Prunus africana: a reality check


Published on

This presentation by Tony Cunningham, Terry Sunderland and Robert Nkuinkeu shows why the Prunus africana case is globally significant in terms of policy vs. practice, offers 6 take home messages and recommendations for the future.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Prunus africana: a reality check

  1. 1. Prunus  africana:     a  reality  check A B (Tony) Cunningham, Terry Sunderland & Robert Nkuinkeu Meeting at CIFOR, Yaounde, 6 March 2014
  2. 2.   OVERVIEW •  Introduc+on   •  Why  is  the  P.  africana  case  is  globally  significant  in   terms  of  policy  vs.  prac+ce?     •  6  “take  home  messages”;   •  Recommenda+ons  for  the  future.  
  3. 3. Introduc+on    
  4. 4. Prunus  bark  trade  in  global  perspec+ve   •  More  Prunus  africana  bark  is  wild  harvested  than   any  other  tree  species,  followed  by  quillay  (Quillaja   saponaria,  also  Rosaceae)  (Cunningham,  in  press);   •  Quillay  is  exported  from  Chile  &  wild  populaDons   have  been  devastated  (872  t/bark  exported  =  60000   trees/yr  (FAO,  2001;  San  MarDn  &  Briones,  1999);   •  All  other  large  scale  bark  trade  has  shiSed  to   farmed  trees  (e.g;  cinnamon,  cork,  waUle,  cassia).  
  5. 5. Prunus  africana:  valued  but  vulnerable   •  Considered  the  only  African  species  in  a  genus  of  c.200  species   (although  Kalkman  (1965)  suggested  that  a  separate  species,  Prunus   crassifolia  might  occur  in  the  Kivu  region,  DRC);   •  Gene+cally  &  chemically  dis+nct  popula+ons  across  Africa  &   Madagascar  (Kadu  et  al.,  2012;  Martelli  et  al,  1986;  Vicen+  et  al.,   2013);     •  Wild  rela+ve  of  peaches,  plums,  almonds  &  apricots,  listed  as   Vulnerable  (IUCN),  even  in  countries  where  no  export  trade  occurs   &  CITES  Appendix  2  listed;   •  Habitat  loss  due  to  clearing  from  farmland  &  future  impacts   predicted  due  to  climate  change  (Mbatudde  et  al,  2012;  Vicen+  et   al.,  2013).    
  6. 6. Export  trade:   Prunus     africana   = established trade = emerging trade “frontier” = traditional medicine trade only
  7. 7. Why  is  the  P.  africana  case  globally   significant  in  terms  of  policy  vs.  prac+ce?   NaDonal  Management  plan   •  The   (Ingram  et  al,  2009)  is  now  being   seen  as  a  model  that  should  be   applied  on  a  global  scale;   •  With  CIFOR’s  reputaDon,  the  report   was    a  key  to  liSing  the  EU  ban.   •  Disconnect  between  policy  &  what   is  really  happening  in  the  forest.  
  8. 8. LESSON  1:  INCREDIBLE  SUPPORT  &   EFFORTS  HAVE  GONE  INTO   SUSTAINABLE  WILD  HARVEST   ….but there are widespread concerns about the accuracy of some inventory, yield & quotas recommendations…..
  9. 9. PROGRESS  SINCE   2011   •  Mt.  Cameroon  as  a  model:   major  investment  in   management  &   monitoring  plans;   •  SDmulated  by  the  2007  EU   trade  ban.    
  10. 10. CASE  STUDY:  GOING  DOWN  MT   CAMEROON   (Ewusi, 2006 in Amougou et al., 2011) •  Annual  “sustainable”  bark  yields  have  varied  enormously,   even  for  the  best  studied  locaDon  (Mt  Cameroon);   •  4438  t/yr  -­‐>  330  t/yr  -­‐>178  t/yr  -­‐>  130  t/yr  to  MOCAP’s   harvest  of  57  tonnes  from  Block  1  in  2012.  
  11. 11. ROTATION  TIMES:  5  YRS?  7  YRS?   10YRS?  IT  ALL  DEPENDS…   •  Current  management  on  Mt.   Cameroon  is  based  on  a  5  yr   rotaDon  (5  blocks)  (Eben  Ebai,   2011);   •  7  year  rotaDon  recommended   (Nkeng,  2009),  with  9-­‐10  yr   rotaDon  used  for  cork  oak.   (from Eben-Ebai, 2011)
  12. 12. LESSON  2:  IS  IT  WORTH  IT?  
  13. 13. WHO  BENEFITTED  &  BY  HOW  MUCH?   WILD HARVEST Warehousing 3% Transport 4% Regeneration 7% Park mgmt. 20% VDF* 7% 16% Harvester 43% MOCAP *Village Development Fund Exporter pays 350 CFA/kg Harvester gets 150 CFA/kg •  2012  harvest  (Block  1,  Mt   Cameroon  NP)  was  57  t  fresh  wt;   •  57000  kg  @150  CFA/kg  =  8550000   CFA  (approx  $17,100);   •  48  acDve  harvesters;   •  Benefit  per  person  for  the  annual   harvest  =  $356  (or  ca.  $1  per   harvester  per  day).    
  14. 14. COSTS  OF  MANAGED  SUSTAINABLE   HARVEST  vs.  BENEFITS   •  Cost  of  inventory  about  15  million  CFA   ($30  000),  more  than  two  Dmes  the  $17   100  earned  from  bark  harvest  (&   excludes  addiDonal  monitoring  costs);   •  100  000  people  live  around  Mt   Cameroon.  48  acDve  harvesters.  20%  of   whom  are  not  from  Mt.  Cameroon  area;   •  Are  the  costs  worth  it  for  0.0004%  of   the  local  populaDon?  
  15. 15. LESSON  3:  LOCAL  LIVELIHOODS  &   PRUNUS  INCOME  NEED  CONTEXT     ….both place, time & other benefits from forests
  16. 16. HIGH  VALUE,  HIGH  VOLUME,     HIGH  IMPACT   Madagascar  &  Prunus  africana:    remote,  small  forests,  local  value-­‐adding  &  high  porDon  of  cash   •  income…..   •   Bioko  &  Cameroon  in  a  very  different  situaDon  (diverse  income   sources,  changing  economic,  global  links  &  migrant  remiUances).  
  17. 17. MADAGASCAR Tsaratanàna ° Antsahabiraoka = Prunus africana ° Lakato Tampoketsan’Ankazobe Marovoay Import from Cameroon = bark processing factory Bark  exploita+on  has  been     taking  place  in  Forest     Reserves  (e.g:  Zahamena     Special  FR)  un+l   overexploita+on  wiped  out   stocks…so  they  had  to  import   from  Cameroon.  
  18. 18. OTHER  LINKS  TO  LIVELIHOODS   •  Diverse  products  come  from   forests,  not  just  Prunus  bark;   •  Mt  Cameroon:  there  are  48   acDve  harvesters  out  of   100,000  people  around  the   park;   •  PES  opportuniDes  &  lessons   from  other  countries.  
  19. 19. LESSON  4:  BARK  HARVEST  DOES   HAVE  AN  IMPACT     .
  20. 20. BARK REMOVAL IS A SHOCK… from which some trees do not recover
  21. 21. HIGH  VALUE,  WEAK   TENURE=OVERHARVEST   •  Demographic structure of natural stands shows very low representation of mature trees with dbh > 30cm, but very high exploitation rate reaching 80% of total individuals in some areas (ICRAF/IRAD/ Univ of Dschang, 2008); •  Overexploitation rate is more than 90% in all studied villages: almost all individual with dbh >20 were totally debarked from buttresses to branches (ICRAF/IRAD/ Univ of Dschang, 2008); •  60% of trees overexploited (Nkeng, 2009).
  22. 22. PRUNUS  AFRICANA  IS  AN  ECOLOGICAL   KEYSTONE  SPECIES   •  P.  africana  bark  is  not  just   “under-­‐exploited”  trees  for   commercial  trade;   •  Keystone  species  for  colobus   monkeys  &  some  endemic   birds;   •  Not  just  about  “saving  Prunus”.   Fashing, P J. 2004. Mortality trends in the African cherry (Prunus africana) and the implications for colobus monkeys (Colobus guereza) in Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Biological Conservation 120:449-459
  23. 23. LESSON  5:  PAU’s  FACE  MANY   CHALLENGES   . ”Prunus Allocation Units (PAUs) have been participatively defined and developed with input from stakeholders” (Ingram et al, 2009)……yet “elite capture” & an exporter monopoly are still major factors, so “participatory” is questionable.
  24. 24. WHAT  ABOUT  ADAMOUA?   (from Ingram et al, 2009) •  Current  inventory,  management  &  monitoring  in   Mt.  Cameroon  PAU  are  an  inspiring  model….but   what  about  PAU’s  that  are  more  remote?  
  25. 25. RESOURCE RICH FRONTIER? •  Traders from Bamenda employed local people to strip Prunus africana trees on Tchabal Mbabo since c.2001; •  In Nigeria (2003), Chapman (2004) reported extensive debarking & camps in the forest for bark exploitation - total stripping of trees, compromising transboundary conservation plans; Ref: Chapman, 2004 •  5 PAU’s in Adamoua: what is the impact of current harvest?
  26. 26. COMMERCIAL  HARVEST  &   COLLATERAL  DAMAGE?   •  “Collateral  damage”  (“ladder  trees”  &   lianas)….naDonally,  1000  tonne   quota=c.180  000  Prunus  trees/yr);   •  Does  the  cumng  of  c.150000  small   trees  &  c.300000  lianas  per  yr  have  an   impact?  
  27. 27. LESSON  6:  CULTIVATION  IS  A   MORE  VIABLE  OPTION   . …connecting farmers Prunus Growers Associations (PAG’s) to the export market will catalyze planting & bark Production….
  28. 28. CULTIVATION Traceability 16% Harvester 84% •  Even  at  the  current  low   price,  culDvaDon  is  a  beUer   opDon  (money,  labour);   •  Current  GiZ/PSMNR-­‐SW   funded  inventory  of   P.africana  on  farms  is  very   Dmely;   *Village Development Fund Exporter price = 350 CFA/kg Farmer gets 294 CFA/kg •  So  is  the  forthcomingGiZ/ PSMNR-­‐SW  project  on   economics  &  benefit   sharing.    
  29. 29. DOES IT PAY TO PLANT? •  While not as profitable as Eucalyptus, an alternative enterprise, farmers want to grow P. africana; •  Reasons: it is compatible with many crops and has multiple uses – bark sales, medicine, tools, poles, seed sales & mulch; •  Cameroon: thousands of farmers have planted Prunus. Market demand is high, as herbal treatments of BPH are popular & demand grows & emerging Asian market. Cunningham, A.B., Ayuk, E., Franzel, S., Duguma, B. & Asanga, C. 2002. An economic evaluation of medicinal tree cultivation: Prunus africana in Cameroon. People and Plants working paper 10. UNESCO.
  30. 30. TRANSPARENCY  ON  THE  VALUE   CHAIN  IS  CRUCIAL   •  We  are  sDll  cross-­‐checking  price  data,  but   preliminary  figures  are  that  the:   •  150  CFA/kg  represents  4%  of  the  price  paid  to   Cameroonian  exporters  (3550  CFA/kg  (or  6  Euro/ kg);   •  If  the  above  figures  are  correct,  then  the  FOB  value   of  the  current  1000  tonne  quota  would  represent  a   profit  of  about  Euro  6  million/yr.    
  32. 32. NEED  TO  PHASE  OUT  COMMERCIAL   BARK  HARVEST  IN  THE  LONG  TERM   •  Economic  &  ecological  sustainability  reasons;   •  Licensed  harvest  of  seed  &  wildings  from  wild   populaDons  is  an  incenDve  to  maintain  mother   trees;   •  Also  contributes  seed  from  a  geneDcally  diverse,   local  P.  africana  populaDon    
  33. 33. CITES,  CULTIVATION  &  TRADE   •  Local farmers have been cultivating P. africana since the 1970’s but are discouraged by lack of markets;   •  Need CITES to recognize that “conservation through cultivation” can & should happen (as with orchids & crocodiles); •  Current on-farm inventories (GiZ/PSMNR-­‐SW)  very  Dmely;     •  Cultivation can bring higher income to more people, with less effort, that trying to sustain wild harvest;
  34. 34. GREAT  OPPORTUNITY  FOR   BUILDING  ON  PAST   CULTIVATION  STUDIES   •  Long  history  of  ICRAF  work  on  P.   africana  &  lessons  from  Allanblackia   &  links  to  industry;     •  New  research  on  ICRAF’s  old  P.   africana  trials  (known  age,  chemical   content).  
  35. 35. NEED  TO  UNDERSTAND  &  DEAL  WITH   BARRIERS  TO  TRADE  IN  CULTIVATED  BARK   •  Diverse  vested  interests  in  maintaining  &   controlling  wild  harvest;   •   Encouraging  a  shiS  to  culDvaDon  may  need  policy   reform  (“first  generaDon  seedlings  on  farm  are   wild”);   •  OpportuniDes  to  learn  from  policy  outcomes  in   other  countries  (e.g:  sandalwood).  
  36. 36. NOT  ADVISABLE  TO  REPLICATE  THE   2009  MODEL   •  Weaknesses  in  the  current  model   need  to  be  recognized,  whether   sampling  (AdapDve  Cluster   Sampling  (ACS)  (Morrison  et  al   (2008)  or  related  to  governance;   •  ReplicaDon,  parDcularly  where   governance  is  weak  may  export  a   problem,  not  a  soluDon.     Ref: Morrison, L. W., Smith, D. R., Young, C. C., & Nichols, D. W. (2008). Evaluating sampling designs by computer simulation: a case study with the Missouri bladderpod. Population ecology, 50(4), 417-425.
  37. 37. THANK  YOU   “if it’s not sustainable, it’s not development” (UNDP)