations),provides interesting insights: it imported 849 speciesin 1992 from the temperate Asian region alone(other imports were of 343 species from Africa, 318from Tropical Asia and 207 from South America), butmost of which were processed in Germany (Lange& Schippmann 1997). This shows the potentialthere is for value addition locally. Not only the markets, but also the nature of theproducts and their processing have to be carefullydifferentiated. For instance, value per unit weightof the raw product and processing characteristicsare key determinants in assessing thepotential for a product to be economically viable fordifferent markets. In addition, the location wherethe harvested product can be processed and thedistances over which the product has to be transportedwill influence its competitiveness anddetermine how close to the production site it hasto be processed to remain competitive, and howfar it can be traded beyond local markets and rightthrough to international levels. Finally, the “shelf life”of the harvested, processed and marketed componentsalso has to be considered – amongst othercharacteristics – in any business analysis. The “free” access to the “minor” products and thesometimes correspondingly high demand (Europeanand American pharmaceutical companies are increasinglyimporting NTFPs from Africa, Ndoye thisvolume) have in several cases led to opaque marketchains and international trade. The underlyingreasons for non-transparent market chains areseveral: the business advantages of keeping tradeand product processing secrets, tax evasion, cam-Orchids are often sold near humid forests by local dwellers. Howlong will the resource last and sustain a trade to contribute topeople’s livelihoods is of course also a key question in the contextof poverty reduction (Photo by Brian Belcher).37

ouflaging trade in protected species, etc. The difficultyto monitor and control NTFP flows and tradeincreases with the degree of processing of the soldproduct.NTFP markets and rural people’s strategies Having analysed several case studies, CIFOR’s researchershave distinguished two livelihood strategiesrelated to NTFPs besides their “safety net”role: “mixed” and “specialized” strategies(Ruiz Pérez this volume). The differences betweenthese two strategies are crucial in terms of households’livelihood potential and may occur in thesame location and for the same product. The mixedstrategy integrates NTFP harvesting or production inits overall farming strategy, whereas the specializedstrategy is a main driver of overall household productionand earnings. In the latter case, investmentlevels (e.g. at production level such as domesticationprocesses, in quality control and in marketing)are usually considerably higher than in the “mixed”strategy category. Even in existing markets, one of the recurrent poverty-relatedissues remains: very low returnsare usually obtained by producers/harvestersin comparison to those of intermediariesand trading specialists. Locally, benefits aremuch higher for “rich” households and for skillfuloutsiders (Chakrabarti & Varshney 2001 for India,Smith Olsen & Helles 1997 for Nepal). This inequitablebenefit sharing often increases in the case ofspecies/products which are protected by law: forinstance in Nepal, while benefit shares in non restrictedherbs are overall 11 %, 43 % and 12 % forprimary collectors, local traders and export tradersrespectively, for restricted species the benefitsharing is 7 %, 22 % and 52 % respectively showingclearly that in the latter case it is the outsideexport traders which increase their benefitsubstantially to the detriment of local people(Karki et al. 2003). Nevertheless, commercializationof NTFPs enables rural dwellers and poor urbanhouseholds to diversify their source of income(Ndoye this volume). NTFPs are often of particular importance towomen, but the context can lead to radicallydifferent situations for them. In situations wherewomen are the traditional harvesters/producers ofNTFPs and sometimes of their processed products,the case in much of sub-Sahara Africa andespecially for food and medicinal products (Ndoye,Tendon et al. this volume), they may be able to usetheir skills and knowledge to improve their statusand increase their contribution to decision-makingprocesses. Conversely, where women are involvedin NTFP harvesting because the returns are too lowto attract men, or because they have taken overwhat used to be men’s work but these have out migratedfor better earnings, their involvement withNTFPs may not help in any way to contribute to theireconomic and political emancipation. In the worstcases, women may even become excludedfrom their traditional role in NTFPs becauserights and/or benefits are captured by men in caseof increasingly interesting benefits. In addition to the specificity of products and markets(Ndoye, Michon this volume), the social contextlogically adds some complexity to the understandingof NTFPs’ production and marketing. In rapidlyexpanding NTFP markets and for NTFPswhich are “radically market-oriented”, theimpact on equitable benefit sharing and povertyreduction is generally negative and alsogenerally negative by reinforcing the poors’ lack ofinfluence on politics and policy debate (Ruiz Pérezthis volume). Market information plays a core roleand outsiders, who control information, thereforedevelop relatively more importance and power. In decentralized processes with low local accountabilityand poor governance, if NTFP production isdomesticated, the landless/poor people whotraditionally collected from the wild (perhaps alongsustainable harvesting principles) have a strongrisk of being excluded.NTFP harvesting and resource conservation The safety net as well as the income-generation roleof NTFPs is known from several areas of the worldto be in jeopardy as NTFP resources, at least forsome important species, are fast depleting(Chakrabarti & Varshney op. cit. for India): the viciouscircle of increased poverty, with reduced bargainingcapacity by collectors, can lead to an increase inunsustainable harvesting intensities as collectorsrequire to harvest more to obtain the same income.With the lowered harvesting efficiency, due to thereduced resource, the income per unit amount harvestedis even more reduced. In general, NTFP management remains a highly unpredictableoccupation for local forest-dependentcommunities (Michon this volume). For NTFPs tobe harvested sustainably, a number of key factorsneed to be combined. Firstly, the capacity for anyNTFP population to withstand harvesting dependson the plant part which is harvested(e.g. bark, root, tuber, leaves, sap, fruits, flower), theharvesting intensity, frequency and timing in relationto annual phenological development, and therefore38

on the species’ reproductive and/or regrowth capacity.Generally, local people have detailedknowledge of these aspects. Secondly, the actualharvesting intensity, frequency and timing mustbe according to the species’ capacity to reproduce/regrow, and this is highly dependent on the interestand effective possibility of the harvesters to restrictharvesting intensity to levels which do not hamperlong term sustainability. Thirdly, the ecological requirementsof the NTFP species need to be optimallymaintained, e.g. if shade is required and thesurrounding forest is harvested for timber, then irrespectiveof the care which local harvesters may giveto appropriate harvesting intensity of the NTFP, thedeteriorating ecological conditions will not allow thespecies to develop or reproduce. For all these aspects,traditionally developed harvesting rulesoften exist. These have to be respected and integratedin any development of new regulatoryregimes. If there is a need for developing NTFP resourcespecific inventories and monitoring schemes,one should remember that forest inventory techniqueshave been developed for timber and arelargely irrelevant for most NTFPs. “Scientific” solutionsare to be found more in complex plant ecologymethodologies which have only been applied to fewNTFP situations so far, because of their very highcost to meaningful result ratio. Further, local peopleneed to be able to apply the inventory and monitoringtechniques if these are to contribute to theirdecisions over harvesting intensity. Local traditionalharvesters have often developed their own indicatorsto assess the sustainable harvesting potentialof an NTFP population, and any new methodologyshould consider these carefully and probably combinetraditional knowledge and more modernscientific methods (Baker 2001, NSCFP 2001,Paudel et al. 2002, Wong 2000). Examples of NTFP overexploitation are numerousand correspond to classic examples of natural resourcedepletion. In some forest areas, professionalcollectors from outside deliberatelyignore local rules and can apply the “harvestexhaust-move”strategy (Michon this volume andincreasingly the case with NTFPs in India Chakrabarti& Varshney op. cit.). The famous Kuznets’curve and many other schematic depletion trendsin natural resource management highlight the risksof overexploitation by harvesting wild resources beforeinterest develops in initiating intensive management.In the case of many NTFPs, their disappearanceprovokes less public response internationallythan for fauna or timber species. At local level, however,and particularly with increased empowermentand the development of community forest management,there are numerous recent examples of localpeople managing to prevent outside tradersand collectors from entering NTFP areas.NTFPs and certification Certification schemes have been much debated fortimber products but do have some positive impactsin European markets especially through lobbyingactivities of NGOs such as WWF for the FSC label.For the time being, much more timber is certifiedin developed countries because of the high transactioncosts and other requirements involved withcertification. In such a context, the search for sus-Traditional knowledge should be the initial basis for designing sustainableproduction schemes but it does not mean that scientificresearch is not needed for some important species (shown here abaobab) (Photo by Jean-Pierre Sorg).39

tainably produced products has been more importantthan its real impact on poverty reduction. Other labels target fair-trade mechanisms morethan organic and sustainable criteria. Not manyNTFPs can currently fulfil the requirements. Thebest potential for NTFPs is with well-organizedproducer backgrounds, a transparentchain of custody, a considerable volume oftrade and a market demand linked to a widelyrecognized certification and label (Conrad thisvolume). Some products that might have these featuresare: Brazil nut, shea butter, palm heart, chicleand some medicinal, aromatic and specialised foodplants. Opportunities for certification of NTFPs exist andcan appeal to certain niche markets, even if theexpected benefits should be carefully identified andassessed from the market side, and benefit sharingprocesses from the policy side. The information onproducts which may be attractive for “responsible”consumers is central for the assessment. The differentlabels must highlight the specificity thatappeals to the customer. Even if the added-valuefor producers is not assured in each case, labellingcan bring more regularity in demand over time andcan help producers to adapt their production andto conform more easily to the expected quality andother requirements.NTFPs and regulatory frameworks As they have often been considered as “minor”products, access regulations to NTFPs are generallymore clearly embedded in the customaryrights than in specific “modern” and often highlyregulated external management and control mechanisms(Michon this volume), except for some ofthe most important NTFPs. In forest-rich countries,where logging is of central importance, NTFPs areneglected except if concession holders can easilymarket them. In forest-poorer countries, competitionfor different land uses can also lead to a poorconsideration of NTFPs’ production potential. Despitethe safety net role of NTFPs, forests are oftenperceived as a land reserve or available resource,even or especially for poor farmers. In this context, access to land and resource useregulations are the basic parameters thatdetermine the type of resource managementand the benefits rights, which can be expectedfrom the outset. Regulations may potentially have apositive impact if the use and management rightsare given to rural poor and if, as a result, interest andcommitment in conservation measures develop.Unfortunately, in many cases, high economic inter-est for timber or for intensive agriculture or livestockdevelopment may lead to a further inequitable distributionof rights in favour of external and better offinvestors, resulting in negative impacts on forestsand on the long term situation of the poor, unlessradical and pro-poor changes are introducedat policy level and effectively implemented. Ultimately, access and management regulationsmust reconcile the often “top-down” land developmentplanning with local and sometimes sophisticatedcustomary rules. The latter “naturally” takeinto account the multifunctionality of forestswhereas land use planning can have the tendencyto consider one priority function for one space unit.Several examples and Michon (this volume) demonstratehowever that traditional local forest managersnormally try to “domesticate” the wild production ofsome NTFPs either in conjunction with other forestactivities or with other farming activities (agroforestry). In the case of intensive domestication processes,e.g. cultivation of a forest species in agriculturalfields or agroforestry systems, many technical,economic and social aspects shouldbe known and considered before embarkingon this option. First of all, the effect on productquality of growing the NTFP in a different ecologicalenvironment must be assessed. Secondly theremay be product quality variability which is determinedby inherent genetic variability in the NTFPwild populations. In such cases, it is crucial to ensurethat the appropriate selection of planting materialis made and for some NTFP products, such asmedicinal, this would require substantial research,although again some traditional knowledge existseven on this aspect. Further, the transition from wildharvested to cultivated products may radically alterthe balance of advantages/disadvantages betweendifferent beneficiaries of the markets. While landlesspeople may have taken advantage of the growingcommercialisation of a NTFP, they may becomethe first victims of an intensive domestication processusually led by solid outside investors. Lange &Schippmann op. cit. recognised that for medicinalplants, it may not yet be economically viable to cultivatethe majority of the species. Interestingly, Germandrug traders’ knowledge on the percentage oftheir imported products originating from cultivationand from the wild varied from “80 % from cultivation”to “90 % from the wild”, the reason being thatthey do not know the provenance of the purchaseddrug (seldom are certificates of origin required).These authors estimated that on average 70 % Germany’straded medicinal drugs are collected fromthe wild and 30 % grown in cultivation.40

Based on a basic, concrete and effective recognitionof the rights of local populations,modern regulations will have to consider forestsand forest productsi. in a landscape perspective, i.e. consideringthe farming system as a whole and the multiplefunctions of forested ecosystems, andii. within an approach ensuring the livelihoods ofeach social group.In the process of developing such policies, NTFPscan be used to highlight the diversity and the importanceof forest product uses and marketing forpoor people and to ensure that customary uses/rights can be incorporated in the new regulations(Paudel et al. 2002), or alternatively that equitablecompensation could be provided for lost accessand rights.NTFPs and international trade negotiationsThis section was not thoroughly discussed during themeeting. However, the authors wanted to complete theelements presented on the regulatory frameworks bysome short information on the “Trade-Related Aspectsof Intellectual Property Rights” which arecurrently still much debated at the international level. In each single location, NTFP management is affectedsimultaneously by local, national and internationalregulations. Observations show that theseregulations are often contradictory, or incompatible,and that this accumulation of regulations is totallycounterproductive. For more benefits to beobtained by local forest-dependent communities, itis urgent to re-examine the relevancy of each typeof regulation, and the compatibility between the differentpolicies, laws and regulations at the differentlevels (Michon this volume). Information sharing is particularly complexwhen the exchanges occur at the international leveland have natural products as object. The link betweenNTFP development and biodiversity conservation/equitywas already debated in relationto extractive reserves more than 20 years ago. Activistsand others argued bitterly over the wisdomof this course, those against arguing that drawingpoor people even closer into market relations wouldonly lead to their further long-term impoverishment,while diverting scarce resources from the strugglefor land and other fundamental rights (Forte 1999). The ‘South’ argued in the TRIPs (Trade-related Aspectsof Intellectual Property Rights) negotiationsthat intellectual property rights were not a trade issueat all and were already covered by an existingUN organisation, the World Intellectual Property Organisation(WIPO). However key Northern interestswere able to shift Intellectual Property Rights(IPRs) negotiations to the General Agreement onTariffs and Trade (GATT), which led to the establishmentof the World Trade Organisation (Forte1999). In 2003 during the 18 th Global Biodiversity Forum,participants from a broad range of interest groupsdiscussed the link between the WTO’s Trade-RelatedAspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs)Agreement and the Convention on Biodiversity(CBD). They called for the protection of traditionalknowledge and biological and culturaldiversity in the face of trade liberalisation.There was general agreement that irrespective ofwhether patents over life forms are allowed, disclosureof the origin of genetic resources and traditionalknowledge should be required. This couldbe addressed for instance in the ongoing review ofTRIPs Agreement, where participants also notedthat the link between IPRs and human rights shouldbe explored (ICTSD reporting 2003). At the WTO Council for Trade-related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in October2005, discussions on disclosure of the sourceof biological materials and related traditionalknowledge in patent applications once againsaw countries, especially USA and India, clashon whether such a patent-based system was indeednecessary to ensure the equitable sharing ofbenefits from genetic resources (ICTSD reporting2005).NTFPs in Oversea Development Agency (ODA)interventionsEmphasize site-specific information Context specific information is necessary toevaluate the potential of NTFPs’ harvesting andcommercialisation, and to understand their economicreturns according to the different social groups,especially women and poor segments of the population.Even if generalizations are difficult to makeon the basis of different geographical areas, socioculturalenvironments and products, ODA participatoryinterventions can provide site-specificand up-to-date information to market and policyspecialists on NTFPs’ roles and resources basedon local conditions. They can also facilitate thesearch for realistic and equitable trade-offsin terms of regulations between local and officiallevels. Maintaining and monitoring sustainabilitystill needs substantial further work in the case of41

NTFP harvesting. Simple evaluation techniquesare needed but inventory methods are to be developed,where possible based on validated traditionalknowledge, for the different types of NTFPs and locallyadapted for adoption as user based self-inventories.The need for better basic information is sogreat that some action research, with or withoutresearch partners, should be developed by ODAprogrammes if NTFPs are part of households’ assetsand strategies. Some research findings havebeen shown by the authors (Ruiz Pérez, Schmidt thisvolume), and the role of “participative innovationdevelopment” was especially highlighted (Felberthis volume, and see also work on locally developedinventory guidelines in Nepal, NSCFP 2001).Ensure social cohesion and access to benefits for poorpopulations Effective local organizations are seen as a basisfor sustainable management of forest productsand of its control. However, many local regulationsare aimed at strengthening the social and politicalposition of community elites (Michon this volume).Consequently, poverty alleviation generallyrequires focused development interventions/initiatives for poor segments of the populations(examples of shea butter in Sahel, walnuts inKyrgyzstan and other NTFPs in Vietnam and Nepal(Tendon et al., Schmidt, Felber this volume, Karliet al. op. cit., Paudel et al. op. cit. for Nepal). Thetradeoffs between private gains and social costs ofresource depletion should be explained to communities(Ndoye this volume). Especially in the case of lucrative market chains, thereturns given to producers are very low and outsidersand non-traditional collectors can take advantageeither of better access to market informationor to investment means (money but sometimes alsomanagement rights). Such frequent situations representthreats to sustainability and to local livelihoods.ODA can promote empowerment and“community forestry” strategies/modalitiesof forest management where such possibilitiesexist and/or develop participatory community naturalresource use rights in targeting equitable solutionsfor poor people (Michon this volume, Karki etal. op. cit.). In any case, policies aimed at reformingexisting trade chains must be developedvery carefully, because the common assumptionthat “middlemen” exploit local collectors or tradersis not necessarily always true (Michon this volume). Where land use is influenced by major agriculturalor forest products (cotton, oil palm, etc.), the pressurefor forest land conversion can be so high thatthe prospects for forest conservation are in anycase doomed without strong and effective politicalwill to counteract these pressures. In such complexsituations, State regulation and control as wellas innovative collaborative partnerships betweencommunities, authorities and the privatesector are all needed. Consequently, Ndoye(this volume) proposes to stimulate cost-effectiveLocal populations do not always deal with “social matters” asperfectly as one could imagine. Pictured is the case of anold Nepalese woman carrying a heavy fodder charge (Photo byChristian Küchli).42

Annexe 2:List of participantsName Organisation CommunicationAuer Luzius Geosystem SA Phone: +41 21 886 22 30.E-Mail: luzius@geosystem.chBirchmeier Daniel seco Phone: +41 31 324 09 14E-Mail: daniel.birchmeier@seco.admin.chBloesch Urs Consultant Phone: +41 32 341 63 27E-Mail: bloesch@swissonline.chBorner Monica WWF Switzerland Phone: +41 1 297 22 32E-Mail: monica.borner@wwf.chBratschi Dieter NTFP Foundation Bern Phone: +41 76 320 92 96E-Mail: djbratschi@bluewin.chBretscher Adrian SIPPO Phone: +41 44 365 54 62E-Mail: abretscher@sippo.chBukobero Sajad IUED Phone: +41 76 405 90 20E-Mail: bukobero@etu.unige.chCaminada Leo Caminada & Partner Phone: +41 41 852 07 07BACO AGE-Mail: caminada@cp-air.chConrad Heini Intercooperation Phone: +41 31 385 10 10E-Mail: hconrad@intercooperation.chCrole-Rees Anna CDC Pone: +41 21 625 64 64E-Mail: crolerees@bluewin.chDiarra Mamadou M. IC Delegation Sahel E-Mail: mmdiarra@icsahel.orgDurrer Stephan Pro Natura Phone: +41 61 317 92 46E-Mail: stephan.durrer@pronatura.chFavre Jean-Cyril GEOSUD SA Pone: +41 26 919 81 50E-Mail: jcfavre@geosud.chFelber Ruedi NADEL Phone: +41 1 632 50 97E-Mail: felber@nadel.ethz.chFleischli Simon Centre Ecologique Phone: +41 32 725 08 36Albert SchweizerE-Mail: simon.fleischli@caramail.comGalland Pierre Consultant Phone: +41 32 725 54 57E-Mail: npgalland@swissonline.chGasana James Intercooperation Phone: +41 31 825 10 10E-Mail: jgasana@intercooperation.chGerrits Andreas SDC Phone: +41 31 322 33 28E-Mail: andreas.gerrits@deza.admin.ch46

Godi François GG Consulting S.a.r.l Phone: +41 21 887 88 12E-Mail: ggconsulting@vtx.chGreco Claudia Intercooperation Phone: +41 31 382 10 10E-Mail: cgreco@intercooperation.chGuzman David EPFL Phone: + 41 21 693 32 62E-Mail: david.guzman@epfl.chHafner Othmar Phone: +41 31 972 08 22E-Mail: ot.hafner@bluewin.chHeintz Olivier Bark Cloth, DE Phone: +49 (0)700-22752568E-Mail: barkcloth@barkcloth.deHilfiker Karin Helvetas Phone: +41 1 368 65 00E-Mail: karin.hilfiker@helvetas.orgHuwiler Franziska Intercooperation Phone: +41 31 385 10 10E-Mail: fhuwiler@interccoperation.chJenal Marcus SIPPO Pone: +41 1 365 56 12E-Mail: mjenal@sippo.chKläy Andreas CDE Phone: +41 31 631 88 22E-Mail: andreas.klaey@cde.unibe.chKüchli Christian BUWAL Phone: +41 31 324 77 80E-Mail: christian.kuechli@buwal.admin.chMalach Viera Infosud Phone:E-Mail:Mauderli Ueli ETHZ Phone: +41 1 632 32 03E-Mail: ueli.mauderli@env.ethz.chMaurer Rolf TULUM SA Phone: +41 91 606 63 73E-Mail: info@tulum-consult.comMesserli Peter NCCR North-South Phone: +41 31 631 30 58E-Mail: peter.messerli@cde.unibe.chMichon Geneviève IRD France Phone: +33 (0) 4 67 63 69 82E-Mail: genevieve.michon@mpl.ird.frMorel Jack Assamba Phone:E-Mail:Mühlethaler Urs SHL Phone: +41 31 910 21 11E-Mail: urs.muehlethaler.fwi@shl.bfh.chMüller Alois Seecon AG Phone: +41 41 461 07 53E-Mail: alois.mueller@seecon.ch47

Ndoye Ousseynou CIFOR Cameroon Phone: +237 2237434E-Mail: o.ndoye@cgiar.orgPfund Jean-Laurent Intercooperation Phone: +41 31 385 10 10E-Mail: jpfund@intercooperation.chPleines Thierry Brücke – Le pont Phone: +41 26 425 51 51E-Mail: Thierry.pleines@bruecke-lepont.chReiner Susann Regenwald-Institut Phone: +49 761 556 13 19E-Mail: reiner@regenwald-institut.deRobinson Patrick Consultant Phone: +41 32 753 69 30E-Mail: pat.robinson@bluewin.chRobledo Carmenza Intercooperation/EMPA Phone: +41 31 385 10 10E-Mail: crobledo@intercooperation.chRoduner Daniel LBL Phone: +41 52 354 97 69E-Mail: daniel.roduner@lbl.chRuiz-Pérez Manuel Universidad Autonoma Phone: +34 91 497 80 00de Madrid, SpainE-Mail: manuel.ruiz@uam.esSamyn Jean-Marie Intercooperation Phone: +41 31 385 10 10E-Mail: jsamyn@intercooperation.chSansonnens Bertrand Pro Natura Phone: +41 76 396 02 22E-Mail: bertrand.sansonnens@pronatura.chSchaltenbrand Hans Helvetas Phone: +41 1 368 65 00E-Mail: hans.schaltenbrand@helvetas.orgSchild Regula CDE Phone: +41 33 222 75 50E-Mail: regula.schild@gmx.chSchmidt Eva Consultant Phone: +41 31 305 62 44E-Mail: eva.schmidt@gmx.chSchmidt Kaspar ETHZ/Univ. Reading UK Phone: +41 44 632 32 03E-Mail: kaspar.schmidt@env.ethz.chSchmidt Peter Helvetas Phone: +41 1 368 65 00E-Mail: peter.schmidt@helvetas.orgSchneider Jürg BUWAL Phone: +41 31 322 68 95E-Mail: juerg.schneider@buwal.admin.chSeeland Klaus ETHZ Phone: +41 44 632 32 19E-Mail: klaus.seeland@env.ethz.chSieber Patrick NADEL Phone: +41 31 333 48 59E-Mail: psieber@giub.unibe.ch48

Sommer Martin SDC Phone: +41 31 325 92 82E-Mail: martin.sommer@deza.admin.chSorg Jean-Pierre ETHZ Phone: +41 1 632 32 14E-Mail: jean-pierre.sorg@env.ethz.chSpack Simone HE-Arc Phone: +41 32 342 03 16E-Mail: sspack@freesurf.chStaubli Franziska SIPPO Phone: +41 1 365 54 89E-Mail: fstaubli@sippo.chSteimann Bernd Institute of Geography Phone: +41 1 635 51 65ZHE-Mail: bernd@geo.unizh.chStrasser Balz University of Zurich Phone: +41 1 635 6512Dept of Geography E-Mail: balz@geo.unizh.chStreit KathrinStudentTendon Jean-Marc CEAS Mali Phone: +41 327 25 08 36E-Mail: ceas.ne@bluewin.chThönnissen Carmen SDC Phone: +41 31 322 03 05E-Mail: carmen.thoennissen@deza.admin.chUkkerman Rob SNV Netherlands Phone: +31 70 344 01 14E-Mail: R.Ukkerman@snv.nlVon Reitzenstein Eckart NADEL Phone: +41 31 331 85 71E-Mail: Eckart.vonReitzenstein@gmx.deVon Schulthess Laurence SDC Phone: +41 31 322 33 59E-Mail: laurence.vonschulthess@deza.admin.chVon Sury Felix Intercooperation Phone: +41 31 385 10 10E-Mail: fvonsury@intercooperation.chWalther Roger UNACO Phone: +41 79 712 57 56E-Mail: roger.walther@unaco.chWenger Ruth Intercooperation Phone: +41 31 385 10 10E-Mail: rwenger@intercooperation.chWerner Frank Consultant Phone: +41 1 462 93 78E-Mail: frank.werner@gmx.chWieser Martin RuralConsult Phone: +41 32 751 28 95E-Mail: ruralconsult@bluewin.chWilkes Jerylee Student Phone: +41 76 489 69 94E-Mail: jeryleew@yahoo.comWüthrich Kurt HSB Phone: +41 32 344 03 96E-Mail: kurt.wuethrich@bfh.ch49

Zieschang Olaf Phone: +41 78 793 03 91E-Mail: o.zieschang@bluewin.chZingerli Claudia ETHZ Phone: +41 44 632 32 22E-Mail: claudia.zingerli@env.ethz.chZosso Géraldine Phone: +41 22 782 05 58E-Mail: gzosso@yahoo.frZürcher Ernst HSB Phone: +41 32 344 03 67E-Mail: ernst.zuercher@hsb.bfh.ch50

intercooperationNatural Resource ManagementRural EconomyLocal Governance and Civil SocietyMaulbeerstrasse 10P.O. Box 6724CH-3001 Berne, SwitzerlandT +41 31 385 10 10F +41 31 385 10 09info@intercooperation.chwww.intercooperation.ch