Livelihoods and NTFP based enterprise development. Dr Jenny Wong

Transcription

1 Livelihoods and NTFP based enterprise development Dr Jenny Wong

2 NTFPs and livelihoods CIFOR study looking at 61 case studies of NTFP production-to-consumption systems in developing countries Used data to examine the contribution of commercialised NTFPs to household economies.

3 Coping Low integration into cash economy Subsistence use Personal use

4 UK Public Opinion Survey % of urban and 31% of rural people admit to collecting ntfps Product % Berries 54 Tree materials (leaves, cones, seeds, nuts, 53 bark, branches etc.) Other plant material (flowers, herbs, moss, 25 ferns, lichen, seeds) Mushrooms 16 Firewood 14 Other 2

5 Diversified Harvester in cash economy Product makes a low contribution to total income Multiple incomes (easy to switch?) Hobby craft use

6 Diversification as a safety net In hard times such as wars, failing crops and abrupt political changes non-wood products have often been of vital importance. Paal (1998) Soviet Union 1990 Collective farms in free fall Tsentrosoyuz organised wild harvesting to supplement food supply. NTFP harvest = 12,731 tonnes of foodstuffs 2,341 tonnes of MAPs NTFPs Russian Federation ~ 1996 Annual income for Forest ranger with 0.25 ha plot and 1.5 ha hay meadow and NTFPs in 1996 (after Krott et al 2000)

7 Specialised Harvester is an entrepreneur Specialised, full-time income High degree of resource dependency Innovator driver for domestication

8 Contribution to household income Household strategy Coping Diversification Specialisation Low though maybe only source of cash in subsistence households Low - less than 50% of total household income High - more than 50% of total household income Production system Wild harvested Wild harvested Cultivated Most wild harvested Type of market Local, non-cash Local Local Large total trade, often traded internationally Integration of product into cash economy Land tenure Management system Resource status Low State or open access land High - integrated with other sources of income State or open access High - Integrated with agricultural production Land over which farmer has some control Usually none Usually none Hedgerows, crop integration, agroforests etc. Often declining when done for cash High - mature markets offering good incomes for producer families who tend to have higher than average incomes Tenure secure Intensive Declining Stable Stable - high value per weight

9 Example products Developing country Post-industrial country Household strategy Coping Diversification Specialisation Wild harvested Wild harvested Cultivated Most wild harvested Subsistence collection Recreational picking of berries Seasonal foods e.g. mushrooms Part time mossing, game shoots Fruit, basket weaving Woodland cultivation of mushrooms, willow for baskets Brazil nuts, mushrooms etc. Foliage, mushrooms

10 Sustainable livelihoods approach A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base. DFID (1999) Livelihood strategy Vulnerability Structures & Processes

11 Capital assets Natural: natural resource stocks from which products and services are derived Physical: basic infrastructure and producer goods Human: skills, knowledge, ability to work and health Financial: financial resources including savings in various forms, access to credit, earnings and remittances. Social: social resources that people draw upon including networks and connections between people, and the rules, norms and sanctions associated with different institutions

12 Capital assets Five capitals for sustainable livelihoods Natural Social Physical Financial Human

13 CEPFOR conceptual framework Before Commercialisation After Factors influencing success Impact on livelihood

14 CEPFOR Baysian Belief model development Case study value chain data for 19 products/market Identified 66 factors that influence commercialisation success Factors weighted (belief expressed as probability ie % likelihood of causal relationships) and used in model to predict impact on livelihoods of different interventions

15 CEPFOR Results Status quo Microcredit Infrastructure Resource management Natural capital most critical determinant of success Mushrooms Maguey/mexcal Jipi japa palm

16 Findings Resource initially depleted by commercialisation but often this is offset by domestication or better management Markets are demand-led and will not readily accept products simply because it is plentiful Lack of market information is key barrier to development of new enterprises

17 Options for community level intervention Enhancing community organization to increase the market power of NTFP producers and processors and decrease their vulnerability to external shocks Provision of opportunities for greater involvement of women in NTFP activities Building the business capacity of potential entrepreneurs Provision of technical know-how and organizational skills to ensure sustainable resource management and harvesting, domestication where appropriate and product processing

18 Reality check NTFPs as income for rural populations? A small subset of products has potential for cash income development. Many of these already have commercial value. Such products are especially valuable because they offer an entry-point for development in poor rural communities with limited alternatives. The constraints to the development of these products are the same constraints that lead to underdevelopment in the first place, including low capital (of all kinds). Populations living under the most economically marginal conditions, i.e. far from markets with poor transportation infrastructure, no electricity, no access to multiple trade networks, no social support services as many forest-dwelling populations do are at particular risk. Unless these broader conditions change, the cash incomes from most NTFPs are not likely to provide substantially increased benefits to rural people. Wollenberg E and Belcher B (2001) NTFPs income for rural populations or not? ETFRN News (32):

19 Thank you!