Hundreds of millions of people in the tropics derive a significant part of their livelihood from forest products. Many of these people live on lands designated for forest conservation. To resolve the growing tension between local peoples livelihood needs and these conservation aims, there has been significant interest worldwide in uses of forests that are compatible with conservation.

Much attention has been given to the potential of non-timber forest products, ecotourism, small-scale timber enterprises and environmental services, but we now know that such uses do not guarantee either sustained forests or improved livelihoods.

Seemingly low-impact uses can have high impacts if the product or service is economically successful. With economic success, incentives for over use exist, unless appropriate institutional controls are present.

The world is also changing quickly. People living in forest areas are engaged in a series of rapid shifts in their economic strategies to accommodate these changes. The globalisation of markets, transportation and communication in combination with economic expansion and political reform are transforming forest areas, leading to new economic opportunities, livelihood patterns and ways of managing forests. People previously dependent on forests are reaching new markets, as well as having to cope with new forms of competition from outside collectors and synthetic or cultivated substitutes. Much of the traditional use of forests, which contributed to the maintenance of forests biodiversity, is in a state of flux. The impacts of these changes on both the forest and the people are unclear.

As a result there has been a call for more site-by-site understanding of forest uses and their potential impacts. This must include assessment of the local distribution and ecology of products and the incentives for their sustainable management. We also need to know more about how local institutions affect these incentives and the local value derived from use. To date, we have lacked adequate methods for these assessments. Although much can be borrowed from agriculture or forestry the number of forest products, the size and remoteness of many forests and the lack of knowledge of the ecology or productivity of many products means that new approaches are needed. To be practicable, methods need to be simple and must provide the feedback needed for adaptive management.

CIFOR recognises that there is already a wealth of field-based methods that could be used for more adaptive management of forests. This book is an effort to document our experience in this area. It brings together a cross-section of current methods as they are being practised and seeks to highlight tools appropriate for increasing the adaptability of management, i.e., tools for assessing options and monitoring impacts.

Each chapter tackles a method or family of methods and reports on its strengths and weaknesses. In the spirit of adaptability, the main lessons to be drawn from this book are not about how to implement a particular method, but rather, how practitioners can think more critically about the methods available and criteria for their evaluation.

The methods and analyses reported here should help us to better understand the potential for optimisation of conservation and development benefits.

The catalyst for this book was a workshop held in Cianjur, Indonesia. Andrew Ingles and members of the Southeast Asia Non-Timber Forest Product Network helped to organise the meeting and guide the development of the book. We are very grateful to them and to the contributors to this volume. We hope that the book will serve as an inspiration for both researchers and practitioners to develop their own repertoire of methods enabling the improved realisation of forest-dwelling peoples economic aspirations and the better management of their surrounding forests.

Jeffrey A. Sayer

Director General of CIFOR

Acknowledgements

This book was initiated as the result of a meeting sponsored by the NTFP Network for South and South East Asia and CIFOR. The participants in that meeting were a key source of inspiration for proceeding with this project and many of their ideas are reported here in various forms. The editors express our thanks to the many other people who contributed to the books content and production, including, but not limited to: Jenne de Beer, Yvonne Byron, Gideon Surharyanto, Ambar Liano, Ani Kartikasari, Carol Colfer, David Edmunds, Andrew Ingles, Brian Belcher, Wil de Jong, Manuel Ruiz Pérez and CIFORs NTFP project, John Turnbull, Widya Prajanthi and Sharmini Blok. Jochen Statz, Frank Hicks, Carol Grossman, Don Gilmour and Meriam Ros-Tonen graciously contributed important material for the writing of the book, not all of which we were able to incorporate. Funding for the meeting was provided by the NTFP Network for South and Southeast Asia, CIFOR and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Support for the editing and publication of the book was provided by USAID.

Chapter One

Methods for Assessing the Conservation and Development of Forest Products

What We Know and What We Have Yet to Learn

Eva Wollenberg

Background

During the last ten years, an interest in non-timber forest products (NTFPs) has taken the world by storm. Vast sums have been invested in exploring the potential of non-destructive uses of forests to provide substantial benefits to local people while conserving forests. The importance attached to NTFPs has possibly changed forever the way forest values and their development potential are assessed. Interest in NTFPs has launched significant advances in enterprise development, marketing and income generation among forest dwellers. Research has expanded the opportunities for combining income generation with conservation and has complemented other development strategies such as non-forest based enterprises, employment, ecotourism, community logging, domestication of forest products and agricultural intensification.

Despite the enthusiasm for and surge of activity surrounding NTFPs, there also has been a healthy measure of caution, criticism and mixed success. Not everyone has shared an unqualified optimism about the potential of NTFPs for jointly meeting the complex demands of both conservation and development (Browder 1992; Homma 1992; Dove 1993; Godoy and Bawa 1993; Godoy et al. 1995).

The collection of papers in this volume has arisen in response to the current debates about the development and conservation potential of NTFPs. These discussions suggest that the level of benefits and sustainability of NTFP use is site and species specific, warranting close inspection of each case over time. Effective methods are needed to assess NTFPs locally and monitor their impacts to ensure that the development and conservation objectives desired are likely to be met.

The purpose of assembling this volume is to present concepts and approaches for assessing forest-based income-earning opportunities that are potentially compatible with conservation. The authors collective interest is to inform programmes that aim to improve the livelihoods of people dwelling in forest areas by presenting and analysing methods that have been or are currently in use. Both practitioners and researchers concerned with promoting sustainable development of NTFPs are seen as the audience of this volume.

Introduction

This book arose from a workshop on Methods for Conservation and Development of Non-Timber Forest Products co-sponsored by CIFOR and the IUCN: World Conservation Union in April 1996 in Cianjur, Indonesia. The meeting brought together 25 professionals involved in different aspects of forest-based enterprise development including private business people, researchers, ecologists, NGO community organisers, government foresters, trainers and project advisors. The workshop aimed to identify and document a range of relevant methods by encouraging participants to share their substantial knowledge and personal experiences (Haury and Saragih 1995; Elfian and Perbatakusumah 1996; Foppes et al. 1996; Graefen and Syafrudin 1996; Karki 1996; Lecup 1996; Mittelman 1996; Panathpur et al. 1996; Shiva 1996; Upadhyaya et al. 1996; Warner 1996; Yayasan Dian Tama 1996). At the end of the meeting participants agreed on the need to document the methods available and to provide a comparison of their advantages and disadvantages. Researchers and practitioners found that while their methods were often used in different contexts there was much to learn by sharing approaches and techniques.

To meet the needs expressed in the Cianjur meeting, a set of chapters were commissioned to present a range of methods available and a comparison of their strengths and weakness. A number of organisations working on NTFP conservation and development shared their experiences and the lessons they had learned. The organisations included Appropriate Technology International (ATI), the Biodiversity Conservation Network (BCN), the International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR), the UK Overseas Development Administration (now DfID), GTZ, the Tropenbos Foundation, IUCN, Conservation International and Technoserve. The chapters in this volume are the product of this collaboration.

The authors of each chapter do not present step-by-step guidelines, but rather review a range of methods and analyse their appropriateness for different circumstances. The intent is to discuss the diversity of methods in use and enable readers to determine for themselves which might work best for them. Chapter bibliographies provide further sources of

guidance.

The book is based on several important

assumptions. First, while NTFPs provide the

point of departure, most of the methods are

relevant to both timber and non-timber

products. Improving the livelihood

opportunities of forest dwellers must take into

account the full range of forest products that

people use, especially timber. While timber

harvesting has often been associated with

large commercial operations acting

independently or in opposition to the interests

of local people, there is growing evidence of

The importance of sustainably harvested timber sustainable small-scale timber production by for local use and marketing by communities has

sometimes been obscured by the interest in local communities (Land Tenure Center/IES

NTFPs.

1995). Consequently, the question is whether

Introduction

a forest product or a service such as bioprospecting or ecotourism can contribute to local peoples livelihoods rather than whether a product is derived from timber or not. We distinguish activities intended to benefit communities from industrial activities by referring to the former as small-scale forest product enterprises. Many programmes, including those of CIFOR, have moved away from an exclusive focus on NTFPs to reflect this broader perspective. Some of the chapters in this volume therefore address timber (see chapters by Ames and Bennett), in addition to more conventional NTFPs. We refer interchangeably to NTFPs, forest products and small-scale forest products. Although more attention is given to plant products in the book, this is only a reflection of these authors experiences and does not suggest that animal products or environmental services are not of equal potential importance in achieving conservation and development objectives.

Another underlying assumption is that any effort to enhance the use of forest products must consider the ecological, financial and social impacts of such actions.

Forest product conservation and development is thus situated in a set of three-way relationships between a forest product enterprise and the market, the forest and the villagers economy (Figure 1.1). The chapters therefore contain techniques to determine enterprise viability by assessing markets and profitability, to predict the sustainability of a population of a specific species, and to measure household income.

They also offer ways to assess whether the three complementary objectives of enhancing income, conserving forests and improving social conditions have been achieved. Although some of the chapters focus on business enterprise planning, the intent of the book is to provide methods appropriate to the use of forest products for consumption and barter as well as for the sale of products. The term enterprise in Figure 1.1 is therefore interpreted broadly to encompass NTFP activities intended to provide economic benefits, whether in cash or some other form.

Figure 1.1 The forest enterprise

Villagers’

Economy

Market

Enterprise

Forest

Finally, the approaches discussed here range from the academic and theoretical to the more hands-on and practical. Academic researchers and practitioners potentially have much to learn from each others methods. Often researchers are interested in methods for operationalising and testing concepts and producing research designs, Introduction

while practitioners are more concerned with the need to implement activities and learn from experience. The Cianjur workshop highlighted that many approaches and methodological issues were common to both groups. For example, methods to sample and conduct inventories of NTFPs are relevant to both basic and applied studies. Measuring the social or ecological impacts of NTFP development is a key concern for both scholars and development practitioners.

With these assumptions in mind, we turn to a discussion of the areas of methodological achievement and the gaps in our knowledge. The chapter concludes with an overview of the structure of the book.

Overview of Methodological Issues

What do we already know?

Although development practitioners have been working with NTFPs and other forest products for decades, interest in developing methodologies specifically for this group of products has only developed in recent years with the increase in community forestry, agroforestry and integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs). Only a small proportion of the techniques presently in use or documented have dealt specifically or exclusively with forest products. They fall into four main groups: (1) enterprise development; (2) ecological assessment; (3) participatory development; and (4) monitoring and evaluation.

Guidelines and methods for NTFP enterprise development are the most commonly documented as well as those most specific to forest products (Thomas and Schumann 1993; Nadkarni et al. 1994; Warner and Pontual 1994; ATI 1995; FAO 1995; Lecup et al. 1995; Margoluis and Salafsky 1996; Taylor 1996). Most guidelines deal inadequately with the problem of simplifying the volume and complexity of information for their audience. Long lists of required information and complicated business planning techniques are unlikely to be implemented by projects with limited skills and tight budgets. Such projects are interested in rapid implementation.

Literature is available on more general topics like the design of projects and assessing project viability in microenterprise development (Buzzard and Edgcomb 1992; Haggblade and Gamser 1991). There has been extensive documentation of the methods used by development NGOs with expertise in income generation such as CARE, BRAC, ATI, PACT, Save the Children, Environmental Enterprises Acción, Catholic Relief Services and Technoserve. This documentation tends to be more user-friendly (including videos, computer software and guidebooks), and should be appropriate to forest product-based enterprises.

Work on ecological assessment includes guides for determining sustainable harvest levels of non-timber forest products (Hall and Bawa 1993; Peters 1994), conducting vegetation analysis in community-managed forests (Metz 1991), inventorying NTFPs (Stockdale and Ambrose 1996) and measuring biodiversity in natural forests (Boyle and Boontawee 1995). Assessment methods seem most refined for providing insights about specific products, rather than about ecosystem relationships and larger-scale impacts. The concepts of biodiversity or ecosystem integrity and their translation

Introduction

into measurable indicators have proved difficult (Prabhu et al. 1996). The lack of botanical, zoological or management information for many forest products has also been a limitation to ecological assessment. Simple taxonomic information, for even commercially traded, important species such as cardamom in Laos, is often lacking, and further hinders assessment.

Much has been written about methods for improving local participation in forest project design and assessment, including the use of participatory mapping (Fox 1988; Carter 1996; Stockdale and Ambrose 1996), co-management (Fisher 1995), participatory development of indicators of sustainability (IUCN 1996, Colfer et al.

1998a, Colfer et al. 1998b) and enhancing the relevance of conservation projects to social needs (Borrini-Feyerabend and Buchan 1997). Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods (Davis-Case 1989; IIED 1998) are now abundant and widely used in NTFP activities. Ranking products, drawing seasonal calendars or resource maps and walking transects with local people have become commonly used techniques.

Attention to the needs and participation in decisions by different interest groups, whether by gender, ethnicity or class, is also common in many NTFP projects.

Participatory mapping has become a common tool for identifying forest boundaries (photo by Eva Wollenberg).

There is an ever-growing literature on indicators for monitoring and evaluating project impacts and sustainability, including for NTFP projects (McKone and Phaengsintham 1996), community forestry sustainability (Stevens 1997), forestry projects (Gregersen et al. 1993; Prabhu et al. 1996; van Bueren and Blom 1997), NGO development projects (Bowman et al. 1989) and biodiversity projects (World Bank 1997). At least one guide has been produced about how to implement sustainable forest management (SGS Forestry and IIED 1997), in this case specifically for acquiring sustainability or ecolabelling certification.

What do we still need to learn?

Despite the availability of a wide range of methods, new techniques still need to be explored and issues related to existing approaches debated. Cianjur workshop Introduction

participants noted that key areas where methods needed more development and discussion include:

establishment and implementation of viable microenterprises based on forest products;

measurement of the ecological sustainability of harvesting forest products;

interaction with different stakeholders and building alliances with them; and

collection of information about policy, markets and stakeholders at national and international levels.

These concerns reflect a more general interest in developing better methods for planning and assessing the feasibility of developing forest products and for then monitoring the impacts of these actions. This collection of essays was structured to address these concerns by including a set of five chapters on methods for planning and feasibility assessment, and a second set of three chapters on monitoring and evaluation. The approaches discussed do not address nevertheless important methodological concerns related to the implementation of initiatives (e.g., how to establish an enterprise) dealing with the uncertainty and variability of forest product supplies or how to increase the bargaining position of local people in the market.

The chapters focus instead on methods directly related to information flows as a means to advance understanding about how to deal with conditions of high uncertainty and complexity. Iterative information gathering provides the foundation for more adaptive, responsive management to assess whether the conservation and development outcomes of forest product initiatives are indeed being achieved.

Aside from the need for better methods of feasibility assessment and monitoring, two more general overarching issues emerge from existing experience and the available literature on NTFP-related methods: (1) the need to borrow approaches from other fields; and (2) the need to use many and diverse techniques.

Adaptation of existing methods

In seeking to expand knowledge about appropriate methods, the first issue is the extent to which those developed for other purposes e.g., non-forest based incomes, enterprise development, community forestry, forestry or biodiversity assessment

are applicable to forest products. Fortunately, there is much that can be borrowed.

This raises the question of how forest products and the use or sale of forest products by forest-dwelling people differ from other products, enterprises or development activities. At least five distinctive features of forest product conservation and development initiatives can be identified:

Forest products usually involve economic strategies based on multiple products, many of which have relatively low value; methods may have to be repeated for each product and take into account the complexity of interactions and trade-offs among products. The costs of collecting information may be high relative to the benefits gained from the product activity.

The ecology, management and demand for many forest products is poorly understood. As a result of what has been conventionally considered their minor

status, many forest products have not been well studied or documented. Methods may require information that is not easily available.

Introduction

Forest products are often in remote areas requiring high transport costs; production or collection may be irregular. Methods must be flexible, mobile and light; long periods of time and large areas might need to be covered.

There is often a lack of formal skills in business, finance, ecological assessment and social impact evaluation among the people implementing small-scale forest product initiatives. Methods need to be simplified and where resources permit, training provided.

Forest products are often managed under sensitive and complex social arrangements, especially in common property regimes, where rights are disputed or where multiple management objectives exist. Multiple and overlapping management regimes or objectives may require repeating activities with different groups, being alert to possible conflicts and continually tracking interactions.

Methods will probably require consultation with different social groups and need to be sensitive to the possibilities of conflict.

Approaches specific to forest products therefore should be adapted to take into account these attributes. The chapters in this book attempt to address these special features and offer suggestions for reducing the complexity, cost, lack of information and multiple objectives associated with implementation. The need for more systematic and simple field-friendly methods is a theme that emerges strongly among the chapters, especially with regard to business planning, income assessment and determining ecological sustainability.

The analyses also demonstrate how methods from other fields can be borrowed and developed. Belchers discussion of production-to-consumption systems in Chapter 3 builds upon concepts from agricultural and institutional economics as well as subsector and market chain analysis. Ames makes use of business concepts about profitability in Chapter 5. Lecup et al. adapt techniques from microenterprise development guidelines in Chapter 4. In Chapter 8, Wollenberg and Nawir build on methods for studying rural incomes. Fisher and Dechaineux explore evaluation theory in Chapter 9. In Chapter 10, Bennett develops his case from policy prescriptions for commercial timber management. Anderson in Chapter 6 borrows from population ecology and anthropological decision models. De Jong and Utama use elements of project planning theory in Chapter 7.

Despite some of the unique characteristics of forest products, it is not the intention of this book to suggest that there is a distinctive set of methods for forest products.

On the contrary, users need to be entrepreneurial in identifying appropriate methods and learning how to adapt them. In some cases the differences among forest products may require more adaptation to the special features of the product than the difference between forest products as a group and other types of development activities. The chapters in this book provide examples and insights about how to approach such adaptation.

The need to use many, diverse methods

A second issue emerging from the review of available methods is the abundance of information required and the corresponding number and variety of techniques needed Introduction

in any development and conservation endeavour. This raises issues of how to select and prioritise methods, combine techniques efficiently, and integrate and aggregate findings that result from their use.

Usually, distinct approaches are required for collecting social, ecological and economic or financial information (see chapters by Lecup et al. and Anderson).

Techniques from multiple fields require corresponding experience or training and the capacity to bridge disciplines. Capacity to deal with diverse groups of stakeholders such as traders, development workers and biologists is necessary. Methods from different fields are often implemented on different scales and their results need to be integrated. Criteria for assessing feasibility or impacts may vary, which can result in long lists of attributes to measure and the need to set priorities across the different fields.

Forest products can also be highly diverse in their ecology, management, use and marketing. Consider, for example, the differences between a fruit harvested for processing into edible oils, a porcupine harvested for the medicinal properties of its gallstones, and the collection of wild honey for a green market. Individual products such as these require methods tailored to their particular features. Judgement will need to be made about how much to invest in developing techniques and for how many products.

In addition, methods are often applied iteratively in an attempt to adapt to changing levels of information and shifting conditions. Workable options for forest product development are sought through a process of exploration, trial and implementation.

Practitioners need to have access to a range of tools and to be able to maintain flexibility in their applications. Methods themselves need to be adaptable and able to cope with changes. The necessity for iterative decision making and information collection was a theme that emerged clearly from the experience of the participants in the Cianjur workshop and is discussed in the chapters by Fisher and Dechaineux and de Jong and Utama.

The same technique may need to be applied at several scales of analysis. For example, market demand often needs to be analysed at several levels; local, national and international. Issues related to scale emerge in the analysis of social and ecological impacts as well. Benefits may accrue to individuals, households, groups of households, communities or regions. Impacts on the forest can occur at the level of individual products, populations of a given species, habitats, forests or larger landscapes of mixed land uses.

Forest product conservation and development initiatives therefore often require diverse disciplinary skills and adaptations of methods to specific products, stages of decision making or scales of analysis. The methods analysed in the following chapters have been selected explicitly to illustrate this breadth and diversity of approach.

They remain only a sample of those actually in use and potentially applicable.

There is still much to learn about how to bring the approaches together into a coherent package. The challenge in any local setting will be to: (1) ensure that the scale of analysis and resulting information or activity are compatible; (2) effectively coordinate the schedules for collection of data or carrying out activities to avoid Introduction

excessive delays; (3) ensure an appropriate mix of technical skills within the implementing team or access to help (i.e., consultant inputs) and capabilities for interacting with diverse audiences; (4) identify ways of integrating economic, social and ecological information; and (5) set priorities among assessment criteria. Priorities can be established by comparing methods in terms of their cost relative to outcomes, their practicality in specific forest or social contexts, the skills and knowledge required for implementation, their flexibility to be adapted or replicated, and who are the users and beneficiaries. All these factors need to be considered in the context of how the information is to be used or what kinds of outcomes are likely to result.

Given such issues, what can this book contribute to the discussion of methods for forest product conservation and development? As outlined in the opening paragraphs of this chapter, the book aims to provide an overview of the lessons of current experiences. The reader is able to learn how methods can be adapted and developed for forest products and specific contexts. The analyses offered in these chapters is intended to equip users with a basis for interpreting, selecting or adapting methods for their own work.

Organisation of the Book

This volume was designed to reflect two of the central methodological concerns of people working on forest product conservation and development: the need for better methods of (1) planning and assessing the feasibility of forest product activities (the first part), and (2) monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of these activities (the second part). The chapters roughly follow the steps that might be taken in a forest product initiative: methods related to planning, market analysis, assessing the feasibility of an enterprise, profitability analysis, assessment of sustainable harvest potential, assessment of household income, evaluation of social impacts, and policies for monitoring the outcomes of forest management. They reflect a cross-section of practitioner- and research-oriented approaches. The set of methods is not intended to be comprehensive, so much as to stimulate new thinking. Although there is a tendency for authors to write about their approaches as if they are broadly generaliseable, their experiences are nevertheless based in particular places, times and peoples. Any use of the methods described should always be done with care to adapt the approach to new circumstances.

The book begins with a critical essay by J.E.M. Arnold and Manuel Ruiz Pérez in which the assumptions underlying NTFP-based approaches are discussed. The authors suggest that more attention should be given to understanding the limitations on NTFP

conservation and development, including the effects of market fluctuations and the tendency for many NTFPs to encounter boom-bust cycles. They urge that the evaluation of income generation options for forest dwellers should consider not only NTFPs, but other products, enterprises or employment opportunities. Arnold and Ruiz Pérez conclude that there is a need to analyse NTFP initiatives on a case-by-case basis because of the variable conservation or development potential associated with non-timber forest products. With this observation, the authors establish the Introduction

rationale for the remaining chapters that focus on methods to assess feasibility and monitor outcomes.

In the next five chapters, the authors present techniques for planning and assessing the feasibility of forest product-based enterprises. Wil de Jong and Rudijanta Utama discuss issues confronting the manager planning an NTFP initiative, highlighting three essential elements: the involvement of stakeholders, the need for good information and the need for biological monitoring. They then consider the problems and opportunities in applying these planning principles to forest-based income activities in a GTZ-supported Social Forestry Development Project in Indonesia.

Ways are suggested to undertake projects in a step-wise fashion in order to match decisions with information as it becomes available. The authors also make the point that in some cases NTFPs may not be the most appropriate products for development.

However, the interests of funders often inappropriately constrain the possibilities for working with agricultural products with greater potential.

Brian Belcher reviews common approaches to analysing market and processing structures such as market chain and subsector analysis. He identifies additional information necessary to diagnose interventions. This includes understanding horizontal linkages among actors in a market chain (e.g., farmers cooperatives or industry associations that affect power relations and mobilisation of resources), vertical linkages (e.g., mechanisms such as contracts between buyers and sellers that influence peoples motivations to participate in the chain), and intensity of use of labour or capital in each stage of production, which has direct implications for forest conservation. The methods are discussed in the context of action research conducted by the International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR).

Isabel Lecup, Kenneth Nicholson, Hardjono Purwandono and Sameer Karki add to this general framework for diagnosis by discussing methods for assessing the feasibility of different forest-based enterprise options. Their chapter represents an effort to build upon methods used in training courses by the Regional Center for Community Forestry (RECOFTC) in Bangkok (see Lecup et al. 1995), as well as to capture the authors individual experiences in developing NTFP-based enterprises with different organisations in Vietnam, Nepal and Indonesia. They explain how the methods for assessing NTFPs differ from more conventional business planning or enterprise development by having a stronger emphasis on environmental and social sustainability. A two-stage procedure for collecting financial, social and ecological information to assess NTFP options is suggested.

Among the procedures suggested by Lecup et al. is the need to assess costs and benefits related to different enterprise options. The chapter by Mary Ames focuses on this need by examining profitability as a robust indicator of enterprise viability.

She reports on a range of methods used in her own analysis of four income-generating initiatives in forest communities in the Philippines and Indonesia. In discussion, Ames outlines simple-to-follow steps for identifying costs and benefits and highlights more general features of forest-based enterprises that may affect their profitability and conservation potential. The analysis of multiple products receives special attention and how trade-offs occur in profitability at the product and enterprise levels are Introduction

examined. These studies suggest that the forest products with the highest levels of profitability tend to be those with high value as raw materials, rather than those that gain value through processing.

The assessment of sustainable harvesting levels for a given product is central to any forest product endeavour. Patti Andersons chapter takes on the challenge of showing how ecological and economic information can be used together to assess the sustainability of harvesting for a single species. She examines the case of a single, widely used palm species, Iriartea deltoidea, in Ecuador . Based on field measurements Anderson constructs a matrix model of the demography of the palms population in different habitats. The model shows the levels of removal possible to maintain a stable population. She then examines how local harvesters and traders decide to increase, decrease or maintain removal levels. The results of this analysis can be used to inform policies about safe minimum standards of harvesting for Iriartea.

Andersons analysis indicates some of the technical complexities of assessing ecological sustainability and the difficulties in predicting demand. As part of a formal research project, it is a more detailed analysis than is often feasible in many development project contexts.

Methods related to monitoring and evaluation are central to the books thesis that the development and conservation potential of forest-based activities needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The next three chapters discuss methods to assess the outcomes of forest-based conservation and development initiatives. Measuring income is essential to determine the benefits resulting from forest-based income activities. Eva Wollenberg and Ani Septiani Nawir review methods for measuring the income of people living in forest areas. They summarise the methodologies used in case studies and use these cases, as well as insights from their own research in Indonesia, to suggest ways of overcoming the logistics of collecting income information related to possibly hundreds of products. Attention is also drawn to the difficulties of assigning values to forest products where such products are not sold.

One conclusion is that the methods currently in use for accurately estimating income are costly and probably not possible or appropriate for many development efforts, especially where long-term monitoring is required.

Robert Fisher and Rachel Dechaineux describe approaches for assessing and evaluating the social impacts of NTFP projects, which resulted from work conducted in Laos. They stress the need for ongoing evaluations that can feed into adaptive planning and decision making and suggest a framework for conducting cost-effective assessment of social impact approaches. The framework differentiates between information that needs to be collected by specialists and that which can be collected by field staff. It also identifies well being, equity and risk as the three dimensions of most importance for understanding social impacts. Fisher and Dechaineux make the important point that the acceptability of social impacts ultimately needs to be judged by the communities themselves. They argue that, for example, if womens workloads have increased as the result of a project intervention, and the women affected find that increase acceptable, then the overall impact should be judged as acceptable.

Introduction

The book concludes with Chris Bennetts chapter on the role of government in promoting and assessing sustainability. Bennett critically reviews the experience of prescriptive policies in Indonesia as a tool for promoting sustainable forest use by communities and suggests the need for alternatives that are less costly and more effective. His work is based on extensive discussions with the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry about transparent, reliable and low-cost ways of assessing community-based forest management. He argues that prescriptions present requirements that might not be appropriate for all sites. By specifying personnel and equipment requirements, budget allocations and strict harvesting guidelines, these prescriptions reduce incentives and capacities for innovation. In some cases they even encourage wasteful harvesting. One alternative is to use outcome-based indicators that should be simpler to implement, encourage more efficient use of resources, involve lower bureaucratic costs and enable more innovative adaptation to site-specific conditions.

There may be ways of involving communities themselves in the assessment process.

Bennett concludes that these cost-saving alternative approaches will be necessary to enable governments to support community-based management at a large scale.

These chapters provide only a sample of the rich diversity of methods available and in use. They emphasise the necessity for careful assessment and monitoring to determine the potential benefits from forest-based income activities, as well as the actual impacts. With a range of tools in hand and a spirit of innovation, it is hoped that the readers of this book will be able to develop methods appropriate to their own circumstances, as well as use such methods to engage in a learning process of development. Whether driven by interest in NTFPs, community-based logging, ICDPs, microenterprises, community-based forest management or pure scientific inquiry, the enthusiasm for improving sustainable incomes from forests has so far vastly outweighed the methods available. Even where methods exist, it seems there will always be a never-ending quest for additional tools that are less expensive, more reliable, faster or more revealing.

References

ATI (Appropriate Technology International) 1995. Draft NTFP manual. ATI, Washington, DC.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. and Buchan, D. (eds.) 1997. Beyond fences. Seeking social sustainability in conservation . Volume 1. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Bowman, M., Baante, J., Dichter, T., Londner, S., Reiling, P. and Moses, W. 1989.

Measuring our impact. Determining cost-effectiveness of non-governmental organization development projects. TechnoServe, Norwalk, Connecticut.

Boyle, T.J.B. and Boontawee, B. (eds.) 1995. Measuring and monitoring biodiversity in tropical and temperate forests. Proceedings of a IUFRO Symposium held at Chiang Mai, Thailand, August 27 – September 2, 1994. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Browder, J.O. 1992. The limits of extractivism: tropical forest strategies beyond extractive reserves. BioScience 42: 174-82.

Introduction

Buzzard, S. and Edgcomb, E. (eds.) 1992. Monitoring and evaluating small business projects: a step by step guide for private development organizations. PACT, Washington, DC.

Carter, J. (ed.) 1996. Recent approaches to participatory forest resource assessment.

Rural Development Forestry Study Guide 2. ODI, London, UK.

Colfer, C.J.P., et al. 1998a. The BAG (Basic Assessment Guide for Human Well-Being). CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Colfer, C.J.P., et al. 1998b. The Grab Bag: Additional Methods for Assessing Human Well-Being. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Davis-Case, D. 1989. Community forestry: Participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation. Community Forestry Note 2. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Dove, M.R. 1993. A revisionist view of tropical deforestation and development.

Environmental Conservation 20: 17-24, 56.

Elfian and Perbatakusumah, E.A. 1996. Community-based eco-ventures as a conservation tool in the buffer zone of Gunung Leuser national park. Paper presented at the workshop on Research and Planning Methodologies for NTFP-based Conservation and Development Initiatives, 21-23 May 1996, Bogor, Indonesia.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1995. Non-wood forest products for rural income and sustainable forestry. Non-wood Forest Products 7. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Fisher, R. 1995. Collaborative management of forests for conservation and development. IUCN and WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Foppes, J., Saypaseuth, T., Ingles, A. and Ketphanh, S. 1996. Methods of selecting non-timber forest products for action in Champasak province, Lao PDR. Paper presented at the workshop on Research and Planning Methodologies for NTFP-based Conservation and Development Initiatives, 21-23 May 1996, Bogor, Indonesia.

Fox, J. 1988. Diagnostic tools for social forestry. Working Paper No. 4. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Gilmour, D.A. 1994. Conservation and development: seeking the linkages. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Godoy, R. and Bawa, K.S. 1993. The economic value and sustainable harvest of plants and animals from the tropical forests: assumptions, hypotheses and methods.

Economic Botany 47: 215-19.

Godoy, R., Brokaw, N. and Wilkie, D. 1995. The effect of income on the extraction of non-timber tropical forest products: model, hypotheses, and preliminary findings from the Sumu Indians of Nicaragua. Human Ecology 23: 29-52.

Graefen, A. and Syafrudin, E. 1996. From identification to marketing of non-timber forest products strategies for the participatory forest management area (PFMA), West Kalimantan. Paper presented at the workshop on Research and Planning Methodologies for NTFP-based Conservation and Development Initiatives, 21-23

May 1996, Bogor, Indonesia.

Introduction

Gregersen, H., Arnold, J.E.M., Lundgren, A., Contreras, H. de Montalembert, M.R.

and Gow, D. 1993. Assessing forestry project impacts: issues and strategies. FAO

Forestry Paper 114. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Haggblade, S.J. and Gamser, M.S. 1991. A field manual for subsector practitioners.

GEMINI Technical Note Series Tools Microenterprise Programs: Nonfinancial Assistance Section, DAI/GEMINI Publications Series, Bethesda, Maryland.

Hall, P. and Bawa, K.S. 1993. Methods to assess the impact of extraction of nontimber tropical forest products on plant population. Economic Botany 47: 234-47.

Haury, D. and Saragih, B. 1995. Processing and marketing of rattan. SFMP, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia.

Homma, A.K.O. 1992. The dynamics of extraction in Amazonia: a historical perspective. In: Nepstad, D.C. and Schwartzman, S. (eds.) Non-timber products from tropical forests: evaluation of a conservation and development strategy. Advances in Economic Botany 9: 23-32.

IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development). 1998. Participatory monitoring and evaluation. Participatory Learning and Action Notes 31. IIED, London, UK.

IUCN. 1996. Assessing progress toward sustainability. Methods and field experiences. An IUCN/IDRC Project, Gland, Switzerland.

Karki, S. 1996. Investigating non-timber forest product (NTFP) opportunities in Nepal.

Draft paper. Nepal Australia Community Forestry Project, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Land Tenure Center/Institute for Environmental Studies. 1995. Case studies of community-based forestry enterprises in the Americas. Paper presented at the Symposium on Forestry in the Americas: Community-Based Management and Sustainability, University of Wisconsin-Madison, February 3-4, 1995, Madison, Wisconsin.

Lecup, I. 1996. Proposed methodology for product selection in biodiversity conservation and economic development project. Case study Vietnam. Paper presented at the workshop on Research and Planning Methodologies for NTFP-based Conservation and Development Initiatives, 21-23 May 1996, Bogor, Indonesia.

Lecup, I., Fricke, T., Warner, K. and Quist Hoffmann, H. 1995. Market systems analysis, non-timber tree and forest products. RECOFTC training module. Regional Community Forestry Training Center, Bangkok, Thailand. Draft

Margoluis, R. and Salafsky, N. 1996. Measures of success: a systematic approach to designing, managing, and monitoring community-oriented conservation projects.

Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC. Draft.

McKone, D. and Phaengsintham, P. 1996. Methodology for collecting environmental information for supporting baseline monitoring and evaluation of project impacts.

IUCN, Ventiane, Lao PDR.

Metz, J.J. 1991. Vegetation assessment and research methods for community forestry in Nepal. Working Paper No. 27. East-West Center, Honolulu.

Introduction

Mittelman, A. 1996. Facilitating collaborative design of community-based sustainable resource management systems. A handbook for village-based facilitators. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Nadkarni, M.V., Ninan, K.N. and Pasha, S.A. 1994. The economic and financial viability of social forestry projects: a study of selected projects in Karnataka. Joint Forest Management Working Paper No. 16. New Delhi, India.

Panathpur, R., Rajeswar, J. and Ravindranath, N.H. 1996. Approach and methods for monitoring NTFP flows. A case study of Western Ghat villages. Paper presented at the workshop on Research and Planning Methodologies for NTFP-based Conservation and Development Initiatives, 21-23 May 1996, Bogor, Indonesia.

Peters, C.M. 1994. Sustainable harvest of non-timber plant resources in tropical moist forest: an ecological primer. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC.

Prabhu, R., Colfer, C.J.P., Venkateswarlu, P., Tan, L.C., Soekmadi, R. and Wollenberg, E. 1996. Testing criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of forests: Phase 1. Final report. CIFOR Special Publication. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

SGS Forestry and IIED. 1997. Sustainable forest management: a practical guide.

First draft for consultation and review. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Shiva, M.P. 1996. Research and planning strategies for NTFP-based conservation and development in South and South East Asian countries. Paper presented at the workshop on Research and Planning Methodologies for NTFP-based Conservation and Development Initiatives, 21-23 May 1996, Bogor, Indonesia.

Stevens, P.R. 1997. Measuring the sustainability of forest village ecosystems

concepts and methodologies. A Turkish example. Technical Report No. 103.

Forestry and Forest Products, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.

Stockdale, M. and Ambrose, B. 1996. Mapping and NTFP inventory: participatory assessment methods forest-dwelling communities in East Kalimantan, Indonesia.

In: Carter, J. (ed.) Recent approaches to participatory forest resource assessment, 170-211. Rural Development Forestry Study Guide 2. ODI, London, UK.

Taylor, D. 1996. Income generation from non-wood forest products in upland conservation. FAO Conservation Guide 30. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Thomas, M.G. and Schumann, D.R. 1993. Income opportunities in special forest products. Self-help suggestions for rural entrepreneurs. Agriculture Information Bulletin 666. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Upadhyaya, C.P., Rasaily, N. and Hainju, B. 1996. Role of non-timber forest products in rural subsistence economy of Gorkha district, Nepal. Paper presented at the workshop on Research and Planning Methodologies for NTFP-based Conservation and Development Initiatives, 21-23 May 1996, Bogor, Indonesia.

van Bueren, E.M.L. and Blom, E.M. 1997. Hierarchical framework for the formulation of sustainable forest management standards. Tropenbos Foundation, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Introduction

Warner, K. 1996. Market systems analysis training: Who, What, When and Where?

Paper presented at the workshop on Research and Planning Methodologies for NTFP-based Conservation and Development Initiatives, 21-23 May 1996, Bogor, Indonesia.

Warner, P.D., III and Pontual, A.C. 1994. Manual de comercializaçäo de produtis florestais. Genesys, Washington, DC.

World Bank. 1997. Monitoring and evaluation guidelines for biodiversity projects.

Draft, Washington, DC.

Yayasan Dian Tama. 1996. Social forestry development through NTFP promotion.

YDT, Pontianak, Indonesia.

Chapter Two

The Role of Non-timber Forest

Products in Conservation

and Development

J.E.M. Arnold and Manuel Ruiz Pérez

The interest in non-timber forest products (NTFPs) that has built up over recent decades in conservation and development circles has its origins in a number of propositions:

NTFPs, much more than timber, contribute in important ways to the livelihoods and welfare of populations living in and adjacent to forests; providing them with food, medicines, other material inputs, and a source of employment and income, particularly in hard times.

Exploitation of NTFPs is less ecologically destructive than timber harvesting and therefore provides a more sound basis for sustainable forest management.

Increased commercial harvest of NTFPs should add to the perceived value of the tropical forest, at both the local and national levels, thereby increasing the incentive to retain the forest resource, rather than conversion of the land for use for agriculture or livestock.

The interest aroused by such arguments has been considerably enhanced by the apparent coincidence of conservation and development objectives that they provide (see for example Myers 1988; Panayotou and Ashton 1992; Plotkin and Famolare 1992).

Valuations of forest sites have been interpreted to indicate that the potential income from sustainable harvesting of NTFPs could be considerably higher than timber income, as well as income from agricultural or plantation uses of the forest sites (e.g., Peters et al. 1989b). This has led to initiatives to expand and provide markets for more locally produced NTFPs, in order to tap an increasing share of this apparent cornucopia of sustainably harvestable wealth in tropical forests. This is the basis of the conservation by commercialisation hypothesis (Evans 1993).

Attention has also been drawn to the advantages to be gained by drawing on indigenous knowledge of the forests and forest products, and building on the sustainable systems of use that local people often seemed to have created (Posey 1982; Prance 1990; Stiles 1994; Redford and Mansour 1996). It has been proposed that this can only be possible if people have recognised and legally secured rights to manage their forest resources. Another component of the heightened attention to NTFPs has consequently been linked to possibilities for empowering local people.

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

The ancient practice of extracting economically valuable, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), leaving the forests structurally and functionally intact, has emerged as a possible means of reconciling the conflicting roles of tropical forests. This practice … captured the attention of defenders and developers of tropical forests around the world in the late 1980s when a grass-roots movement of autonomous forest rubber tappers fought to protect their lands from encroaching cattle ranchers (Nepstad and Schwartzman 1992).

In this chapter we review the evolution of the debate on these propositions and the lessons that appear to be emerging in practice. In the first part we examine the conservation dimensions, highlighting the differences in perceptions among different stakeholder groups about what should be conserved. The second part looks at development issues the evolution of the role of NTFPs in meeting cultural and subsistence needs, and in enabling people to deal with increasing integration into market systems. This is followed by examination of the institutional frameworks that influence pursuit of both conservation and development objectives. In a final section, issues are raised that are likely to be relevant to design and implementation of initiatives to expand or support NTFP activities.

Conservation

The ecological perspective

The propositions outlined in the first section, and the ways in which they have been interpreted, have given rise to concern among ecologists that arguments about the relatively benign impact of harvesting for NTFPs have been overstated or misunderstood. Considerable effort has been consequently devoted to ensuring that the nature and impact of harvesting on forest ecosystems is better understood.

Rubber tapper (photo by Edward Parker – WWF).

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

A forest exploited for fruits and latex, unlike a logged-over forest, maintains the appearance of being undisturbed. It is easy to overlook the subtle impacts of NTFP harvest and to assume a priori that this activity is something that can be done repeatedly, year after year, on a sustainable basis. This ubiquitous idea, or some variant of it, has appeared in books, scientific papers, conference proceedings, grant proposals, magazine articles, newspaper stories…

Unfortunately, in the great majority of cases, this assumption is patently incorrect (Peters 1996).

Ecologists point out that most plant species occur at low densities in tropical forests, and require the presence of animals to pollinate their flowers and disperse their seeds. Removal of excessive quantities of the seeds, or their failure to disperse or establish themselves, can rapidly alter the composition of the forest and the frequency of occurrence of particular species. Although the exploitation of some plant parts is less damaging than others, almost any form of resource harvest produces an impact on the structure and function of tropical plant populations. If nothing is done to mitigate these impacts, continued harvesting will deplete the resource, although some species are better able to sustain continuous offtake than others (e.g., in the case of plants, those exhibiting abundant and frequent regeneration and rapid growth) (Cunningham and Mbenkum 1993; Peters 1994).

Similar considerations apply to the animal constituents of tropical forests. In addition to their critical role as pollinators and dispersers of economically important plant species, animal populations are important as predators, regulators of pest populations and providers of other ecological services. Though animal populations show different abilities to withstand pressure according to taxonomic groups, animals that tend to be most heavily affected by hunting and other human activities include the most important predators and seed dispersers. Their depletion or removal also can rapidly influence such forest characteristics as composition and structure of vegetation (Bodmer et al. 1988; Redford 1992, 1996; Fa et al. 1995; Fitzgibbon et al.

1995).

Unless harvesting is controlled, some species will therefore become depleted much more rapidly than others. It is argued (Peters 1994) that managing tropical forests to meet an objective of maintaining biodiversity will require a monitoring and control system that provides a constant flow of information about the ecological response of species to varying degrees of exploitation. This would allow a continual process of adjustment in which any change in seedling establishment or population structure results in a corresponding change in harvest level.

The impact of market forces

On the assumption that the main pressures on forest resources are brought to bear through commercial (rather than subsistence) demand for particular NTFPs, a number of researchers have been developing and testing models and hypotheses to assist in predicting how market forces are likely to have an influence on forest structures (Vasquez and Gentry 1989; Homma 1992; Godoy and Bawa 1993; Wilkie and Godoy 1996).

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

In one such model Wilkie and Godoy (1996) argue that, with increased exposure to trade and markets, per capita incomes rise, imported goods are substituted for some NTFPs and others are exploited primarily for sale. As alternative uses of labour become more attractive, utilisation of the forest is increasingly concentrated on higher-value NTFPs. In another influential model based on Brazilian experience, Homma (1992, 1996) postulates that as commercial demand for a forest product emerges, output first expands then, as quantities and quality from wild sources decline, prices will rise. Inelasticities of the supply of naturally occurring products then lead to development of domesticated sources and synthetic alternatives that replace the natural source.

Both of these models point to selective harvesting of those species that are more valued by the marketplace. It is argued that this implies that over time the composition of the remaining forest stock shifts to less desired species. In practice, these unidirectional evolutionary paths are not inevitable. Shifts in demand for forest products, for example, could reduce pressure on the resource or transfer it to another resource. Institutional measures to control the way in which the forest is used would also modify the impact of harvesting.

Forest management interventions, for instance by increasing the productivity of the NTFP species, could prove to be an alternative to domestication, or could delay or modify the progression towards domestication. As Balée (1989) and Dufour (1990) have argued, the limits between wild and domesticated are not clear cut, giving ample room for a large variety of systems with good conservation potential. These range from agroforestry (see for example Michon and de Foresta 1995) to islands of high productivity in a matrix of little-disturbed forest (Kageyama, cited in CNS-IEA-FF

1991). Prance (1992) also argues that well-planned domestication integrated with extractive activities might help to curb the classical boom-and-bust cycles of extractive economies, contributing to their long-term maintenance.

Nevertheless, it is clear that market demand is selective, and therefore works against the ecological objective of conserving the profile of biological diversity present in the untouched forest. Moreover, as market prices seldom reflect the values of environmental and other external costs and benefits, market demand may lead to short-term overexploitation and even to local extinction of some plants and animals that provide highly desired products. This divergence between market and real economic and societal values must cast doubt on the argument that the increased values attributable to tropical forests as a result of higher commercial demand for NTFPs necessarily encourage conservation of the resource.

Perspectives of local users

Grenand and Grenand (1996) have pointed out that, in connection with a stable subsistence system in the Amazon, Amerindians from the Amazon basin are no protectors of nature, in the sense understood today, because the concept itself is completely foreign to them. Rather their system is based on the abundance and diversity of the resource, and its ability to renew itself. Therefore, even in indigenous systems where harvests do not result in destruction of the resource, use can be heavy.

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

Similarly, Falconer (1996), writing about West African experience, has pointed out that the level of exploitation for subsistence use should not be underestimated.

While many foresters see subsistence exploitation as harmless and commercial exploitation as destructive, it is evident that the forest and fallows are intensively and extensively used to meet domestic needs.

The reference to fallow underlines a very important factor namely that much use of forests for NTFPs is in forest systems that have in the past already been disturbed by human use to a greater or lesser degree. Most collecting and harvesting of NTFPs is by populations who combine this with some form of agriculture. It is therefore taking place not in pristine forest, but largely in secondary forests, bush fallow or farm bush.

This is partly explained by the proximity of these areas to the user communities and households, but also reflects the fact that in a number of respects such formations are more productive sources of desired species and products. In an area in Sierra Leone, for instance, where only 14 per cent of all hunted or collected foodstuffs and 32 per cent of the medicinal plants collected were found to come from the forest itself, the four tree species used most frequently for construction were all fallow not forest species, and the most used bushmeat species, the rodent grasscutter, is found only under open tree cover, not in the closed forest (Davies and Richards 1991).

Similar observations were made by Kainer and Duryea (1992) with respect to rubber tapper communities in the Brazilian Amazon where, of the 150 plants collected by women, only 35 per cent came from the forest. Posey (1982) had also earlier indicated the importance of fallow lands showing that the conventional Western view of fallows as abandoned lands did not correspond with the long-term tending efforts made by the indigenous populations, and the importance that they paid to them as a major supply of resources.

As is pointed out in the discussion of the situation in Sierra Leone outlined above, this has important implications for conservation.

(I)t is clear that [Mende villagers] look at, and place values on, these resources in ways that differ significantly from the valuations of outsiders interested in conservation. In particular (and crucially) it would seem that high forest is seen to have little value in and of itself. In practical terms, the bulk of subsistence-oriented forest products derives from secondary successions, not from high forest. This orientation towards the boundary between forest and farm, as distinct from a concern for the forest itself … has a most important consequence for forest conservation. The priority area of attention for a conservation strategy sensitive to local interests and concerns should be the bush fallow system, and not, in the first instance, the forest itself (Davies and Richards 1991).

In many situations, fallow land, farm bush and even the forest itself have in fact been found to be actively managed by local users to conserve or encourage species of value. The babaçu palm ( Orbygnia phalerata) in northeast Brazil has long been integrated into local farmers shifting cultivation systems (May et al. 1985), and farmers in the flood-plain forests of the Amazon area manage them to favour the Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

economically more valuable species they contain (Anderson and Ioris 1992). Rattan and fruit gardens are examples of enriched forest management systems in Kalimantan (Peluso and Padoch 1996).

Much harvesting of NTFPs from natural forests tends to be in locations that have relatively high densities of the valued species and products. If these species are dominant, the forests may be biologically poor (Peters et al. 1989a; Browder 1992) and therefore probably of less interest as targets for biodiversity conservation.

It can be argued that such patterns of concentration support the contention that NTFP use is relatively benign in terms of the objectives of such conservation.

There are also important differences between short-term and long-term impacts of forest use and management. As has been shown repeatedly in studies on the impact of timber harvesting, tropical forests can and do recover from even heavy use if allowed the time to do so without further disturbance. But this does not happen if there is repeated harvesting at short intervals relative to the forests regeneration cycle (Poore et al. 1989).

There are, of course, many other patterns of use associated with NTFPs. These frequently reflect important cultural, spiritual and social considerations, in addition to the satisfaction of material needs. Given this, and the frequently emphasised fact that tropical forests are characterised by multiple users pursuing multiple objectives, it is clearly unwise to expect much in the way of generally applicable conclusions.

For conservation, though, two conclusions do emerge. The first is that all harvesting of NTFPs does have an ecological impact, and that much use can significantly change the composition and structure of the forest. The second is that different stakeholders can have quite different interests in what should be conserved. This has been summarised by Leach and Mearns (1996):

… foresters and ecologists in Africa have conventionally valued closed-canopy or gallery forest almost defining forest in these terms so that any conversion of such a vegetation community is seen to constitute degradation.

Yet such conversion may be viewed positively by local inhabitants, for whom the resulting bush fallow vegetation provides a greater range of gathered plant products and more productive agricultural land… Thus the same landscape changes can be perceived and valued in different ways by different groups; what is degraded and degrading for some may for others be merely transformed or even improved.

Household Livelihoods

Forests are the source of a variety of foods that supplement and complement what rural households obtain from agriculture, and of a wide range of medicines and other products that contribute to health and hygiene. Supplies of wood fuels influence nutrition through their impact on the availability of cooked food, and ready accessibility can affect the time available for food production. Gathering and sale of NTFPs can provide income to households.

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

NTFPs are generally most extensively used to supplement household income during particular seasons in the year and to help meet dietary shortfalls. Many agricultural communities suffer from seasonal food shortages, which commonly occur at the time of year when stored food supplies have dwindled and new crops are only just being harvested. During this period the consumption of forest and tree foods increases. Similarly, income-earning activities based on marketable forest products may be seasonal or year-round, or may be occasional when supplementary cash income is needed. Seasonality may reflect availability, needs for additional cash at particular points in the annual cycle (e.g., to purchase seed) or seasonal fluctuations in demand (e.g., for baskets for crop harvesting). The importance of forest foods and incomes thus often lies more in its timing than in its magnitude as a share of total household inputs (Box 2.1). NTFPs are also widely important as a subsistence and economic buffer in hard times (Chambers and Leach 1987; de Beer and McDermott 1989; Falconer and Arnold 1989; Scoones et al. 1992; FAO 1995; Townson 1995).

Box 2.1 Examples of the role of NTFP income in household systems

A study in Sierra Leone found that fuelwood selling provided the first cash income from land cleared for rice production. Subsequently fuelwood collection for the market was concentrated during the off-peak agricultural period, providing cash income in a period when food supplies were generally at their lowest (Kamara 1986).

Income from the collection and processing of babaçu palm kernels in northeast Brazil has been shown to account for 39 per cent of cash income and 34 per cent of total household income during the seasonal slack period in agriculture. Many of the poorer farmers were dependent on this cash for purchasing seed and other inputs for the new seasons planting (May et al. 1985).

A study in the forest-savanna zone of Guinea found that needs for fuelwood and poles were mainly met from by-products of the agricultural cycle, and that farmers sequence their wild plant collection and trading incomes with seasonal needs, e.g., to purchase seeds, hire labour for cultivation, and buy food at harvest to be processed and sold during the dry season. Many women traders generated their working capital from cropping, gathering and processing, within sequences in which one activitys output becomes anothers input (Leach and Fairhead 1994).

In western Niger it was found that income from forest products from the commons rose as a share of household income from 2 per cent in the harvest season to 9 per cent in the hot and rainy seasons and 11 per cent in the cold season. Cash income from these sources was sufficient to purchase between 9 and 28 per cent of a households annual caloric needs; the lower tercile income group was more dependent on this source of income than the highest tercile, and women (27 per cent of their income) were more dependent than men (10 per cent) (Hopkins et al. 1994).

Medicinal usage of NTFPs tends to overlap with that of forest foods; indeed particular items added to foods serve both to improve palatability and act as a health tonic or prophylactic. There are also often strong links between medicinal use and cultural values. For example, where illnesses are thought to be due to the spirits, or Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

plants have acquired symbolic importance as treatments. Such values often underlie the division between use of traditional and modern medicines that is widely observed at the present time (Falconer 1994).

In the rest of this section we look first at the main changes and causes of change currently taking place that affect the role of NTFPs in household systems. We then examine how use and access to benefits vary within and between communities and households, and the implications in terms of dependency and equity.

Changes over time

Some studies indicate that uses of forest foods are dwindling as people gain more access to purchased foods, as famine relief programmes become more effective, or as improved supplies of food crops have diminished the need to depend on forest foods. In Vanuatu, for instance, the introduction of the sweet potato, which could be planted at any time and produce an edible crop within three months, and manioc, which can be left unharvested for up to two years, has made the traditional emergency foods of wild taro, arrowroot, wild yams and sago virtually obsolete (Olsson 1991).

Other changes that reduce the role of forest food and other NTFPs in household nutrition may reflect penetration of rural markets by new products, changing tastes or decreased availability. However, the latter may be a result of changes in the availability or allocation of a households supply of labour rather than physical shortage of the product. As the value of labour rises with increasing wealth, the opportunity cost of gathering rather than purchasing foods or medicines, fuelwood, etc. becomes higher.

A decline in use of forest food can also reflect reduced knowledge. As children spend more time in school than in the fields and the bush, the opportunity to learn about which plants can be consumed, and which cannot, is reduced. Settlement in a fixed location is another widespread change that distances people from previously familiar food sources, constraining peoples use of these foods even when they are still available and important for dietary balance (Melnyk 1993).

Another cause of reduced subsistence use is likely to be shortage in the forest supply. These may be physical shortages due to over-use, shortages created by reduced access to the resource, or shortages induced by competition for supplies available from markets.

Many farm households sell NTFPs on a part-time basis to raise enough to be food self-sufficient year round, and for whom this is one of the few income-generating opportunities available. However, the dependence of the poor on income from forest food products, and competition from urban traders, can result in reduced own consumption (Falconer 1996; Ogle 1996). A recent study of forest products use in mountain communities in an area of north Vietnam, for instance, found that the forest vegetables, bamboo shoots and mushrooms collected were eaten in richer households, but in poorer households these forest foods were sold to buy rice (Nguyen Thi Yen et al. 1994).

The role of forest products in household livelihood systems also changes, often rapidly, with changes in the demand for these products. Some forest products are Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

goods that fall out of consumption patterns as incomes rise, e.g., those forest foods displaced by more convenient purchased foods. Others, such as mats, are vulnerable to competition from factory-made alternatives as improved transport infrastructure opens up rural areas to outside supplies (FAO 1987). But demand for products, such as wooden furniture, rises with prosperity. Some products have large, diversified and stable markets; others face highly volatile, often boom-and-bust, markets (e.g., extractives displaced by synthetic or domesticated alternatives) or demand that is seasonal and subject to sharp price fluctuations. While some products thus can provide a strong basis for livelihood systems, a number provide at best short-term opportunities, or generate only marginal returns to those engaged in their harvest (Box 2.2). Where producers have abandoned other activities to become involved in NTFP activities, there is the risk that decline or collapse of the latter may leave them even worse off than they were before (Browder 1992).

Box 2.2 Classifying NTFP activities in Africa by growth potential Many of the activities … appear to represent options that people resort to when there is no alternative source of income … They include the simplest gathering and trading forest products activities, some of the simple processing activities … and some trading. Such activities are characterised by ease of access and low capital or skill thresholds to entry.

Participants in such activities are consequently likely to find themselves in over-saturated markets, offering very low returns to labour. Few are able to expand beyond the single-person (or at best family-based) operation, operating from the homestead. They are thus activities that those involved in them are likely to abandon if more attractive options become available. In addition, the products are often ones that are displaced by alternatives

woven mats by plastic mats, for example as improved rural infrastructure opens up rural markets, and as incomes rise.

A smaller group of activities appear to form more viable and sustainable sources of livelihood

… These activities are characterised by capital and skill requirements, that inter alia establish conditions of entry, and expansion, that limit participation in them. Those running such businesses are likely to be in them because of the good market and profitable prospects they offer, and not because they had no better alternative. Markets tend to be large, urban as well as rural, and demand exhibits positive (though usually declining) elasticities with rising income. This group includes products and processes, such as those involved in the manufacture of furniture, that involve technologies that enable businesses to evolve and improve so that they can compete with modern sector counterparts and products. Others, such as carving and some traditional medicines, are able to maintain market share because there are not modern sector equivalents.

Source: Arnold and Townson (1995)

As the opening up of rural areas expands the range of employment options open to the people, they are likely to move out of the less attractive forest product activities.

Additional factors that can contribute to household decisions to discontinue particular NTFP activities include poor working conditions, a weak marketing position, exploitative patron/labour relationships, and lack of access to inputs of capital or Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

technology to overcome constraints of labour shortage or work stress (Browder 1992; Pendelton 1992; Townson 1995).

Dependency and equity issues

A feature of most detailed local-level studies is the variety of needs met in part through NTFPs. Patterns of use are likely to differ among groups or households, and within households by gender and age. One relationship that has been widely observed is that where people have had relatively unrestricted access to forests, forest foods and forest products income are particularly important for poorer groups within the community. For instance, the share of household inputs obtained from NTFPs has been shown to be related to size of landholdings in Orissa, India (Fernandes and Menon 1987) and in Brazil (Hecht et al. 1988), to family incomes in Sri Lanka (Gunatilake et al. 1993), and to levels of household rice self-sufficiency in the Philippines (Siebert and Belsky 1985).

However, some of the changes that are taking place are tending to limit the ability of the poor to exploit the opportunities available from forest-based activities. The poor may not have access to the skills, technology or capital necessary to be able to benefit from the opportunities presented by markets. They may be dependent on traders or other intermediaries for access to those markets. Thus the benefits from NTFPs, and sometimes control, then accrue to outsiders (Dove 1993, 1995).

Similar shifts are also often taking place within communities (Box 2.3), which result in control over these opportunities, and over the resource, being captured by the wealthier and more powerful, and the households with the most labour, at the expense of the poorer within the community.

Box 2.3 Differential interests in NTFPs within rural communities

[V]illages are often politically fractured and socially differentiated in complex ways. Fractures in the local community may run along gender, class, age, or ethnic lines of identity… Lines of differential access and ownership between men and women may be drawn depending upon the type of activity, type of product, the species, the location or the intended use of the product. It is quite possible that men and women make conflicting claims on NTFPs. In such a situation, interventions for conservation and community development may favour one group over another and exacerbate inter-gender conflicts.

… Pronounced socio-economic stratification within communities can lead to the formation of class interests which may conflict on the question of NTFP use. Conflict may be particularly strong in cases where NTFP extraction for market sales is being promoted as a sustainable development alternative. In such a situation, profits may flow to the wealthy who have the capital, knowledge, and resources to mobilize labor and transport products to market. In effect, where patron-client relations exist, sustainable development projects based on NTFP

extraction can serve to perpetuate or reinforce those relations without substantially improving the livelihoods of the local people, with the exception of a very few individuals.

Source: Neumann (1996)

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

In reporting on the results of a series of research studies into dependence on access to forest outputs, Ogle (1996) has commented:

In situations where agricultural productivity is low, better-off households may use forests and forest products to complement and improve the household economy, while poorer households, who find livelihoods difficult to sustain, may rely on the forests as the primary means of survival or in crisis situations.

In many areas, as pressures on the forests increase, more products are extracted, consumed or sold, more encroachment takes place and the depletion of forest resources can be rapid. The poor, more forest-dependent households will then find livelihoods even more difficult to sustain.

To summarise the discussion on household livelihoods, it is clear that in many situations, NTFPs continue to be very widely used. However, it is also evident that the situation is often changing sometimes very substantially in ways that have important implications for NTFP intervention programmes and research. Three aspects in particular warrant attention:

Growing demand for NTFPs will tend to be concentrated on a declining number of products of commercial value, and access to their production and marketing is likely to be increasingly limited to those with particular resources and skills;

Many NTFPs are facing, or are likely to face, declining market opportunities and/

or decreasing competitive improvement, and so could be of much less value in the future; and

Decline in the position of NTFPs, concentration of control in the hands of local elites and outsiders, and the impact of overuse on the resource could have serious impacts on those categories of users who are most dependent upon NTFPs to help meet their subsistence and income needs.

These issues are examined further in the final section of this chapter.

Institutional and Policy Context

Many of the features and trends noted in the previous discussion have their origins in national policies. In most countries the frameworks within which sustainable management of forests for NTFPs has to operate have been heavily influenced by the following political trends:

The widespread assertion of tenure by governments over forest lands, restricting or removing local rights;

The intrusion of the authority of the central state at the expense of local systems of leadership, control and management of forest lands; and

The more recent thrust towards structural adjustment, land titling, debt reduction and free trade.

Policies that assert government control over the forest resource, or that override local rights, undermine the authority and effectiveness of community-level institutions to control and manage forest use. They therefore act forcefully against the empowerment of local user communities that, it is argued, is a precondition for Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

effective commitment to conservation and sustainable management and use of natural resources (Jodha 1990; Shepherd 1992; Davis and Wali 1993; Lynch and Talbott 1995).

Given that so much NTFP use is based on resources that are held in overlapping combinations of private, state, common property and open access tenure regimes, the current drive towards altering land tenure could also have major implications.

Land titling in Africa, for instance, can transform flexible, multidimensional rights to forest resources into rigidly circumscribed rights to land (Neumann 1996). The insecurity of tenure that such change, or threat of change, induces is likely to favour short-term activities, such as destructive harvesting and slash-and-burn agriculture, that assure more certain though lower returns than might be obtained from forest conservation and management.

The increasing effect of market forces introduces another dimension that can weaken the institutional capacity to manage forest resources locally. Although market demand for its products can give added value to a resource, which could increase the incentive for conservation in order to secure its future availability, it can equally subject the local control and management systems to increased use pressures such as those outlined in Box 2.4.

Box 2.4 Commercialisation pressures on NTFP resource management systems

Simple rules are unlikely to be workable if a commodity has high value. Incentives for appropriating the commodity and not cooperating are correspondingly high.

Enforcement of rules is likely to be complicated by high-value items, especially if the item is wanted by elites. Bribes and coercion to escape enforcement are more likely when high values bring in cash. Even outside observers can be bribed.

Many organizations may not be flexible enough to adapt to rapid changes induced by commercialization. There may be no current rules on commercial products and there may be no past rules to learn from.

High value … commercialized products create incentives for outsiders and the state to appropriate the land and dispute legal claims.

Legitimacy of [resource] use is contested by regional, national, or international organizations who see their interest at stake in use of a resource or commodity.

Source: McElwee (1994)

As NTFPs become increasingly important commercially, local efforts to take advantage of the opportunities they present can be complicated or frustrated by forest policies. Because they give high priority to conservation objectives, many governments have set in place forest and environmental policies and regulations designed to limit rather than encourage production and sale of NTFPs (Dewees and Scherr 1995).

One widespread result of such features of the changing policy and institutional situation is ineffective local control of NTFP resources, and an environment in which household decision making and market forces fail to generate sustainable use of local forest resources. Moreover, it is often unclear which institutional models might be appropriate at present in situations marked by increasing conflict and lower Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

commonality of purpose, and increasingly ineffective conflict resolution mechanisms that such policies and practices engender (Neumann 1996).

Alternative institutional models have been proposed, and a number of them are being implemented. They include Joint Forest Management in India, extractive reserves in Brazil, communal reserves in Peru, Indian reserves for indigenous people in several Amazonian countries, the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe and the Household Responsibility System in China. Box 2.5 summarises some of the lessons that have been emerging about criteria to assess the effectiveness of such institutions for communal management of natural resources. However, more work is needed in order to refine these and better understand their application to institutional models specifically for management of forest resources (Gibbs and Bromley 1989, McKean and Ostrom 1995; Hobley 1996; Rasmussen and Meinzen-Dick 1996; Arnold 1998).

Box 2.5 Criteria for effective collective management of natural resources

User groups need the right to organise their activities, or at least a guarantee of no interference.

The boundaries of the resource must be clear.

The criteria for membership in the group of eligible users of the resource must be clear.

Users must have the rights to modify their use rules over time.

Use rules must correspond to what the system can tolerate and should be environmentally conservative to allow a margin for error.

Use rules need to be clear and easily enforceable.

Infractions of use rules must be monitored and punished.

Distribution of decision-making rights and use rights to co-owners of the commons need not be egalitarian, but must be viewed as fair.

Inexpensive and rapid methods of resolving minor conflicts need to be devised.

Institutions for managing very large systems need to be layered, with considerable authority devolved to small components.

Source: McKean and Ostrom (1995)

Discussion

The previous section has emphasised the extent to which NTFP activities are determined by policy, legal and other macro-level institutional and economic factors.

Consideration of the potential and impact of NTFPs in a particular situation therefore needs to be as much concerned with whether there is a policy and legislative framework that is supportive, or at least tolerant, of what is being considered, as with the resource and other factors that are specific to that situation (Ruiz Pérez and Byron in press). In this final section we discuss two other broad aspects of the subject.

The role of NTFPs in conservation and development

The earlier discussion on conservation perspectives suggests that the proposition that management for NTFPs is congruent with conservation needs to be qualified Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

and elaborated. In practice, the different stakeholders with an interest in a forest and the NTFPs it can yield are unlikely to share the same developmental or conservation objectives. For instance, it is highly unlikely that the economic goals of local users will coincide with the conservation goals of those concerned with preserving biodiversity.

It is important to recognise that such divergence of interests between development and conservation does not necessarily mean that one is less or more sustainable

than the other. Rather it is a recognition that sustainability has a number of different dimensions. The objective of ecological sustainability is usually expressed in terms of maintaining biodiversity. The goal of sustainable forest management has usually focussed on maintaining a continuous flow of stated outputs, while retaining the productive capacity of the forest intact. Economists, on the other hand, tend to focus on the sustainability of economic benefits (see Anderson this volume). As the benefits people seek to obtain from the forests change over time, pursuit of this objective is likely to entail changes to the resources. Essentially local management systems that alter the structure of the forest resource in favour of particular outputs can be seen to be giving priority to this economic objective.

The nature of and underlying reasons for differences in interests between stakeholder groups have been widely discussed (see for example COICA 1989; González 1992; Conklin and Graham 1995; Grenand and Grenand 1996). It has been pointed out (Almeida 1996) that the fact that extractive NTFP harvesting ever came to be seen as congruent with conservation is in a sense paradoxical, given the emphasis that had previously been placed on the negative and degrading aspects of such systems, like the impoverishment of natural resources, economic stagnation and the brutal treatment of native or migrant workers (Bunker 1985). Almeida identifies two extractive paradigms. An old extractivism syndrome, characterised by open access areas that are overexploited and depleted by coerced, underpaid and unqualified workers to feed external and volatile markets by means of a stagnant technology. In contrast to this, a good extractivism paradigm represents extractive economies as preserving natural resources and obtaining a reasonable income with the support of cooperatives and democratic associations.

Some have argued that the thesis that there is a commonality of interest can arise from misunderstandings by local and environmental interest groups about each other (Box 2.6). It has also been suggested that conservation groups have on occasion sought to ally themselves with local development goals that are at variance with their interests as a way of buying time until a better way is found of achieving conservation aims (Redford and Stearman 1993). Similarly forest dwellers may seek a common cause with conservationists where this can help them secure land titles and other guarantees.

Another factor in shaping the initial proposition, and in explaining the strength of the support it received, can now be seen to be a measure of misunderstanding or misinterpretation of some of the data on which they were based. Certain exercises in valuation of the estimated potential harvest of NTFPs in selected areas of tropical forest arrived at very high values of sustainable offtake (Peters et al. 1989b; Balick Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

Box 2.6 Misunderstandings that can arise between indigenous groups and environmental NGOs

Some conservation NGO misconceptions about indigenous organisations

The main objective of indigenous organisations is the conservation of biodiversity in some abstract sense: In reality, indigenous organisations exist to defend the rights of the group, and their priorities are legal land rights, political and cultural autonomy, health and education services, etc.

Indigenous organisations are similar to conservation organisations in their structure and function: In practice, there are several important differences related to their function, the issue of leadership and delegation, their relationship with their members, administrative capacity, etc.

Indigenous organisations have no reason to be suspicious of the relationship between conservation NGOs and the State: As indigenous groups perceive the State as a competitor for land rights, and liable to be in collusion with logging and mining interests, they often do have strong reasons not to trust NGO links with the State.

Some misconceptions by indigenous groups about conservation organisations

Conservation NGOs are similar to the organisations with which they have had dealings in the past (commercial, service, religious, etc.): In reality, the NGOs are different because they do not have commercial interests, and do not provide a service.

Conservation NGOs will provide assistance in meeting a variety of community needs: In many societies an organisation that is perceived to have the resources to do so and does not provide such support is considered to be selfish, and failing in its reciprocal duties.

NGOs use resources that could have been made available to the local community: In practice, fund management and donor regulations rule out the possibility of using such financial resources to directly fund indigenous organisations.

Source: Based on Stocks (1996)

and Mendelsohn 1992). In extrapolating from the results, and arriving at conclusions about commercial revenues that might be generated, some of the features characterising the situations to which the original point estimates referred were overlooked or lost sight of.

One feature is the high degree of variability within tropical forests, so that even areas adjacent to the original sites could contain a much lower content of marketable NTFPs (Pinedo-Vasquez et al. 1990). A second characteristic that needs to be taken into account is that of the unit values used. These were often based on prices in an adjacent market. In scaling up to larger areas and quantities, these need to be adjusted to take account of the impact on demand of large additional quantities of supply and hence on price,1 and of the higher costs of transport and storage involved in harvesting 1 In one exercise to examine the implications of accessing much larger areas and quantities of natural products for potential pharmaceutical use, Simpson et al. (1996) argued that the value to the pharmaceutical industry of a marginal species (as defined by its incremental contribution to the probability of making a commercial discovery), and by extension the marginal hectare of threatened habitat, is likely to be very small.

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

from areas further away from the market. A third feature concerns the decision making context facing the producers. This will often be strongly influenced by concerns about security of access to income, which are likely to favour options that assure income in the short term over options that would generate possibly higher, but less certain, income in the future. Also, most forest-dwelling producers are likely to opt for activities that maximise returns to labour, which is limited, rather than activities that maximise returns to a unit of land, which tends to be abundant.

As one subsequent group of analysts has noted: Regrettably, enthusiasts have neglected to keep these limitations in mind as they have advocated the establishment of extractive reserves as a means to save rainforests (Southgate et al. 1994). The result has sometimes been to raise expectations beyond what can realistically be achieved.

In brief, it is now clear that strategies based on the assumption that developmental and conservation interests in NTFPs coincide are unlikely to be successful. Attention is likely to be more effectively focussed on understanding the areas in which they concur, those in which they are in conflict, and in determining what balance between development and conservation is desirable and achievable. In doing so, it will be necessary to take account of the strong public, media and action-group interest and support that was generated by the concept that increased marketing of NTFPs should be promoted as a way of both conserving the forest and contributing to the livelihoods of rural people in forest areas. It may be difficult to present a more realistic assessment without provoking the risk of a reduction or withdrawal of such support. However, a number of groups that have become aware of the limitations of the earlier approach are beginning to successfully develop more realistic strategies that focus on identifying the conditions and limitations to conservation in conjunction with NTFP development (see for example Freese 1996; BCN 1997).

Identifying NTFP intervention strategies

The conclusion that we need to be flexible and case-specific in approaching a situation that combines conservation and NTFP development means that it is difficult to identify general guidelines for the design of strategies for intervention. Nevertheless, some points that emerge from recent experience and literature may be quite widely applicable.

A first point is that the focus on developing market outlets for NTFPs needs to be kept in balance with consideration of the huge, and usually very important, continuing use of NTFPs to meet subsistence needs. As was noted earlier, even where use has become heavily market oriented, subsistence use often continues to be significant. It is important to understand and take account of interactions between the two of the kind discussed earlier in the chapter.

A second consideration concerns the importance of correctly targeting and understanding the characteristics and dynamics of different market and product situations. A great deal of the attention that has been given to the role of NTFPs at the interface between conservation and development has been on products for markets in developed countries, and on ways of making trade in these products more

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

remunerative and stable to producers. However, these are trade flows that are very susceptible to changes in market requirements, to domination by intermediaries, and to shifts to domesticated or synthetic sources of supply. Although the typical boom-and-bust sequence that is characteristic may provide significant employment and income initially, in the longer term it can be very disruptive for rural economies, particularly where the trade has encouraged people to move away from more diversified and less risky agriculture-based livelihoods (Afsah 1992; Browder 1992; Homma 1996). Some of those commenting on cases where these impacts have been very pronounced, have even argued that efforts to support development by promoting NTFP markets without securing the appropriate conditions (notably tenure and political rights) can be counter-productive (see for example Gray 1990; Dove 1993, 1995).

Domestic markets for NTFPs may provide more easily realised avenues for development. In many countries these trades are much larger, involve many more people, and are likely to evolve in less disruptive ways (see for example Padoch 1992; Townson 1995; Ndoye et al. 1997). However, a number of important factors need to be taken into account if initiatives are to correctly target those components of domestic markets that are growing, or able to grow.

The market prospects for NTFPs will be different depending on whether demand for them rises or falls with changes in income; and will also differ according to characteristics of the market (local, urban, industrial, export); and depending on whether the market is in the emergent, expansion, mature or declining phase of its development cycle.

The large component of forest product

activities in the rural sector reflects the

size of rural markets for these products,

and the dispersion of these markets

across large areas with a relatively poor

transport infrastructure, so that they are

more effectively supplied locally. Those

that are likely to continue to be viable

as improvement in rural infrastructure

exposes rural producers to competition

from urban producers are likely to be

those with characteristics that favour

local processing. Examples are those

based on dispersed raw materials, local

markets where small quantities are

traded or there are high transport costs;

those where there are economies of small

scale, such as in handicraft production; Local vegetal leather processing by a rubber tapper or those where subcontracting is more in Alto Juruá, Brazil. Local processing is often more viable where the raw material is highly dispersed,

efficient than are integrated operations as in the case of natural rubber (photo by Manuel (FAO 1987).

Ruiz Pérez).

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

In situations where population is growing faster than per capita incomes, NTFP

activities emerge largely to absorb people unable to obtain employment, or sufficient employment, in agriculture. Instead they turn to income from labour-intensive, low-return, typically household-based activities such as collecting and mat making.

In situations where per capita incomes are rising, such low-return, labour-intensive activities tend to give way to more productive and remunerative activities such as vending, trading and activities to meet growing and diversifying rural demands.

At that stage, involvement in NTFPs increasingly shifts from a part-time activity by very large numbers of people to more specialised year-round operations, and from household to workshop scale, and from rural to small settlement and urban locations (Haggblade and Liedholm 1991).

An important influence in shaping NTFP activity is usually the agricultural situation

activities tend to reflect the pattern of resources on-farm, the products that can be generated as a by-product of the agricultural cycle (e.g., production of wood fuels where land clearance is taking place), and the availability of labour and the alternatives to which available labour can be deployed (Arnold and Townson 1995).

It therefore becomes important to be able to understand which of these product, market and employment options are present, or could be developed in a particular situation. Different situations thus have different potentials, and limitations, that call for different possible responses (Ruiz Pérez and Byron in press). People searching for activities with which they can economically sustain themselves face different needs than those who are responding to market opportunities. The existence in many poor and stagnant situations of huge numbers of people still engaged in low-return NTFP activities, which have little prospect of other than short-term existence, presents particular issues. Support to low-return NTFP activities once higher-return or less arduous alternatives emerge could impede the emergence of better livelihood systems.

It may be more fruitful to help people move into other more rewarding fields of endeavour rather than seeking to raise their productivity in their current line of work.

Care needs to be taken in such a case to ensure that future growth prospects are indeed better in the alternative product lines to which people are being encouraged to move (Liedholm and Mead 1993; Arnold et al. 1994). It may be necessary to plan separately for those among the very poor and disadvantaged who continue to rely on such NTFPs for survival, and for those engaged in NTFP activities that form part of the process of growth and development. In other words, it may often be necessary in designing and implementing policy and other institutional interventions to distinguish between those who can improve their livelihoods through NTFP activities, and those who have no other option but to gather NTFPs in order to survive.

References

Afsah, S. 1992. Extractive reserves: economic-environmental issues and marketing strategies for non-timber forest products. ENVAP, World Bank, Washington, DC

(draft).

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

Almeida, M.W.B. 1996. Household extractive economies. In: Ruiz Pérez, M. and Arnold, J.E.M. (eds.) Current issues in non-timber forest products research, 119-41. CIFOR-ODA, Bogor, Indonesia.

Anderson, A.B. and Ioris, E.M. 1992. The logic of extraction: resource management and income generation by extractive producers in the Amazon. In: Redford, K.H.

and Padoch, C. (eds.) Conservation of neotropical forests: working from traditional resource use, 179-99. Columbia University Press, New York.

Arnold, J.E.M. 1998. Managing forests as common property. Forestry Paper Series 136. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Arnold, J.E.M. and Townson, I.M. 1995. Structure and change in forest product activities that generate rural incomes: evidence from Africa. Paper prepared for Session S6.11-01, IUFRO XX World Forestry Congress, Tampere, Finland, 6-12

August 1995.

Arnold, J.E.M., Liedholm, C., Mead, D. and Townson, I.M. 1994. Structure and growth of small enterprises using forest products in Southern and Eastern Africa.

OFI Occasional Papers No. 47. Oxford Forestry Institute, Oxford, UK. (Also published as GEMINI Working Paper No. 48. Growth and Equity through Microenterprise Investments and Institutions (GEMINI) Project, Bethesda, Maryland.)

Balée, W. 1989. The culture of Amazonian forests. In: Balée, W. and Posey, D.A.

(eds.) Resource management in Amazonia: indigenous and folk strategies. Advances in Economic Botany 7: 1-21.

Balick, M.J. and Mendelsohn, R. 1992. Assessing the economic value of traditional medicines from tropical rain forests. Conservation Biology 6: 128-30.

BCN (Biodiversity Conservation Network). 1997. Annual report for 1996. Stories from the field and lessons learned. BCN, Washington, DC.

Bodmer, R.E., Fang, T.G. and Moya, I.L. 1988. Primates and ungulates: a comparison in susceptibility to hunting. Primate Conservation 2: 79-83.

Browder, J.O. 1992. The limits of extractivism: tropical forest strategies beyond extractive reserves. BioScience 42: 174-82.

Bunker, S. 1985. Underdeveloping the Amazon: extraction, unequal exchange, and the failure of the modern state. University of Illinois Press, Chicago.

Chambers, R. and Leach, M. 1987. Trees to meet contingencies: savings and security for the rural poor. Discussion Paper 228, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.

CNS-IEA-FF (Conselho Nacional de Seringueiros Instituto de Estudios Amazonicos

Ford Foundation) 1991. Alternativas Económicas para as Reservas Extrativistas.

Rio Branco (AC, Brazil), February 1991. Mimeo.

COICA (Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica). 1989.

Two agendas on Amazon development. Cultural Survival Quarterly 13(4): 75-87.

Conklin, B.A. and Graham, L.R. 1995. The shifting middle ground: Amazonian Indians and eco-politics. American Anthropologist 97: 695-710.

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

Cunningham, A.B. and Mbenkum, F.T. 1993. Sustainability of harvesting Prunus africana bark in Cameroon. People and Plants Working Paper No. 2, May 1993.

UNESCO, Paris, France.

Davies, A.G. and Richards, P. 1991. Rain forest in Mende life: resources and subsistence strategies in rural communities around the Gola North Forest Reserve (Sierra Leone). A report to ESCOR, UK Overseas Development Administration, London, UK.

Davis, S.H. and Wali, A. 1993. Indigenous territories and tropical forest management in Latin America. Policy Research Working Paper Series No. 1100, World Bank.

Washington, DC.

de Beer, J.H. and McDermott, M.J. 1996. The economic value of non-timber forest products in Southeast Asia. Second edition. Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Dewees, P.A. and Scherr, S.J. 1995. Policies and markets for non-timber tree products.

Draft Working Paper. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Dove, M.R. 1993. A revisionist view of tropical deforestation and development.

Environmental Conservation 20: 17-24, 56.

Dove, M.R. 1995 Political versus techno-economic factors in the development of non-timber forest products: lessons from a comparison of natural and cultivated rubbers in South-east Asia (and South America). Society and Natural Resources 8: 193-208.

Dufour, D.L. 1990. Use of tropical rainforest by native Amazonians. BioScience 40: 652-9.

Evans, M.I. 1993. Conservation by commercialization. In: Hladik, C.M., Hladik, A., Linares, O.F., Pagezy, H., Semple, A. and Hadley, M. (eds.) Tropical forests, people and food: biocultural interactions and applications to development, 815-22. MAB Series, Vol. 13. UNESCO, Paris and Parthenon Publishing Group, Carnforth, UK.

Fa, J.E., Juste, J., Pérez del Val, J. and Castroviejo, J. 1995. Impact of market hunting on mammal species in equatorial Guinea. Conservation Biology 9: 1107-15.

Falconer, J. 1994. Non-timber forest products in Southern Ghana: main report .

Republic of Ghana Forestry Department and Overseas Development Administration, Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK.

Falconer, J. 1996. Developing research frames for non-timber forest products.

Experience from Ghana. In: Ruiz Pérez, M. and Arnold, J.E.M. (eds.) Current issues in non-timber forest products research, 143-60. CIFOR-ODA, Bogor, Indonesia.

Falconer, J. and Arnold, J.E.M. 1989. Household food security and forestry: an analysis of socioeconomic issues. Community Forestry Note 1. FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) 1987. Small-scale forest based processing enterprises. Forestry Paper 79. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) 1995. Report of the International Expert Consultation on Non-Wood Forest Products. Non-Wood Forest Products, 3. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Fernandes, W. and Menon, G. 1987. Tribal women and forest economy. Indian Social Institute, New Delhi, India.

Fitzgibbon, C.D., Mogaka, H. and Fanshawe, J.H. 1995. Subsistence hunting in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya, and its effects on mammal populations.

Conservation Biology 9: 1116-26.

Freese, C. 1996. The commercial, consumptive use of wild species: managing it for the benefit of biodiversity. WWF Discussion Paper. WWF, Washington, DC.

Gibbs, C.J.N. and Bromley, D.W. 1989. Institutional arrangements for management of rural resources: common property regimes. In: Berkes, F. (ed.) Common property resources ecology and community-based sustainable development, 22-32. Belhaven Press with IUCN, London, UK.

Godoy, R. and Bawa, K.S. 1993. The economic value and sustainable harvest of plants and animals from the tropical forests: assumptions, hypotheses and methods.

Economic Botany 47: 215-19.

González, N. 1992. We are not conservationists. Cultural Survival Quarterly 16(3): 43-5.

Gray, A. 1990. Indigenous peoples and the marketing of the rainforest. The Ecologist 20: 223-7.

Grenand, P. and Grenand, F. 1996. Living in abundance. The forest of the Wayampi (Amerindians from French Guiana). In: Ruiz Pérez, M. and Arnold, J.E.M. (eds.) Current issues in non-timber forest products research, 177-96. CIFOR-ODA, Bogor, Indonesia.

Gunatilake, H.M., Senaratne, A.H. and Abeygunawardena, P. 1993. Role of nontimber forest products in the economy of peripheral communities of Knuckles National Wilderness area in Sri Lanka: a farming systems approach. Economic Botany 47: 275-81.

Haggblade, S. and Liedholm, C. 1991. Agriculture, rural labor markets, and evolution of the rural nonfarm economy. GEMINI Working Paper No. 19. Growth and Equity through Microenterprise Investments and Institutions (GEMINI) Project, Bethesda, Maryland.

Hecht, S.B., Anderson, A. and May, P. 1988. The subsidy from nature: shifting cultivation, successional palm forests and rural development. Human Organization 47: 25-35.

Hobley, M. 1996. Institutional change within the forest sector: centralised decentralisation. Working Paper 92. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

Advances in Economic Botany 9: 23-32.

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

Homma, A.K.O. 1996. Modernisation and technological dualism in the extractive economy in Amazonia. In: Ruiz Pérez, M. and Arnold, J.E.M. (eds.) Current issues in non-timber forest products research, 59-81. CIFOR-ODA, Bogor, Indonesia.

Hopkins, J.C., Scherr, S.J. and Gruhn, P. 1994. Food security and the commons: evidence from Niger. Draft report to USAID Niger. IFPRI, Washington, DC.

Jodha, N.S. 1990. Rural common property resources: contributions and crisis.

Economic and Political Weekly Quarterly Review of Agriculture 25(26): 65.

Kainer, K.A. and Duryea, M.L. 1992. Tapping womens knowledge: plant resource use in extractive reserves, Acre, Brazil. Economic Botany 46: 408-25.

Kamara, J.N. 1986. Firewood energy in Sierra Leone: production, marketing and household use patterns. Verlag Weltarchiv Studies No. 9. Hamburg, Germany.

Leach, M. and Fairhead, J. 1994. The forest islands of Kissidougou: social dynamics of environmental change in West Africas forest-savanna mosaic. Report to ESCOR.

UK Overseas Development Administration, London, UK.

Leach, M. and Mearns, R. 1996. Environmental change and policy: challenging received wisdom in Africa. In: Leach, M. and Mearns, R. (eds.) The lie of the land: challenging received wisdom on the African environment, 1-33. James Currey, Oxford for The International African Institute, London, UK.

Liedholm, C. and Mead, D.C. 1993. The structure and growth of microenterprises in Southern and Eastern Africa. GEMINI Working Paper No. 36. Growth and Equity through Microenterprise Investments and Institutions (GEMINI) Project, Bethesda, Maryland.

Lynch, O.J. and Talbott, K. 1995. Balancing acts: community-based forest management and national law in Asia and the Pacific . World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

May, P.H., Anderson, A.B., Balick, M.J. and Unruh, J. 1985. Babaçu palm in the agroforestry systems in Brazils mid-north region. Agroforestry Systems 3: 275-95.

McElwee, P. 1994. Common property and commercialisation: developing appropriate tools for analysis. MSc Dissertation, Oxford Forestry Institute, University of Oxford, UK.

McKean, M.A. and Ostrom, E. 1995. Common property regimes in the forest: just a relic from the past? Unasylva 46(180): 3-15.

Melnyk, M. 1993. The effects of sedenterization on agriculture and forest resources in Southern Venezuela. Network Paper 16b, Rural Development Forestry Network, ODI, London, UK.

Michon, G. and de Foresta, H. 1995. The Indonesian agro-forest model. In: Halladay, P. and Gilmour, D. (eds.) Conserving biodiversity outside protected areas. The role of traditional agro-ecosystems, 90-106. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Myers, N. 1988 Tropical forests: much more than stocks of wood. Journal of Tropical Ecology 4: 209-21.

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

Ndoye, O., Ruiz Pérez, M. and Eyebe, A. 1997. The markets of non-timber forest products in the humid forest zone of Cameroon. ODI Rural Development Forestry Network Paper 22c. ODI, London, UK.

Nepstad, D.C. and Schwartzman, S. 1992. Introduction: non-timber products from tropical forests: evaluation of a conservation and development strategy. In: Nepstad, D.C. and Schwartzman, S. (eds.) Non-timber products from tropical forests: evaluation of a conservation and development strategy. Advances in Economic Botany 9: vii-xii.

Neumann, R.P. 1996. Forest products research in relation to conservation policies in Africa. In: Ruiz Pérez, M. and Arnold, J.E.M. (eds.) Current issues in non-timber forest products research, 161-76. CIFOR-ODA, Bogor, Indonesia.

Nguyen Thi Yen, Nguyen Quang Duc, Vu Manh Thien, Dang Duc Phuong and Ogle, B.A. 1994. Dependency on forest and tree products for food security: a pilot study in Yen Huong Commune, Ham Yen District, Tuyen Quang Province, North Vietnam. Working Paper 250. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

Ogle, B.A. 1996. Peoples dependency on forests for food security. Some lessons learnt from a programme of case studies. In: Ruiz Pérez, M. and Arnold, J.E.M.

(eds.) Current issues in non-timber forest products research, 219-41. CIFOR-ODA, Bogor, Indonesia.

Olsson, G. 1991. Forests and forest product use in Vanuatu and Tonga. Working Paper 2, RAS/86/036. South Pacific Forestry Development Programme, FAO/

UNDP, Port Vila, Vanuatu.

Padoch, C. 1992. Marketing of non-timber forest products in Western Amazonia: general observations and research priorities. In: Nepstad, D.C. and Schwartzman, S. (eds.) Non-timber products from tropical forests: evaluation of a conservation and development strategy. Advances in Economic Botany 9: 43-50.

Panayotou, T. and Ashton, P. 1992. Not by timber alone. Economics and ecology for sustaining tropical forests. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Peluso, N.L. and Padoch, C. 1996. Changing resource rights in managed forests of West Kalimantan. In: Peluso, N.L. and Padoch, C. (eds.) Borneo in transition: people, forests, conservation, and development, 121-36. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Pendelton, L.H. 1992. Trouble in paradise: practical obstacles to non-timber forestry in Latin America. In: Plotkin, M. and Famolare, L. (eds.) Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products, 252-62. Conservation InternationalIsland Press, Washington, DC.

Peters, C.M. 1994. Sustainable harvest of non-timber plant resources in tropical moist forest: an ecological primer. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC.

Peters, C.M. 1996. Observations on the sustainable exploitation of non-timber tropical forest products. In: Ruiz Pérez, M. and Arnold, J.E.M. (eds.) Current issues in nontimber forest products research, 19-39. CIFOR-ODA, Bogor, Indonesia.

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

Peters, C.M., Balick, M.J., Kahn, F. and Anderson, A.B. 1989a. Oligarchic forests of economic plants in Amazonia: utilization and conservation of an important tropical resource. Conservation Biology 3: 341-9.

Peters, C.M., Gentry, A.H. and Mendelsohn, R.O. 1989b. Valuation of an Amazonian rainforest. Nature 339: 655-6.

Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Zarin, D. and Jipp, P. 1990. Economic returns from forest conversion in the Peruvian Amazon. Ecological Economics 6: 163-73.

Plotkin, M. and Famolare, L. 1992. Preface. In: Plotkin, M. and Famolare, L. (eds.) Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products, xiii-xv. Conservation InternationalIsland Press, Washington, DC.

Poore, D., Burgess, P., Palmer, J., Rietbergen, S. and Synnott, T. 1989. No timber without trees: sustainability in the tropical forest. Earthscan, London, UK.

Posey, D.A. 1982. The keepers of the forest. Garden 6: 18-24.

Prance, G.T. 1990. Fruits of the rainforest. New Scientist, 13 January 1990, 42-5.

Prance, G.T. 1992. Amazonian tree diversity and its potential for non-timber forest products. Paper presented at the Edinburgh Tropical Forestry Conference, August 1992.

Rasmussen, L.N. and Meinzen-Dick, R. 1996. Local organizations for natural resource management: lessons from theoretical and empirical literature. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 11. IFPRI, Washington, DC.

Redford, K.H. 1992. The empty forest. BioScience 42: 412-22.

Redford, K.H. 1996. Not seeing the animals for the trees: the many values of wild animals in forest ecosystems. In: Ruiz Pérez, M. and Arnold, J.E.M. (eds.) Current issues in non-timber forest products research, 41-57. CIFOR-ODA, Bogor, Indonesia.

Redford, K.H. and Mansour, J.A. (eds.) 1996. Traditional peoples and biodiversity conservation in large tropical landscapes. America Verde Publications for The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

Redford, K.H. and Stearman, A.M. 1993. Forest-dwelling native Amazonians and the conservation of biodiversity: interests in common or in collision? Conservation Biology 7: 248-55.

Ruiz Pérez, M. and Byron, N. Interpreting diverging theories on the development potential of non-timber forest products. Forest Science 44(1): in press.

Scoones, I., Melnyk, M. and Pretty, J. 1992. The hidden harvest: wild foods and agricultural systems: a literature review and annotated bibliography. IIED, SIDA and WWF, London, UK and Gland, Switzerland.

Shepherd, G. 1992. Managing Africas tropical dry forests: a review of indigenous methods. Agricultural Occasional Paper 14, Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

Siebert, S. and Belsky, J.M. 1985. Forest product trade in a lowland Filipino village.

Economic Botany 39: 522-33.

Role of NTFPs in Conservation and Development

Simpson, R.D., Sedjo, R.A. and Reid, J.W. 1996. Valuing biodiversity for use in pharmaceutical research. Journal of Political Economy 104: 163-85.

Southgate, D., Coles-Ritchie, M. and Salazar-Canelos, P. 1994. Can tropical forests be saved by harvesting non-timber products? Paper presented at conference on Forestry and the Environment: Economic Perspectives, Banff National Park, 12-15 October 1994.

Stiles, D. 1994. Tribals and trade: a strategy for cultural and ecological survival. Ambio 23: 106-11.

Stocks, A. 1996 The Bosawas natural reserve and the Mayangna of Nicaragua. In: Redford, K.H. and Mansour, J.A. (eds.) Traditional peoples and biodiversity conservation in large tropical landscapes, 1-31. America Verde Publications for The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

Townson, I.M. 1995. Forest products and household incomes: a review and annotated bibliography. Tropical Forestry Papers 31. CIFOR and OFI, Oxford, UK.

Vasquez, R. and Gentry, A. 1989. Use and misuse of forest harvested fruits in the Iquitos area. Conservation Biology 3: 350-61.

Wilkie, D.S. and Godoy, R.A. 1996. Trade, indigenous rain forest economies and biological diversity. model predictions and directions for research. In: Ruiz Pérez, M. and Arnold, J.E.M. (eds.) Current issues in non-timber forest products research, 83-102. CIFOR-ODA, Bogor, Indonesia.

Chapter Three

Turning Ideas into Action: Planning for

Non-timber Forest Product Development

and Conservation

Wil de Jong and Rudijanta Utama

Effective planning for non-timber forest product (NTFP) development and conservation will ensure the most effective use of scarce resources and maximise the likelihood that the objective is attained. NTFP development and conservation is usually a long-term activity over several years at least and involves the collaboration of a number of different, quite independent parties. This has implications for the kind of planning that needs to be undertaken.

This chapter will review three issues: (1) involvement of local stakeholders in planning NTFP development and conservation; (2) the constraints that availability of information places on planning; and (3) the difficulties of planning appropriate biological monitoring. We argue that planning for these three concerns in NTFP

development and conservation requires a special approach because of the nature of such initiatives. To demonstrate these points, examples are used from the NTFP

enterprise development effort in which Yayasan Dian Tama, a local NGO, has been engaged. This NTFP enterprise development is part of the Social Forestry Development Project, located in the district of Sanggau, West Kalimantan. It is a collaboration between the governments of Indonesia and Germany to achieve communal sustainable forest management in a pilot forest area in West Kalimantan, Indonesia.

Yayasan Dian Tama (YDT) is based in Pontianak, West Kalimantan, and its objectives are to develop appropriate technology to increase the effectiveness of existing traditional economic activities, and thus contribute to socioeconomic development of the province (see also Chapter Six). Since 1991 YDT has been a main collaborator in the Social Forestry Development Project. The group has been in charge of market development and commercialisation of commodities produced in the Participatory Forest Management Area a model concession for participatory forest management on state forest land in the north of Sanggau district in West Kalimantan. It covers an area of about 102 250 hectares and has about 17 000

inhabitants. The main activities focus on reforestation of areas under grassland or swidden fallows, the improvement and commercialisation of existing agricultural and agroforestry systems, and sustainable harvesting and sale of forest products (Yayasan Dian Tama 1995).

Yayasan Dian Tama has been responsible for the development of a manufacturing chain for bamboo and rattan products, and for the exploitation and sales of damar, or Planning for NTFP Development and Conservation

Figure 3.1 Location of the Social Forestry Development Project INDONESIA

South China Sea

MALAYSIA

Pontianak

Kalimantan

Jakarta

Sanggau

West Kalimantan

500

1000

1500 Kilometres

resins, that are harvested from dipterocarp and other trees. Bamboo and rattan are being harvested and manufactured into mats and baskets, using traditional weaving techniques and designs. These mats and baskets are sold to a Jakarta-based company that makes them into fashion bags to be sold at department store outlets, inside and outside Indonesia. The production of fashion bags was preferred as locally produced traditional handicrafts face strong competition in national markets. Damar is to be sold to the varnish and lacquer-producing industry.

Planning for projects

Mintzberg, in his book on strategic planning (1994: 12), defines planning as ..a formalized procedure to produce an articulated result, in the form of an integrated system of decisions. Steiner (1971 cited in Mintzberg 1994) argues that plans can and should be to the fullest possible extent objective, factual, logical, and realistic in establishing objectives and devising means to obtain them. The normalisation of the planning process is our particular concern here. The kind of planning appropriate in NTFP development and conservation is development project planning. Such projects are operations designed to achieve a social or economic development goal.

Usually, development projects affect several thousand people, include a number of core participants (project staff), involve other institutions and their personnel, span several years, and have budgets above US$100 000.

Recent development project literature has identified three formalised procedures that form part of project planning, and that are of interest for the following discussion.

They are: (1) the need to include important stakeholders in the problem analysis and planning process; (2) the use of a logical framework procedure, currently considered the most adequate procedure to analyse the problems to be addressed, and subsequently construct a transparent plan; and (3) appropriate monitoring of progress and impact.

Planning for NTFP Development and Conservation

In modern development efforts problem analysis is considered necessary before project planning can even begin. Once a thorough problem analysis has been completed, the project goals can be identified and defined (MDF 1997). Additionally the importance of participation of the directly affected stakeholders in the project execution is considered vital to ensure success. The initial problem analysis that is to precede the actual planning of a development intervention should involve all important stakeholders, even at this stage. Based on such multi-stakeholder problem analysis, a plan for the intervention can be designed. For stakeholders to accept such a plan, they have to agree on what the problems are, what the possible solutions are for the problems and how they are to be implemented. It is believed that only when all the stakeholders agree on the underlying problems to be solved and the solutions, will they be committed to the implementation of the development intervention.

An analysis of problems will logically lead to a formulation of intervention objectives, based on which the planning can be conducted. For each objective the expected outcomes or results of the intervention are defined. For each result, the required activities to be undertaken are identified, as well as the resources needed, the means to verify success, and the assumptions that have to be met for an activity to achieve its intended result. A logical framework is constructed in which each objective and its related outcomes, activities and assumptions are detailed and recorded (MDF 1997).

In addition to this formalised planning procedure, increased importance has been given to project monitoring. Such monitoring is important at all phases of a project, so that progress can be continuously reviewed and appropriate feedback given. The monitoring process needs to be set up at the beginning of the intervention and thus requires planning.

Development planning for NTFPs does have special features that should be considered when applying a logical framework. Attention needs to be given to the issues of involving local stakeholders, conflict resulting from decisions, availability of information and biological monitoring.

Planning and Participation: Some Problems

When planning an NTFP development and conservation initiative, relevant stakeholders should be collaboratively involved in the design of activities as much as possible. The relevant stakeholders will most likely vary among cases. In general, NTFP development and conservation efforts will concern: (1) local people, also identified as the active stakeholders (Beckley et al. 1997) or as the micro-level stakeholders (FM/CD 1996); and (2) managers or stewards (Beckley et al. 1997) or the macro-level stakeholders (FM/CD 1996). This last group of stakeholders will most likely include some kind of government officials, as well as representatives of conservation organisations who may actively participate in the effort.

In both the Social Forestry Development Project (SFDP), as well as in Yayasan Dian Tamas NTFP enterprise development, full participation by the relevant stakeholders was a goal from the outset of the interventions. Those whose demands Planning for NTFP Development and Conservation

on the forest needed to be considered were the inhabitants of the Participatory Forest Management Area, the Ministry of Forestry, the District Government, as well as the SFDP staff. In hindsight, the participation of the Participatory Forest Management Area inhabitants especially has only been partly successful. Two reasons for this shortcoming can be identified. First, the agenda of the involved state forestry agencies and funding agency was largely defined before the project began. Secondly, there was no existing organised body that could represent the local stakeholders in the negotiation and the execution of future forest management. Both of these conditions are common in other situations where NTFP development and conservation is planned.

Pursuing whose agenda?

As the Social Forestry Development Project is a GTZ-sponsored effort, extensive Goal Oriented Project Planning (also known by the German acronym ZOPP from Zielorientierte Projektplanung) exercises were conducted in a number of villages in the Participatory Forest Management Area as soon as the project was operating.

These exercises established very good rapport between project staff and villagers.

Problem trees were constructed, which are graphic displays of all the problems identified by the participants in the ZOPP, and these are then linked to the most important underlying causes. Village development plans were next designed to address the underlying causes. The SFDP organised meetings in which interested parties, village representatives, government officials from different levels, forestry officials, collaborating scientists, and project staff participated to plan the following phases of the project, again using ZOPP methodologies. These last exercises were used to define the complete set of actions of the entire project.

Several of the activities that finally were decided as priorities for the Social Forestry Development Project were not outcomes from the village participatory planning meetings. The reforestation programme that was launched in 1994 and the NTFP

development efforts lacked genuine co-decision among all the involved stakeholders.

The reforestation plan was a direct outcome of financial input from Indonesias Reforestation Fund from which one billion Rupiah (then about US$500 000) were made available to the project, partly to be used for reforestation purposes. This contribution was only made available after persistent lobbying by the SFDP to obtain a host country contribution to the project. Initially NTFP development was to address the problems of increasing villagers incomes. Much of the way the NTFP

development activities were carried out was determined by the agenda of the funding agency, the Biodiversity Conservation Network, which had to meet its own objectives.

The interests of the funding agency, for instance, led to the decision to work with NTFPs, rather than developing agricultural commodities even though the latter appeared to be the better candidates to increase local incomes (see also below). At a later stage, SFDP did begin activities directed at improving agricultural production.

Representing local stakeholders

The Social Forestry Development Project has consistently addressed the issue of representation of the inhabitants in its target area. The project perceived that forest-

Planning for NTFP Development and Conservation

related problems were the result of poor

communication between the three directly

involved stakeholders: the local people, the

local and regional governments, and the state

forestry representatives. Initially many efforts

were directed at setting up one representative

body. This Lembaga Pengelolaan Hutan

Partisipatif or the Social Forest Management

Institution was created to represent the village

inhabitants in the target area. Initially this

Lembaga was intended eventually to be the sole

responsible organisation for the sustainable

management of the natural resources, following

guidelines laid down in a management plan for

the area. Under Indonesian law a Lembaga does

not have the authority to be commercially

active. Hence, under a revised scheme there

Representation of local stakeholders who

have a very different cultural background than will be two representative bodies. One is the developing agencies is a major challenge Lembaga but it will be renamed Lembaga Kerja (photo by Wil de Jong).

Antara Desa (or the Intervillage Collaboration

Institution) and a Cooperative. The new Lembaga will be responsible for the implementation of the Tata Guna Lahan Desa Kesepakatan or the participatory land use planning that was conducted in the area, conflict resolution, enforcement of adat (traditional laws) and representation of the populations interest to outside parties.

The Cooperative will be responsible for commercial activities, including management of 12 000 ha of primary forest for timber harvesting.

At the time this chapter was written, the Lembaga was in operation and the Cooperative had just been installed. They receive much advisory input from the SFDP and other partners. Eventually it is expected that the Lembaga and the Cooperative will become independent organisations in charge of the 102 250 ha of state forest land (only half of which is currently under forest), but has to comply with the agreed management plan. They will be accountable to the Ministry of Forestry.

This process has taken more than four years. Any new intervention in the target area in theory will have to be discussed and decided in collaboration with the Lembaga, and this institution will theoretically have the power to stop activities it considers inappropriate.

The way SFDP has proceeded with involving local stakeholders, specifically organising the Lembaga and the Cooperative, demonstrates issues that are more generally of concern in involving local stakeholders in NTFP development and conservation projects. Such involvement of local stakeholders is not easy to achieve.

Representatives have to be identified that legitimately and genuinely can speak for the local stakeholders, and through them a process of true representation has to be initiated. Introduction, coordination and negotiations may be scheduled through village meetings, and village leaders may become the local stakeholder representatives.

Planning for NTFP Development and Conservation

Alternatively, existing farmers, ethnic or other representative organisations may exist and may be approached. In many situations, however, some kind of organisational structure has to be set up that can represent local stakeholders. This organisation not only has to be established, but its functioning has to be facilitated, through provision of training and advisory services for its members. Achieving a true participation of local stakeholders is an extremely difficult task, but arguably the most important, as its success is not only a prerequisite for the success of the NTFP development and conservation effort, but it will ensure that activities can be continued beyond the exercise.

Planning and Information Needs

NTFP development and conservation is often undertaken in circumstances where little information is available, especially information specific to NTFPs. When planning concerns long time horizons, as in NTFP development and conservation initiatives, high levels of uncertainty affect the capacity to make informed decisions.

As information collection is costly and time consuming, an iterative decision making and information collecting process should be used. Some decisions consciously have to be based on the availability of information. Collection of information also has to be planned as repeated distinct activities.

Selecting NTFP target species

The need to allow for such a stepwise progress of planning can be demonstrated with the examples of Yayasan Dian Tamas NTFP Enterprise Development initiative.

Undoubtedly one of the most important decisions that had to be taken in this initiative was the selection of NTFPs for development. This decision was taken over a period of almost two years in a sequence of iterative stages.

The decision to generate or increase incomes from NTFP sales was taken early in the life of the Social Forestry Development Project. In January 1993, a preliminary selection was made of candidate products, using the matrix analysis as presented in Table 3.1. Information relied largely on the expert knowledge of people who participated in this exercise. The criteria used for selecting products included the current use of commodities in the target area, and their importance in local, national and international markets. The commodities that were sold inside and outside Indonesia were given preference, as the existence of markets was considered the principal constraint to promoting sales of any commodity. At this time there was almost no information available on either the forests and prevailing resources, the economics of the people living in that area, or the market opportunities of any of the commodities that could become NTFP development candidates.

At an evaluation/planning meeting in May 1993, both the Social Forestry Development Project and Yayasan Dian Tama decided it was necessary to develop a detailed market and business plan for the commercialisation of NTFPs. At the same time it was decided that Yayasan Dian Tama would attempt to obtain additional Planning for NTFP Development and Conservation

Table 3.1 Initial matrix analysis to select NTFPs for development Marketing scope

Local importance

Inside

Inside Kalimantan

Inside and

Kalimantan

and other islands in

outside

Indonesia

Commodity used and sold in

rubber

target area

Commodity used and not sold

honey

in target area but sold

elsewhere

Commodity not used and not

ironwood, resins,

ironwood,

sold in target area, but sold

bamboo/rattan

resins,

elsewhere

bamboo/rattan

funding. At this point a new assessment had to be made of possible candidate species.

Already much more information had been collected on natural resources in the Participatory Forest Management Area. The SFDP had also finished its forestry inventories (Ramon 1993) and a GTZ-funded Junior Project Officer had collaborated with Yayasan Dian Tama for one year in conducting studies on potential NTFP

commodities (Grossman 1993). Several scientists had conducted studies in the area on forest utilisation (e.g., Peters 1992; de Jong 1993). Using this information Yayasan Dian Tama prepared a funding proposal to the Biodiversity Conservation Network that identified illipe nut, resins, wild fruits, rattan and rubber as candidate products for development.

The final selection of the target products rattan, bamboo and damar was made in April 1994, using a valuation and ranking exercise (e.g., Franzel et al. 1996). A total of 14 commodities were compared at this meeting, using five ecological, five socioeconomic and five enterprise-related criteria. Each commodity was given a value between 1 and 3 for each criterion, and these values were totalled for each commodity and recorded in a matrix (Table 3.2). The SFDP had also conducted a detailed study on potential NTFP from the Participatory Forest Management Area (Graefen and Syafrudin 1994), and Yayasan Dian Tama had carried out more market studies. This information was used to support the ranking exercise. Two agricultural commodities, rubber and domesticated pigs, received the highest scores, and would have been the better candidates for income generation according to the selection criteria used. However, these choices were not compatible with the requirements of the funding agencies.

Enterprise orientation

The proposal to the Biodiversity Conservation Network could only be prepared after the three products were selected. This proposal had to include business plans for each product, describing the expected costs of operation, as well as the expected benefits for the duration of the funding. This required additional information specific to the selected species that was too costly to collect during previous surveys and inventories. Once Planning for NTFP Development and Conservation

Table 3.2 Ranking of 14 NTFP target commodities l

COMMODITY

ltu

oms

ina

e N

aff

Illip

Mush

CRITERIA

Ecological

• Availability in

time

• Availability in

space

• Harvest time

• Harvesting

impact

• Regeneration

potential

Subtotal I

Socioeconomic

• Part used

• Income

contribution

• Sociocultural

compatibility

• Employment

creation potential

• Impact on

gender

Subtotal II

Enterprise orientation

• Market potential

• Competition

• Market entry

constraint

• Profit/margin

benefits

• Processing

technology place

Subtotal III

TOTAL SCORE

funding was secured, a subsector analysis was conducted for each of the targeted commodities, which involved preparing a model (subsector map) that included all current participants, activities, infrastructure and policy measures relating to the targeted commodity (see Belcher, this volume). A precise identification of the required

Planning for NTFP Development and Conservation

Developing NTFPs (such as this wild pig) or agricultural products is a planning question that needs to be answered (photo by Wil de Jong).

intervention can thus be accomplished and planned for. Such a subsector analysis also requires information that is again very commodity specific, and cannot be conducted unless it is very clear that the commodity is worth developing (Haggblade and Gamser 1991).

Allowing for iterative planning

The Yayasan Dian Tama NTFP enterprise development had little existing information available and had to develop its own methods to rationally determine which commodities to work with. Several of the steps followed may be typical for NTFP

development and conservation efforts. In most cases where NTFP development initiatives are conducted, little information is available on the forest and its commodities, on the economy of the people who live in the region, or on market opportunities for commodities found in the area. Collection of information has to be economical and thus conducted as a function of decisions taken in the course of planning the NTFP development effort. Possible target NTFP commodities have to be chosen before collecting information to assess profitability of the development of these commodities. Such a financial analysis precedes preparation of a subsector analysis. In addition, an accurate subsector analysis requires updating as interventions are carried out to modify subsequent activities. This means that information has to be collected regularly, and planning decisions adjusted accordingly.

Therefore, one of the major conclusions of the Yayasan Dian Tama experience is that NTFP development and conservation planning should be an iterative processes, because of the need for information that is generally not available, is costly to collect, and has to be gathered in response to specific needs as they arise. The collection of this information should be part of the planned activities.

Planning for NTFP Development and Conservation

Planning and Biological Monitoring

Monitoring in a development project usually concerns reviewing implementation of activities, expenditure of resources and impacts, according to the original objectives of the project. NTFP development and conservation interventions need an additional type of monitoring related to the products harvested and the habitats from which they are collected. Whether the intervention aims to increase NTFP harvesting to generate incomes or to conserve NTFPs that are already being harvested, monitoring is needed to assess the impact on the natural resource. Such biological monitoring can require sophisticated data collection and analysis. To date this work has been possible only with trained experts and is expensive to carry out. Biological monitoring is one of the most difficult challenges for NTFP development and conservation planning.

In this context, biological monitoring aims to determine whether NTFPs are harvested in a sustainable fashion. This means not only the collection of information after interventions have occurred, but also conducting initial baseline studies to assess the impact of the intervention. Additionally, some mechanisms have to be set up to adjust harvesting to the appropriate sustainable levels.

Biological monitoring principles

An assessment of the sustainability of harvesting requires an adequate understanding of the demography of the targeted species. The principle of sustainability suggests that the condition of the population does not change as a consequence of harvesting.

Studies are therefore necessary that produce an initial estimate of possible harvesting levels, as well as to provide a reference for the assessment of harvesting impacts.

Densities and size class distributions are the two main features of a species population. They are indicators of the current population structure, of the harvestable individuals per hectare and can be used to provide a preliminary assessment of the regeneration status of the species (Peters 1996a). Growth and yield studies provide more accurate estimates of sustainable harvesting levels, although usually at greater costs. Density and size class distribution can also be used to assess harvesting impact.

Frequent measurement of these characteristics will reveal changes that indicate overharvesting and adjustments can be made. If total or relative densities of some of the size classes are diminishing, the species is being overharvested. Impacts can also be assessed by observing the vigour of harvested individuals (Peters 1996a).

Planning biological monitoring

Biological monitoring present three main difficulties. First, specialised skills for data collection and especially data analysis are required. Secondly, the time horizon for monitoring some products can be extremely long. Peters (1996b) suggests intervals of five years between regeneration surveys for some species. In some cases, the impact of harvesting will only be noticeable after even longer periods. Thirdly, if conducted strictly according to accepted methods, biological monitoring may become Planning for NTFP Development and Conservation

very expensive; so expensive that its cost outweighs the economic benefits of the harvesting and sales, with or without added value, of the targeted species.

Training of local forest stewards may be one way to reduce costs, but so far there is little experience with this approach. Data analysis and assessment of the results and adjusting harvesting levels should necessarily be the task of an impartial party, as it may be difficult for harvesters to reduce activity levels based on their own assessment of a negative impact. In practice, solutions have to be found that allow some kind of biological monitoring but that do not place pressures on budgets and personnel, as by the book monitoring would require.

Devolving biological monitoring

In the NTFP enterprise development in Sanggau, biological monitoring has proved to be a major difficulty. Although the project initially aimed to contract the work to the local university, it appeared that the skills required to design the monitoring were too specialised, and an international expert had to be hired. The current plans are that this expert will help with the required species inventories and yield studies.

Forest stewards are to be trained to conduct the required regeneration inventories and analyse the data to measure the harvesting impact. Very specialised skills have to be taught to these people who are entirely unfamiliar with such analysis. A mechanism also has to be put in place that allows for an independent analysis of harvesting impacts and the possibility to adjust harvesting levels accordingly. The costs of this whole exercise have to be kept within allowable limits, such that NTFP

harvesting still remains a beneficial activity that can compete with other income-generating options.

It is most likely that the Lembaga will have to play an important role in coordinating the biological monitoring, including the collection of the required data and organising the appropriate analysis. Forest stewards in the Participatory Forest Management Area report only to the Lembaga. The biological monitoring plan will be a collaborative effort between the Lembaga, the Social Forestry Development Project, Yayasan Dian Tama and the foreign consultant. A precise regeneration survey programme will have to be planned, and it will be the Lembagas responsibility to carry out this programme. Subsequent data analysis and evaluation of the data, however, will most likely have to be conducted with the help of an expert for some time.

Biological monitoring in NTFP development and conservation initiatives is not yet a resolved issue. The relative high cost, duration, need for experts to set up and train local stewards all remain challenges in planning biological monitoring.

Conclusions

In this chapter planning of three main aspects of NTFP development and conservation initiatives have been discussed: participation of local stakeholders; the need for iterative decisions as a function of the availability of information; and the difficulties encountered with planning for biological monitoring.

Planning for NTFP Development and Conservation

These three issues make NTFP development and conservation planning different from other typical development intervention planning. Such issues arise because of the remote settings in which interventions usually operate, and because of the difference in priorities among different stakeholders. Broad participation is now widely considered a prerequisite for successful development initiatives. However, where NTFP development planning is pursued, local stakeholders are often dispersed, have weak organisations if they have them at all, and have little experience with language and culture of the other non-local stakeholders. NTFP development projects have a special handicap because, as a rule, the main agenda is often defined without consultation with the local stakeholders. In many situations where participatory decision making is pursued, insufficient attention is given to the difficulties that genuine involvement of local stakeholders entails.

In many development efforts, much needs to be planned in advance to satisfy the requirements of the donors or the executing agencies that have to transfer money in agreement with annual budgets and disbursement schedules. This forces many interventions to define programmes of activities without allowing adjustments based on the outcome of previous practices. In the case of NTFP development and conservation efforts, such limited opportunity for adjustment may have very negative effects on the outcome. Iterative decision making and information collection is necessary because little off-the-shelf information is usually available. Plans need to be made for the collection of information and subsequent decision making.

In conclusion, much more thought, and probably experimentation, is needed with the appropriate approach of biological monitoring in NTFP development and conservation initiatives. Approaches suggested by specialists (e.g., Peters 1996a, b) appear to be much too difficult and too expensive for NTFPs where profit margins are often minimal. Simplified methods need to be developed that cost little and are easy to execute, while providing the minimum amount of information to accurately assess harvesting and to make necessary adjustments.

Acknowledgements

Much of the information provided in this manuscript comes from research by Wil de Jong on Dayak forest management in West Kalimantan, while he was a research associate at the New York Botanical Garden. This research was funded by the Rainforest Alliance through its Kleinhans Fellowship, and through funding from the Dutch Tropenbos Foundation. The authors thank Lini Wollenberg and Jenne de Beer for comments on the manuscript, and Michael Duerr for providing us with up-to-date information on the Social Forestry Development Project.

References

Beckley, T., Watson, D., Sprenger, A. and Boxall, P. 1997. Stakeholders of the Manitoba model forest. Draft manuscript.

Planning for NTFP Development and Conservation

de Jong, W.A. 1993. Wise use of forest resources in Kalimantan: a potential for development. Tropenbos Newsletter November, 1-2.

FM/CD. 1996. Stakeholder analysis for participatory resource management.

Community Development Department, Forest Management Department, MINAGRI Staff, Mount Cameroon Project, Limbe, Cameroon.

Franzel, S., Jaenicke, H. and Janssen, W. 1996. Choosing the right trees: setting priorities for multiple tree improvement. ISNAR Research Report 8. International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Graefen, A. and Syafrudin, E. 1995. Potential NTFP from the PFMA. Social Forestry Development Project, Sanggau, Indonesia.

Grossman, C. 1993. Use, cultivation, marketing, and processing of tengkawang and other agroforestry and non-timber forest products in the Sanggau District. Report to the Social Forestry Development Project, Sanggau, Indonesia.

Haggblade, S.J. and Gamser, M.S. 1991. A field manual for subsector practitioners.

GEMINI Technical Note Series Tools Microenterprise Programs: Nonfinancial Assistance Section, DAI/GEMINI Publications Series, Bethesda, Maryland.

MDF (Management and Development Foundation). 1997. Project management and programme administration. Course handouts. Management and Development Foundation, Ede, The Netherlands.

Mintzberg, H. 1994. The rise and fall of strategic planning: reconceiving the roles for planning, plans, planners. The Free Press, New York.

Peters, C.M. 1992. A manual for forest inventories of the participatory forest. Internal Report to the Social Forestry Development Project, Sanggau, Indonesia.

Peters, C.M. 1996a. Observations on the sustainable exploitation of non-timber tropical forest products. In: Ruiz Pérez, M. and Arnold, J.E.M. (eds.) Current issues in non-timber forest products research, 19-39. CIFOR-ODA, Bogor, Indonesia.

Peters, C.M. 1996b. The ecology and management of non-timber forest resources.

World Bank Technical Paper Number 322. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Ramon, J. 1993. Human and natural resources in the PFMA: Management options.

Social Forestry Development Project, Sanggau, Indonesia.

Steiner, G.A. 1971. Strategic planning: what every manager must know. The Free Press, New York.

Yayasan Dian Tama. 1995. Development of sustainable small-scale forest-based enterprises within the Participatory Forest Management Area Model in Kalimantan.

Biodiversity Conservation Network Implementation Grant Proposal, Pontianak, Indonesia.

Chapter Four

A Production-to-Consumption Systems

Approach: Lessons from the Bamboo

and Rattan Sectors in Asia

Brian M. Belcher

Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) have attracted attention in recent years for their potential to generate income through added-value processing and innovative marketing. There is a need for a systematic approach to assessing NTFPs as a basis for sustainable development. Such an approach must begin by recognising that a forest product is a commodity that may change hands many times and go through a series of processes before it reaches the final consumer. Demand for the raw forest product depends on demand for the final product, and therefore upon the organisation and efficiency of the whole system. In this respect forest products are very much like agricultural commodities, and there are lessons to be drawn from the agricultural sector that can be modified and applied to the NTFP sector. There are also important differences between forest products and agricultural commodities in the nature of the products themselves, in the systems used to produce raw materials and even in the development goals.

This chapter reviews some important concepts from agricultural and institutional economics and applies them to NTFPs. The paper focuses on the Production-to-Consumption Systems (PCS) Approach used by the International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR). The PCS approach provides a framework within which to assess the opportunities and constraints in existing NTFP systems and to draw lessons from present practices that can be applied to other new or evolving systems. The discussion considers the production, processing and marketing of biological products according to three dimensions: vertical coordination, horizontal linkages and the intensity of the activity. These three aspects are addressed by considering experience from the agricultural sector and building on it to incorporate the different characteristics of NTFPs and the varied goals of NTFP development.

The PCS approach has much in common with and draws on other analytical tools such as market chain analysis and subsector analysis, both of which have been employed in analysing NTFP markets. However, the PCS approach adds two important elements. First, there is a stronger emphasis on the linkages among the actors in the system (both vertically and horizontally). Secondly, the PCS approach introduces the element of intensity to deal with the changes in the level of activity that occur as a sector develops.

This conceptual discussion is followed by an overview of a practical approach to using the PCS method, and a summary of the lessons learned in applying the approach A Production-to-Consumption Approach

in studies undertaken by the International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR).

Changes to encourage development in a particular PCS are identified and the conclusion provides a review of the PCS approach, the INBAR experience and possible contributions to policy making.

International Network for Bamboo and Rattan

Bamboo and rattan are widely regarded as the most important of the non-timber

forest products in Asia (de Beer and McDermott 1996). They have high value in a wide range of applications as structural material, fibre and food. In effect they represent not one or two commodities, but dozens. For many reasons both of these plant groups are important to poor and disadvantaged people. In subsistence use, as utility items, tools and agricultural stakes, in housing and in handicrafts, bamboo and rattan are essential resources in everyday rural life. At the same time, these resources provide the basis for an expanding small- and medium-scale enterprise sector in most Asian countries, and in some parts of Africa and Latin America. They offer significant and increasing employment and income generating opportunities, foreign exchange earnings and highly valued products. As a result, both bamboo and rattan provide excellent points of entry for sustainable development that will benefit poor people.

The International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR) was established with support from the International Development Research Centre of Canada (IDRC), and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). It has a mandate to consolidate, support and coordinate strategic research on bamboo and rattan to improve the well being of small-scale producers and users of these commodities.

The technical research programmes emphasise genetic resources characterisation and conservation, raw material production and post-harvest processing. Socioeconomic research is used as a tool to identify technical research and extension requirements, and to prioritise research and development interventions. There is a multiplicity of production, processing and marketing systems that are used for bamboo and rattan. It is vital for INBAR to have a systematic approach to draw out the common elements and the general principles and to make recommendations as to how to apply those principles in designing development interventions.

The PCS approach described in this chapter has been developed within this context.

There is, therefore, an emphasis on bamboo and rattan in the examples chosen and in the conceptual thinking behind the discussion. This may introduce some biases into the discussion some of the characteristics of bamboo and rattan systems may be different from those of other NTFPs. In particular, there is a strong market orientation and regeneration or domestication is fairly straightforward and common. However, in terms of their accessibility (they are often available on common lands and many processing technologies are simple and affordable) they resemble a number of other NTFPs. Hopefully, the concepts developed to deal with bamboo and rattan may have useful application in other areas of NTFP development, especially as they are commercialised.

A Production-to-Consumption Approach

The Production-to-Consumption Systems Approach

A Production-to-Consumption System (PCS) is defined here as the entire set of actors, materials, activities and institutions involved in growing and harvesting a particular raw material, transforming the raw material into higher-value products and marketing the final products. The system includes the technologies used to grow and process the material, as well as the social, institutional and economic environments in which these processes operate.

The approach has its roots in agricultural systems research, where various systems approaches have been developed to accommodate consideration and analysis of a range of physical, biological and social factors. Sellen et al. (1993) describe the components of a PCS:

Agricultural marketing decisions are made by participants throughout the commodity system. Producers decide which crop, with what technology, how much, and when to produce based on market conditions and signals.

Consumers decide what to buy, in what form, and in what quantity. Processors, retailers, and wholesalers decide what to buy and sell, where to locate, what type of processing and packaging to use, and how to promote or advertise the product. Governments decide whether or not they should intervene in marketing and in what manner, including regulation of markets, grading, market information, and formulation of indirect policies.

The same kinds of actors and processes are equally important in the forest products sector.

Dimensions of a Production-to-Consumption System

A Production-to-Consumption System can be considered in three dimensions. The first, the vertical dimension, refers to the flow of material from its production in a biological system, through the various transactions and processes, to the final consumer. The second, the horizontal dimension, concerns the set of individual firms operating at a particular point in the market chain and the scale of activity and relationships among them. The third dimension is that of intensity. It relates to the amount of labour and capital that is used to carry out a particular function.

The vertical dimension

Vertical product flow

A series of basic functions must be performed to take any natural product from its origin as a plant (or animal) to the market and the final consumer. The biological material must grow and be harvested, whether in the wild or cultivated. This must then be processed to refine it, prevent spoilage, separate valuable components or remove waste, and to make the product more useful and attractive. The processed product may then be consumed or marketed for direct consumption, or it may be used as an input to a manufactured commodity. Each activity that physically modifies A Production-to-Consumption Approach

Glossary

Capital is wealth used to produce more wealth.

Commodity is something that can be bought and sold.

Extraction is harvesting of biological products from wild sources.

Horizontal linkages are communications and other links between different firms within a single industry.

Horizontal integration is the ownership/control of more than one firm in a single industry as a means to gain advantages of scale or other competitive advantage.

Industry is a set of firms selling products or services that are close substitutes in a common market.

Intensity is the quality and quantity of inputs at a particular point in the PCS.

Market is the trading opportunities provided by a particular group of people; the organisation of activities for the purpose of buying and selling commodities.

Production-to-Consumption System (PCS) is the entire set of actors, materials, activities and institutions involved in growing and harvesting a particular raw material, transforming the raw material into higher-value products and marketing the final products. The system includes the technologies used to grow and process the material, as well as the social, institutional and economic environment in which these processes operate.

Transformation is an activity that physically modifies a product (transformation in form), changes the ownership of the product (transformation in ownership), moves the product from one place to another (transformation in space), or stores the product (transformation in time).

Vertical coordination is the organisation of the trade and movement of materials and other inputs between consecutive stages of processing in a PCS.

Vertical integration is the linking of a range of transformation activities under the control of a single company or owner as a means to ensure supplies of inputs of the desired quality, quantity and time and to gain other competitive advantages.

the product can be called a transformation in form. Along the way the product is bought and sold (transformed in ownership), transported from place to place (transformed in space) and stored (transformed in time). The actors or participants involved in these transformations in a typical forest product PCS include input suppliers (where they exist), forest collectors or farmers, intermediate and wholesale traders, sorters, processors, retailers and consumers.

Figure 4.1 shows a simple product flow diagram, illustrating the vertical dimension of a PCS. The various actors (or transformation points) are linked by arrows showing the flow of material through the system. Additional information can also be included, such as marketing profits or other indications of the prices of the material as value is added through the various transformations. If production costs are determined (or estimated) at each transformation point, it is possible to calculate the benefits and costs to the various actors of their participation in the system.

Vertical linkages

Product flow diagrams have been used as a tool for analysis in many marketing studies (e.g., Boen et al. 1993). However, the diagram represents just a part of the A Production-to-Consumption Approach

Figure 4.1 Rattan market chain

story. It has become increasingly apparent,

with more sophisticated understanding of the

Market Participant

Sale Price

(000 Rp/Ton)

role of institutions, that the organisation and

coordination among the various actors in a

Consumer

PCS can be at least as important as the

physical processing activities themselves.

Finished Products

40 000 – 55 000

Each person involved in the PCS must buy

Manufacturer

(or collect) and sell material. However,

several characteristics of biological materials

Semi-Processor/

1200 – 1300

Trader

can cause problems with this trade. There are

sharp seasonal fluctuations in supply owing

Finished Products

to the phenology of plants, migration patterns

950 – 1000

Manufacturer

of animals and climatic conditions that inhibit

gathering or harvesting (e.g., rainy seasons).

Local Rattan

950 – 1000

Biological products require time to grow, are

Trader

often perishable, vary in quality and are

geographically dispersed (Minot 1986). For

Rattan Farmer

350 – 400

forest products in particular, information is

imperfect, resources are not mobile,

transactions costs are high (especially transportation costs), and social, economic and political power over the products not distributed equally (Sellen et al. 1993).

Competitive markets do not function well under these conditions. Other kinds of mechanisms are needed to help match demand and supply without excessive price fluctuations and to facilitate the specification of quality expectations and requirements.

Contracts, whether formal or informal, are one means of ensuring a better match of the flow of material between buyers and sellers. There are several different types of contracts between farmers and commodity buyers: 1) market specification contracts, which establish the terms (quality, quantity, price) of a future transaction; 2) resource-providing contracts, which involve the provision of inputs or services to the grower as well as market specifications; and 3) production-management contracts, which involve technical assistance for the grower as well as market specifications. Other mechanisms used in agriculture to coordinate the flow of goods among buyers and sellers include cooperatives, bargaining associations, market orders, information systems (including grades and standards), transportation services, credit services, government programmes, trade practices and trade associations.

Mechanisms such as these are also used in the forest products sector. For example, forest product traders (middlemen) commonly advance money and supplies to the collectors who go to the forest, with an implicit or explicit obligation on the part of the collectors to sell to that trader, and only that trader (INBAR studies, see Annex 4.1; Padoch 1992; Peluso 1992). Traders in many PCSs use some form of grading as a basis for setting prices. In the bamboo sector in Zhejiang Province, China, traders provide transportation from the farm, and often have pre-arranged the sale with the farmer well before harvest time (INBAR participant interviews). In Assam, the Hindustan Paper Mill at Nagaon has initiated a programme to provide bamboo planting A Production-to-Consumption Approach

material and technical assistance, along with financial incentives, to encourage farmers in the area to grow bamboo for sale to the mill (INBAR participant interviews).

In these contractual relationships, there is a continuum of control possible, from informal associations to detailed arrangements that specify all aspects of production.

Suppliers forfeit independence in their production and marketing decisions, in return for security in terms of market access, security of prices and technical and logistical assistance (depending on the nature of the contract). The stronger and more binding contracts effectively concentrate decision making, usually in the hands of the buyer.

At the extreme, a single company (a firm in economics terminology) can take over a range of functions themselves as a means to ensure supplies of inputs at the desired quality, quantity and time. This is known as true vertical integration, though in fact there are varying degrees of vertical integration, depending on the strength of the contracts between buyers and sellers.

The details and value of mechanisms of vertical coordination in forest product markets are frequently misunderstood. This can lead to mistaken conclusions. For example, it is common for forest product market studies to conclude that middlemen are taking excessive profits (Gray 1990; Padoch 1992). Looking at only a market chain diagram it is easy to reach the same conclusion. Traders often appropriate a fairly high value (sometimes 100% or more of the buying price), apparently just by buying and selling the raw material. However, it is critical in such cases to consider what services are provided and what costs are borne by the traders. What are the terms of the contract?

As Padoch (1992) notes, the myth of the exploitative middleman emerges from a misunderstanding of the services typically provided. In the INBAR studies it was found to be a common practice for traders to advance credit and/or supplies to rattan gatherers. Without this provision many of the collectors would be unable to mount their collecting expeditions. Traders often arrange both the buying and the selling of the material and organise its transport, and assume all of the associated search and transactions costs. They also assume the risk of lost or damaged goods en route (and still more risk where they are trading illegally harvested materials, a not uncommon situation) and absorb the costs of quality deterioration in perishable goods.

One rattan trader in Kalimantan reported that during periods of low prevailing prices he will pay rattan collectors a price higher than his own break-even price. His motivation is rational he feels that if the collectors switch occupations it will be hard to get them to return to rattan collecting, even if prices rise. The result of this informal contract is beneficial to the collectors as it absorbs the shock of fluctuating raw material prices.

This is not to deny that exploitative relationships exist. The intention is to focus attention on the actual and potential role of the vertical linkage mechanisms to understand why the traders may wield stronger bargaining power and to understand how to design interventions in a system. Eliminating the middleman must be compensated for by supplying the services currently provided by the traders, or the system may break down, and the collectors may in fact be made worse off. Efforts A Production-to-Consumption Approach

to improve quantity or quality of production must ensure that the system in place will absorb the increased production and will reward investments in quality.

Multiple market channels

The product flow diagram also fails to capture the reality that the markets themselves are not homogeneous. Bottema and Ferrari (1992), looking at agricultural markets, observe that a large variety of markets and phases in market development coexist in the same areas in rural Asia. Local markets for food and perishables operate side by side with extensive collection markets in raw materials for large-scale industry and for export. The same heterogeneity is found in forest products markets. For example, bamboo from the same forest might be harvested and used for domestic consumption, for baskets for sale in a regional market, or sold to a pulp mill. Medicinal plants may be sold in small local markets in the same area where large-scale, urban-based traders collect supplies for export.

Subsector analysis

A more sophisticated approach was developed by agricultural economists at Michigan State University in the 1970s and early 1980s to help deal with the need for attention to vertical linkages and with the fact of multiple market channels. Sellen et al. (1993) provide a brief history of the development of the approach.

Subsector analysis (SSA) is commodity based. A subsector is defined as an aggregation of alternative channels through the production/distribution system for one or a group of closely related products (Boomgard et al. 1986). It is characterised in terms of a key raw material, with the analysis focussing on the transformation and distribution of products from that raw material. The subsector can be viewed as a network of firms that supply raw materials, transform them, and distribute finished goods to a particular consumer market (Haggblade and Gamser 1991).

The central analytical tool of subsector analysis is a subsector map (Figure 4.2), that identifies the principal functions (the transformations that take place), participants (who performs the transformations) and channels (how products flow, who buys from whom, and how the network holds together). Mapping conventions have been developed to represent various kinds of enterprises and transactions or coordinating mechanisms, and overlays can be used to indicate the number of firms, sales, employment, volume traded, etc., at a particular transformation point.

A subsector map emphasises physical flows, but mapping conventions permit representations of vertical integration, and horizontal mechanisms such as subcontracting and horizontal integration (represented as scale of operation). The details of other vertical linkage mechanisms cannot be captured in the diagram. These issues must be kept in mind, and addressed in an accompanying narrative.

The subsector analysis approach is prescriptive; it seeks to identify constraints and to indicate appropriate interventions to overcome them. The concept of leveraged intervention is important in this respect. Leverage is defined as the ability to reach large numbers of micro- and small-scale enterprises at a single stroke and can be achieved (a) through large firms that supply inputs or market output to many small A Production-to-Consumption Approach

Figure 4.2 Subsector mapping conventions (from Haggblade and Gamser 1991)

Channel 1

Channel 2

Channel 3

Retailing

Wholesaling

Production

Input Assembly

Inputs

Location

Enterprises

Coordinating Mechanisms

Assembly

Enterprise

Sale of Goods

Skipped or

Contract

Point

Function

in Spot Market

implicit Function

firms; (b) geographic clustering, which allows you to contact numerous small firms at a single location; and (c) policies that influence a multitude of small businesses at the stroke of a pen (Haggblade and Gamser 1991).

This is a practical approach. It has been used by a number of applied studies including several on NTFPs. For example, Appropriate Technology International (ATI) supported a subsector analysis of rattan in the Philippines (Kilmer 1994) and CARE Bangladesh did an SSA of bamboo in Bangladesh (Johnson and Ritchie 1994).

The GEMINI Report A Field Manual for Subsector Practitioners (Haggblade and Gamser 1991) provides a good set of guidelines for researchers and development practitioners alike.

Horizontal linkages

Firms within an industry, defined as a set of firms selling products or services that are close substitutes in a common market (modified from Haggblade 1984), have a range of options available for interacting within the industry. It is common to have informal relationships and some shared information about others activities at all levels.

At the raw material producer level, news about prices and quality requirements from other villagers may be the only source of information other than the trader. At higher levels in a system, industry organisations offer more formalised fora for interaction, and often take on an advocacy role as well. These kinds of horizontal linkages are important as means for information sharing, to consolidate power in buying and selling, and to mobilise political support in lobbying for policy change.

A Production-to-Consumption Approach

Some of the stronger associations can act as cartels, and affect supply management through collective production restrictions (Boen et al. 1996).

At the extreme, firms within an industry can be integrated, where one firm assumes control over other firms in the same industry to increase buying power, to assume greater influence over the marketing of products and generally to take advantage of economies of scale.

Intensity

Intensity refers here to the quality and quantity of inputs at a particular point in the PCS. Discussions in economics of capital intensity or labour intensity typically refer to trade-offs between capital and labour. Where labour costs are low, it is often advantageous to substitute labour for capital and adopt a low capital intensity approach to production, and vice versa, with implications in terms of the requirements for skilled workers, capital costs and financing requirements, and infrastructure.

(Gregersen et al. 1986)

Here, rather than discussing the relative balance of capital and labour, we are more interested in the total level of investment in inputs (skills, specialisation, mechanisation, scale) as a basis for comparison among different options at any given stage in the PCS.

Investments in mechanised processing in the furniture industry, for example, may yield a higher volume of better quality, more uniform products (often critical for accessing larger markets), and increase processing efficiency. Important gains might also be realised through the adoption of better quality tools and increased skills and design inputs in a more labour intensive operation. Either of these options falls within the definition of intensification used here. The implications of and requirements for increasing the intensity of inputs are important in terms of income and employment generation, and also in terms of quality management. There is considerable scope for research to help design appropriate strategies for intensification as a contribution to small enterprise development in the forest products sector. There are many lessons to be learned from progress in other sectors.

Attention also needs to be directed to the opportunities for and implications of intensification (including planting and management inputs, increased planting density, improved harvesting techniques) at the raw material production stage. This is one of the distinguishing features of the PCS approach as developed at INBAR. Attempts to alleviate poverty (through income and employment generation) and improve environmental sustainability need to take a broad view. While bamboo and rattan and other biological resources have the potential for sustainable development it cannot be taken for granted. Care needs to be taken to understand the systems and their dynamics.

Subsector analysis and other approaches developed in the agricultural economics field tend to begin their inquiries at the point at which the raw material is supplied.

The focus is on enterprise development. Even the Production-to-Consumption Systems research approach described by Sellen et al. (1993) has an emphasis on post-farm issues. Such approaches assume a degree of uniformity of inputs, and so A Production-to-Consumption Approach

treat the raw material as a more or less homogeneous input to the production systems, where production system refers to the manufacture of semi-processed or finished consumer goods.

In the forest products sector, with attention to the sustainability of the raw material production and the associated ecosystem health, production system refers to agroecological production of the biological raw material. The intensity of production has important environmental implications.

In agriculture, it is possible to intensify production through inputs such as improved planting materials, fertilisers, pesticides, irrigation and mechanised tillage, and planting and harvesting methods. Large-scale mechanised farming practices are at the upper end of this scale, while low-intensity mixed farming systems represent the low end of the scale. However, intensification of production on permanent agricultural land has limited direct impact on genetic diversity.

For the production of forest products the range of options is wider. Forest products may grow within natural forest ecosystems that are, with the exception of occasional low-intensity harvesting operations, virtually undisturbed. Alternatively, the system may be managed at a range of intensities, including high-intensity plantation-based production systems. The production intensity selected for raw material production in the forest sector has enormous conservation implications. Within low-intensity systems, such as extractive and complex agroforestry systems, ecosystem functions similar to those found in the undisturbed forest can be maintained (see for example Gouyon et al. 1993; Michon et al. 1994). High levels of biodiversity can be conserved and the requirements for pest control, soil maintenance and irrigation are low.

Increasing the production intensity for a particular crop involves environmental and biological manipulation and disturbance. As management inputs are increased the system becomes more like an agricultural system, with higher densities and higher proportion of total biomass of desired species, deliberate reduction of undesirable (weed) species, and perhaps fertiliser and pesticide inputs. Higher production of desired species is achieved at the cost of reduced biodiversity and ecosystem functions within the growing area.

Some critiques of the extractive reserve concept developed in the Brazilian Amazon have identified pressures that may drive the intensification of production of a valuable commodity (Browder 1992; Homma 1992). Increased demand, signalled by higher prices, is likely to lead to increased harvesting pressure. This may lead to overexploitation and collapse. However, under the right conditions (high prices, security of tenure, available technology and labour) people may attempt to increase production through increased management.

Low-intensity sustainable commercial extraction of products from a diverse forest ecosystem as an income source for people living a relatively traditional lifestyle may be perfectly appropriate under some circumstances, and it should be encouraged in those cases. For example, one high-potential area for this kind of development is within buffer zones around national parks or protected areas (Gray 1992). However, whether from a project perspective or from a broader policy perspective in many cases it will be important to consider alternative raw material production opportunities.

A Production-to-Consumption Approach

By manipulating the environment of the desired plant (or animal), or even the organism itself (selection, breeding, genetic engineering), it may be possible to increase production within a given area. A wide range of options is available. For example, it is possible to intensify the management of the raw material within the forest ecosystem. Forest product collectors might plant seeds, weed around desirable plants or clear trees to provide gaps in the forest canopy and the light needed by certain plants to become established. Indeed, some of these strategies are employed by rubber tappers in the Brazilian extractive reserves (Anderson 1992). There are also anecdotal reports that rattan harvesters in Sulawesi, Indonesia, and Manipur, India, sometimes move wild seedlings to more favourable sites.

For some forest products, it may be more appropriate to intensify the raw material production towards a plantation or agricultural model, especially if the product is rare or widely dispersed. Cultivation can be considered an option for enhancing the sustainability of the enterprise and maintaining the integrity of the forest. Even if forest product extraction from a wild source is the preferred strategy from a social and environmental perspective (e.g., in buffer zone management), competition from other cultivated products must be considered in a feasibility assessment, and steps should be taken to ensure the economic competitiveness of the extracted material.

Cultivation can occur at a relatively low intensity, within an agroforestry system for example, where the plant in question is one of a number of desired species grown in a given area (examples of rattan-, rubber- and damar-based agroforestry systems are described by Gouyon et al. 1993; Michon et al. 1994), or on a more intensive basis, such as monoculture plantations. Many forest products have been domesticated in this way, including rubber, coconuts, pineapple, durian, the rosy periwinkle …. the list is long.

Mapping Intensity of Inputs: Cash, Skills and Technology A simple illustration helps to conceptualise the intensity dimension, showing the continuum of possible strategies along an axis from low to high intensity (Belcher 1997). The box in Figure 4.3 represents the range of possibilities for producing raw rattan. The left side of the continuum labelled extraction represents production options that involve minimal management inputs. Moving right along the continuum, intensity increases with enrichment planting, low-intensity cultivation and high-Figure 4.3 The production continuum

Raw Material

Extraction Enrichment

Low

High

Planting

Intensity

Production

Cultivation Cultivation

Low

Capital Intensity

High

A Production-to-Consumption Approach

Home production of rattan baskets in Apau Ping, Kalimantan (photo by Eva Wollenberg).

Sophisticated assembly-line processing of rattan furniture in Cirebon, Java (photo by Brian Belcher).

intensity cultivation. A particular raw material production system can be placed on the continuum relative to other production systems based on the level of capital used.

As with the production of raw material, any single function in the PCS can be intensified to increase the quantity or quality of the output, or the efficiency of the transformation. To use a rattan example, raw material may be produced in an extractive system, with no management input. It is harvested using only a simple tool, and woven using a basic design to produce a functional but rustic product, say a basket, for household use. All functions are performed at a very low level of A Production-to-Consumption Approach

Figure 4.4 Extensive PCS (left side) and intensive PCS (right side) Consumer

Marketing

Manufacturing

Semi-processing

Wholesale

Regional Trader

Local Trader

Post-harvest

Treatment

Raw Material

Production Low

Low

Capital Intensity

High

Indicates Spot Sale

Indicates Transformation Point

Indicates Vertical Integration

intensity. Such a low-intensity PCS is illustrated in Figure 4.4 as a series of connected circles along the left (low intensity) side of the diagram. The circles represent the individual functions performed by the basket maker. The envelope around the circles indicates that the whole process is under the control of a single decision maker, i.e., the system is vertically integrated.

Baskets may also be produced at a higher level of intensity. For example, the raw material may be grown in an intensively managed plantation and harvested using hired labour and mechanical aids. It is then transported via traders to a wholesaler, and on to a large factory where it is cored mechanically and then woven and finished on an assembly line with different workers each completing part of the weaving function. The resulting basket may then be sold in the high-priced export market.

This case is different from the previous one in three ways: 1) transformation stages have been added (i.e., transportation, storage, transformations in ownership, including export sales; 2) functions have been divided among actors (specialisation); and 3) all functions are performed at a higher level of intensity with increased levels of labour, capital (mechanisation), and even land (factory area) inputs to the process.

This (hypothetical) case is also shown in Figure 4.4. It is illustrated as a series of A Production-to-Consumption Approach

Figure 4.5 The Philippine rattan PCS

Consumer

Marketing

Manufacturing

Semi-processing

Wholesale

Regional Trader

Local Trader

Post-harvest

Treatment

Raw Material

Production

Low

Capital Intensity

Incomes from the Forest: Methods for Development and Conservation of Forest Products for Local Communities