Eru VC Analysis: Gender Perspectives and Recommendations

2
Table of contents
Table of contents...........................................................................................................2
Acronyms .....................................................................................................................4
Executive summary .......................................................................................................5
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................6
2. Literature sources ..............................................................................................6
3. The eru value chain ............................................................................................6
4. Harvesters.........................................................................................................9
4.1 Numbers of men and women involved................................................................. 10
4.2 Task division.................................................................................................... 10
4.2.1 Traditional gender roles ............................................................................. 10
4.2.2 Changes in traditional roles ........................................................................ 11
4.2.3 Tasks, time allocation and efforts required ................................................... 12
4.3 Income generated ............................................................................................ 13
4.3.1 Who earns, quantities commercialized, income levels and profit margins ......... 13
4.3.2 Eru and other livelihood activities................................................................ 13
4.3.3 Harvesters’ bargaining position................................................................... 14
4.3.4 Income from external harvesters ................................................................ 14
4.3.5 Expenditure of income from eru trade ......................................................... 15
4.4 Constraints...................................................................................................... 15
5. Traders ........................................................................................................... 18
5.2 Task division.................................................................................................... 18
5.4 Constraints...................................................................................................... 19
6. Retailers.......................................................................................................... 20
6.2 Task division.................................................................................................... 21
6.4 Constraints...................................................................................................... 22
7. Processors....................................................................................................... 22
7.1 Processors engaged in selection ......................................................................... 22
7.2 Processors operating restaurants........................................................................ 23
7.3 Processors engaged in drying............................................................................. 23
8. Exporters ........................................................................................................ 24
8.1 Numbers of men and women involved ................................................................ 24
8.2 Task division.................................................................................................... 24
8.4 Constraints...................................................................................................... 25
9. Nigerian traders ............................................................................................... 26
9.1 Numbers of men and women involved and task division ........................................ 26
10. Indirect and support actors................................................................................ 27
11. The international market ................................................................................... 28
12. Summarising the data....................................................................................... 29
12.1 Numbers of men and women and task division ................................................. 29
12.2 Income generated ........................................................................................ 29
12.3 Constraints .................................................................................................. 30
13. Discussion ....................................................................................................... 32

3
13.1 Culture and gender ....................................................................................... 32
13.1.1 Socio-economic status of eru...................................................................... 32
13.1.2 Land and resource tenure .......................................................................... 33
13.1.3 Domestication .......................................................................................... 33
13.1.4 Other gender issues .................................................................................. 34
13.2 Policy and governance...................................................................................34
13.2.1 Knowledge of the resource base ................................................................. 34
13.2.2 Land tenure and forest management ........................................................... 35
13.2.3 Research and development priorities and funding ......................................... 35
13.2.4 Multi-stakeholder platform ......................................................................... 35
13.2.5 Governance.............................................................................................. 36
13.3 Domestication .............................................................................................. 36
13.4 Processing ................................................................................................... 37
13.5 Market structure........................................................................................... 38
13.6 Placing solutions in the context of the eru value chain....................................... 39
14. Recommendations ............................................................................................ 41
15. Conclusion....................................................................................................... 47
Literature ................................................................................................................... 48

4
Acronyms
MINADER Ministère de l’agriculture et du développement rural
MINFOF Ministère de la forêt et de la faune
MINPROFF Ministère de la promotion de la femme et de la famille
LCB Local Capacity Builder
NTFP Non-timber forest product
SNV Netherlands Development Organisation
spp. Species
VC Value chain

5
Executive summary
This report presents an analysis of the Gnetum spp value chain in Cameroon, based
on a review of secondary sources. The analysis is done from a gender perspective
and in the context of training on value chain development. Gnetum is locally known
as “eru”. Information was gathered on three indicators: the numbers of men and
women involved, their task division and the income generated. Constraints faced by
actors were inventoried and the data analysed through a problem tree to facilitate
identification of strategic intervention areas. The latter were further analysed to
produce recommendations for strengthening the value chain. Recommendations
where SNV could play a role, if it was to become involved with eru, are identified and
a quick (non-exhaustive) assessment of their leverage quality was conducted to
indicate priorities. The actors considered included harvesters, traders, retailers,
processers and exporters as well as Nigerian traders operating at the regional level,
actors operating at an international level, and indirect actors.
The eru value chain is dominated by women at all levels. Harvesters, traders and
retailers were found to be 80 to 100 % female while amongst exporters and regional
traders women were found to comprise roughly half the actors. At least 15 000
people (comprising an unknown percentage of all actors) operating in just the
Southwest and Littoral regions are directly involved in the trade. In addition there
are a significant number of indirect actors gaining a livelihood from support activities
to the trade; they are primarily male. There is a well-defined task division between
men and women. Harvesting, shredding and cooking eru are gender roles assigned
to women in accordance with their role as family food providers; commercialisation
of eru products by women is seen as an extension of these roles. Particularly in the
eru source areas there is a heavy dependence by women and their families on the
resource for a livelihood. Eru was found to be profitable to all actors in the market
chain allowing for returns above the poverty line. The income is used to satisfy basic
needs including food, education, clothing, health and housing and is therefore
important in the fight against poverty.
The literature reviewed reveals that the value chain has and is undergoing profound
changes as a result of pressure on the resource in the face of high market demand
and lack of market structure and governance. The current functioning of the value
chain is unsustainable and characterised by a very low status, exploitation of the
most vulnerable and depletion of the resource base resulting in promotion of a
situation of female poverty and entanglement in a downward poverty spiral.
Against this background a vision for a sustainable eru value chain is one that
recognises women’s roles and stakes in eru and their value as responsible NTFP
collectors, entrepreneurs and family providers. It seeks an increase in women’s
influence and control over the livelihood and the value chain upon which their
survival and that of their families depend. The analyses, done with such a vision in
mind, yielded specific recommendations to improve the value chain in the following
areas: lifting the socio-economic status of eru, introducing a policy framework and
governance, promoting conservation and domestication, structuring the eru market,
actors’ capacity building, developing technological improvements and promoting
enterprise development.

6
1. Introduction
This paper is the result of a limited review of secondary information sources available
on the commercialization of Gnetum spp (locally known as “eru” or “okok”) in
Cameroon. The paper focuses on the roles played by men and women, constraints
and the implications these may have for development initiatives to improve the value
chain.
This study was done as an assignment in the context of an e-training on “Value
Chain Development”. It was constrained to exploring data pertaining to three gender
indicators and applied to direct actors at all levels of the value chain. These
indicators were:
- The number of men and women involved.
- The division of tasks between men and women.
- Income levels and other benefits obtained from actors’ involvement in the
activity (including the relative importance of income from eru with respect to
income from other livelihood activities).
Constraints were inventoried and subjected to a cause-effect analysis; solutions for
value chain development are proposed.
2. Literature sources
Many of the more recent studies on the eru value chain focus on the Southwest and
Littoral regions of Cameroon. A reason for this could be that it is here that the
product is most visible with much of it being bulked up in markets and ports from
where it is traded at an international level (especially Nigeria). Although the Centre
region is reported to be an important source area (Ndumbe et al, 2009, personal
communication in the port of Idenau), and destined to becoming more so since the
resource is becoming less abundant in the Southwest and Littoral regions, yet little
information is available about the actors and the market environment in this region.
The current report relies heavily on studies conducted during the last ten years, most
of which focused on the Southwest and Littoral regions. Older literature, dating to
the nineties, offers a useful historical perspective on the eru trade. Literature
sources accessed were mainly from international organizations and scientific articles.
3. The eru value chain
The map below shows the trade routes for eru in Cameroon (CIFOR, 2009). It shows
that the major source areas lie in the Southwest, Littoral and Centre regions, that
there are specific trade routes depending on the origin of the resource and that
Nigeria is a very important destination both over land and through sea ports.

7
Figure 1: Map of eru trade routes in Cameroon and Nigeria (CIFOR, 2009)
The eru value chain was mapped by CIFOR in their 2009 baseline. The figure below
is from their report and presents the eru value chain, market channels and actors.

8
Figure 2: Eru value chain and market channels (CIFOR, 2009)

9
The same report identifies 7 main channels and actors in the eru value chain (see
table below).
Table 1: Channels and actors in the eru value chain (CIFOR, 2009)
Direct actors in the value chain in the Southwest and Littoral regions of Cameroon
are further defined as:
- Harvesters (producers)
- Traders (including buying agents, or bulkers, wholesalers or “buy’ am sell’
am”)
- Retailers in local markets who buy and shred the leaves (shredders or “buy
and cut”)
- Processers (selective harvesters, drying enterprises and restaurant operators)
- Exporters
- Consumers (households).
To this list can be added those actors involved with international trade (mainly to
Nigeria):
- Managers who negotiate purchases in Cameroonian border markets and
Nigerian distribution markets on behalf of Cameroonian exporters and
Nigerian traders
- Nigerian traders.
Indirect actors in the chain include:
- Traditional authorities, local councils (regulating access to the resource)
- Transporters (by vehicle, motor bike, head load)
- Labourers (loaders, off-loaders, tiers, counters, waterers, stackers)
- Government officials including those from MINFOF, police, gendarmes,
quarantine and from the “Programme de Sécurisation de Recettes Forestiers”.
The gender indicators mentioned in the introduction of this report were used to
obtain a more detailed description of the actors. The results are presented in the
sections below.
4. Harvesters
Harvesters are the first actors in the value chain. The CIFOR study characterises a typical
harvester as a middle aged woman, married with a 5 member household and a level
of education at the primary level. This typology is corroborated by Nkembi (2001)
where harvesters were found to be between 31 and 50 years of age, with an
education level ranging from none to primary level.
Nlend (2009) however reports that in certain parts of Mungo Division (Littoral) the

10
autochthon population is hardly involved in commercial harvesting of eru. Instead,
the activity is exercised by Cameroonians from the Northwest, and by Nigerians. This
is potentially a disturbing fact since external actors tend to be driven by short-term
gain rather than long-term sustainability of the resource.
4.1 Numbers of men and women involved
Most of the literature reviewed indicates that harvesters of eru are principally
women. The CIFOR study in the Southwest and Littoral regions reports that amongst
a total of 759 harvesters interviewed (constituting a sample of 25% of harvesters in
a total of 18 villages selected in high production areas) almost 80% was found to be
female. In certain areas (e.g. Ndian Division) harvesting was even found to be
exclusively a women’s activity.
4.2 Task division
This section discusses task division in the harvesting of eru. Included are
presentations on gender roles and perspectives, changes in those roles and the
consequences as well as specific tasks related to harvesting, the time allocation and
effort required to carry them out.
4.2.1 Traditional gender roles
The table below (Nkembi, 2001) gives the results of a survey on perceived gender
roles of NTFP collectors; it indicates that eru in contrast to most other NTFPs is
regarded as entirely a woman’s activity.
Table 2: Perceived gender roles of resource collectors (Nkembi, 2001)
This categorization as a woman’s activity can be explained when viewed from a
cultural context where production, cooking and marketing of vegetables and spices is
commonly performed by women. The perception is extended to eru, which is
traditionally regarded as a subsistence food product. The CIFOR study mentions that

11
men who participate in eru harvesting are regarded as those who have no alternative
(income generating) activity.
For NTFPs in general, those tasks which require significant physical strength for short
periods of time are reserved for men whereas time consuming tasks tend to be part
of women’s domain. This general task division has a strong impact on how NTFPs
are managed although other influencing factors include the arduousness of the task
and the value of the product (IRAD, 1999).
Nlend (2007), reports that in one area studied, while men may accompany women to
the forest and take part in support activities, they will not take part in the actual
harvesting of eru. Their role is to perform physically more demanding tasks such as
felling the tree used by the eru plant as support or cutting vines which are more
difficult to reach. When asked, men and women said that eru harvesting is a
woman’s job and that men do not exhibit the necessary degree of endurance and
perseverance or the needed agility in postures and gestures required for eru
harvesting. While children, both boys and girls, frequently take part in harvesting
activities, boys are restricted from embarking on harvesting trips by their mothers
after a certain age. Nlend suggests that this reinforces the traditional division of
tasks dictating that eru harvesting is a woman’s role; at the same time this reasserts
women’s control over the activity and the resource.
Interestingly, Nlend also reports that amongst harvesters and their families the
activity of harvesting eru is not considered to even merit the term “work”; this shows
the low status accorded to the activity in spite of the monetary gains associated with
it. It is likely that the association of eru with women’s traditional food production
role and the subsistence economy of the poor and marginalized, contributes to the
persisting image of eru as a minor and insignificant product.
4.2.2 Changes in traditional roles
IRAD (1999), Nkembi (2001) and USAID (2004) indicate that ever since NTFPs have
entered the market economy, what used to be the reserve of women is becoming
important for men too. In eru collection it has been reported that young men (in
addition to male and female children during school holidays) join the ranks of women
in the collection of the resource. Literature suggests that not only are men joining
women in harvesting the resource, they are joining women at many places along the
value chain.
IRAD (1999) warns that this increasing trend of men’s involvement constitutes a
menace to the resource base with exploitation now having become excessive and
destructive. Compared with other countries in the Congo Basin where the eru trade
is practically exclusively a women’s affair the management of eru is relatively
sustainable in spite of possible overexploitation locally. The report suggests that
men tend to care less about the sustainability of the resource and to employ more
destructive harvesting habits; it makes mention of the fact that women, as they
pass through forest fallows on an intermittent basis, carefully tend eru plants and
occasionally harvest them even long after a field has been abandoned.
USAID (2004) citing Henkemans (1995) also describes the different ways that
women and men harvest eru. Women tend to be meticulous in their harvest of
leaves, carefully picking each leaf, large and small, as well as pulling the vines from
the canopy and cutting small trees if necessary. Men, on the other hand, are in

12
more of a hurry and concentrate on picking large leaves, leaving small ones behind.
Both men and women cut small trees or vines from the canopy when necessary and
climb larger trees to access the vines high up in the canopy. A worrying fact is that
non-local people harvesting in the forest are often observed to have no regard at all
for the regeneration of exploited eru plants.
The CENDEP study reported of an unconfirmed case (in the high production
Mundemba – Ekondo Titi area) where traditional authorities had disallowed women
access to the eru resource base for commercial purposes as a punitive measure.
Women were said to be arrogant towards the men when they became financially
viable from income earned through eru harvesting. As a consequence they were
banned from harvesting for commercial purposes. It may be interesting to probe into
this situation to establish the facts and to advocate for sustainable solutions.
4.2.3 Tasks, time allocation and efforts required
The consulted literature specifies the tasks related to eru harvesting as the following:
- Constitution into small groups and preparation to embark on a forest trip in
search of eru.
- Travelling to the source area on foot. The CIFOR study mentions that
harvesters travel on average 5 km into the forest to harvest.
- Harvesting by cutting the whole vine using knives or cutlasses or by picking
the leaves from the vine.
- Sorting and tying the produce into bundles of around 1kg.
- Transporting the produce back to the village and/or a point of sale (on
average the CIFOR study mentioned a travel distance of 2 km to the market
with 82% of harvesters transporting the eru using a motorbike and 18%
using a car).
- Selling the produce at the farm gate or in the market.
In the CIFOR study the average time spent in harvesting was found to vary widely
(form 40 minutes to 9 hours) with an average of 2.7 hours/day. Some harvesters
were found to stay in the forest ("sleeping bush") for 2-3 days. The latter tend to be
full time harvesters working 5 to 6 days per week. Those who also farm and have
other livelihood activities spend on average 3 days per week harvesting.
Nlend reports that harvesters and their families consider eru harvesting a difficult job
especially considering that ever greater distances are to be covered, the physical
effort required for harvesting, the risk of accidents and the limited knowledge of out-
lying forest areas and thus the danger of getting lost. In spite of the fact that these
“inconveniences” are accepted by harvesters (they have few if any alternatives),
women indicated that they are still uncertain of obtaining the product because they
may be restricted from access to the resource, or be subject to extortion by forest
owners. Due to these difficulties and uncertainties, respondents in the production
areas studied say they are interested in domesticating eru.
Harvesters operate individually, no union of harvesters was identified in any of the
studies and harvesters stated that they saw no advantages in belonging to a group
(CIFOR, 2009).
Eru is harvested on an on-going basis throughout the year although the rainy season
sees a decline in collection due to competition with agricultural activities. One study
mentioned that because eru collection is an intensive activity, it is not generally

13
combined with other activities, nor is it generally combined with the collection of
other NTFPs (Nkembi, 2001).
The majority of studies, if not all studies, reported that harvesters declared they
need to go further and further into the forest to access the resource. All the
producers interviewed in the CIFOR study noticed a steady reduction in the volume
of eru harvested from the forest during the past decade. This perception is
supported by figures showing a reduction in the total production from 2007 to 2008
of 336 tons in the area.
4.3 Income generated
This section deals with the following topics: who earns income from eru harvesting,
how much of the harvest is commercialised, how much cash is earned, profit
margins, what the proportion of eru income is relative to the total income and how
the income is expended.
4.3.1 Who earns, quantities commercialized, income levels and profit margins
Eru represents an important source of income for women; it is especially valuable to
unmarried, young and poor women with little education, because they have few
other means by which to support themselves (USAID, 2004).
While some of the eru harvested is consumed by households, the vast majority of it
(CIFOR cites 83%, FAO 2002 cites 95%) is sold, showing its commercial importance.
The CIFOR study showed that on average in the area studied, a harvester produces
3.3 tons of eru annually earning an equivalent of 1365 FCFA per day, or around
500 000 FCFA annually. A profit margin of 57% of the selling price was calculated
(this probably does not include some or all of the costs for materials, depreciation of
equipment, transport, and labour). Where labour was considered an input in the
calculation of profit margins, eru sales showed a net negative return on labour
(Nkembi, 2001 calculated this to be -59 FCFA).
Eru production and sale is generally considered profitable by producers. The daily
income is just over $2 a day which is recognised by UNDP as being the “poverty
line”. Most harvesters have diversified incomes and do not rely purely on eru for
their income. However the profits from eru trade are important, contributing on
average to up to one third of income and serving as a safety net for harvesters
particularly during low seasons of agricultural output.
A study by FAO (2002) in Elig-Nkouma 1 village, showed an average sale of 760kg of
eru per household worth a total of 129 920 FCFA (at 168 FCFA/kg), or a daily
average income of 356 FCFA/household.
4.3.2 Eru and other livelihood activities
The relative importance of eru with respect to other livelihood activities was
measured in the CIFOR study. It showed that eru, at 33%, stood first as an NTFP
contributor to household income. In the Littoral and Southwest regions more income
was found to be earned from eru than from any other NTFPs including bush mango
and njangsang (see table below).

14
Table 3: Contribution of NTFPs to harvesters’ income (CIFOR, 2009)
Interestingly the same study showed that when all NTFPs harvested are considered
together, they provided 46.8% of household income, slightly more than agriculture
which stood at 43.6% (see table 4). Income from other livelihood sources than
NTFPs and agriculture was found to be negligible (see table below).
Table 4: Harvesters’ sources of household income (CIFOR, 2009)
4.3.3 Harvesters’ bargaining position
The literature studied notes the fact that harvesters are not organised and that this
contributes to a weak bargaining position when it comes to selling bundles of eru.
For example, Nlend draws attention to the fact that harvesters are mostly at the
mercy of buyers who haggle to get the lowest price possible. Harvesters consider
that “we need the money - that is why we have to sell at their price”. Nlend notes
the humbleness and apparent resignation shown by harvesters who appear incapable
of bringing about changes to improve operations and benefits at their own level even
though the eru trade lies at the very centre of their survival. Apart from harvesters’
attitude and need for instant cash income, another factor undoubtedly at play is the
perishability of eru and therefore the requirement to sell it fresh or lose all.
4.3.4 Income from external harvesters
In some villages groups of young Nigerian men and women were found harvesting
eru (CENDEP, 2006). Such harvesters may stay in the forest for weeks on end after

15
having paid a fee to local authorities of 10 000 to 20 000 FCFA per week or month
entitling them to enjoy unlimited harvest rights. These fees, applied by local councils
and traditional authorities, are commonly criticized by community members who do
not see a direct benefit from these revenues. Some reports however stated that the
money earned in this way was sometimes used for village development.
4.3.5 Expenditure of income from eru trade
Nlend remarks the significance of the eru trade for harvesters, noting that income in
some cases has allowed construction and furnishing of homes. The table below
(from the CIFOR study) shows that the income generated from eru enables
harvesters to pay for basic needs; with food, education, clothing, health care and
house rental constituting over 90% of expenditures of eru generated income.
Table 5: Harvesters’ use of eru generated income (CIFOR, 2009)
It is clear that the very significant level of cash income provided by eru sales, and
the way this income is expended, contributes to meeting multiple Millennium
Development Goals.
4.4 Constraints
Constraints faced by harvesters are presented in this section. A cause-effect
analysis of these constraints was done as a means to identify possible solutions. The
results of the analysis are given in the following table.

16
Constraint Cause Effect on (female) harvesters Mitigation measures
Depletion of
the resource
base
Unsustainable exploitation combined with high market
demand
- Increase in time spent to reach the
resource base and to identify harvestable
plants
- Decrease in harvested amount
- Decreased productivity
- Decreased income
- In the long term: cessation of the activity
- Planting in the forest
- Planting on private land
(domestication)
- Improved forest
management with
regulation of harvesting
- Regulate forest access
Difficult
conditions to
harvest and
sell eru
- Depletion
- Distance to new resource bases
- Unfamiliarity with distant forests
- Bad road infrastructure: forest-market, farm-market
- Harvesters at the mercy of buyers
- Time consuming and laborious activity
- Getting lost in the forest
- Cuts and accidents during harvesting
(e.g. snake bites)
- Sales at low prices
- Bring resource base closer
to home (domestication)
- Unite to find a solution to
transport and sales
problems
Low and even
negative
harvesters’
profit margins
when labour is
taken into
account in
calculations
- Increased travelling time due to low density of the
resource caused by depletion
- CERUT and AIDEnvironment (1999) NTFP survey
report that the producer price for a bundle of eru is
one quarter the price of that of the urban consumer
- In some cases exploitation by buyers
- Low level of benefits
- Cessation of activity
- Increased poverty
- Increase the resource
availability through
sustainable management,
planting and
domestication
- Optimise efficiency in the
value chain through
uniting, aggregation,
selection, value adding,
pricing.
Low policy
interest in the
eru sector
At all levels, eru has a low status with harvesting
considered to be a “woman’s” profession in the
subsistence economy hampering its recognition as a
commercial product of high value
- Inappropriate legal framework
- Unregulated harvesting of the resource
including by external harvesters
(Cameroonians and Nigerians)
- Little or no control on trading at other
levels in the value chain (resulting in
sustained high market demand)
- Raising awareness in policy
circles
- Improving the legal
framework
- Regulating the issue of
harvest/trade permits*
- Improved control of trading
Customary
rules do not
recognise eru
as a product
requiring
sustainable
management
- Non-recognition of the commercial value of eru
- Unawareness of the depletion of the resource
- Unawareness of sustainable management techniques
- Non-recognition of women’s particular interest in eru
- Rights of access to the forest are given
indiscriminately and at low payment rates
with no limits on amounts harvested
- Disregard of the fact that eru is the most
important income generation resource of
women in production areas contributing to
meeting basic needs and ensuring family
well-being
- Raising awareness among
customary rulers and
generally at village level
The absence - Harvesters are not aware of the benefits and - Poses a threat to the integrity of the Raise awareness and assist in

17
*) The CENDEP study compared the permits issued to the quantities traded in just 5 Southwest markets and to Idenau
It was clear that the permits cover only at most 50% of the local Southwest market trade.
Table 6: Cause-effect analysis and mitigation measures for constraints faced by harvesters
of a union to
protect the
interests of
harvesters
strengths of uniting resource base and harvesters’ source of
income
- Reduces the bargaining power of
harvesters who play a negligible role in
price fixation
creating and building capacity of
a harvesters’ union
Weak
marketing
system
Eru trade is part of the informal sector, there exist few
united efforts between actors, especially between
harvesters and higher levels in the chain
- Low harvester margins Improve the marketing
system to ensure greater
profitability for harvesters
through a market
information system, value
adding (e.g. by drying) and
collaboration between
horizontal and vertical actors
Resource
tenure and
access
- Traditionally women have no right to inherit land.
- Women have access to (family and forest) land for
harvesting NTFPs, but no control of it
- Women are denied access when:
• Husbands or in-laws want to establish cash crop
plantations
• Communities restrict their own access to the
forest due to growing awareness of eru’s
commercial value
• Harvesters have to pay village councils to
access the forest
• Forest owners prohibit access
• Forest owners levy fees for access
• Forest is turned into a protected area
- Most communities in Cross River State, Nigeria, have
clear regulations for the harvest of eru from their
forests; the high market demand in Nigeria may
therefore press Nigerians to come to Cameroon for
harvesting the resource (USAID 2004, citing
Sunderland 2001)
- All harvesters in Littoral and some in the
Southwest have observed changes in their
access to the forest (CIFOR, 2009)
- Women’s traditional access rights to the
resource are not always respected; this
could be a trend in the face of continued
high market demand, depletion of
resources, the need to establish protected
areas
- Lack of women’s control and ownership
over land to which they have access may
be a contributing reason for the lack of
progress in domesticating eru
- External harvesters (whether
Cameroonians or Nigerians), paying
access fees, have no long-term interest to
protect the resource resulting in reckless,
unrestrained and unsustainable harvesting
- In the long term loss of income for
traditional harvesters
- Improve the legal
framework
- Improve management of
eru
- Regulate access
- Improve governance in
the value chain

18
5. Traders
The CIFOR study identifies traders as those persons who either travel to production
villages to buy directly from harvesters or their representatives, or who buy from
transporters who have travelled into town to the trader’s place of business. Traders
are also known as middlepersons, wholesalers (“buy and cuts”), intermediaries,
agents (who are usually residents of villages buying on behalf of wholesalers),
buyers and “buy’am-sell’ams”. Traders may sell direct to retailers, exporters or
importers or sell on to another trader or agent, often performing a storage and
wholesale function by bulking-up the product. The CIFOR study indicates that buy’am
sell’am’s usually live in production areas and buy on behalf of wholesalers or may
buy to resell to wholesalers.
One particular type of trader is known as a “manager”. These are commissioned
middle-persons who operate within the Nigerian union system. Each Nigerian
wholesale buyer contracts a manager, who is often Cameroonian, who collects the
product and sells to the Nigerian importer at the border markets or in Nigeria.
Nigerian buyers send money from Nigeria by boat or money transfer agencies to
their managers.
Traders play an important role in getting eru to markets, especially as many
harvesters find it difficult to leave their production zones due to lack of transport,
high costs and long distances, combined with unwillingness to travel due to farm and
family commitments and responsibilities. Traders also often act as an informal social
network, passing on news whilst doing business.
CIFOR (2009) describes the typical profile of a trader as a married woman with
education to secondary school level. The majority are local women from the
Southwest, with 9% Nigerian and 5% women from the Northwest. The main
difference compared to producers is the higher level of education, reflecting the
ability to organise the logistics of the trade.
Ndoye (1997) indicates that in that year 94% of eru traders operating in the humid
forest zone of Cameroon were women. The CENDEP study indicates that women
dominate both national and trans-border wholesale eru trade in Cameroon, with only
a few men being involved, but there were no exact figures.
CIFOR reports the difficulty of obtaining figures on the number of traders involved in
the eru trade but estimates, based on reports from key informants, interviews and
literature, that in the Southwest at least 221 traders are active in the eru value
chain.
5.2 Task division
None of the literature sources consulted specified the tasks involved in trading.

19
According to the CIFOR study a buy’am-sell’am in the Southwest and Littoral regions
earns a profit of on average 60 000 FCFA per month (2000 FCFA/day) while a
manager earns on average 120 000 FCFA per month (4000 CFA/day) plus possibly
extra benefits resulting from price bargaining.
For the majority of traders, the eru business is their main source of income. However
most traders had up to 6 other sources of income, and traded in a range of other
common and complementary food products that are both seasonal and year round
staple commodities (such as garri, fufu, beans, palm oil, rice).
Similar to harvesters, 83% of traders’ income from eru is used to pay for basic family
needs including food, education, clothing, health care and housing.
One female trader in Etodie market in Yaoundé (personal communication) indicated
that she bought eru sourced from Boumnyebel, Makak, Eseka, Bafia, Obala and Sa’a
at 500 FCFA/bundle (weighing about 1kg). She sold the merchandise at 800
FCFA/bundle to retailers or 1000 FCFA to consumers. Literature indicates that prices
vary from place to place with the lowest farm gate prices reported from villages that
are least accessible.
The mean buying price of eru in the markets surveyed in the CIFOR study was 827
FCFA and the mean selling price was 1357 FCFA after incurring some costs for
transport and taxes. Traders make an average profit margin of 497 FCFA per kg of
eru.
5.4 Constraints
The cause-effect analysis of constraints faced by traders is presented in the table
below.
Constraint Cause Effect on (female)
traders
Mitigation
measures
Widespread existence
of informal taxes and
harassments by police
officers, forestry
officials, customs,
councils, commerce
and quarantine officers
- Procedures for obtaining a
commercial permit tends to
disfavour small-scale traders
- Many traders indicate that even
when they do have permits,
hassles are common and
amount to 14 % of their costs
(CIFOR)
- Traders are forced
to operate illegally,
leaving them in a
vulnerable position
- High levels of
trading costs
- Drives up prices
- Policy to favour
permits for small
scale traders
- Strong trader
unions
- Governance to
control hassles
at checkpoints
Lack of a structured
market information
system (MIS)*
- Traders depend on information
from colleagues (only one third
of traders in the CIFOR study
had direct market knowledge
from selling in other markets)
- Market volumes
remain low
- Efficiency is low
Introduce a market
information system
Stock losses (average
13%/trader)**
- Accidental fire
- Deterioration due to perishable
nature of the product
- Missed income - Improve
efficiency e.g.
through MIS
- Improved
storage
techniques

20
Low bargaining power
of Cameroonian
traders compared to
Nigerian counterparts
Inability to present a united front
even though some traders’ unions
exist
Little influence in price
fixation
- Increased union
membership
- Strengthen
unions
*) Although almost all traders in the CIFOR study (89%) confirmed they had access to some market
information about prices and performance in up to 9 other markets, information on Nigerian
markets was less available.
**) All traders reported stock losses. Eru needs to be sold in 5 days. Almost all traders have
techniques for storage, including sprinkling water on the leaves and spreading eru on the floor at
night.
Table 7: Cause-effect analysis and mitigation measures for constraints faced by
traders
6. Retailers
Retailers, or shredders, of eru are found mainly in local markets. These are women
who buy a limited number of bundles of eru from traders and proceed to shred the
leaves for sale in small quantities (e.g. a small bowl of eru weighing 50g is sold
between 50 and 100 FCFA in Yaoundé depending on the market). Shredding is done
in the market, at the place of sale. The process is manual with the woman sitting on
the ground or on a traditional low bench, holding a fistful of tightly packed leaves
and using a sharp knife to slice the product. Nlend makes mention of retailers’
complaints of fatigue and back pain due to the position adopted in order to carry out
their activity.
Retailers sell shredded eru directly to processors (e.g. restaurant operators) and
consumers who are mainly female heads of households. The average profile of a
retailer is a married woman in her mid thirties with education up to primary school
level and travelling on average 2,2km to her place of work. About 70% of the
shredders in the CENDEP study carried out their profession combined with other
livelihood activities including farming, selling other foodstuffs and/or selling cooked
food. Some retailers were found to sell daily in the local markets while others sell
only on market days.
Almost half of the retailers belong to a commercial union or organisation, most
having been members for on average 4 years. The major services provided by the
unions are credit, social support, solidarity and settling conflicts. The majority (77%)
of the retailers did not belong to other organisations.
All the retailers interviewed in all the markets sampled in the CIFOR study were
women, indicating the female domination of this trade. A total of 539 retailers were
counted in the CIFOR area of study. The CENDEP study also counted the number of
retailers resulting in the following statistics:

21
Market No. of retailers (shredders)
Limbe >100
Buea Town market 12
Great Soppo market 45
Wone market 1
Manyemen market 7
Mamfe market 35
Ekondo Titi >10
Kumba main market 60
Fiango market in Kumba 80
Total >350
Table 8: Number of retailers in selected markets (from CENDEP, 2006)
There was mention of a few isolated instances where eru shredding was done by
harvesters but this does not seem to be a trend. Shredders in the CENDEP study
included Cameroonians and Nigerians, with equal opportunities and privileges.
6.2 Task division
Tasks associated with the retail trade include:
- Buying supplies: in the CIFOR study all retailers obtained their supplies from
traders and did not buy directly from harvesters. Their supplies were sourced
from a range of areas, with the majority coming from the Southwest (51%),
followed by 20% from Littoral and 29% from the Centre region.
- Shredding the product: all retailers interviewed shredded eru themselves.
- Selling the product: the majority (85%) of retailers exclusively sold shredded
eru, with the remainder also re-selling the whole leaves.
In the literature consulted no mention was made of a task division between men and
women in the context of the retail trade.
Figures on the level of income of retailers were not found in the literature studied.
However a rough estimation on the profit margin can be made as follows:
- A retailer buys a bundle (1kg) of eru leaves in Etodie (Yaoundé) from a
buy’am-sell’am at 800 FCFA.
- The eru is shredded assuming that a 1kg bundle of eru yields 700g of
shredded eru and 300g of waste (twigs, stems).
- The product is sold at 75 to 100 FCFA a small bowl (weighing around 50g).
- The profit margin works out at 250 to 600 FCFA per kg of raw eru (30-75%).
Prices at Mokolo market in Yaoundé are said to be lower.
For the majority of eru retailers, the eru business is their main source of income
(76% according to the CIFOR study). Most retailers however had other sources of
income, and often traded in a range of other common, complementary food
products. Agriculture was found to bring in only 2% of the total income of retailers.

22
Similar to harvesters and traders more than 80% of retailers’ income from eru was
found to be used to pay for basic needs, with food, education, clothing, health care
and house rent rated as the most important in that order.
6.4 Constraints
The cause-effect analysis of constraints faced by retailers is presented in the table
below.
Constraint Cause Effect on female retailers Mitigation
measures
Perishability
of eru
Lack of good storage
techniques
Loss in income Improved storage
and preservation
techniques
Increasing
scarcity
Unregulated off-take from
forests in the face of high
market demand
- Decreasing ease in finding
the raw materials
- Long-term loss of income
- Plantation
- Forest
management
No barriers
for entry into
the trade
Informal market - An increase in retailers
- Increased competition
- Lower returns for those
already in the trade
- Increased union
membership
- Strengthen retailer
unions to create
trade barriers
Increase in
the price of a
kg of leaves
(reported
from Fako)
Government had increased
taxes on suppliers who are
large-scale exporters with
permits
- Decreased profit margins
- Drives up price
- Loss of income
- Regulation of the
market e.g.
through strong
unions
- Multi stakeholder
platforms to
develop eru value
chain
retailers
7. Processors
In the literature studied three types of processors, practicing 3 different processing
techniques, were identified. These techniques were: selection, cooking in the
restaurant trade and drying. A description of the actors practicing these techniques
is presented below.
7.1 Processors engaged in selection
Selective picking of leaves is an improved, non-destructive, harvesting technique. It
is practiced where eru has been domesticated. Selection is also the simplest form of
product differentiation. The CIFOR study observed harvesters applying this
technique in Takpe in the Akwaya sub-division and Ekenge in the Nguti sub-division.

23
Bundles of eru leaves from selective picking were found to be sold at 500 FCFA
rather than the usual price in the area of 200-300 FCFA/bundle. The added value
thus amounted to 200-300 FCFA per bundle.
No mention was made of constraints in applying this technique.
7.2 Processors operating restaurants
Restaurant operators, often known as ‘mammy’, cook and sell eru in a dish
commonly known as “eru and water-fufu” in the Southwest. All of the restaurant
operators identified and interviewed in the CIFOR study were women. It was
calculated that a restaurant operator makes an average profit (value addition) of 550
FCFA per kilogram of unprocessed eru.
All the income generated from the sale of cooked eru by restaurant operators was
used to fulfil basic needs including purchase of food (35%), clothing (30%), school
fees (20%) and health care (15%).
7.3 Processors engaged in drying
Drying in a traditional way was reported by Nkembi (2002) to be practiced by a small
percentage (<5%) of harvesters.
Drying is also practiced by a number of small enterprises. Tools used include: files,
knives and shredding boards. Zinc sheets and electric drying machines were used
for drying the shredded eru. Plastic sheeting and electric sealing machines were
used to package the dried product. The CIFOR study collected information from 3
such enterprises; details are presented in the table below.
Enterprise Source area Market Price
CIG Manyu
Indigenous Spice
Processing Ekemco
Group (MISPEG)
Bachuo-akagbe in
Upper Bayang
- Douala, Limbe,
Buea, Yaoundé
- Export to the
Netherlands,
Belgium, Britain,
Germany, USA
4000 FCFA/kg
Value addition 150
CFA/kg
Taless Centre and Littoral
regions
Yaoundé 6000-6500
FCFA/kg
Forest House
(CENDEP)
No information No information Value added: 500
CFA/kg
Table 10: Eru drying enterprises, sources, markets and prices of dried eru.
In the case of MISPEG, members collect the resource from the forest; presumably
the harvesters would be mostly women. There was no information regarding
whether those working in the processing of the resource were harvesters or rather
specialised persons but presumably the returns from sale of processed eru would
eventually benefit the members of MISPEG.
The available data indicates that processing through drying is very profitable.

24
Problems faced by drying enterprises include:
- Lack of shredding machines
- Poor product labels
- A lack of dedicated transport
- Low levels of publicity and marketing
- Limited market information on international markets for eru.
A constraint analysis for these problems is given in the table below.
Constraint Cause Effect on
enterprises
Mitigation measures
Lack of shredding
machines
- Unavailability?
- Price?
Manual shredding - Investigate
availability and
profitability of using
shredding machines
- Develop one if
necessary
Poor product labels Lack of awareness/
know-how on
labelling
Decreased
- Visibility
- Marketability
Assistance to improve
labelling
Low levels of publicity
and marketing
Lack of awareness/
know-how
Decreased
- Visibility
- Marketability
Assistance to improve
publicity and marketing
Limited market
information on
international markets
for eru
Lack of network /
contacts
Limited market
outlets in spite of
high profitability of
the activity
Improve market
information
Table11: Cause-effect analysis and mitigation measures for constraints faced by
processing enterprises
8. Exporters
A typical eru exporter in the Southwest is married, with a secondary level of
education and is most likely to be a female in her mid thirties (CIFOR, 2009).
The majority of exporters are women; the CIFOR study identified 265 exporters of
whom 58% were female and 42% male.
8.2 Task division
No information was found on the tasks and division of labour in the group of
exporters.
The CENDEP study estimates that small scale eru exporters had a monthly profit
margin averaging 120 000 FCFA with a range from 80 000 FCFA to 200 000 FCFA a
month. Average profit margins of eru exporters in the CIFOR study were calculated

25
to range between 82 and 365 FCFA/kg of the product depending on the source area
and Nigerian destination market.
In the CIFOR study exporters were found to be taxed by various parties: they have
to pay forest tax, council tax, quarantine tax, custom tax and police tax (the latter
constituting bribes).
The CIFOR study indicated that on average eru contributed to 58% of an exporter’s
household income. The greater part of this income (66%) was used to pay for basic
needs with the following breakdown: education (26%), food (22%), health care
(11%) and clothing (7%).
8.4 Constraints
The analysis of constraints faced by exporters are presented in the table below.
Constraint Cause Effect on exporters Mitigation
measures
Rotting or drying causing
an average stock loss of
26% per exporter
(CIFOR)*
Perishability of eru Missed income Improved storage and
preservation
techniques
Competition between
full-time and
opportunistic exporters
- High demand in Nigeria
attracts opportunistic
exporters with
diversified income
streams
- Full-time exporters are
not sufficiently united
Loss of business
opportunities and income
for full-time exporters
whose sole income
source is from their
business
- Create (or
strengthen existing)
unions
- Create entry barriers
into the trade
Fluctuations in the
exchange rate with the
Nigerian Naira
Incurred by exporters who
accompany their product
to Nigeria
Missed income - Sell in Cameroon
- Improve market
information
Poor condition of roads Many reasons Up to 100% loss when
transport vehicles get
stuck for 3 or more days
Difficult to influence
Commercial permits are
difficult to obtain for
small scale exporters
- Procedures favour large
economic operators and
enterprises
- Requires presence,
experience and
connections in Yaoundé
- Small exporters
forced to operate
without permits
- Exporters vulnerable
to harassment by
officials for payment
of informal taxes
- Improve policy for
permit attribution
- Create strong unions
- Improve governance
- Multi-stakeholder
platform
Nigerians do not permit
Cameroonians to sell eru
beyond the border
markets of Ikom,
Ikang**
- Nigerians have a strong
bargaining position
- Cameroonian exporter
unions are weak
Nigerians are able to
dominate the market
Create/strengthen
Cameroonian unions
*) In spite of 86% of exporters applying storage techniques (spreading on floor, sprinkling
water, holes in bags for air circulation)
**) In contrast, the Nigerians have access to harvest and buy directly from
Cameroonian villages and forests.
eru exporters.

26
9. Nigerian traders
The CIFOR study reports that almost 100% of eru marketed in Nigeria in 4 markets
studied (Ikom, Ikan, Calabar and Oran) originates from Cameroon and that more
than 90% of eru consumed in Nigeria is of Cameroonian origin (the remainder
originating from domesticated eru in Nigeria). One Nigerian trader (personal
communication) overseeing loading of a consignment of eru in the port of Idenau
indicated that he bought eru 3 times a week (Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays)
and that the final destination of his product was Lagos where there is a large unmet
demand.
9.1 Numbers of men and women involved and task division
In contrast to Cameroonian actors, the Nigerian traders are highly organized. The
CIFOR study gathered data from 3 trader associations in 3 Nigerian markets and
highlighted the number of men and women in the eru trade as well as their division
of tasks. The study showed that there were at least 152 traders active in these
markets (plus an unknown number of buy’am-sell’ams, traders and indirect
labourers). Details of the data collected are shown in the table below.
No of membersAssociation Market
Male Female
Task division
Association of
Afang Dealers
(ASOFAD)
Oron 38* 4* No information
Association of
Afang Dealers
(ASOFAD) (??)
Ikom 30 50 Women shred and retail.
Men are wholesalers with their own
shed or visit other areas to supply
customers.
Calabar Union Calabar 23 7 Women shred and retail.
Men are wholesalers with their own
shed.
TOTAL 91 61 -
*) Includes 1 Cameroonian member
Table 13: Number of male and female traders in the eru trade and their division
of tasks in 3 Nigerian markets
The price of a bundle of eru in Calabar and Ikang was found to be equivalent to
around 1500 FCFA (CIFOR, 2009). The average level of profit of an importer in
Nigeria was found to be just over FCFA 3 million annually (or 250 000 FCFA
monthly).
There was no information on the constraints faced by Nigerian traders but the
following “advantages” of Nigerian traders when compared with their Cameroonian
counterparts were reported:

27
- Nigerian wholesalers make higher profit margins than their Cameroonian
counterparts. The CIFOR study revealed “buyer-driven” governance within
the eru value chain with much of the bargaining power concentrated at the
level of Nigerian traders. A reason for this is the high level of organisation of
Nigerian traders and the low level of organisation of their Cameroonian
suppliers whose organisations are either weak or absent. Nigerian traders
benefit by having control of the market and are able to determine the price of
eru at the borders and thus influence their own profit margins.
- Being organised also helps the Nigerians to solve many major and minor
problems like for example controlling thieving in their markets of operation.
- Nigerian traders do not suffer from bad road conditions.
- Transportation costs in Nigeria are considered “reasonable”.
- Taxation (whether official or unofficial) does not appear to be an issue on the
Nigerian side of the border.
.
10. Indirect and support actors
A number of indirect or support actors are active in the eru value chain. A summary
of these actors and the tasks they perform are given in the table below.
Type of actor Name Description Task
Transporter Truck pushers, bike
riders, vehicle and
boat drivers
Transport eru as
negotiated with the owner
Loader Load and unload trucks
and carts
Stacker Fill large sacks
Counter Count sacks
Support actor
Waterer
150 to 250 young men
(18-35 years old)
employed 3x per week in
Idenau
Keep sacks moist
Knife and cutlass
sharpener
Presumably based in
village and market
Provide service to
harvesters and retailers
Market manager No information found Provide service to
traders/retailers
Village chiefs and
council members
Based at local level Regulate forest
management, eru harvest
and sales at farm gate
Indirect actor
Officials* Civil servants Apply rules and
regulations, law
enforcement
*) Police officers, gendarmes, quarantine officers, Ministry of Commerce officials, Customs
officials and Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife officials
Table 14: Types of support actors, characteristics and tasks performed (CIFOR,
2009)
Judging from the tasks and information found in the reports it appears that the
majority of indirect and support actors are male. The studies did not divulge on the
levels of income or the constraints faced by these actors.

28
11. The international market
This study would not be complete without a section on the international market. An
FAO report dating to 1999, reports that eru is among the most frequently imported
NTFPs in Europe and the United States. Actors in those markets include importers,
wholesalers, retailers, processors (restaurant operators) and consumers.
In most cases importers buy their products in Central Africa through a local partner
or purchasing agent who is in contact with the national/local markets and suppliers.
The commercial links with the latter are usually exclusive. In many cases importers
are also wholesalers. For importers the main constraints concern the Central African
side of the market:
- Absence of an institutional structure for managing supply and demand and
the poor organisation of the production side.
- The absence of transportation infrastructure (notably roads) for rapid
shipment of the product to limit spoilage.
- The lack of other infrastructure e.g. cold storage facilities at airports.
- The irregularity of supply.
- The non-compliance of products to European regulations.
- The absence of quality control by exporters.
- Administrative inefficiency in the export departments.
These constraints can be tackled through improved organisation of the production
and export side as well as the involvement of certain indirect actors such as
forwarding agents, air transporters, etc.
Retailers include people who have their origins in Central Africa and participate in
neighbourhood tropical markets or ethnic markets and/or hold local tropical grocery
shops. They specialise in the retail sale of products from their country, including eru.
This “local factor” is considered important for attracting consumers as they target
people from Central Africa. This ethnic link also allows for sale of products in the
absence of any kind of label indicating quality and origin of the product. Consumers
shop at market stalls and grocery shops owned by fellow nationals, in whom they
have confidence. Similarly, marketing is done without any advertising other than
word-of-mouth and the display of the product in market or shop. Many shops,
notably those run by Africans, have signs indicating the country of origin of the
manager and the origin of the products.
Opportunities for improving the eru market on the European side are the following:
- Harmonising regulations on the imports of NTFPs into Europe.
- Increased regularity of fresh product supplies.
- Processing the product (drying, freezing).
- Improving packaging and labelling.
- Certification such as organic and fair trade.
African restaurants in larger cities in France and Belgium were reported to have eru
on their menu.

29
12. Summarising the data
This section summarises the data from previous sections under paragraphs on the
numbers of men and women involved in the eru sector and their task division, the
income generated and constraints felt.
12.1 Numbers of men and women and task division
A summary of the number of persons and the percentage of women involved in the
eru value chain (CIFOR, 2009) is given in the table below.
NumberActor
Total % women
Remarks
Harvester 13662 80 Calculated as 100% of harvesters in 18
sample villages in Southwest and Littoral
Trader 221 94 In Southwest
Retailer >350 100 In 9 markets in the Southwest
Processer ? ? Few drying enterprises, few selective
harvesters, restaurant operators were not
counted
Exporter 265 58 In Southwest and Littoral
Nigerian trader 152 40 In 3 markets in Nigeria
International trader ? ? No information
Table 15: Number of persons and percentage of women involved in the eru value
chain (CIFOR, 2009)
In addition to the above persons a large number of indirect actors are involved in the
eru trade, most of them male.
Apart from at the level of the harvesters where traditionally a well-defined task
division between men and women is reported, none of the literature consulted
studied this aspect.
A number of literature sources speak of an increasing trend of men’s involvement in
the eru value chain. However in some areas harvesting remains an exclusively
female activity. At the level of traders and exporters it appears there is an
increasing involvement of men as noted by some studies.
Eru as an economic crop was found to be profitable to all actors in the market chain
with those earning the least still have monthly returns above the poverty line. The
income is used to satisfy basic needs. The product thus plays an important role in
the fight against poverty. A summary of the income related information obtained
from the literature review is given in the table below. In some instances deductions
were made to provide more complete information.

30
Table 16: Annual income from eru, percentage contribution to total income,
percentage expenditure on basic needs, profit margins and prices per kg for actors
at every level of the value chain.
The CENDEP study reports that traders and processers make higher profit margins
than harvesters and exporters. This is not supported by the CIFOR study which
indicates that harvesters, especially selective harvesters make the highest profit
margins. This can be explained by the fact that labour was not taken into account in
the calculations (where it was taken into account, by Nkembi 2001, there was a
negative return). Roughly, profit margins lie in the range of 20 and 50% for traders,
restaurant operators and exporters and between 30 and 75% for retailers.
12.3 Constraints
The results of the cause-effect analyses of constraints presented in earlier sections
were used to prepare a problem tree. This problem tree (figure below), shows
clearly the interrelatedness of the many causes and effects of constraints faced by
actors in the value chain. The problem tree was used to identify strategic
intervention areas; these are presented as colours in the problem tree in accordance
with the following legend.
Legend: Strategic intervention areas
Culture and gender
Policy and governance
Domestication and sustainable harvesting
Processing
Market structure
Other factors, difficult to influence
A discussion on each area, including actions to improve the value chain, are given in
the chapter following this one.
Profit marginActor Annual
income
from eru
(FCFA)
Percentage
contribution
of eru to
total income
Percentage
expenditure
of income
from eru on
basic needs
FCFA %
Selling
price
FCFA/kg
Harvester 500 000 33 90 100 57 >200
Trader 720 000 to
1 440 000
Main source of
income
83 497 35 1357
Retailer ? 76 80 250-600 30-75 1050-1400
Selective harvester ? ? ? 400 80 500
Drying enterprise ? ? ? Profitable 4000-6500
Processer
Restaurant ? ? 100 550 28 1950
Exporter 1 440 000 58 66 82-365 20-55 400-750
Nigerian trader 3 000 000 ? ? ? ? 1200-1500
International trader ? ? ? ? ? ?

31
Depletion of the
resource base
Resource base
confined to more and
more remote areas
Low
profitability
Low policy
interest
Customary rules do
not recognize eru as a
commercial product
High market demand,
notably in Nigeria
Unsustainable
exploitation in
Cameroonian forests
Bad
roads
Women do not own
land (have access
but no control)
Decreased
productivity
Inappropriate
legal framework
External and
foreign
harvesters
Deficient control
on trading
Widespread
culture of
informal
tax levying
Permit
allocation
favours large
enterprises
Access rights to
forest given
indiscriminately
against low
payments
Negligible role in price
fixation by Cameroonian
actors
Women
experience
obstacles in
accessing the
resource
Harvesters do
not see need
for union
Actors lack awareness of actual
eru value and potential
Women’s
decreasing
income levels
Low status of eru (associated with women’s
traditional food production role and subsistence
economy of the poor and marginalized)
Absence
harvesters’
union
Small traders’
trade is illegal
Incentive for
harassment
High additional
costs for
traders
Drives up
prices
Traders
vulnerable
Lack of
market info
Weak traders’,
retailers’ and
exporters’
associations
Traders
unaware of
potentials of
the trade
Market lacking
structure and
organisation
Lack of concerted
efforts at
domestication/
conservation
Low market
efficiency
Lack of
efforts to
diversify eru
products,
incl.
processing,
preservation
Increased
competition
Spoilage and
losses
No trade
barriers
Increased female
poverty, basic family
needs not met
Important
cultural value
of eru
Increased time and costs
of women to harvest eru
Weak positions of Cameroonian
actors, VC domination by Nigerians
Cessation of
women’s eru
trade
Figure 3: Problem tree analysis for eru
Good regulation of eru
harvest in Nigerian
forests pressing
Nigerians to come to
Cameroon

32
13. Discussion
From previous sections it is clear that in the eru source areas where there is an
absence of economic alternatives, there is a heavy dependence by women and their
families on the eru resource for livelihoods and meeting basic needs. The same
holds true for women at higher levels in the chain. However, this study shows that
the current functioning of the eru value chain is characterised by exploitation of the
most vulnerable, it promotes depletion of the resource base and poverty and suffers
from a lack of governance.
This chapter proposes ways to improve the value chain through sustainability of the
resource base and the livelihoods which depend on it. Such an improved value chain
needs to be based on a strong recognition of women’s roles and stakes in eru as well
as women’s value as knowledgeable and responsible NTFP collectors, entrepreneurs
and providers for their families. The improved value chain aims to give women the
tools to become instruments of their own development by influencing the value chain
in which they operate.
The discussions in this chapter envision reduced poverty through transparency,
participation by and collaboration between actors, strengthened bargaining positions,
sustained livelihoods through a sustainable resource base and fairness in benefit
sharing. Each of the strategic intervention areas identified in the previous chapter is
discussed below and solutions are proposed. At the end of this chapter the solutions
are placed in the context of the eru value chain and presented visually.
13.1 Culture and gender
This strategic intervention area looks at culture and gender aspects in relation to
such issues as the socio-economic status of eru, land and resource tenure and
domestication.
13.1.1 Socio-economic status of eru
Eru, being a food product which is traditionally collected from the wild by poor
women as part of their gender role as family food providers, is generally accorded a
low status at all levels of society. This low status persists in spite of increasing
market demand and the move of the product from a subsistence context to one of
significant commercial value, attracting large numbers of external and foreign actors.
While the opposite is true, the image among all the actors in the eru value chain
endures as one of a readily available product of little consequence.
The clear discrepancy between perception and reality has far-reaching consequences.
The trade in eru is conducted quite openly yet in the margins of the formal market
economy and has failed to catch the attention of policy makers. As a consequence
opportunities for safe guarding the resource base, earning state revenue, and
improving livelihoods by reducing female poverty are entirely ignored.
Eru needs to be put in its true context so that the status of eru professions can gain
in socio-economic importance, thereby drawing attention to the threats and

33
potentials of the product and its trade. This should result in allocation of resources
to implement some of the solutions presented in other sections of this chapter.
Lobbying and advocacy targeted at policy makers can help to initiate a change in the
perception of eru as a low value product. Useful tools to raise the profile include
actively disseminating the results of research on eru, raising the issue at appropriate
forums, and implementing activities for the development of the value chain.
13.1.2 Land and resource tenure
Land tenure and resource rights for NTFPs tend to be unclear to forest communities.
While the 1994 Forestry Law (94/01) stipulates that all forested resources in
Cameroon belong to the state, with adjacent communities granted forest user rights
for non-commercial use of the resources, many local communities believe that the
forests belong to them by right of inheritance and that governance is a matter of
customary rule. Customary rules vary from one community to another according to
the local customs governing inheritance and land ownership. Coupled with a low
level of forest governance and law enforcement by the state this creates, at best, a
confused situation.
In many communities in the eru source areas, women according to customary rule
cannot inherit land. While they do traditionally have access to family farms and
forests and to village forests they cannot own these resources. Many of the
respondents in the CIFOR study indicated they had experienced changes in forest
access. Loss of access occurs due to population pressure (conversion of forest to
agricultural land), recognition of the commercial value of eru (resulting in prohibited
or restricted access sometimes requiring payment to local authorities and owners)
and conversion of forest land to conservation and protected areas for environmental
reasons. In some cases external harvesters occupy resource areas.
The lack of control by women, the restrictions felt, and the uncertainty experienced
favours unsustainable exploitation of the resource where harvesters gather what
they can while the opportunity is there. On the other hand this situation also favours
domestication where women gain control by planting and managing eru in their own
fields.
The question of resource tenure is an important one and merits careful consideration
in the design and monitoring of interventions, not in the last place in the
management of wild eru populations.
13.1.3 Domestication
Domestication of eru is discussed in one of the following sections but warrants some
attention here because of certain gender implications.
The production of leafy vegetables, primarily for home consumption, occurs generally
within a mixed-crop system managed by women. This fact, together with the fact
that eru appears to grow best under shade in mixed farming situations favours its
introduction into mixed-crop systems and its maintenance in the domain of women
farmers. However, if due to its increasing commercial value, eru were to be
domesticated on a large scale it is difficult to predict what effect an increase in men’s
involvement with the product may have on women farmers. A possible trend could

34
be that of a move from female-dominated mixed-crop agriculture, to male-
dominated mono-cropping for market sale; thereby shifting the benefits of eru away
from women.
Distance to the market is another factor potentially affecting benefit sharing from
cultivated eru. USAID (2004), citing Gockowski and Ndumbe (1997), makes mention
of the tendency that the closer a farmer lives to a market town, the greater is the
percentage of the farmer’s crops that are sold. Leafy vegetables play an increasingly
commercial role for people living less than 20 km from a market. While the
introduction of eru into farming systems could lead to a greater income for women
living near market towns (as they benefit from the ability to provide fresher leaves
more regularly, incurring lower transportation costs than women who harvest from
the wild) at the same time this could greatly reduce the market share of those
(poorer) women living in more remote locations, having fewer alternatives and who
therefore rely more heavily on the sale of eru for a cash income.
It is important to carefully monitor tendencies and trends related to domestication
and to seek innovative ways to prevent poor women from losing their livelihoods.
13.1.4 Other gender issues
Women as the main actors in the eru value chain necessarily need to be involved at
all stages of interventions undertaken. However, since it appears that men are
increasingly involved at all levels of the value chain they should not be overlooked.
Developing women’s technical, economic and organisational capacities are important
areas to improve functioning of the chain leading to improved benefits for women,
decreased female poverty and thereby increased family wellbeing. Technology to
ease women’s workload and prolong shelf life through improved storage and
processing can bring about further important improvements and benefits in terms of
existing livelihoods and new ones.
13.2 Policy and governance
Despite nomination of eru as a “Special Forest Product” (signifying the need for
special attention) in 2006, this has resulted in very little policy interest and a
continued low level of governance of the value chain. As outlined in earlier sections
of this report lack of a policy framework and inadequate governance contributes in
significant terms to serious degradation of the resource base and exploitation of local
populations. It also contributes to a significant level of missed state revenue.
Elements of an eru policy framework are presented in the following paragraphs.
13.2.1 Knowledge of the resource base
Knowledge of the country’s resource base is both patchy and limited. While the
Southwest and Littoral regions have been the object of some research initiatives,
much less is known about eru in other areas. To acquire a solid foundation of
knowledge on eru, mapping of the resource base and production of botanical
inventories are needed. This information should provide the basis for formulating
policy as well as a baseline for monitoring resource take-off.

35
13.2.2 Land tenure and forest management
The proposed policy framework should include a section focusing on eru harvesting
rights in relation to land tenure and the classification of resources as protected areas,
national parks, buffer zones, community forest, village forest, private forest or
otherwise. Policies must subsequently be clarified to actors, especially those
pertaining to the interaction of official and customary rules governing land and
resource tenure. Studies suggest that where resource tenure is clear and the value
of NTFPs is recognised, village councils and forest owners assert control and regulate
access to the eru resource in an effective way, thereby enhancing management and
sustainability.
Management of wild eru populations is another area requiring attention in the policy
framework. Instruments for management need to be developed, including harvesting
standards and regimes, closing areas for regeneration purposes and designating
conservation areas to safeguard the genetic resource. It appears such management
is already in operation on the Nigerian side of the border where it is benefitting local
people and effectively excluding external actors.
13.2.3 Research and development priorities and funding
Many research and development initiatives for developing the eru value chain are
identified and need to be prioritized through a leadership role assumed by the
government. Channelling government revenue, obtained through issuing eru permits
and taxation, back into the value chain would create a source of funding for
prioritized initiatives. In the context of the importance and potential of eru in
reducing poverty it is clear that many benefits can be gained. Priority initiatives
could span the areas of regeneration, conservation, domestication, processing and
market structuring.
13.2.4 Multi-stakeholder platform
A multi-stakeholder platform could bring together key players at the national level
including MINFOF, MINADER, MINPROFF, research and development agencies, and
representatives of actors in the value chain. Such a network could give valuable
contributions to the preparation of a policy framework but also be instrumental in
developing common approaches and synergies, for example with respect to policy
and governance issues.
It is important that such a platform have regional links, especially with Nigeria which
represents the biggest market but constitutes also a destabilizing factor for the eru
value chain in terms of the unsatisfied demand emanating from that market, the
influx and influence of Nigerian actors in Cameroon and the pressure this puts on
Cameroonian actors and the Cameroonian resource base. Regional links with other
countries in the Congo Basin are also of great interest for example to create synergy
and capitalize on experiences and results obtained in the domain of eru in other
countries (e.g. in domestication, governance, market structuring).

36
13.2.5 Governance
Institutional dysfunction, responsible for the lack of governance, needs to be
addressed at the highest level of government through concerted efforts at
establishing a “climate of good governance”. More specifically for the eru value
chain, the introduction of a formalized, streamlined and functioning taxation system
for the product as it moves from level to level in the value chain and particularly
across national borders, is important. This would allow more efficient and effective
capturing of tax revenues, at the same time facilitating monitoring of volume and
destination of the product as well as capturing other important trade statistics
necessary for entry into the formal market sector.
Besides a taxation system, a number of other instruments to assist governance in
the eru trade are identified in the literature studied. These include:
- A system to distinguish cultivated (sustainably harvested) eru from wild-
harvested (unsustainably produced) eru. One approach for achieving this would
be a harmonized framework for national and regional monitoring using customs
and taxation systems.
- An equitable system of permit allocation based on knowledge of the resource
base rather than demand from large scale entrepreneurs and favouring small
scale enterprises and individuals.
- A system to monitor and enforce harvest and trade permits through the services
of trained field personnel.
- A database of actors in the resource areas including harvesters and other actors
in the value chain. Such a database could support not only control and
enforcement roles but also research, extension and monitoring roles of
institutions.
The above instruments have the additional benefit of facilitating movement of eru
from the informal to the formal sector as they help to structure the market which in
turn allows Cameroonian entrepreneurs to strengthening their position by gaining
more control of the value chain.
13.3 Domestication
Studies indicate that not only is there an ever increasing demand for eru, also the
source areas are shifting as former source areas become depleted. Plantation in the
forest as part of forest management regimes and domestication on private land are
two ways to relieve pressure on wild eru populations and create alternative sources
of the product.
Increased efforts in eru domestication, coupled with efforts to structure the market
and strong governance, constitutes a big potential to enhance sustainability of the
eru trade and prevent women and their families, whose livelihoods depend on the
resource, from slipping into a vicious poverty cycle.
Although work on domestication has been the topic of research in Cameroon for
some time, the activity is still at an immature stage. Increased efforts through an
integrated regional approach to ex situ and in situ conservation efforts are needed.

37
This should include the development of effective propagation methods, domestication
programs, and (national and village) gene banks (USAID 2004).
Appropriation of the concept of “eru farms”, whether in a mixed-crop agroforestry
system on private land, or in the forest, has so far met with limited success.
However, there are some indications that in the face of a depleting resource and the
difficult work conditions faced by women in many areas, there is an increasing
interest among harvesters to domesticate eru. This subject warrants in depth study
to uncover the reasons why domestication is not already applied on a larger scale.
Various factors may be at play including ignorance, issues relating to access and
control of the resource, the extended establishment period of an eru farm requiring
over 2 years, the absence of specific cultivation requirements including shade,
adequate rainfall, suitable soil etc (CIFOR, 2009).
Advantages of eru farms include that once established and exploited in a sustainable
fashion they potentially have a long lifetime featuring a once-only planting phase, a
high regenerative capacity, low maintenance and year-round availability. The
CENDEP study estimated that as much as 9.5 tons/hectare/year can be harvested
from an established eru plantation. Farming eru has the advantage that it ensures
greater control over the resource by individual farmers, brings the resource closer to
home and thereby renders its collection easier and more time efficient.
Extension services of ministries (it seems there is much room for collaboration
between MINFOF, MINADER, and MINPROFF) should focus on promoting
domestication and non-destructive eru harvesting techniques in which leaves are
plucked selectively rather than techniques involving uprooting or cutting the vine or
felling the tree on which it grows. Research and development could support
sustainable harvesting by developing appropriate harvesting tools.
In order to achieve some success in domestication and sustainable harvesting,
resources need to be allocated for raising awareness, extension, training and
demonstration. An awareness raising campaign on the cultural, nutritional and
economic value of eru, not only in Cameroon but across the Congo Basin, could go
some way in raising the status of the product and muster interest at all levels for
increasing efforts at domesticating the plant.
13.4 Processing
The perishable nature of eru leads to losses, sometimes as high as 100%; it is one of
the major constraints voiced by actors in the value chain. Processed eru (dried and
frozen) is in demand in Europe and the United States and could become more
important locally in Cameroon and Nigeria. Currently, eru processing enterprises are
few and they limit processing to shredding and drying the product.
There is good potential for introducing appropriate drying techniques, especially at
the village level. Drying the product gives harvesters greater control over their
income because they can now store the product and sell it when prices are higher or
to buyers of their choice rather than selling immediately and haphazardly at the price
fixed by a buyer happening to pass by on the day of harvest. Drying eru gives
women additional entrepreneurial opportunities and helps to increase impact in
poverty reduction.

38
Other processing techniques, requiring a higher level of technology but which create
employment, are also worth exploring. These include freezing the fresh product,
freezing the cooked product and freezing the cooked and prepared ready-to-eat eru
dish.
Research and extension in processing techniques and technology, entrepreneurial
training as well as support in packaging, labelling, marketing and market
development help to increase the opportunities for actors in the eru value chain. A
campaign to inform consumers about the nutritional value of eru and the possibilities
and potential of processed eru would further raise the visibility of alternative eru
products and facilitate emergence of an increasing number of small scale processing
enterprises and eru products.
13.5 Market structure
This report highlights the fact that despite providing employment and income to
large numbers of actors and the classification of eru as a “special forest product”, its
trade remains an informal one, suffering from drawbacks due to its low status,
perishable nature, high regional demand, low organisational level of actors, poor
transport infrastructure, deficient policy and regulatory framework and lack of
governance. Previous sections of this chapter deal with many of these drawbacks,
and solutions facilitating market structuring are presented (including policy
development, regulation through permits and taxation, enforcement, raising the
socio-economic status and processing to deal with perishability).
Strong actor organisation is a very important tool for facilitating structuring of the
market by gaining influence and bargaining power. Organisation and collaboration
between actors can be promoted by raising awareness on the advantages of
association. Association and collaboration can occur at a horizontal level (e.g. in
cooperatives, harvesters’ unions, traders’ unions, federations etc.) and between
actors at different levels (for example links between associations and village
authorities, a trade union, a multi-stakeholder platform). To initiate a process of
increased organisation, actors should be brought together in workshops, trainings or
other events to discuss and address common issues and problems such as
domestication and harvesting techniques, drying methods, solving transport
problems, addressing market access and fixing a minimum price for a bundle of eru
leaves.
Once organisations begin to take shape, capacity building services become key and
must be made both available and accessible. Such services can be diverse,
depending on the nature and needs of organisations and can include services for
organisational and institutional development, services to aggregate and standardise
products, services to process, package, certify and label products as well as services
to explore, develop and access markets.
A host of support actors have the potential to support the eru value chain and
thereby influence gradual movement of the market from the informal to the formal
sector. Such actors include training institutions (delivering training in technologies,
entrepreneurship, organisational strengthening), research institutions, private sector
service providers (services in financing, product development and innovations,

39
marketing etc.), government institutions (services in the areas of forestry,
agriculture, women development) and projects and programmes.
A market information system is another powerful tool to facilitate market structuring.
It increases actors’ bargaining power through access to information on supply and
demand in terms of quantities and prices of eru, thereby enhancing the potential for
networking and strengthening links between suppliers and buyers. It is important
that the communication channel is appropriate. In other parts of Cameroon the
services of local radio stations are used to disseminate market information. Such a
market information system can help to create a level playing field through equitable
access to information, it can increase chain efficiency and it is useful to actors at all
levels of the chain.
Due to the close trade links between Cameroon and Nigeria, an eru market
information system should target both the national and Nigerian market. A market
information system has great potential to positively influence the relative bargaining
power of Cameroonian actors with respect to their Nigerian counterparts.
13.6 Placing solutions in the context of the eru value chain
In Figure 4 the solutions discussed under the various strategic intervention areas in
this section have been put in perspective in the context of the eru value chain. Text
in black denotes existing institutions, actors and activities while purple text denotes
those that need to be created.

40
Local forestry office:
Eru domestication
Community
forestry
Conservation and
regeneration of
wild populations
Sustainable
harvesting
techniques
Traders Retailers Processers Exporters Nigerian
traders
Retailers’ union:
Fix prices
Create trade barriers
Defend interests
Exporters’ union:
Fix prices
Create trade barriers
Defend interests
Explore advantages of increased
collaboration with other actors in
the chain
Increase membership
Traders’ unions:
Explore advantages of
increased collaboration
with other actors in the
chain
Increase membership
Improve market
structure
Consumers
LCB
Raise
awareness
Promote
collaboration
Build capacity
of local
organisations
ERU VALUE CHAIN
Local women
development office
Promote women’s
organisation
Address female
poverty in eru VC
Defend women’s
interest
Promote drying as
SME
In black:
Existing
structures
and
activities
In purple:
New
structures
and
activities
Research and development
agencies:
Raise awareness, lobbying and
advocacy among policy makers
SERVICE
ENVIRONMENT
Local agriculture
office:
Agroforestry
systems integrate
eru
Sustainable
harvesting
techniques
Figure 4: Overview of an
improved eru value chain
Training institutions:
Technical, economic
and organizational
training
Microfinance orgs.
Finance women’s small
scale business
Customary rulers:
Create
improved rules
for access and
off-take
Regulate sales
at farm-gate
Promote
domestication
Harvesters
Harvesters union:
Raise awareness,
lobbying, advocacy
Solve common problems
Explore opportunities for
pricing, aggregation,
selection, value adding,
institutional links with
other actors in chain
Government of Cameroon
Establish a climate of good
governance
Control informal taxes by all
players, at all levels
Earn state revenue
ENABLING
ENVIRONMENT
MINFOF
Mapping and inventory of the eru resource
Clarify and disseminate policy guideline on land tenure in relation to harvesting rights
Prepare guidelines for managing wild eru populations sustainably
Establish and fund research and development priorities
Establish governance in the VC through permits, taxation, monitoring and enforcement
Establish a framework to trace and distinguish wild from cultivated eru in the market
Improve the system for permit allocation (more equity, based on actual resource base)
Create a database of eru actors
Collect data and create a database for eru statistics, including trade statistics
Actively promote transition of the eru trade from the informal to the formal sector
Support establishment of a multi-stakeholder platform for eru with regional links
Market information system
Addressing demand and supply
Prices
Quantities
National/international levels
Multi-stakeholder platform:
Sustainability approach
Improve efficiency of and
equity in the chain
Regional integration
Business advisory services:
Enterprise development support
Standardisation, packaging, labeling
Visibility, publicity, marketing
Product development e.g. based on
medicinal values
Research and development agencies:
Lobbying and advocacy
Research on domestication incl. gene banks
Support development of the value chain
Improve technology for harvesting, storage,
shredding and drying
Research with a gender perspective e.g. on:
o Domestication
o Land and resource tenure
Eru baseline in Centre region

41
14. Recommendations
This section presents an overview of the recommendations discussed in the previous
section. Recommendations have been grouped into 8 different intervention areas
namely:
- Socio-economic status of eru
- Policy framework and governance
- Conservation
- Domestication
- Structuring the eru market
- Actors’ capacity building
- Technological improvements
- Enterprise development
Each recommendation is accompanied by suggestions and remarks for
implementation. Also, for each recommendation actors are proposed, both for the
short and long-term. Where it is felt that SNV could play a role in implementing
recommendations, this has been indicated. Clearly, this is on the assumption that
SNV has the willingness, capacity and resources to initiate work in the eru value
chain. The recommendations are presented in tabular form (see table 17 below).

42
Table 17: Intervention areas and specific recommendations to improve the eru value chain, including proposed actors and
indicating where SNV could play a role.
WhoIntervention
area
Recommendation Some remarks on implementing the
recommendation Short term
(1-5 years)
Long term
(>5 years)
Socio-
economic
status of eru
Raise awareness on depleting resource base,
poverty context, cultural, nutritional and
economic value and potential of eru
- Target policy-makers through lobbying and
advocacy
- Disseminate results of research in
appropriate quarters and at appropriate
forums
- Research and development institutions to join
efforts
Research and
development
organizations,
MINFOF
Generate knowledge on the eru resource
base
- Mapping
- Produce botanical inventories
MINFOF,
research
institutions
MINFOF,
research
institutions
Monitor take-off in source areas - Use mapping information as a baseline for
monitoring take-off
- Use information generated from taxation
system to document trends in take-off
MINFOF MINFOF
Clarify land/resource tenure in relation to
access and control, customary rights,
harvesting rights and land classifications
Raise awareness at local level MINFOF, local
actors
MINFOF
Develop eru management tools - Harvesting standards
- Harvesting regimes
- Designation of conservation areas
- Closing areas for regeneration
- Learn from efforts in Nigeria
MINFOF,
research and
development
institutions,
MINFOF
Introduce eru taxation and customs system
to:
- Earn state revenue
- Fund eru sector development efforts
- Monitor volume and destination of
product
- Distinguish cultivated from wild product
- Collect other trade statistics
- Contribute to market structure
Harmonise with regional efforts MINFOF,
research and
development
institutions,
MINFOF
Policy
framework and
governance
Introduce an equitable allocation system for
harvesting and trade permits to:
- Favour and protect livelihoods of small
traders by creating barriers
Base on knowledge of the resource base and
areas
MINFOF,
research and
development
institutions
MINFOF

43
- Control influx of external harvesters
- Contribute to market structure
Enforcement of permits, taxation and other
regulation
- Address current dysfunction of enforcement
role including informal tax levying
- Train field personnel
MINFOF MINFOF
Allocate resources for eru sector
development including conservation,
regeneration, domestication, processing and
market structuring efforts
Channel revenue from permits and taxation MINFOF MINFOF
Create a multi-stakeholder eru platform to:
- Assist in developing policy framework
- Create synergy between actors
Ensure regional links with Nigeria and Congo
Basin countries
MINFOF and
other
stakeholders,
MINFOF and
other
stakeholders
Create a database of actors in resource
areas to:
- Facilitate enforcement and control roles
- Facilitate research and extension roles
- Use information from permit and taxation
systems
- Involve customary authorities
MINFOF
(decentralised)
MINFOF
(decentralised)
Raise awareness on depleting resource base
and the cultural, nutritional, medicinal and
economic value of eru
- Disseminate results of research
- Raise the issue at forums
- Undertake lobbying and advocacy targeted at
regional and national policy makers
Research and
development
institutions
MINFOF
Introduce a regional approach to
conservation to harness synergies between
Congo Basin countries
- Establish a regional gene bank holding
genetic material from all source areas in the
Congo Basin
- Harmonised customs and taxation systems
- Harmonised trade monitoring
Research and
development
institutions,
MINFOF,
Research and
development
institutions,
MINFOF
Conservation
Introduce conservation efforts at village
level
- Raise awareness with customary authorities,
women, men, children
- Regulation and governance at local level
- Establish village gene banks (in-situ, ex-situ)
Decentralised
MINFOF, local
NGOs, local
authorities,
Decentralised
MINFOF, local
NGOs, local
authorities
Technical research to increase knowledge
base
- Research on propagation methods
- Research on appropriate cultivation practices
Research
institutions
Research
institutions
Socio-economic research - Investigate obstacles to domestication (why is
it not already occurring?)
- Investigate likely consequences of
domestication for women’s livelihoods, esp.
for women living in source areas
Research,
development
institutions
Research,
development
institutions
Domestication
Promote eru farming - Ensure access to propagated material (seeds,
seedlings, tissue culture), establish nurseries
- Raise awareness, extension, training,
Decentralised
MINFOF,
MINADER,
Decentralised
MINFOF,
MINADER,

Eru VC Analysis: Gender Perspectives and Recommendations

Eru VC Analysis: Gender Perspectives and Recommendations

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Eru VC Analysis: Gender Perspectives and Recommendations

Similar to Eru VC Analysis: Gender Perspectives and Recommendations (20)

Eru VC Analysis: Gender Perspectives and Recommendations