Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Prunus	
  africana:	
  	
  
a	
  reality	
  check

A B (Tony) Cunningham, Terry Sunderland & Robert Nkuinkeu	

Meeting at ...
 

OVERVIEW	


•  Introduc+on	
  
•  Why	
  is	
  the	
  P.	
  africana	
  case	
  is	
  globally	
  significant	
  in	
  
...
Introduc+on	
  
	
  
Prunus	
  bark	
  trade	
  in	
  global	
  perspec+ve
	
  
•  More	
  Prunus	
  africana	
  bark	
  is	
  wild	
  harveste...
Prunus	
  africana:	
  valued	
  but	
  vulnerable	
  
•  Considered	
  the	
  only	
  African	
  species	
  in	
  a	
  ge...
Export	
  trade:	
  
Prunus	
  	
  
africana	
  

= established trade
= emerging trade
“frontier”

= traditional medicine
...
Why	
  is	
  the	
  P.	
  africana	
  case	
  globally	
  
significant	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  policy	
  vs.	
  prac+ce?
	
...
LESSON	
  1:	
  INCREDIBLE	
  SUPPORT	
  &	
  
EFFORTS	
  HAVE	
  GONE	
  INTO	
  
SUSTAINABLE	
  WILD	
  HARVEST	
  

….b...
PROGRESS	
  SINCE	
  
2011
	
  
•  Mt.	
  Cameroon	
  as	
  a	
  model:	
  
major	
  investment	
  in	
  
management	
  &	...
CASE	
  STUDY:	
  GOING	
  DOWN	
  MT	
  
CAMEROON
	
  

(Ewusi, 2006 in Amougou et al., 2011)

•  Annual	
  “sustainable”...
ROTATION	
  TIMES:	
  5	
  YRS?	
  7	
  YRS?	
  
10YRS?	
  IT	
  ALL	
  DEPENDS…
	
  
•  Current	
  management	
  on	
  Mt...
LESSON	
  2:	
  IS	
  IT	
  WORTH	
  IT?	
  
WHO	
  BENEFITTED	
  &	
  BY	
  HOW	
  MUCH?
	
  
WILD HARVEST
Warehousing 3%
Transport
4%
Regeneration 7%
Park mgmt. 20%
...
COSTS	
  OF	
  MANAGED	
  SUSTAINABLE	
  
HARVEST	
  vs.	
  BENEFITS
	
  
•  Cost	
  of	
  inventory	
  about	
  15	
  mil...
LESSON	
  3:	
  LOCAL	
  LIVELIHOODS	
  &	
  
PRUNUS	
  INCOME	
  NEED	
  CONTEXT	
  	
  

….both place, time & other bene...
HIGH	
  VALUE,	
  HIGH	
  VOLUME,	
  
	
  
HIGH	
  IMPACT
	
  

Madagascar	
  &	
  Prunus	
  africana:	
  
	

 	
  remote,...
MADAGASCAR	

Tsaratanàna

° Antsahabiraoka

= Prunus africana
° Lakato
Tampoketsan’Ankazobe

Marovoay

Import from Cameroo...
OTHER	
  LINKS	
  TO	
  LIVELIHOODS
	
  
•  Diverse	
  products	
  come	
  from	
  
forests,	
  not	
  just	
  Prunus	
  b...
LESSON	
  4:	
  BARK	
  HARVEST	
  DOES	
  
HAVE	
  AN	
  IMPACT	
  	
  
.
BARK REMOVAL IS A SHOCK…
from which some trees do not
recover
HIGH	
  VALUE,	
  WEAK	
  
TENURE=OVERHARVEST	
  
	

•  Demographic structure of natural stands shows very low
representat...
PRUNUS	
  AFRICANA	
  IS	
  AN	
  ECOLOGICAL	
  
KEYSTONE	
  SPECIES
	
  
•  P.	
  africana	
  bark	
  is	
  not	
  just	
...
LESSON	
  5:	
  PAU’s	
  FACE	
  MANY	
  
CHALLENGES	
  
.

”Prunus Allocation Units (PAUs) have been participatively
defi...
WHAT	
  ABOUT	
  ADAMOUA?
	
  

(from Ingram et al, 2009)

•  Current	
  inventory,	
  management	
  &	
  monitoring	
  in...
RESOURCE RICH
FRONTIER?	

•  Traders from Bamenda
employed local people to
strip Prunus africana trees on
Tchabal Mbabo si...
COMMERCIAL	
  HARVEST	
  &	
  
COLLATERAL	
  DAMAGE?
	
  
•  “Collateral	
  damage”	
  (“ladder	
  trees”	
  &	
  
lianas)...
LESSON	
  6:	
  CULTIVATION	
  IS	
  A	
  
MORE	
  VIABLE	
  OPTION	
  
.

…connecting farmers Prunus Growers Associations...
CULTIVATION
Traceability 16%
Harvester

84%

•  Even	
  at	
  the	
  current	
  low	
  
price,	
  culDvaDon	
  is	
  a	
  ...
DOES IT PAY TO PLANT?	

•  While not as profitable as Eucalyptus, an
alternative enterprise, farmers want to grow
P. afric...
TRANSPARENCY	
  ON	
  THE	
  VALUE	
  
CHAIN	
  IS	
  CRUCIAL
	
  
•  We	
  are	
  sDll	
  cross-­‐checking	
  price	
  da...
RECOMMENDATIONS	
  
NEED	
  TO	
  PHASE	
  OUT	
  COMMERCIAL	
  
BARK	
  HARVEST	
  IN	
  THE	
  LONG	
  TERM
	
  
•  Economic	
  &	
  ecologi...
CITES,	
  CULTIVATION	
  &	
  TRADE	
  

•  Local farmers have been cultivating P. africana since the
1970’s but are disco...
GREAT	
  OPPORTUNITY	
  FOR	
  
BUILDING	
  ON	
  PAST	
  
CULTIVATION	
  STUDIES
	
  
•  Long	
  history	
  of	
  ICRAF	
...
NEED	
  TO	
  UNDERSTAND	
  &	
  DEAL	
  WITH	
  
BARRIERS	
  TO	
  TRADE	
  IN	
  CULTIVATED	
  BARK
	
  
•  Diverse	
  v...
NOT	
  ADVISABLE	
  TO	
  REPLICATE	
  THE	
  
2009	
  MODEL
	
  
•  Weaknesses	
  in	
  the	
  current	
  model	
  
need	...
THANK	
  YOU
	
  
“if it’s not sustainable,
it’s not development” (UNDP)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Prunus africana: a reality check

2,239 views

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

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.    
  31. 31. RECOMMENDATIONS  
  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)

×