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

Prunus africana “No chop um, no kill um, but keep um”: From an endangered species to an everyday tree?

465 views

Published on

Governance and sustainability of the trade in an endangered species of non-timber forest product from Africa

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Prunus africana “No chop um, no kill um, but keep um”: From an endangered species to an everyday tree?

  1. 1. THINKING beyond the canopy THINKING beyond the canopy IUFRO Session 101a Transitions to sustainable forest management: Economic, social and cultural parameters 10 October 2014 Prunus africana “No chop um, no kill um, but keep um”: From an endangered species to an everyday tree? Verina Ingram
  2. 2. THINKING beyond the canopy Prunus africana • Afromontane, evergreen tree • Key species in Cameroon montane forests • Fruit eaten and dispersed by >20 species, 50% endangered &/or endemic • High degradation & deforestation rates in main harvest areas • Local use and trade in timber and bark • Estimated 60,000 people dependent on the international trade in 2007 • Principal ingredient in prostatic hyperplasia pharmaceuticals and health supplements Introduction
  3. 3. THINKING beyond the canopy Prunus africana range and trade = exporters & % world exports 1995-2013 = border trade = traditional medicinal use & trade = main importers & % world imports 1995-2013 = national management plan Source: Cunningham 2008, Hall et al .2000, CITES WCMC Trade database 2014 22% 52% 50% 4% 8% 28% >1% 12% 1% >1% 2% 1% 5% 1% 0.1% 13% 2% 5% >1% Main harvest zones
  4. 4. THINKING beyond the canopy Background International trade, apparent over-exploitation, respite & action Photo: K Stewart • Regulated since 1974 : arbitrary, poor enforcement and monitoring, counterproductive to sustainable trade. • Cameroon worlds’ largest exporter origin of 51% of all exports since 1995, with increasing volumes harvested. • Sources unknown. In 2007 wild P. africana un-quantified , inventories only in SW. • This raised concerns about overexploitation of wild stocks, leading to : • IUCN Red List (Vulnerable) in 1998 – but “needs updating” • Trade restrictions (CITES Appendix II listed ) in 2005 • ‘Special Forestry Product’ in Cameroon in 2006 • EU suspension international trade from Cameroon November 2007 • Cameroon self-imposed moratorium 2007-2010. • Lobbies: African exporters, European importers, governments and conservation organisations. Conflicting conservation vs. livelihood and business interests • Participatory developed national management plan in response to concerns by organisations in Cameroonian value chain • Exports resumed 2010 with new statutory rules i.e. inventories and management plans. Inventories now near completion: approx. 60% wild in forest, 40% cultivated. 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ExportsPrunusafricanabarkfromCameroonintons Year Bark (COMCAM & MINFOF) Bark (CITES UNEP WCMC) Powder (CITES UNEP WCMC) Bark (Cunningham 2006, Bellewang 2005)
  5. 5. THINKING beyond the canopyValue Chain Harvester WholesalerProcessor Exporter Retailer Consumer Access to resources for production Access to markets
  6. 6. THINKING beyond the canopy Research questions 1. What arrangements are used to govern Prunus africana chains in Cameroon? 2. How do these governance arrangements impact the livelihoods of actors along the chain? 3. How do these governance arrangements impact chain and product sustainability? Kongo CF, Illegal harvesting, Kilum Community forest, December 2008
  7. 7. THINKING beyond the canopy MethodologyseeIngram2014 Background • Selection harvest zones stakeholder interviews (2007) Field work • Inventory 3 zones (2007-2008) • Bark regeneration post-harvest study 4 zones (2009) VCA 2007-2009 • 250 interviews actors in chains (193) 2007-2010 and 57 (2014) governance, economics, livelihoods, sustainability, 5 market surveys (2007-2008) Action data collection • Participatory action research SWOT, stakeholder analysis, 6 working sessions stakeholder groups & 1 stakeholder workshop, participatorily developed management plan • Capacity building : supporting collective action (2007-2010) Analysis • Data analysis; Existence and intensity governance arrangements, qualitative and quantitative impacts • Preliminary findings verified in meetings & peer cross-checked Outputs • Reports: Problem analysis workshop report, Inventory in NW & SW Cameroon, Guidelines for a National Management Plan for Prunus africana in Cameroon, Assessment sustainable harvest methods, Baseline study of Prunus africana chain, Domestication Guide (ICRAF), Harvest and inventory norms (GIZ + CIFOR), Cost benefit analysis of value chain (GIZ & PSFE) • Policy briefs: Prunus africana in Cameroon Lit. review • Literature reviews (2007 and 2014)
  8. 8. THINKING beyond the canopy Methodology: Assessing governance arrangements Indicators Score Strong 10 Clear 8 Moderate 5 Weak 2 Non-existent 0 Existence of an institution and rules/norms known and named Well known by all actors; clearly stated Stated by majority of actors Named, some rules known Not clear, few rules discernible Not stated or known Boundaries of rights known by chain actors Well known & stated by all actors Known by most Known to some Little known Not known Monitoring and compliance with rules Frequent Occasional Infrequent Low None Frequency of use of sanctions and enforcement Frequent Occasional Infrequent Low None Use of conflict resolution mechanisms Well used Occasional Infrequent Little used Not used Use of individual & collective action to develop and modify rules Well used Occasional Infrequent Little used Not used Nesting horizontally (within particular scale) and vertically (value chain) Well-nested, both horizontally & vertically Partially horizontal & vertical Some horizontal/ and/or vertical Low horizontal or vertical None Level of accountability and dependence on actors High level Moderate Low Minimal None Moral grounding & (democratic) legitimacy of power High level Moderate Weak Very weak No Location of decision making clear to actors High level, clear to actors Known Uncertain Vague/unclear No Longevity of institution Long lived Long to medium term Medium to short term Temporal None Participation of actors Frequent Occasional Infrequent Low None Literature review of governance indicators (Graham, Amos, and Plumptre 2003; Hyden et al. 2008; Ibrahim Foundation 2013; Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi 2007; Ribot, Chhatreb, and Lankinad 2008; World Bank 2010) and institutional design principles (Agrawal and Chhatre 2006; Cox, Arnold, and Tomás 2010; Ostrom 1990; Scott 2001) yielded eleven indicators.
  9. 9. THINKING beyond the canopy Q1. Arrangements governing Prunus africana chains in Cameroon 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Statutory regualtion Voluntary/ market standards Corruption Customary Projects Involuntary standards Score 10 = strong governance 0 = no governance “Super regulated” chain and products 2007 EU CITES trade suspension → crisis and review of arrangements Statutory regulation • Grown in coverage • internationally influenced by ‘’involuntary’’ international standards • Enforcement arbitrary and ineffective , varies by region • Regulates wild harvest only Voluntary, market based harvester collective action • community-based companies and community forests • used, adapted, collaborated with, occasionally subjugated and often challenged traditional and regulatory authority • Alienated and disabled customary institutions as commodification increased. • community based action resulted in both forest management and unsustainable exploitation Customary regulations • Differ by region, • preceded regulatory framework, • frequently overrun by projects and new forest management models- CFs • block and contradict statutory rights. • Focus on ownership and access to resource, in some areas on sustainable harvesting. Projects • 5 long term projects • Introduced CBOs and CFs, protected areas • Introduced harvesting rules, monitoring , controls Corruption • Permitting process • Transport • Illegal harvesting • Access in CFs
  10. 10. THINKING beyond the canopy Traditional & customary laws Statutory law ‘bricolage’ Regulatory authorities national and provincial ministries, local councils, implementing agencies Traditional authorities Chiefs, customary councils, courts Community forests ‘Project’ rules NGOs & donors Collective ‘Voluntary’ and ‘supplier’ rules AFRIMED Prunus Platform International organizations Conventions Stakeholders Companies Corruption Private owners
  11. 11. THINKING beyond the canopy • Harvesters & tree owners: silent chain “actors”, little voice & power in regulatory arrangements, act to create their own ‘’messy’’ arrangements • Actors become bricoleurs – make best of arrangements they are in • Creatively using and making new arrangements & remoulding existing ones to reduce vulnerabilities, cope with risks, take control, reduce hassle and make money. Laurel & Hardy Silver screen stars c.1920-1940 Moses & Pa Pygeum hoe handle traders, c.1990-2009
  12. 12. THINKING beyond the canopy Q2. How do these arrangements impact livelihoods? • Trade suspension negative economic impact on harvester incomes • Harvester incomes decreased with regulation and influence of projects • Few exporters & importers profited for decades, two dominate • Liberalisation increased prices and competition, decreased information. • PAUs decrease competition, increased prices & scope for corruption • Competitive PAUs form entry barrier for small operators and CBOs • State officials and customary elites access revenues from corruption. • Collective action aided CF & CBOs to increase revenue, secure rights • Projects and CBOs explored possibilities for adding value • Private owners no statutory provision to access markets or arrangements
  13. 13. THINKING beyond the canopy Q3 How do these governance arrangements impact chain & product sustainability Negative • Pre-2007 government ignored own rules, now introduced but methods questionable • Statutory arrangements continue to be ineffective • Regeneration tax barely invested in regeneration • Projects promoting CFs & CBO facilitated ‘mining’ • Regulations, and project-based based upon a presumption of wild sourcing and threatened status, conventions created dominant, but mistaken perception • Farmed trees unquantified, “invisible”, source undistinguished, inventories only now occurring. • Community collective action, promoted by statutory and project-based arrangements, failed to control access or over-extraction • Customary rules negated even by some traditional chiefs • Corruption increased illegal harvesting Positive • Research indicates techniques for sustainable harvest, • Projects stimulated collective and individual planting • Projects brought customary harvest rules into formal sphere • Trade suspension provided respite and led to quantification. • Concessions easier to control and monitor, increased rates sustainable harvesting when combined with project support. • Collaborations between research, development and conservation led to policies and institutions focus on product and livelihood sustainability. Multiple, incongruent arrangements had mixed, but overall negative impacts
  14. 14. THINKING beyond the canopy Conclusions Overlapping and often incongruent governance arrangements • Conventions ripe for rationalisation, statutory needs tweaking, implementation and customary arrangements and projects to be incorporated Impact of arrangements on livelihoods, mixed but generally negative • Access, employment and profitability decreased by increased regulations • Importance of business, infrastructure & technical support • Power critical in determining access to resource, markets and revenues • Processing & storage offer local value adding • Harvest techniques & domestication technologies potential to increase profits – but needs dissemination and enforcement Impact of arrangements on the sustainability of Prunus africana also mixed but generally negative • Recognising tree and land tenure critical for sustainable exploitation • Selective cultivation with appropriate market access key to sustainable supply and livelihoods Recognize often clashing livelihood and sustainability impacts for different actors due to overlaps of traditional, regulatory, CBOs, projects with regulatory arrangements
  15. 15. THINKING beyond the canopy Role of research To address a range of issues simultaneously1 √ To link to development & government institutions for impact1 √ • Bearing in mind different/conflicts of interest To inform policymakers & practionnners via evidence based science1 √ • When evidence is incomplete? • When “they’’ don’t listen ? • Are scientists independent ? To evaluate impacts of policy and governance actions √ • Who pays? • How to access data for all actors, particularly in competitive chains? 1 CGIAR Consortium Research Program 6 Forests, Trees and Agroforestry 2010
  16. 16. THINKING beyond the canopy THINKING beyond the canopy The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) is one of the 15 centres supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Thank you! www.cifor.cgiar.org v.ingram@cgiar.org

×