Post on 07-Apr-2018
8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
1/19
103JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
supportingcanadasnon-timberforestproductsector
JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
Belcher, B., R. Penner, A. Munier, . Brigham, and J. Grith. 2010. Supporting Canadas non-timber orest productsector: Lessons rom Manitobas Northern Forest Diversication Centre. BC Jurnal Ecsystems and Management11(1&2):103120. http://jem.orrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/72/30
Publishd by ForrexFum rsach and etnsin in Natual rsucs
Research Report
BC Journal o Ecosystems and Management
Suppting Canaa nn-timb
t puct ct:Ln m ManitbaNthn Ft Divifcatin Cnt
Brian Belcher1, Rob Penner2, Anne Munier3, Tim Brigham4, and Jodi Grifth5
AbstractTere is increasing interest in non-timber orest product (NFP) development as a means to improve
rural livelihoods in Canada, and a corresponding need to better understand the associated opportunities,
constraints, and best practices. o this end, we assessed the experience o the Northern Forest
Diversication Centre (the Centre), a unique organization dedicated to developing and promoting NFP
trade in northern Manitoba, which operated rom 2001 to 2006. Hundreds o harvesters were trained by,
and sold products to, the Centre, earning modest incomes that were nevertheless important. Other benets
included increased pride and sel-suciency, re-connection with the land and community, rediscovery
o traditions, and skills development. In 2006, the business aspects o the Centre were privatized, while
training and research unctions remained with the University College o the North. Activities in both
realms have declined since. Lessons learned rom the intervention include the importance o a clear
vision amidst diverse expectations; that support or NFP harvesters must be long term and expectations
realistic; that local champions are essential and must be supported; that all elements o the market chain
must be integrated; and that the social, environmental, and cultural benets associated with NFP
development, as well as the economic ones, must be valued.
keywords: cmmunity ecnmic develpment; natural resurce management; nn-timber rest prducts;Nrthern Frest Diversicatin Centre; rural livelihds; Te Pas, Manitba.
Cntact Inmatin1 Director, Centre or Livelihoods and Ecology, Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road, Victoria BC V9B 5Y2.
Email: Brian.Belcher@royalroads.ca
2 Chair o Sciences, Faculty o Arts and Science, University College o the North, Te Pas, MB R9A 1M7.
Email: RPenner@ucn.ca3 Research Associate, Centre or Livelihoods and Ecology, Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road,
Victoria BC V9B 5Y2. Email: Anne.Munier@royalroads.ca
4 Co-ordinator o Education and Capacity Building, Centre or Livelihoods and Ecology, Royal Roads University,
2005 Sooke Road, Victoria BC V9B 5Y2. Email: im.Brigham@royalroads.ca
5 MEnv Candidate, University o Manitoba, MB R3 2N2. Email: Grith_jodi@hotmail.com
http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/72/30mailto:Brian.Belcher@royalroads.camailto:RPenner@ucn.camailto:Anne.Munier@royalroads.camailto:Tim.Brigham@royalroads.camailto:Griffith_jodi@hotmail.commailto:Griffith_jodi@hotmail.commailto:Tim.Brigham@royalroads.camailto:Anne.Munier@royalroads.camailto:RPenner@ucn.camailto:Brian.Belcher@royalroads.cahttp://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/72/308/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
2/19
104 JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
belcher, penner, munier, brigham, andgriffith
Introduction
he use o non-timber orest products (NFPs) as
a base to support rural development has captured
the attention o researchers and practitioners
nationally (Mohammed 1999; Duchesne et al. 2001) and
internationally (Neumann and Hirsch 2000; Alexander
et al. 2001; Belcher et al. 2005). Experience gained in
numerous research and rural development projects,
primarily in the international context, has highlighted
that some o the most important constraints to such
development exist within the market systems, and recent
eorts have ocussed, accordingly, on supporting market
development (Belcher and Schreckenberg 2007). More
specic analysis o experience in the Canadian context
is required to guide regional and national policy and
investment in the sector.
Despite the interweaving o Canadian culture with
the use o orest productsincluding the extensive useo these resources by Aboriginal peoples or thousands
o yearsthe NFP sector in Canada is still relatively
immature. Its development has been driven primarily
by small- and medium-sized businesses (Centre or
Non-imber Resources 2006; LeGal 2007) with some
limited support rom governments, orestry companies,
First Nations associations, non-governmental
organizations, and research institutes. Tough there
is growing interest in the economic and ecological
sustainability o some species (e.g., wild mushroom
harvests in British Columbia [Berch et al. 2007;
Ehlers et al. 2008; Bravi and Chapman 2009]) and
in collaborative NFP development with Aboriginal
communities (Charnley et al. 2007; Peloquin and
Berkes 2009; Royal Roads University et al. 2010), the
sector remains under-researched.
Nevertheless, there is a growing base o experience
to build upon. Most provincial and territorial
governments now have individuals, departments or,
as in British Columbia, inter-agency committees1
with responsibility or NFP issues. Regional and
national alliances are being developed to acilitate
communication amongst those with an interest in
NFPs (Centre or Non-imber Resources 2006;
Smith et al. 2007).2 Tere have also been a small
number o NFP demonstration projects implemented
across Canada, such as those o the Falls Brook
Centre in rural New Brunswick3 or the North Island
NFP Demonstration Project in British Columbia.4
In Quebec, organizations such as Les artisans des
orts, lAssociation pour la commercialization deschampignons orestiers, and Syndicat des producteurs
de bleuets du Qubec have acilitated NFP
development by bringing together isolated businesses,
inuencing government ministries to take leadership
or the NFP sector, and obtaining leases on Crown
land to be used by members or blueberry production
(Albert 2007; LeGal 2007).
Tis study ocusses on the experience o the
Northern Forest Diversication Centre (reerred to
here as the Centre) in northern Manitoba. Created
in 2000 by Keewatin Community College (now
University College o the North) in Te Pas, theCentre was established to enhance local livelihoods by
developing and promoting trade in NFPs in northern
Manitoba. Te major employers in the region are in
natural resource industries (mining, orestry, and
hydro-electric development); being ar rom major
centres, there is little opportunity or secondary or
tertiary economic development. Te population is
split between an urban cohort that is predominantly
white and employed, and an Aboriginal population
living predominantly in more remote First Nations
communities with high levels o unemployment and
poverty. Even entry-level jobs with the main employers
Te eperience the Nrthern Frest
Diversicatin Centre in nrthern
Manitba prvides a valuable learning
pprtunity r thse cncerned with the
ptential r nn-timber rest prduct
develpment in Canada and elsewhere.
1 Te B.C. Ministry o Forests and Range and the B.C. Ministry o Agriculture and Lands have co-chaired a committee with representatives romseveral ministries, the First Nations Forestry Council, and the Centre or Non-imber Resources.
2 Examples o this include the NFP Network o Canada (http://www.ntpnetwork.ca/) and the NFP Inormation Exchange in the United States(http://www.icae.org/ntp/).
3 http://www.allsbrookcentre.ca4 Centre or Non-timber Resources. 2003. Integrated demonstration project or non-timber products: Final report 20022003. Royal Roads
University, Victoria, B.C. Unpublished data.
http://www.ntfpnetwork.ca/http://www.ifcae.org/ntfp/http://www.fallsbrookcentre.ca/http://www.fallsbrookcentre.ca/http://www.ifcae.org/ntfp/http://www.ntfpnetwork.ca/8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
3/19
105JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
supportingcanadasnon-timberforestproductsector
in the region require a high school diploma, which
excludes the majority o the Indigenous population.5
Economic development is a high priority or northern
Manitoba, and while Aboriginal communities are
exploring avenues to increase their material wealth,
they are generally seeking to balance emerging
opportunities with a desire to maintain a traditionalliestyle deeply connected to the land.6
As one response to these issues, the Centre set out
to strengthen and diversiy the economy through NFP
development. Te Centre:
trainedlocalpeopleinharvesting,resource-
management, post-harvest processing, and trade;
co-ordinatedthecollectionofproductsfromwidely
dispersed producers;
processedandpackagedproducts;and
developedmarketsinwhichtosellthem.
By perorming this range o unctions, the Centrecreated and built new markets or products rom
the local orests and marshes and provided new
opportunities or local, primarily Aboriginal, people;
however, as with any pioneering eort, the Centre
model had aws and was not able to continue in its
original orm. In 2006, the marketing unction was
privatized and is no longer operating. Te University
College o the North is also not currently providing any
training or outreach services.
Te experience o the Centre provides a valuable
learning opportunity or those concerned with
the potential or NFP development in Canada
and elsewhere. o better understand the benets,
challenges, and lessons learned rom such an initiative,
and to ormulate recommendations or uture NFP-
based interventions in rural Canada, we investigated
the development, operation, and eventual closure o the
Centre. We interviewed ocials, trainees, harvesters,
and others who engaged with the Centre, and reviewed
the centres records and the grey literature to document
its history. We then made a qualitative assessment o
the benets generated and problems encountered by
the Centre, and summarized the lessons learned rom
this experience in terms o institutional support and
resulting benets.
Methods
Review o records and grey literature
We reviewed business plans, discussion papers, activity
reports, unding proposals, and assorted e-mails rom
the Centre records to better understand the social and
political context o the initiative and to examine theobjectives, activities, and outcomes o the Centre. In
addition, the University College o the North provided
us with business records including a list o all products
traded by the Centre (which varied by year; seeReerences section or details); the total sales per year; and
the quantities, average price, and gross prots by product.
Tis allowed an assessment o the Centres total annual
sales and prots, volumes sold and prots earned per
product, and the relative proportion o products sold over
time that were value-added compared to those that were
only minimally processed.
Key inormant surveysWe used a semi-structured interview ormat (see survey
questionnaires at end o the article) administered in
person with purposively selected respondents in two
main categories:
1. Government ocials, university sta, and others
with overview knowledge o the NFP sector and o
the Centre; and
2. NFP harvesters, traders and others with direct
experience and involvement in the sector, and, in
most cases, with the Centre.
Using the snowball method, inormants were
identied through the connections o partners and
recommendations o local people.
Te survey o ocials (n = 10) asked about NFP
harvest, use and trade in the area, the history o local
interventions including (but not limited to) the Centre,
and the perceived impacts o those interventions. Tesurvey o harvesters and traders (n = 14) asked about
basic household demography, natural resource use
patterns and history, experience and opinions on NFP
trade and on the role and inuence o the Centre, and
values and expectations pertaining to NFP use and
trade. Surveys were completed in ve communities
between July and September 2008, and included
participants rom a total o eight communities (Figure 1).
5 Lauvstad, D. 2001. Northern Forest Diversication Centre ve-year business plan: Economic development or Northern Manitoba. KeewatinCommunity College, Te Pas, Man. Unpublished data.
6 Ibid.
8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
4/19
106 JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
belcher, penner, munier, brigham, andgriffith
figure1. Study area showing survey locations (yellow circles) and other home communities (yellow squares)o survey respondents (map courtesy GoogleEarth 2010).
Lynn Lake
MAN I TOBA
Moose Lake
Cormorant
The Pas
Boggy Creek
Pelican Rapids
Barrows
Winnipeg
On t a r i o
Opaskwayak
8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
5/19
107JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
supportingcanadasnon-timberforestproductsector
Results
Development o the non-timber orestproduct sector prior to the Northern ForestDiversifcation Centre
Te study area has a long history o primary resource
extraction activities related to the ur trade, lumbering,pulp and paper production, and mineral extraction (Allen
[editor] 1983). It has been suggested that the traditions
and culture o northern residents align better with those
o entrepreneur/harvester than with those o available
industry and actory jobs.7 Various NFPs have been
produced in the region. Sweetgrass (Hierchle drata)
and sweet ag (Acrus sp.) have been harvested and
traded with other Aboriginal groups in North America
or hundreds, i not thousands, o years. Sweetgrass has
been commercialized in the past ew decades with buyers
(mainly rom the United States) using it or traditional
cleansing and other ceremonial purposes (D. Buck, NFPProject Manager, pers. comm., August 2009). Seneca
root (Plygala senega) has been commercially harvested
in Manitoba since the early 1900s (ough 1996), with a
maximum production o over 330 000 kg o dried root in
1930, declining to about 68 000 kg by the mid-1950s, at
which point 75% o the worlds supply was rom Manitoba
(Shipley 1956). It is still harvested and exported today.
Buyers and brokers or these products were mainly based
outside the region. One exception was a sweetgrass buyer
located just south o Te Pas who shipped large quantities
to a U.S.-based broker rom the 1970s to his death in
the early 1980s. Other small-scale regional buyers then
entered. In the early 1990s, a buyer based in Te Pas
began producing and marketing wild crafs, wreaths,
and sweet-grass, and began trading in seneca root at the
request o residents o Moose Lake. During that period,
he reported purchasing and re-selling over 3600 kg o
dried seneca worth $130 000 (D. Buck, NFP Project
Manager, pers. comm., January 2009).
Wild rice (Zizania palustris) was introduced to the
region in the early 1980s and a small processing plant
was built near Te Pas. Annual production reached 360
000 kg in the early 1990s. Despite attempts to engage
Aboriginal producers in the wild rice industry, it provided
little benet to Aboriginal communities as the majority
o the rice leases were controlled by non-Aboriginal
entrepreneurs (Lavergne 2006). Te Manitoba Indian
Agricultural Development Corporation (MIADC) made
some eorts to encourage Aboriginal involvement, but the
wild rice crop ailed in 1993 and unding issues with the
MIADC led to the processing plant being sold to a private
operator (Lavergne 2006).
The development o the Northern ForestDiversifcation Centre
In 1999, a group at Keewatin Community College in
Te Pas proposed the establishment o a centre to oster
local economic development through the harvest and
trade o NFPs. In 2000, the college received ederal
unding rom Western Economic Diversication to
study the easibility o such a program, and an external
consultant was engaged to develop a harvester training
program and deliver three pilot training sessions in
nearby communities. Te original intent was not to create
a new industry rom the development and sale o NFPs.
Rather, NFPs were seen as a tool to pursue larger socio-economic change within marginalized communities o
northern Manitoba.8 Te Northern Forest Diversication
Centre was established as a special demonstration
project under the authority o the college, with a mission
to promote innovative economic opportunities or
indigenous populations based on the sustainable use o
local resources or the benet o local residents.9
Starting in 2001, Western Economic Diversication
and the provincial government provided single-year
grants (approximately $225 000 in 20012002 and
$410 000 in 200203) that enabled the Centre to
undertake NFP harvester training and support, andproduct development and research. Longer-term
unding was realized in 2003 (approximately $360 000
in 20032004, and $500 000 in both 20042005 and
20052006) that enabled the Centre to urther develop
these core activities while also developing critical
components within the industry, including quality control
and certication protocols, more extensive product and
market research and development, and organization o
the edgling industry into harvesters associations.
Nthn Fst Divsifcatin Cnt patins
Te Centre operated as an arms-length entity with its
own management board (which acted as an advisory
committee) under the umbrella o the college. In 2000,
the Centre had 4.25 ull-time equivalent (FE) personnel
7 Lauvstad, 2001.8 Northern Forest Diversication Centre. 2003. A business plan or the incorporation o the Centre as a non-prot corporation under the
Cmpanies Act Manitba. Te Pas, Man. Unpublished data.9 Lauvstad, 2001.
8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
6/19
108 JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
belcher, penner, munier, brigham, andgriffith
including a managing director (0.5 FE), business/oce
manager (1 FE), ecotourism project manager (0.5 FE),
NFP project manager (1 FE), NFP project assistant
(1 FE), and an elder (0.25 FE). Te college provided
unding or 1.25 FE; the rest o the personnel was
supported through grant unding but were technically
University College o the North employees. By 2003, thesta complement grew to 7.25 FE including a ull-time
marketing manager and warehouse personnel. Te sta
remained at that size into 2005, with some employee
turnover and changes in duties as required.
Ky activitis th Nthn Fst
Divsifcatin Cnt
Because it was attempting to establish an industry in an
area in which commercialization o NFP harvesting
was largely unknown, the Centre needed to provide a
range o services including training, harvester support,
development o new products and markets, and industry
advancement.
Training One o the primary services o the Centre
was to provide community-based harvester training.
Te main vehicle was an entry-level 10-day program
oering an overview o the NFP industry and
instruction in harvesting, processing, and selling
products; environmental, social, and cultural ethics and
sustainability; business development; and standards
and quality control. With no educational prerequisites
required, participation in the training program was
accessible to the majority o residents. A certicate was
provided upon completion. rainees generally sel-
selected or were identied by community development
ocers and (or) course unders (e.g., First Nations
Forestry Program, Manitoba Employment and raining,
and local educational authorities). In some cases,
unders imposed selection criteria such as First Nations
status or band membership. Organizers noted thatlenient selection and imposed training (i.e., as a requisite
or receipt o employment insurance) sometimes
resulted in having less-motivated participants attending
training sessions (D. Buck, NFP Project Manager, pers.
comm., January 2009).
raining was delivered by two or more Centre
sta as a blend o classroom sessions, eld trips, and
hands-on activities. Te Centre provided harvesting
and processing tools including brush saws, pruning
shears, and wreath-making machines; in later sessions,
toolkits worth approximately $200 were provided
to each course graduate. Tis increased the cost but
ensured that participants had the necessary equipment
to use their training. In some cases, the Centre began
purchasing products rom trainee harvesters afer
only the rst week o training (D. Buck, NFP Project
Manager, pers. comm., August 2009). By the peak o its
operations (20052006), the Centre had trained over
100 participants in nine communities (able 1).
Harvester support While the training courses ensured
knowledge and equipment remained in the community
afer the course, the Centre also provided support or
table1. Communities in northern Manitoba where harvester training was provided by the Northern ForestDiversifcation Centre, 20002006
Cmmunit Ya
Moose Lake 2000 and 2006
Cormorant 2001
Cranberry Portage 2001
National Mills (included participants romBarrows, Baden, and Red Deer Lake)
2002
Sherridon 2003
Wellman Lake (included participants romMinitonas, Birch River, Duck Bay, and Swan River)
2003
Opaskwayak Cree Nation 2003
Lynn Lake 2003
Camperville 2005
8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
7/19
109JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
supportingcanadasnon-timberforestproductsector
new harvesters. Te Centre engaged with approximately
400 harvesters rom at least 25 communities (Figure 2)
over the period it operated. Support included providing
inormation on market trends, assisting with packaging,
problem solving on transportation issues, and other
advice and inormation or harvesters and traders.
In some cases, simply making an eort to stay in touch
with new harvesters was the critical unction. As one
harvester stated:
I prbably wuldnt have cntinued t wrk n
this i smene rm the Centre hadnt kept n
calling me and asking me what I was ding with the
inrmatin that I learned at the training.
Te Centre became an important conduit between
the harvesters and other participants in the NFP
industry. It was a point o contact or buyers, as
orders would be placed with the Centre and directed
to harvesters. When orders exceeded the production
capacity o a single harvester, the Centre co-ordinated
production rom multiple harvesters and organized
product shipping.
Product research and market development
Developing products and markets was a critical need
in this edgling sector and the Centre was prolic in
this area. By 2004, the Centre was marketing more than
200 dierent products (Figure 3). Over 400 dierent
products were marketed over the lie o the project.
Some products, such as sweetgrass and seneca root,
already had markets and ormed the majority o sales
volume. Others were developed based on perceived
prospects and the need to provide opportunities or
newly trained harvesters. In addition to testing new
Numberofnew
harvesters
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
figure2. Number o new harvesters selling product tothe Centre during the years o operation (20012006).New harvesters are defned as those that did not sellproduct to the Centre in any o the previous years.
figure3. Total sales, gross profts, and number o products sold annually by the Northern Forest Diversifcation Centre.
Salesandp
rofits($th
ousands)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0 50
100
150
200
250
Num
berofprodu
cts
0
50 000
100 000
150 000
200 000
50 000
Total sales
Gross profit
No. products
8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
8/19
110 JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
belcher, penner, munier, brigham, andgriffith
products developed by harvesters, the Centre also
initiated product research. For example, the Centre
worked in conjunction with the Food Development
Centre in Manitoba to develop wild-berry ruit
leather, which showed promise but did not reach
the market beore the Centre ceased operations.
Some product development ideas were brought tothe centre by the Centre NFP program manager
and others originated rom participation in trade
shows and other events by Centre sta. Product
development was to some degree an ad hoc process,
leading to some winning products, such as talking
sticks,10 smudge pouches,11 and tea blends which
are still being sold by Centre-trained harvesters;
others were less successul, such as estive stars or
craf kits made o birch. By testing the marketability
o products, the Centre was able to reduce the risk
or harvesters exploring new product ideas.
As the level o activities and the number ocommunities involved continued to grow, a marketing
manager was hired to lead product and market
development. Working with harvesters who proposed
new products, she would research their idea, help develop
the product, market it or a year, and based on its success
would either add it to the Centre catalogue or return it
to the harvester. I a product was successul enough that
its demand exceeded the harvesters ability to supply it,
additional product would be purchased in the community
and, i necessary, in other communities (D. Buck, NFP
Project Manager, pers. comm., August 2009). Te
marketing manager also developed new packaging andbranding or Centre products. (D. Buck, NFP Project
Manager, pers. comm., January 2009). A website with
product listings launched in 2001 urther helped develop
new market contacts, as did participation in trade shows
in central and western Canada.
Wreath production demonstrates the role o the
Centre in identiying and developing new market
opportunities. Competition rom low-cost imported
wreathes orced the Centre to develop markets outside
the region, such as in the undraising sector (i.e., or
sale by hockey clubs) where producers could realize a
reasonable return. Once the program was underway,up to 12 women were kept busy producing up to
800 wreaths during the pre-Christmas season or
organizations in western Canada (D. Buck, NFP
Project Manager, pers. comm., January 2009).
Industry advancement Te Centre took on a
range o initiatives aimed at promoting the NFP
industry in Manitoba and beyond. It developed
sustainable harvest certication protocols, a harvesters
code o ethics,12 product traceability, and organiccertication, and established the Manitoba Wild
Harvesters Association. In the period ollowing
the end o the project (i.e., post-2006) much o the
momentum was lost on these initiatives, though
their impacts and current status are mixed.
Sustainable harvesting practices and quality control
requirements were developed or products such as
highbush cranberry bark (Viburnum trilbum) and
balsam poplar buds (Ppulus balsamiera). Individual
harvesters were then trained and certied as having
the knowledge needed to sustainably harvest the
target species to required quality levels. In its nalstages, the Centre was moving towards a system o
only purchasing product rom certied harvesters.
Te code o ethics developed by the Centre received
positive reviews rom other groups and organizations
concerned with sustainable harvesting, and has
inormed similar codes under development elsewhere
in Canada and the United States (D. Buck, NFP
Project Manager, pers. comm., January 2009).
Te Centre eort to ensure product saety and
enhance product traceability evolved into a system o
identication numbers applied to product packages
that could be cross-reerenced to the harvester, date,and location o collection. Tis approach contributed
to the design o the Good Agricultural and Collection
Practices Program accepted by the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency, which continues to work with NFP
harvesters across Canada (C. Kehler, pers. comm., July
2009). Te organic certication standards program or
wild-harvested products was not nalized beore the
Centre ceased operations. Based on preliminary work
o the Centre and the Organic Producers Association
o Manitoba, there appears to be potential to develop a
certication model or small-scale harvesters that would
address the growing demand o some market segmentsor certied organic products (D. Buck, NFP Project
Manager, pers. comm., January 2009).
10 A ceremonial item used historically by Aboriginal communities (now more widespread) denoting the speaker at meetings, who should not beinterrupted as long as they hold the stick.
11 A collection o sacred plant material such as sage, sweet-grass, and cedar generally used in cleansing ceremonies.12 Available at Manitobas Wild Harvesters Association Code o Ethics: http://cntr.royalroads.ca/node/192
http://cntr.royalroads.ca/node/192http://cntr.royalroads.ca/node/1928/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
9/19
111JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
supportingcanadasnon-timberforestproductsector
Te challenge o communicating with a growing
number o independent harvesters was recognized
early on, prompting the organization o harvesters
into local associations that could act as ocal points
or two-way communications between the centre and
individual harvesters. raining course participants
were asked to orm local harvesters associations aschapters o the Manitoba Wild Harvesters Association.
Tese local associations were a work in progress, and
not all unctioned as intended. In some cases, contact
people were designated to relay inormation to and
rom members o the association, but the system ailed
and communications with multiple harvesters (i.e., on
pending orders) reverted to Centres limited sta (D. Buck,
NFP Project Manager, pers. comm., January 2009).
Te Centre also engaged in extensive outreach
and networking. It was a member o several national
NFP-related organizations, hosted visits rom agencies
inside and outside o Canada that were interested inthe Centre model, and presented at conerences and
meetings in Canada, the United States, and Russia.
Although these developments added additional costs to
centre activities, the Centre was attempting to position
itsel as a premier supplier o ethically and sustainably
produced NFPs in North America (D. Buck, NFP
Project Manager, pers. comm., January 2009).
Northern Forest DiversifcationCentre fnances
Nthn Fst Divsifcatin Cnt sals and pfts
Over the ull term o its operations, the Centre made
a gross prot (i.e., the revenue rom product sales
minus production costs) o $28 000. Tere was a sharpincrease in the total sales and the number o products
sold by the Centre in its rst three years, ollowed by
airly stable prots or the next 3 years (Figure 3).
Sweetgrass was the top seller with between 4600
and 9000 braids sold annually rom 2003 to 2006.
Other high-volume products included seneca root
and highbush cranberry bark. Te most protable
products were seneca root, poplar buds, cranberry
bark, smudge pouches, sweetgrass, balsam wreathes,
mint tea, birch bark cup and tea bags, kinnikinnick
(Arctstaphyls uva-ursi), and diamond willow walking
sticks (able 2). Te production costs o the rstthree products were not calculated in 20012002, and
were extrapolated rom those o subsequent years.
Tey indicate that in 2001 sales o poplar buds and
cranberry bark resulted in a loss. Te unit prices
o both o these products increased in 2002 (rom
$8 to $11.50, and $6.80 to $11.20 or poplar and
cranberry, respectively), as did their prots (able 2).
table2. Gross earnings ($) o the 10 most proftable products sold by the Centre, grouped by year
Puct 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Seneca 57 929 3106 1796 797 5708
Poplar buds 20 237 444 3279 1203 4971
Cranberry bark 1511 1131 1709 2342 2188 4143
Smudge pouch 1240 2459 2669 1867 1705
Sweetgrass 964 2505 2591 1629 1686
Balsam wreath 464 2439 1670 2485 1788
Mint tea 120 1134 186 282 191 112
Birch bark cup and tea bags 349 603 197 186
Kinnikinnick 33 93 264 271 107
Diamond willow walking stick 134 418 66 2 136
8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
10/19
112 JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
belcher, penner, munier, brigham, andgriffith
High-selling products included those that were
minimally processed (e.g., bulk poplar buds and dried
kinnikinnick) and those with value-added processing
(e.g., balsam wreaths, smudge pouches, and artisan
crafs). O the 435 products sold by the Centre, 103
(24%) could be considered unprocessed. Over time, the
proportion o value-added production rose (Figure 4),allowing or greater returns.
Nthn Fst Divsifcatin Cnt vnu
and pnss
Over the course o its existence, the Centre struggled
with nancial challenges. Substantial unding was
provided by ederal and provincial governments
(approximately $2 million over the lie o the project)
as well as in-kind contributions rom the Keewatin
Community College and the University College o the
North. Te majority o this unding (approximately
60%) was used or sta salaries.13 Other major
expenditures included travel, space rental, and utilitiesor the oce, warehouse, and workshop.
Closure o the Northern ForestDiversifcation Centre
Provincial and ederal unding or the project ended in
2006. At the same time, there was a change o personnel
in the University College o the Norths administration,
the Executive Director o the Centre was taking on new
roles, and the manager primarily responsible or many
figure4. Number and proportion o unprocessed products as compared to total products sold by the Centre overits years o operation.
13 University College o the North. 2005. UCN 2004/2005 Annual Report. Unpublished data.
Centre activities retired. Te marketing manager had
been laid o 2 years previously, with a resulting negative
impact on market development or Centre products.
Tese actors prompted the Centres management board
to recommend a change toward a more traditional
model or managing the dierent unctions o the
Centre. It proposed that the University College o theNorth take on the training and research unctions,
and that the business aspects and the Centres legal
name be turned over to a local entrepreneur involved
in processing and marketing wild rice in Te Pas.
Recognizing that the established practice o emphasizing
high returns to harvesters rather than prots or the
Centre lef the business vulnerable, it was proposed
that 3 years o provincial unding be provided to the
entrepreneur to aid in the transition to a or-prot
model. Tis unding, considered critical or a smooth
transition rom a publicly unded social development
project to a sustainable or-prot venture, did not
materialize (M. Harvey, pers. comm., July 2009), and
lef the Centre without a cogent plan or the transition.
Te new owner invested considerable eort and
unds into market development, but or a number
o reasons, including a lack o direct links with
the harvester community, the NFP trade slowed
dramatically. External actors also had an impact,
such as a slump in the market or seneca root, and an
increase in the value o the Canadian dollar relative
to the U.S. dollar. Te new owner naturally tried to
Proportion
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
50
100
150
200
250
Numbero
fproducts
0 0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Total products
Unprocessed products
Proportion unprocessed
8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
11/19
113JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
supportingcanadasnon-timberforestproductsector
shif the business to protability. Reduced prices and
demand or products strained the relationship between
the buyer and harvesters. Tis was exacerbated by
the poor understanding by many harvesters about
downstream markets and prices. For many harvesters,
the Centre had been the sole outlet or selling products.
Te change in ownership changed establishedrelationships. Some survey respondents commented
that the newly privatized Centre treated the products
as commodities rather than products with cultural and
spiritual value, as emphasized in the original Centre.
Since the Centre closed in 2006, no additional
harvester training has been conducted. Te University
College o the North no longer has qualied trainers,
and only recently (200809) has new unding been
received to partially support a revitalization and up-
dating o the NFP training program. Furthermore,
while training can be delivered on a cost-recovery
basis, the merit o such training, given the absence o amechanism or ongoing community support (one o the
services considered critical to the success o the Centre),
is questionable.
The harvesters
Havst chaactistics
Most inormants were 4560 years o age, with the
median age closer to 60. Many lived in households o
two people, but reportedly harvested in larger groups
with extended amily and riends. All were Aboriginal
(First Nations or Mtis). Te households had mixed
income sources, with high levels o unemployment or
under-employment, and ofen social assistance as the
main income source. Perceptions o how many people
or households in a community were active NFP
harvesters varied widely. Some respondents reported
that ew others rom their community were involved,
whereas others rom the same community reported that
many harvested.
Non-timber orest products were collected or both
trade and home use. Seneca root and poplar buds were
the commercial products most ofen reerred to by
respondents, while sh and game and the medicinal
sweet ag were primarily harvested or home use. A
range o other products was harvested or both trade
and home use, including:
berries: blueberry(Vaccinium angustilium),
strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), and raspberry
(Rubus pubescens);
mushrooms;
teas: Labradortea(Ledum grenlandicum), hyssop
(Agastache eniculum), and mint (Mentha arvensis);
and ceremonialproducts: sweetgrass,andsage
(Artemesia ludviciana ).
Some harvesters gathered on a regular basis whereas
others harvested sporadically and opportunistically.
One harvester estimated that their amily earned
approximately 20% o its income by selling NFPs.
Harvesters were mostly unaware o what was done
with the products afer they were sold. Seneca root,
or example, was harvested in large amounts, but ew
harvesters knew how consumers actually used it.14 Te
products that harvesters listed as being most important
were those that were purchased most ofen by the
Centre. Many expressed the view that i there was more
demand, they and others could and would respond by
harvesting more. Te marketing unction, however, was
considered external to their role as harvesters. Tey
generally saw this as something that was needed, but not
something they could do or themselves. Tey typically
sold their harvest to local buyers (primarily the Centre),
and in most cases the purchasers set the price and
indicated the quantity o product required.
Not all harvesters remained dependent on the
Centre. Tose who set their own prices, had their own
business, and (or) had personal brokers tended to have
a higher level o awareness about markets and demands
or products, and were aware o shifing societal values
(i.e., that people were increasingly interested in natural
and local products, were more health conscious, and
were looking or alternative medicines). Tese harvesters
generally set the price according to the cost o raw
materials, labour, travel costs, and a small prot margin.
Harvesting activity afer the closure o the Centre
varied, but there is general agreement that the commercial
harvest o previously important trade species, such as
seneca root, decreased substantially. Subsistence use o
moose (Alces alces), sh, and berries was reported as
stable beore, during, and afer the time o the Centre.
One harvester said that communities diered in the
14 Seneca snakeroot is most commonly used today as an expectorant and emetic to treat colds, asthma and bronchitis. See C. urcotte andN. Kenkel. Seneca snakeroot (Plygala senega): History and use. University o Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. Unpublished data. http://www.umanitoba.ca/aculties/science/biological_sciences/botany_lab/pubs/seneca.pd(Accessed March 15, 2009).
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/science/biological_sciences/botany_lab/pubs/seneca.pdfhttp://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/science/biological_sciences/botany_lab/pubs/seneca.pdfhttp://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/science/biological_sciences/botany_lab/pubs/seneca.pdfhttp://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/science/biological_sciences/botany_lab/pubs/seneca.pdf8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
12/19
114 JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
belcher, penner, munier, brigham, andgriffith
types o NFPs they harvested. For example, one
community mainly hunted, whereas another nearby was
still traditional. Approximately hal o the population
harvested Labrador tea, berries, wild meat, sh, and
medicines. Tis harvester also said that many people still
hunted or wakes and weddings, suggesting a cultural
importance associated with this activity.T havsts pinc th Nthn Fst
Divsifcatin Cnt
Te harvest and trading o orest products stimulated by
the Centre oered a wide range o benets as reported
by harvesters. Many acknowledged the Centres role
in reintroducing NFP harvesting into their lives and
helping them to recognize the values present in the
orest. Some attributed the training and engagement
in wild-crafing as motivating them to eat more
naturally, to be more active, and to access medicines
rom the woods. Many expressed appreciation or the
opportunities to reconnect with the land, with thenorth, with their spirituality, with their amilies, and
with the youth. Te ollowing section summarizes these
perceived benets.
Income earning opportunities Te most common
tangible benet reported was that the Centre provided
an outlet to sell products. One estimate o the initial
economic benets or harvesters was that the rst three
training sessions gave rise to total harvester earnings
conservatively estimated at $50 000 over a 4-month
period.15 Te income was seen by many as an important
supplement to household incomes. One respondent
related that:
Tere was an elderly wman with a small pensin
wh was behind in her billsHer sn in-law
brught her [pplar] limbs and she wuld pick
the buds f she gt a cheque r $1000 and she
started crying because she culd pay her bills $30
is critical in a lt peples lives.
Another expressed:
Its imprtant because we hardly have mney. Its
gd because we can g int the bush and make
sme mney and its gd cause yu need grade 12
r university t get a jb, even r ghting res yuneed a paper [certicate].
Several harvesters pointed out that the Centre was not
a typical 9:005:00 operation. Extra eort was made
to place orders and inorm harvesters o demand or
particular products, and unsolicited deliveries were
ofen accepted outside o regular operating hours.
Awareness building/skill development Harvesters
acknowledged that the Centre helped people become
interested in harvesting NFPs and recognize the
values present in the orest, and oered an entry point
and primary motivation or getting involved in NFPharvesting and sales. For some, the training was integral
to their success as harvesters, with success encompassing
economic values as well as those related to educating
themselves and others about the orest and their
traditions. Most people had been unaware o the market
opportunities or NFPs. One harvester said:
Te training was just the start. I changed my whle
liestyle. I see mney all arund.
Harvesters also became more aware o the value placed
on the resources around them and, in some cases, became
markedly more active in resource management issues.For example, one respondent told o how several Centre-
trained women became vocal participants in community
consultations involving the local orest licence holder and
the responsible government ministry. Such participation
was rare beore the work o the Centre.
Validation/personal worth Te importance o having
an opportunity or gainul employment should not be
underestimated. Many respondents conveyed a strong
sense o pride and appreciation or new-ound capacities
and opportunities to earn income through comments
such as:
Yure telling me what I knw has value!Another responded that:
Tis was the rst time that my children saw me
wrking.
Such statements indicate the impact that this inter-
vention had not only on the individual harvesters but
also on other generations within their households.
Stimulating entrepreneurship Although most
harvesters did not expand their activities beyond the
harvest-and-sell arrangement they had with the Centre,
the Centre encouraged harvesters to seek out their
own local markets. No harvesters became completelydissociated rom the Centre during its liespan, but several
were able to ll Centre orders while also developing
their own markets. It was understood that, outside o
Manitoba, these harvesters would not compete with
15 Northern Forest Diversication Centre. 2004. Centre Demonstration Project Phase 2 Progress Report. Unpublished data.
8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
13/19
115JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
supportingcanadasnon-timberforestproductsector
markets already established by the Centre, and likewise,
i harvesters developed their own markets, the Centre
would not compete with them (D. Buck, NFP Project
Manager, pers. comm., August 2009). Tese harvesters/
entrepreneurs sold the majority o their products through
a broker but also did business through local stores, craf
sales, and directly rom their homes. One harvestersaid that she sold her products to 10 stores and that her
broker also supplied to a number o stores in addition
to attending large trade shows. Tese harvesters saw the
Centre as being integral to their success, helping them to
realize the opportunities that existed and to appreciate
their own individual abilities and talents.
Revitalizing traditions and reconnecting Several
harvesters remarked that their involvement in the NFP
sector helped them to reconnect with the land, the youth,
their amilies, their communities, and their cultural and
spiritual belies. One harvester described how the activity
provided a chance to connect with youth:
When I tk them ut in the bush I tried t shw
them hw t wrk in the bush, hw t survive in
the bush, shwed them hw nt t get lst and
shwed them hw t watch the weather. Shwed
them t watch when the wind changes directin.
Te Centre served as a meeting place and extension
service. Respondents described it as a place to learn,
to teach, and to connect with people (including rom
neighbouring bands) and their spirituality.
Te Centre was a nice place t cme, the sister
bands were there, it was like recnnecting withyur etended amily, thats the way I lked at it.
Pride and respect or the gi Some harvesters
expressed that the value o the medicine they supply is
in the harvesting and the preparation, and conveyed
that such medicine is a gif rom the land, something
that they and their orests had to oer people rom
elsewhere. As one harvester said:
Its hard wrk in the bush, yure giving up ne
thing and prviding anther... Im thanking the
prvider and praying r the persn wh will
receive it [the sweetgrass].
Along the same lines, some harvesters indicated that
they would not collect medicines now because the
current trade system does not respect the medicine as
the ormer Centre did.
Obstacles and recommendationscommunicated by harvesters and ofcials
Although the perceptions o most harvesters and
ocials about the Centre were positive overall, they
provided useul criticisms and recommendations.
Common eedback rom both groups was that while
there was ollow-up with most harvesters post-
training, this needed to be more consistent. Many o
the inexperienced harvesters required more support
than the limited sta o the Centre could provide,
particularly in more remote communities. In some
cases, all harvesting activity ended within a year o
the training (D. Buck, NFP Project Manager, pers.
comm., January 2009). One ocial advised that having
community-based development ocers ocussed on
ollow-up would have a positive impact by improving
communications between harvesters in the eld and
the marketing/training organization.
Tere was appreciation or the co-ordination
o the Centre in buying products rom the various
harvesters and communities in a manner that was
generally equitable. Some suggested that having local
buying stations in each community would enable better
access to buyers. Competition amongst harvesters
was not usually cited as problematic, but reerence to
competition rom orestry operations was made, with
one ocial claiming that they were logging in the
best NFP spots. Having a tenure system or NFP
harvesters, similar to that which exists or trapping,
was recommended as a possible way to mitigate theseland use conicts.
Some harvesters took issue with aspects o the
harvesting work, such as the low and inconsistent pay
earned or hard physical labour done in potentially
unsae conditions. Some harvesters were overwhelmed
by high demand or products that they could not
accommodate, and so ceased production altogether.
Some harvesters were uninterested or unwilling to
ollow certain protocols, such as geo-reerencing
private harvesting locations or doing what was
considered excessive amounts o paperwork. Several
respondents noted that earnings rom harvesting weresubtracted rom their social assistance benets without
compensating or money invested in their work
(i.e., or gas or childcare), making it a money-losing
venture.
8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
14/19
116 JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
belcher, penner, munier, brigham, andgriffith
Discussion and conclusions
Te Centre did many things right. It was innovative in
its approach to working with communities and identied
an opportunity to use local human and natural resources
as an entry point to support rural development. Tere
was limited knowledge about some products, so the
Centre provided training and extension services. In the
absence o product standards and harvester certication,
it developed processes and procedures. Recognizing
the need or local control o resource management and
decision making, it helped create the embryonic Wild
Harvesters Association. Te Centre took on the role
o trader/wholesaler, did product development work,
researched new products, developed packaging, and
provided a range o services tailored to the needs o
harvesters. Perhaps most importantly, the work o the
Centre tapped into the cultural, spiritual, and livelihood
connections held by these harvesters to the land.
Lessons about organizational ocus
Te Centre took on a diverse range o activities and
this may have been one o its shortcomings. By trying
to cover everything rom training to market support to
industry development, Centre capacity was stretched to
the limit and beyond. Without other organizations to
take on part o the responsibility, however, it is dicult
to imagine an alternative. For any NFP development
to be successul, all aspects o business development and
promotion needed to be done in a co-ordinated manner.
Having a more limited product ocus might have helped.
Over its short lie, the Centre traded in no ewer than
435 dierent products. Te same eort invested in ewer
products might have been more protable, but o course
this is speculative.
Te success o the Centre may have been part o
its undoing. Eective community engagement resulted
in more communities wishing to become part o the
project, resulting in more commitment on the part o
Centre and, consequently, ewer resources and less time
or the previously engaged communities. As word o
the successes spread, calls or national and international
presentation and projects blossomed and time and
energy became even more stretched.
Lessons about leadership and governance
Te Centre was an unusual organization with an unusual
institutional home. Te Keewatin Community College
gave a solid base, providing administrative support
and the legal personality that made it possible or the
Centre to operate. But the Centre was autonomous, with
its own management board. It was inhibited in some
ways because it lacked a clear and consistent vision,
perhaps because it tried to meet dierent and changing
expectations. Te Centre was well outside the Keewatin
Community Colleges main business o education
and training. Tere was a training component, but thetrainees were not typical college students, and this was
only one o the Centres many unctions. Tese actors
combined to conuse the Centre mandate. Some elt that
its primary ocus should have been supporting economic
development, with success measured in terms o income
and ull-time employment generated by the training.
Others recognized the non-monetary benets that
could be realized and wanted to ensure that those values
were given adequate attention. And others realized
that or any part o the operation to be successul, the
whole NFP market, rom raw material production to
downstream market, needed development and support.Within the Keewatin Community College, there were
legitimate concerns that their control over operations at
the Centre were not in balance with their accountability.
Te Centre was ortunate to harness the energies
o a visionary that championed the cause o social
development through judicious use o local natural
resources. Tis experience clearly demonstrated the
need to have champions when trying to establish
novel approaches to social development interventions.
But, as ofen happens in such situations, longevity
and succession need to be considered and planned
or. Fatigue can plague an organization with limitedpersonnel, and the departure o key individuals can leave
an organization struggling. Te lessons learned clearly
show that not only are champions needed, they must be
rereshed on a regular basis.
Lessons about harvester support
Harvester support needs to be long term, and
expectations must be realistic. Creating a cadre o new
entrepreneur-harvesters is, at this time, improbable in
most communities. Te majority o harvesters trained by
the Centre came with a background o social assistance
and rom communities where there was little opportunityor even part-time work. Many were enthusiastic about
the training and harvesting however, and hundreds began
selling products to the Centre. Tis passion could not be
sustained without regular meetings between Centre sta
and the harvesters to provide markets or their products
and assistance or the many overwhelming challenges
inexperienced harvesters in remote communities aced.
8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
15/19
117JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
supportingcanadasnon-timberforestproductsector
Maintaining hands-on community support was very
demanding on the Centres limited sta resources.
Given these challenges, the Centre did well in providing
the support it did to harvesters. Te lessons learnedthrough this experience suggest improvements are
needed in consistent ollow-up and strengthened
communications, but signicant resources are requiredi widespread and equitable impacts (i.e., involving large
numbers o harvesters in widely spread communities)
are expected.
Lessons about privatization
Te sizeable cost o the Centre reects the intensive
hands-on nature o establishing an industry where
virtually none had previously existed. Given the
narrow prot margins between NFP purchases and
sales, the idea o nancing an organization such as
the Centre solely on prots generated by sales may
be unrealistic. Moreover, the Centre ofen sought tomaximize returns to the harvesters rather than prot
or the organization, allowing harvesters to sell at aprice largely established by the Centre, sofening the
sometimes erratic uctuations o the marketplace.
While such expectations benetted harvesters, they
could create dangerous precedents or any organization
which must operate in a or-prot position.
Although the division o duties between the
privatized Centre and the University College o the
North meant that unctions were assigned to those that,
on the surace at least, were most able to support each
o them, a critical service o the Centre was lost when
the marketing arm was privatized. Te Centre was
successul in part because o its vertical integration
o services across the market chain. With the division
o duties that occurred in late 2006, the unctions were
no longer integrated, with a subsequent reduction in
trade volume. Although more analysis o the situationis required, the experience o the new owner suggests
that a ocussed program o outreach and support (not
in place at this time and likely needing to be subsidized)
is required to attract and retain harvesters under the
conditions ound in many northern communities.
Lessons about non-timber orest productcommercialization as a tool or ruraldevelopment
Te Centre provides an interesting case study o a
home-grown experiment in community economic
development. It was successul in many ways and clearly
had a proound impact on the NFP industry in the
region and beyond, as well as on the harvesters. Te
Centre successully provided skills and opportunities
or hundreds o people to engage in harvesting and
trading NFPs, and stimulated some to create their
own businesses. While the start-up and running o the
Centre cost around $2 million or the period 20012006,
the trade was relatively small, with total sales o around
$160 000 per year in the highest years. Nevertheless, that
trade was important in households with limited incomes
and poor access to employment opportunities. In addition
to monetary benets, participants gained a great deal in
ways that cannot be easily measured but were nonetheless
highly appreciated: individual pride; sel-suciency;
re-connection with the land, with amily, and with youth;
and rediscovery/appreciation o traditions and traditional
knowledge. Although the methods used in this study do
not quantiy these benets, the ndings indicate a need
or more careul attention to the social, cultural, andenvironmental benets o use interventions or less-
utilized natural resources.
Many harvesters want the exibility to incorporate
their harvesting and trading activities within a portolio
o activities. For most, NFP harvesting and trade will
not be a mainstay but one o several income sources.
As the survey clearly showed, there are many benets
to be gained by individual harvesters, their amilies,
and their communities. Moreover, the skills transer
and development that is part o the development o the
sector easily translates to other aspects o lie and other
economic sectors.
At the conclusion o this experiment, it is clear that
the Centre had a positive impact on the development
o the NFP industry in northern Manitoba and in
the lives o harvesters. In light o the urgent need
or eective support to marginalized and remote
communities, particularly Aboriginal communities,
Althugh demand is increasing natinally
and internatinally r a wide range
nn-timber rest prducts, cussed
supprt is needed t assist ptential
and actual harvesters t access thse
markets and t perate their businesses
within them.
8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
16/19
118 JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
belcher, penner, munier, brigham, andgriffith
the Centre model is promising. Demand is increasing
nationally and internationally or a wide range o non-
timber orest products, but ocussed support is needed
to assist potential and actual harvesters to access those
markets and to operate their businesses within them.
AcknowledgementsWe acknowledge the generous support o the many
harvesters and Centre ocials who contributed to
our research; David Buck (ormer NFP manager or
the Centre) or his review o this article and insightul
responses to requent questions; the Cree and Mtis
Nations upon whose territory this research was
conducted; the University College o the North or
sharing unpublished reports and business records; and
the Social Science and Humanities Research Council
(SSHRC) or their nancial support.
Reerences
Albert, S. 2007. ransition to a orest bio-economy:
A community development strategy discussion. Journal
o Rural Community Development 2:6483.
Alexander, S.J., R.J. McLain, and K.A. Blatner. 2001.
Socio-economic research on non-timber orest products
in the Pacic Northwest. Journal o Sustainable Forestry
13:95103.
Allen, S.J. (editor). 1983. Te Pas: Gateway to northern
Manitoba. Te Pas Historical Society, Te Pas, Man.
Belcher, B., M. Ruiz-Prez, and R. Achdiawan. 2005.Global patterns and trends in the use and management
o commercial NFPs: Implications or livelihoods and
conservation. World Development 33:14351452.
Belcher, B. and K. Schreckenberg. 2007. Commercialisa-
tion o non-timber orest products: A reality check.
Development Policy Review 25(3):355377.
Berch, S.M., K.-H. Ka, H. Park, and R. Winder. 2007.
Development and potential o the cultivated and wild-
harvested mushroom industries in the Republic o
Korea and British Columbia. BC Journal o Ecosystems
and Management 8(3):5375. http://www.orrex.org/publications/jem/ISS42/vol8_no3_art5.pd(Accessed
October 2010).
Bravi, B. and B.K. Chapman. 2009. Managing or pine
mushrooms through the mountain pine beetle epidemic
in the West Chilcotin. 2nd edition. B.C. Ministry o
Forests and Range, Southern Interior Forest Region,
Kamloops, B.C.
Centre or Non-timber Resources. 2006. A uture
beneath the trees: An international symposium on
non-timber orest products, community economic
development and orest conservation. Royal Roads
University, Victoria, B.C.
Charnley, S., A.P. Fischer, and E.. Jones. 2007.
Integrating traditional and local ecological knowledgeinto orest biodiversity conservation in the Pacic
Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management
246(1):1428.
Duchesne, L.C., I. Davidson-Hunt, and J.C. Zasada.
2001. Te uture o the non-timber orest products
industry. In: Forest communities in the third
millennium: Linking research, business, and policy
toward a sustainable non-timber orest product sector. I.
Davidson-Hunt, L. Duchesne, and J.C. Zasada (editors).
U.S. Department o Agriculture Forest Service, St. Paul,
Minn. pp. 149151.
Ehlers, ., S. Fredrickson, and S.M. Berch. 2008. Pine
mushroom habitat characteristics and management
strategies in the West Kootenay Region o British
Columbia. BC Journal o Ecosystems and Management
8(3):7683. http://www.orrex.org/publications/jem/
ISS42/vol8_no3_art6.pd(Accessed October 2010).
Lavergne, C.S. 2006. Introduced wild rice: Impacts to
littoral shes and sh habitat in northwestern Manitoba
boreal lakes. MSc thesis, University o Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Man.
LeGal, G. 2007. A summary o the NFP industry in
Quebec. NFP Network o Canada, Provincial Proles.
Updated February 2007. http://www.ntpnetwork.ca/en/
provincial_profles/quebec_en (Accessed October 2010).
Mohammed, G.H. 1999. Non-timber orest products
in Ontario: An overview. Ontario Ministry o Natural
Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste.
Marie, Ont. Forest Research Inormation Paper No. 145.
Neumann, R.P. and E. Hirsch. 2000. Commercialisation
o non-timber orest products: Review and analysis o
research. Center or International Forestry Research;
Food and Agriculture Organization o the United
Nations, Bogor, Indonesia.
Peloquin, C. and F. Berkes. 2009. Local knowledge,
subsistence harvests, and social-ecological complexity in
James Bay. Human Ecology 37(5):533545.
Royal Roads University, Keeer Ecological Services,
Nakazdli Nation, and B.C. Ministry o Forests and
Range. 2010. Understanding understory plants:
http://www.forrex.org/publications/jem/ISS42/vol8_no3_art5.pdfhttp://www.forrex.org/publications/jem/ISS42/vol8_no3_art5.pdfhttp://www.forrex.org/publications/jem/ISS42/vol8_no3_art6.pdfhttp://www.forrex.org/publications/jem/ISS42/vol8_no3_art6.pdfhttp://www.ntfpnetwork.ca/en/provincial_profiles/quebec_enhttp://www.ntfpnetwork.ca/en/provincial_profiles/quebec_enhttp://www.ntfpnetwork.ca/en/provincial_profiles/quebec_enhttp://www.ntfpnetwork.ca/en/provincial_profiles/quebec_enhttp://www.forrex.org/publications/jem/ISS42/vol8_no3_art6.pdfhttp://www.forrex.org/publications/jem/ISS42/vol8_no3_art6.pdfhttp://www.forrex.org/publications/jem/ISS42/vol8_no3_art5.pdfhttp://www.forrex.org/publications/jem/ISS42/vol8_no3_art5.pdf8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
17/19
119JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
supportingcanadasnon-timberforestproductsector
Te impacts o landscape change on non-timber orest
Products. B.C. Ministry o Forests and Range, Victoria,
B.C. Final Report to Forest and Range Evaluation
Program.
Shipley, N. 1956. Te hidden harvest. Canadian
Geographical Journal 52:178181.
Smith, ., R. Cameron, and . Beckley. 2007. Te orest
is much more than trees. Natural Resources Canada,
Canadian Forest Service, Fredericton, N.B.
ough, F. 1996. As their natural resources ail: Native
peoples and the economic history o northern Manitoba,
18701930. University o British Columbia Press,
Vancouver, B.C.
Northern Forest Diversifcation Centredocuments reviewed or this study
In addition to personal communications shared by theCentre (e.g., printed email messages), the ollowing
documents were made available to study authors.
Buck, D. n.d. Centre (Provincial) business (buying and
marketing depot) or the non-timber orest product
industry. Te Pas, Man.
Buck, D. 2003. Management o the non-timber orest
product industry in Manitoba. Northern Forest
Diversication Centre, Te Pas, Man.
Buck, D. 2004. Northern Forest Diversication Centre:
Challenges and opportunities. Te Pas, Man. Discussion
Paper.
Buck, D. 2004. Partnering in community development.
Northern Forest Diversication Centre, Te Pas, Man.
Collins, S. and J.. Arnason. 2005. A concept paper or
sustainable economic opportunities through the ethical
development o medicinal herbs. CARE Canada and
University o Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
_______. 2005. Sustainable economic opportunities
through the ethical development o non-timber orest
products. Proposal or collaboration with the Northern
Forest Diversication Centre. CARE Canada, Ottawa
University, Saskatchewan Herb and Spice Association,
the National Herb and Spice Coalition, and Lone Wol
Herbs.Lauvstad, D. 2001. Five year business plan: Economic
development or northern Manitoba. Northern Forest
Diversication Centre, Winnipeg, Man.
Lea Rapids Community Adjustment Committee.
n.d. Proposal: Te social economy and northern rural
women.
Northern Forest Diversication Centre. n.d. Forests
sustaining communities, communities sustaining
orests: A review o a delivery program or marginalized
orest communities oered by the Northern Forest
Diversication Centre in Northern Manitoba. Te Pas,Man.
Northern Forest Diversication Centre. n.d. Ongoing
and planned activities or 2004. Te Pas, Man.
Northern Forest Diversication Centre. 2006. Draf:
Developing the NFP industry in Manitoba: Te next
5 years (January 1, 2007December 31, 2012). Te Pas,
Man.
Northern Forest Diversication Centre. 2008. Sales
analysis 20012007. Te Pas, Man.
Northern Forest Diversication Centre. 2008. Itemlistings 20012007. Te Pas, Man.
articlereceived: September 15, 2009
articleaccepted: September 15, 2010
2010, Cpyight in this aticl is th ppty Forrex Fum rsach and etnsin in Natual rsucs Scity.
ISSN 1488-4674. Articles r cntributins in this publicatin may be reprduced in electrnic r print rm r use ree charge t therecipient in educatinal, training, and nt-r-prt activities prvided that their surce and authrship are ully acknwledged. Hwever,reprductin, adaptatin, translatin, applicatin t ther rms r media, r any ther use these wrks, in whle r in part, rcmmercial use, resale, r redistributin, requires the written cnsent FoRREx Frum r Research and Etensin in Natural ResurcesSciety and all cntributing cpyright wners. Tis publicatin and the articles and cntributins herein may nt be made accessible tthe public ver the Internet withut the written cnsent FoRREx. Fr cnsents, cntact: Managing Editr, FoRREx, Suite 400,235 1st Avenue, Kamlps, BC V2C 3J4, r emailjem@rre.rg
Te inrmatin and pinins epressed in this publicatin are thse the respective authrs and FoRREx des nt warrant their accuracyr reliability, and epressly disclaims any liability in relatin theret.
Production o this article was unded, in part, by the British Columbia Ministry o
Forests, Lands and Mines through the Forest Investment AccountForest Science Program.
mailto:jem@forrex.orgmailto:jem@forrex.org8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
18/19
120 JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
belcher, penner, munier, brigham, andgriffith
1. Did you or anyone rom your household harvest
any sh, meat, berries, or other orest products or
home use in the last 12 months? (Record: species,
number o times, quantity, and where harvested)
2. Did you or anyone rom your household harvest
any sh, meat, berries, or other orest products
or sale or trade in the last 12 months? (Record:
species, number o times, quantity, where
harvested, and selling price)
3. How many people are usually involved in the
harvest?
4. Do you usually harvest with amily?
5. Do you do any processing o the products you
harvest?
6. Where do you sell your products (each species
sold)?
7. How do you nd out about the demand and the
price?
8. Do you know what customers do with it?9. How many other people in this community
harvest orest products or their own use?
QuestionnaireOfcials
1. What is your current position?
2. What is your experience with local communities
resource use?
3. How many people (%) in local communitiesharvest natural resources or their own use?
4. How many people (%) in local communities
harvest natural resources or sale?
5. What are the most important products?
6. How important is this income (cash and in-kind)
in local households?
7. How do people organize sales?
8. How many traders work in the area?
9. Who sets prices and how?
10. Have there been any change in the amount o
orest products people collect and sell in the past10 years?
11. Are there important opportunities or growth in
this sector? Please explain.
12. Are there important problems preventing growth
in this sector? Please explain.13. Are there laws, regulations, or other rules that
aect the sector? Please explain.
14. Do you know about the Northern Forest
Diversication Centre?
15. Has it made any dierence to you or to others in
the community? I yes, please explain.
16. Are there any lessons rom the ur trade,
Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, or other
experiences that could apply to orest products
trade?
17. What do you think could be done to encourage
this sector?
QuestionnaireHarvesters
10. How many other people in this community
harvest orest products or sale?
11. What are the most important species harvested?
12. Why dont you or other people harvest and sell
more orest products? Please explain.
13. Do you know o any conicts that have happened
over access to resources?14. Have there been any changes in the amount o
orest products people collect and sell in the past
10 years? I yes, please explain.
15. Is it very dierent now than in the experience o
your grandparents? I yes, please explain.
16. Do you know about the Northern Forest
Diversication Centre?
17. Has it made any dierence to you or to others in
the community? I yes, please explain.
18. Is harvesting important to you and your amily?
Why?
19. What do you think could be done to encouragethese activities in your community?
8/3/2019 Supporting Canadas non-timber forest product sector 30
19/19
121JEM VoluME11, NuMbErs1 aNd 2
supportingcanadasnon-timberforestproductsector
Supporting Canadas non-timber orest product sector: Lessons rom ManitobasNorthern Forest Diversifcation Centre
How well can you recall some of the main messages in the preceding Research Report?
Test your knowledge by answering the following questions. Answers are at the bottom of the page.
1. Which o the ollowing products was not commercially produced in northern Manitoba beore 1980?
a) Sweet-grass (Hierchle drata)
b) Wild rice (Zizania palustris)
c) Seneca root (Plygala senega)
2. What was the most common tangible benet o the Centre reported by harvesters?
a) Awareness building o NFP opportunities and skill development
b) Revitalizing and reconnecting with traditional knowledge
c) Te creation o income earning opportunities
3. Which o the ollowing are key lessons o the Centre experience?
a) On-going support to communities is essential but demanding in terms o resources
b) Te Centre was successul in part because o its vertical integration o services
across the market chain
c) Residents o northern communities are not interested in harvesting NFPs or the market
d) a and c
e) a and b
Test Your Knowledge . . .
1. b 2. c 3. e
ANSWERS