An International Comparison of Cases of Forest Product Development: Overview ... · 2005-05-09 ·...

WORKING PAPER NO. 23April 2001

An International Comparison of Casesof Forest Product Development: Overview,Description and Data Requirements

Brian Belcher and Manuel Ruiz-Pérez

___________________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

With increased attention to and investment in forest products (especially “NTFP”), there is a realneed for more systematic understanding of the true role and potential of forest products to achievedevelopment and conservation objectives. Information is required to improve the effectiveness ofinvestment and policy interventions. There is a rich base of information from many case studiesand development projects that have been done on various aspects of forest product development.But, this information has been assembled in an ad-hoc fashion, using a range of methods, atdifferent scales, and focusing on different elements of the forest product production, processingand marketing systems. Work is needed to document and compare cases using consistent termsand definitions for an appropriate range of variables. This paper describes a method to do this.It involves collating information from many cases that have already been studied. Cases will bedocumented and described using a standardized set of descriptors, and this data matrix will beused as the basis for the comparative analysis. Exploratory data analysis will be used to outlinepatterns, gradients of variability, clusters of cases and key variables associated with them. Thegoal is to create typologies of cases, identify conditions associated with particular kinds ofdevelopment and conservation outcomes, and identify and test hypotheses about forest productdevelopment. The ultimate goal is to provide guidance for action-oriented interventions based onforest products; that is, to identify conditions and “types’ of cases that are amenable todevelopment interventions, as well as to flag “types” of cases that may not be good investments.This paper provides guidelines for research collaborators. It describes the categories ofinformation (geographic setting; biological and physical characteristics of the product;characteristics of the raw material production system; socio-economic characteristics of rawmaterial production system; institutional characteristics of raw material production system;characteristics of the processing industry; characteristics of the market and marketing system;outside Interventions, and; outcomes of forest product commercialization) and providesdefinitions and rationales for the various descriptors used._______________________________________________________________________________

CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCHOffice address: Jalan CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindangbarang, Bogor 16680, IndonesiaMailing address: P.O. Box 6596 JKPWB, Jakarta 10065, IndonesiaTel.: +62 (251) 622622; Fax: +62 (251) 622100E-mail: [email protected] site: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org

2 Brian Belcher and Manuel Ruiz-Pérez

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 3

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE 3

CRITERIA FOR CASE SELECTION 4

THE UNIT OF ANALYSIS 5

DESCRIBING THE SYSTEM - CATEGORIES OF DATA 7

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING 8

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRODUCT 8

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRODUCTION SYSTEM 9

ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF PRODUCTION 10

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RAW MATERIALPRODUCTION AREA 10

INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RAW MATERIAL PRODUCTION 11

POLICIES AFFECTING RAW MATERIAL PRODUCTION 11

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROCESSING INDUSTRY 12

CHARACTERISTICS OF TRADE AND MARKETING 13

OUTSIDE INTERVENTIONS 13

DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION OUTCOMES 13

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 14

REFERENCES 15

ANNEX I. DESCRIPTORS 17

ANNEX II. EXAMPLE OF DATA RECORDING SPREADSHEET 25

An International Comparison of Casesof Forest Product Development: Overview,

Description and Data Requirements

Brian Belcher* and Manuel Ruiz-Pérez**

INTRODUCTION

Increased recognition of the many values offorests has led to new interest and effort todevelop forest products as a means to achieveboth development and conservation objectives.Governments, NGOs, community groups, anddevelopment agencies are actively seeking ways– through policy, investment, green marketing,and other interventions - to “develop” forestproducts. A new literature has emerged over thepast fifteen to twenty years and significantinvestments have been made in numerousprojects (see reviews such as Neumann andHirsch 2000; Townson 1994; Ruiz-Pérez andArnold 1996). Much of this investment is basedon the premise that improving prices forproducers, adding value locally throughincreasing post-harvest processing andimproving local organizations, can lead to long-term economic and political gains for thesegroups. Some also argue that these kinds ofinterventions can lead to forest conservation.And yet, understanding of the true role andpotential of forest product development tocontribute to human development orconservation, based as it is on untested theoryand scattered and inconsistent case-basedresearch, remains limited.

This project is working to improve thisunderstanding through a comparative analysis ofa wide range of cases of forest productdevelopment. We aim to collate informationfrom many cases that have already been studied,to document and describe the cases using astandardized set of descriptors and to conduct aseries of exploratory analyses. The goal is to:

• create typologies of cases• identify conditions associated with particular

kinds of development and conservationoutcomes, and

• develop and test hypotheses about forestproduct development.

The purpose is to provide guidance for action-oriented interventions based on forest products;that is, to identify conditions and “types’ of casesthat are amenable to development interventions,as well as to flag “types” of cases that may notbe good investments.

This paper provides guidelines for collaboratorsin this research. It briefly presents thebackground and rationale for the study, describesthe approach that will be followed and sets outspecifications for data collection for individualcases.

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

There is a rich body of information on manyaspects of commercial forest productdevelopment. This information includesnumerous case-based studies of differentelements of forest product systems (mainly in thearea of “non-timber forest products”, or NTFP)and results from development projects that haveinvested in forest product development. Manyinterventions have been tried at the project level,including various combinations of technical,institutional and financial support for forestproduct production, processing and marketing,with mixed success (see or example variousreports from the Biodiversity ConservationNetwork). As well, larger, cross-cuttinginterventions have been attempted, includinggreen markets, “fair trade” initiatives and effortsto promote NTFP certification (Shanley et al.forthcoming).

However, it is difficult to build a theoreticalframework from this basis. The information hasbeen gathered using a range of methods, at

*Center for International Forestry Research.*Center for International Forestry Research andUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid.


different scales and focusing on differentelements of the forest product production,processing and marketing systems. Work isneeded to document and compare cases usingconsistent terms and definitions for anappropriate range of variables.

This research will synthesize lessons from 50-60cases (15-20 each in Latin America, Africa andAsia) that have already been researched andanalyzed, applying a uniform comparativeanalytical approach. A range of descriptors(variables) has been identified based on a reviewof the literature and the authors’ experience.These variables have been recognized in theliterature as being important in some aspect offorest product development. They are not treatedhere as normative variables – there is nopresupposition that it is “better” or “worse” tohave or not to have certain characteristics. Theobjective is to find out which characteristics tendto be associated with which other characteristics,and so create a typology of cases. We also wantto discover which sets of characteristics, or“types” of cases, tend to be associated with whatkinds of human development and conservationoutcomes. We are hopeful that this informationwill be a valuable addition to the managementand policy debate.

The comparative methodology is based on thatdeveloped by Ruiz-Pérez and Byron (1999). Ituses exploratory statistical techniques to findpatterns, develop typologies, identify key contextvariables and analyze their relationship withobserved development outcomes. The approachinvolves describing the selected cases accordingto a standard set of descriptors (variables –discussed below) to develop a case-study matrix.We will then use exploratory data analysis tooutline patterns, gradients of variability, clustersof cases and key variables associated with them.We want to develop a useful typology of cases,identify key variables (those with maximumexplanatory power) and investigate relationshipsbetween particular classes of forest productsproduction-to-consumption systems and theirdevelopment and conservation outcomes.

In addition to the statistical analysis, therelatively large database of cases, characterizedusing a standard format, will offer a uniqueopportunity for qualitative analyses. We intendto publish summaries of the case descriptions inthree volumes (by region) for ease of use byother researchers.

In order to capture all of the relevant variability,the analysis will be based on a production-to-consumption systems (PCS) approach. That is,the case descriptions and the comparativeanalysis will consider the whole system, fromproduction of raw material through to finalmarket, including social , economic,technological and ecological aspects of theproduction systems, of the products and of themarket (Belcher 1997, 1998).

The following categories of information will beaddressed:

• Geographic setting• Biological and physical characteristics of the

product• Characteristics of the raw material

production system• Ecological implications of production• Socio-economic characteristics of the raw

material production system• Institutional characteristics of raw material

producers• Policies affecting raw material production• Characteristics of the processing industry• Characteristics of the trade and marketing

system• Outside Interventions• Outcomes of Forest Product

Commercialization

More detail is provided below.

CRITERIA FOR CASE SELECTION

The purpose of this study is to compare cases ofcommercial forest product development. Theimportance of forest products in subsistencesystems is by now well recognized. Efforts areneeded to protect those benefits where their losswould lead to hardship for users. However, thereasons that many of these products areimportant, such as low-cost access, availabilityduring times of shortage and a lack of suitablealternatives, does not necessarily make themsuitable for commercial development. Indeedmany subsistence products are inferior goods1

that will be displaced if and when the peoplewho are using them have physical or economic

_____________1 In economic terms, an “inferior good” is one forwhich demand decreases as incomes rise andpeople are able to purchase better or more desirablealternatives.

5 Cases of Forest Product Development

access to alternatives. Such products areimportant in the subsistence context, but they areunsuitable as targets for investment.

We are interested to understand the context, theconditions and the outcomes of commercialdevelopment of forest products. We need tofocus our analysis on products that have truecommercial potential. Therefore, the firstcriterion for inclusion in the comparativeanalysis is that the forest product hassignificant demonstrated commercial/tradevalue; that is, the product is traded in the casheconomy. The same product may also havesubsistence uses.

One of the premises of this study is that there is abroad base of information available on differentforest product systems, but that the informationis not suitably comparable. To optimize the useof available information and to minimize thecosts of data collection, we want to encourage aconsistent approach to documenting availableinformation. We expect that it will be necessaryin some cases to do further data collection tosupplement the available data, but hope that wecan find a sufficient number of cases with a largeproportion of the required data already available,even if it needs to be reformatted. The secondcriterion for case selection then is that theproduction, processing and marketing systemhas been researched and documented with dataavailable on approximately 70% of thevariables.

The statistical analysis will help to identifypatterns and trends, but it is just a tool for theoverall analysis. Moreover, it is simplyimpossible to include all variables in the data set.The analysis will require the expert judgement ofresearchers/analysts who have detailed personalknowledge of the case. The third criterion forcase selection then is that there is an individualor team of experts willing to collect additionaldata to complete the case documentation and toparticipate in the comparative analysis.

Finally, an effort will be made to include a broadrange of cases, representing, for example,divergent geographic and climatic conditions,management systems, market size and kind(local, regional, international) and developmenthistories (i.e., “spontaneous” commercialdevelopment versus cases that have receivede x t e r n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s / s u p p o r t f o rcommercialization). Therefore, the fourth

selection criterion will be to include adequaterepresentation of a range of cases.

THE UNIT OF ANALYSIS

The first and most important step in the processis the definition of the case. One of the premisesof this work is that we will be comparing casesthat have already been studied and arereasonably well understood. The casecorresponds to the study area, or a largerassociated area to which available informationand analysis can reasonably be extrapolated andthe downstream and upstream market linkages.

The case includes all of the followingcomponents:

- The raw material production area – theforest and/or forest-farm area that has beenstudied and about which there is reliablesocio-economic and ecological information.It might be a major production area of theproduct, though production of this forestproduct might not be the dominant economicactivity in the area. The concept is analogousto the concept of a “catchment area” inhydrology – the area of land where the forestproduct is produced. It is sufficient thatforest product production and marketing is asignificant economic activity for a sub-set ofthe people living and working in the area.The physical size of the area should bewithin the range of 10,000 ha to 100,000 ha.It may be one contiguous area or severalsmaller “centres” of forest productproduction. The actual case definition maybe somewhat arbitrary – it is to bedetermined by the researcher responsible forthe case description. Once the definition hasbeen made, however, it is critical to beconsistent in applying it when quantifyingall variables. It is important to note that thegeographical circumscription applies only tothe raw material production area – theoverall case also includes trade, processingand marketing that may, and in most casesprobably does, take place outside of the rawmaterial production area. Also, there maybe other areas in the country or the regionwhere the forest product is grown that arenot included as part of the case.


Three examples of raw material productionareas are shown in figures 1 – 3. Figure 1represents a classic example in which peoplelive in small villages within the forest. Theyengage in agriculture in small clearings inthe forest and also harvest forest productsfrom the surrounding forest. The rawmaterial production area is defined toinclude the forest area.

In the second example (figure 2) the rawmaterial collectors live in villages outsidethe forest, but travel into the nearby forest tocollect forest products. The raw materialproduction area is defined to include theforest area as well as the village area and the

agricultural area associated with thosevillages. Villages that fall within this area,even if they are not involved in the PCS,should be included.

Figure 3 represents a situation where the rawmaterial collectors live further from theforest and near a large urban centre. Theraw material production area is defined to

include the producers villages but to excludethe urban area. An infinite number of othersituations exist – individual researchers willbe best placed to determine an appropriatedefinition, based on the principles above.


- The trade/processing chain – the case alsoincludes the downstream traders and productthat originates in the selected raw materialproduction area. The market/processingsystem may also be fed by raw material fromother raw material production areas (i.e.,other catchment areas). Some of thedescriptors reflect a measurement of theproportion of the raw material that isobtained from the raw material productionarea selected for the case study. Themarket/processing chain may be quite shortwith sales by producers to final consumers(e.g., fruit), or it may be long with numerousintermediaries and processing steps (e.g.,chemical inputs to pharmaceuticals producedin other countries). Information is requiredon processing that is done both within thecountry of origin and outside in foreignmarkets.

- The final market – this includes all thebuyers who ultimately consume the productin its final form. With some products theremay be more than one or even several finalmarkets with a proportion of the original rawmaterial being used for different purposesand entering different markets. In thesecases, the most important markets should beidentified (collectively accounting for aminimum of 75% of the productconsumption) and treated separately in therelevant sections of variables.

The narrative report should include a briefdescription of the case as it has been defined forthat situation.

DESCRIBING THE SYSTEM - CATEGORIESOF DATA

The cases will be described according to a set ofpre-defined variables or descriptors. In previoustests of the comparative method, we have usedrelative terms for many of the variables (Belcheret al. 2000). While this has been useful, stronglimitations exist with such an approach due to itssubjectivity and due to the need for a high levelof knowledge of all cases by all participants topermit relative ranking. With a larger number ofcases we need more objective measures.Wherever possible, we have suggested absolutevariables of several kinds, including:

- Nominal variables (including dichotomousvariables (yes or no) and categoricalvariables (e.g., classes such as leaf, seed,bark, stem, flower, or fruit)

- Ordinal variables (indicating the order in asequence)

- Interval variables- Ratio variablesWe have also included trend variables to indicatethe direction of change in a particular variableover a set period of time.


The current set of descriptors was developed bythe authors in conjunction with collaborators inthe comparison of Indonesian forest productscases (Belcher et al. 2000), and in the currentinternational comparison through variousworkshops and personal communication. Thevariables represent a compromise; they must beas precise and specific as possible, but the datarequirements must not be too onerous. Avariable is only useful in the comparativeanalysis if it is possible to get comparable data ineach and every case.

The purpose of the descriptors has been a sourceof some confusion to collaborators. By nature,scientists strive for as much accuracy in theirwork as possible. So, there has been a tendencyamong collaborators to request more detail andmore accuracy in the descriptors. It is important,therefore, to keep in mind that the main purposeof the descriptors is to provide a framework forcomparing cases. We need robust accuracy morethan spurious precision. The descriptors are notintended to be sufficient for a full analysis of anindividual case by themselves. On the contrary,the premise for this work is that detailed analyseshave been conducted by the researchers on thecases that they have studied. The descriptorswill allow us to group cases with like cases andfrom there to seek patterns and theoreticalunderstanding. In the course of the work weexpect to be able to identify and select a sub-setof descriptors that are the most useful for thiskind of classification. The overall comparativeanalysis will be facilitated by the classificationof the cases, but will depend on the detailedanalyses of the experts on the individual casesfor the theoretical lessons.

The following discussion introduces the differentcategories of variables and provides thetheoretical and practical rationale for theinclusion of the various descriptors.

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The context of an individual case is expected tohave a strong influence on the kinds of productsthat are produced and on the opportunities andconstraints for forest product development.

As discussed above, the definition of the case isextremely important. We have suggested anappropriate range for the spatial extent of the rawmaterial production area (“catchment”) to helpguide case definition. For the analysis, an

estimate of the actual spatial extent of the rawmaterial production area is required to permitcomparison.

Obviously human population size, density anddynamics (rate of growth) will have importantinfluences on the development of the forestproduct system, as they influence competitionfor land, pressure on forest resources, marketsize and available infrastructure. Variables areincluded that account for the total population inthe raw-material production area and populationgrowth trends.

To characterize the raw material production area,variables are included to indicate predominantland uses (classified into eight major land-usecategories), the forest type in the area (accordingto the Holdridge Classification system), theelevation, average precipitation, and the soil type(according to the FAO soils map of the world).The general level of development in the rawmaterial production area will also influenceforest product use and management decisions.One useful proxy for development is the level ofcommunications/transportation infrastructure inthe area. We have chosen to use a simple ratioof the total length of motorable roads and rail persquare kilometre in the raw material productionarea. This is intended only as an indicator ofdevelopment - descriptors in the section on tradeand marketing deal with market access.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRODUCT

This set of variables is intended to describe andcategorize biological products according to theirsource, physical characteristics and uses. Forclassifying forest products, we use the basicdivisions of plant, animal, fungus and forestservice (including eco-tourism). These will berecorded as categorical variables. Many forestproducts have more than one use; the primary(most important by volume), secondary (secondmost important by volume) and tertiary (thirdmost important by volume) uses should berecorded. For the purpose of classification, wesubdivide the various forest products into usecategories: food, animal feed, fibre (for weaving,paper, thatch, etc.), construction material (usedfor its structural properties), resins and dyes,medicinal/chemical, fuel or ornamental/aesthetic.

Understanding how the market works requires anassessment of whether the product is perishableor stable. An index is used here, defined as the


number of days that a product (unprocessed,covered, at ambient temperature) can be keptbefore it loses 50% of its market value.

CHARACTERISTICS OFTHE PRODUCTION SYSTEM

This category of descriptors focuses on thesystem by which the natural forest product isproduced. Many forest products are extractedfrom the wild, but others are cultivated in someform or another. This is expected to be animportant distinguishing factor.

The first variables included here measure thepercentage of production that comes from threecategories: wild2 (i.e., not cultivated); managed3

population in forest/natural environment; ordomesticated4 population. One variable dealswith the relative importance of wild gathering inthe case study area and a second deals with therelative importance of wild gathering ininternational production of the product. Thesevariables are included to help determine whetherthe product has been domesticated locally orelsewhere (and therefore if it is technicallypossible to manage for increased quality orquantity of production) This is important tounderstand whether the case under study is moreor less advanced in the production technologyemployed compared with production of the sameor similar products in other places. A thirdvariable is included to indicate whether or notthere is a trend toward increasing intensity ofmanagement, something that is expected to haveequity and sustainability implications.

There is, in effect, a continuum of productionstrategies from pure “extraction” through tointensive cultivation/husbandry (Belcher 1997).Economic theory predicts that people will

_____________2 Wild implies that the species is not managed –there is no deliberate positive human interventionto improve productivity or quality (harvest limitsmay be applied).3 Management implies that labour and/or capital areinvested to improve the productivity or the qualityof product. The input may be as simple as weedingor protecting the target species, enrichmentplanting, fertilization, pruning, or other silviculturalor husbandry activities.4 Domesticated implies that the fungus, plant oranimal species is cultivated and managed in acontrolled environment, probably at higher thannatural densities.

respond to increased commercial value of aproduct by intensifying production (Homma1992; Godoy 1992). Some measure is needed ofthe degree of intensification. We have includedvariables measuring “labour intensity” and“technology intensity” as indicators of the levelof management intervention in the production ofthe raw material. A “trend variable” is alsoincluded to capture information about whetherthe level of management is changing over time.

There is increasing evidence that people investeffort to encourage “wild production”. Mostforests are at least partially anthropogenic (Balee1989; Posey 1984), and many valuable specieshave been established by, or with the help of,human effort. Large numbers of forest productsare produced in secondary forest or fallow(Muniz-Miret et al. 1996; Fairhead and Leach1996; Peluso and Padoch 1996; Peters 1996). Acategorical variable is included to indicate themain source(s) of the product by land-use type(“habitat type”).

The commercial potential of a product is at leastpartially determined by the seasonality ofproduction. Variables are included that recordboth biological seasonality (owing to thephenology of the organism) and seasonality dueto climatic, accessibility, technological, labouravailability or other determinants.

Gender aspects of the work are important toconsider as they are expected to influence/reflectthe social organization of the production system.In some cases women are the primary harvesters,processors and marketers of forest products(Hecht et al. 1988; Falconer 1990; Terry andCunningham 1993). In some cases,commercialization and new technologyintroductions may lead to displacement ofwomen by men (Tewari and Campbell 1996).And there are distinct spatial differences betweenmen’s and women’s activities (Ruiz-Pérez etal.1999; Schreckenberg 1996). A variable isincluded to indicate the percentages of timedevoted by men and by women to the productionof the raw material.

Many studies have shown that land and resourcetenure is important in determining how land isused. People tend to be willing to invest more inland and resources over which they have securecontrol. Extractive-type activities are morelikely under open access conditions. A variableis included to measure the percentage ofproduction that is done under the four main


categories of land tenure: private land, stateland, communal land (common property) or openaccess.

Finally, to help indicate the minimum value ofthe system, we include a variable to measure theopportunity cost of the land. This is defined asthe value of the land for its next best use. Whilethis may be complicated in multiple use systems,it will still provide a potentially useful indicator.

ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONSOF PRODUCTION

A large proportion of the literature on forestproduct development and the projects and otherinterventions that have been implemented areconcerned, at least in part, with “sustainabledevelopment”. Sustainability implies that thetarget species is not over-exploited and that theecosystem that provides the habitat for the targetspecies is maintained in good condition (i.e.,continues to function and provide ecosystemservices). Several descriptors are included tocharacterize the species and its ecology and thevulnerability of the species and the system todamage from harvesting and managementactivities. These characteristics are expected tobe useful in understanding sustainability andeconomic behaviour.

The vulnerability of the target species and itseconomic role will be determined, at least inpart, by its distribution (geographic range andhabitat specificity). Widely distributed speciesare less vulnerable to extinction. Speciesdistribution may influence the range of markets.The biology and phenology of individual speciesare critical in determining levels of sustainableharvesting. Variables are included thatcharacterize whether harvesting requires removalof the individual and that record regenerationperiod and reproductive period. We also want toknow the degree to which harvesting activitiesaffect the species growth or productivity andwhether there is an impact of harvesting on thepopulation of the resource being exploited.

We are also interested in the impact ofharvesting and management on the ecosystemmore broadly. It is recognized that accuratemeasures are difficult, will not be available inmany cases and would be costly to obtain.Therefore, we have included several categorical(positive, neutral, negative) variables to providegeneral indicators. A variable is included to

indicate the length of time the product has beencommercially harvested. Actual impacts ofharvesting activity on the population areindicated by measures of density and recruitment(defined as the proportion of mature individualsin the total population).

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OFTHE RAW MATERIAL PRODUCTION AREA

One of the key issues that emerges from theliterature is that many forest products are muchmore important to low income than to highincome people (Pimental et al. 1997, Cavendish1997; Falconer 1992; Hecht et al. 1988; Jodha1986) There are many reasons for this pattern.Poor people have low opportunity costs of labourand higher level of need for some of theseproducts. The products themselves are oftenavailable as open access resources, and theremay be little competition from wealthier peopleas many are “inferior goods” that are displaced ifpeople have physical access and can afford otherproducts. Other studies note that at least somecommercially valuable products are relativelymore important for middle income householdsthan for richer or poorer households in the samearea (Ruiz-Pérez et al. 1999). One of theobjectives of this study is to identify and betterunderstand these patterns. Several variables areincluded to describe the socio-economiccharacteristics of the people involved in the rawmaterial production. Some of these are absolutemeasures and others are relative to other groups.Variables are included for average householdsize and the number of people in a householdthat are involved in raw material production. Avariable is included to indicate averagehousehold income (from all sources, includingsubsistence and barter as well as cash income).A variable is included for the national (orregional in large countries) average forhousehold income for the year the case studywas done to help understand how the rawmaterial producers rank within the country, andfor the year 1998 to facilitate the comparisonacross cases.

Theory predicts that as people become moreintegrated into the cash economy they willspecialize more in the more valuable forestproducts and reduce their activities in lessvaluable subsistence activities (Godoy et al.1995). A general indicator of “integration” ofraw material producers into the cash economy is


captured with a variable measuring thepercentage of average incomes earned in cash.

As discussed above, people’s use of forestproducts depends on the alternatives available.One measure of this is the “opportunity cost oflabour”. For the purpose of the comparison, thisis defined as the average daily wage that peoplecould get for alternate activities and it is capturedas the variable “local labour rate”.

It is valuable to know the relative importance ofthe production activity in the overall portfolio ofeconomic activities in the area. This is capturedwith a variable measuring the proportion ofhouseholds that are involved in raw materialproduction. A trend variable is included toindicate whether this proportion is changing.Several variables are also included to capturerelative contributions of the product to partialand total household income in the producerhouseholds and to measure the degree ofspecialization in forest product production.Another trend variable is included to captureinformation on whether the relative importanceof the product in household income is changing.Finally, it is important to know something aboutthe status of the forest product producers. Inmany cases in the literature, forest work is seenas a low status occupation and people are quickto leave it for other opportunities to earn wages.This element alone may be important indetermining the sustainability of a particularoccupation. A variable named “social attitudestoward forest product production” is included toindicate the status of raw material producers bothin the local context and in the national context.

INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OFRAW MATERIAL PRODUCTION

Many studies of extractive systems have shownthat forest product producers, especially inextractive systems, tend to have weak bargainingpositions relative to their buyers (Padoch 1992;Peluso 1992). This is due, at least in part, tocharacteristics typical of the products themselves– many forest products are produced in smallbatches in highly dispersed systems. Productsare highly variable in quality and quantity withsharp seasonal fluctuations in supply due to thebiology of the species (phenology; high inter-and intra-specific variability in production/yield)and competition for labour. Numerous marketimperfections (especially poor information)characterize the markets. Also, many products

are perishable, with low densities and scattereddistribution, all factors that conspire to weakenthe bargaining power of producers (Belcher1997).

A frequent recommendation to overcome someof these inherent weaknesses is for producers toform associations (e.g., cooperatives) that wouldallow pooling of resources to facilitateinvestment in storage and post-harvest, collectivebargaining, and generally improved bargainingpositions (Neumann and Hirsch 2000). Tocharacterize this aspect of the cases studied,variables are included that record the existence,effectiveness, age and level of participation in aproducer organization.

It is also useful to understand whether or notanyone can become a producer of the product, orwhether there are social, economic,technological or regulatory barriers that impedenew households getting involved. This will havea strong bearing on the profitability ofproduction, as some limitations on an increase inproducers (and therefore increased supply) willhelp to maintain higher prices.

There may also be local (“traditional” or“customary”) rules governing forest/productmanagement (note – statutory regulations arecovered in the next section). Variables areincluded to indicate whether these exist and togive a measure of their importance (i.e., whetherthey are respected by the people involved inproducing the products and whether they have animpact on the management of the resource).

POLICIES AFFECTING RAW MATERIALPRODUCTION

There is frequent mention of the importance ofpolicy in forest product subsectors. The mainpolicy instruments open to governments fall intothree categories – regulation, incentives (positiveand negative) and direct investment. It is acomplex area and difficult to sort out the manyissues. Variables used here focus on whether ornot policy instruments falling into the three maincategories are used with the intention ofinfluencing the sector under study and whetherand what kind of effect they have on production.A trend variable is included to indicate whetherstate intervention (policy) has generallyincreased, remained unchanged or decreasedover the past ten years.


Another major area of policy that influencesforest product management is the ownership andlegal recognition of that ownership. Variablesare included to capture information on whetheror not raw material producers have recognizedlegal right to harvest the product (through directownership, permit systems or otherarrangements) and whether they have legal rightsover the land itself. A trend variable is alsoincluded to record information about whether thelegal recognition has changed, and in whatdirection, over the past ten years.

There is also a difference between de jure rights(those that exist in law) and de facto rights (thosethat exist in practice). If people believe that theyown a resource, they will manage it accordingly.If they believe that their tenure is threatened,they are more likely to over-harvest (aswitnessed in the China bamboo sector in theearly days of the household responsibility (Ruiz-Pérez et al. 1999). A variable is included thataddresses the issue of producer’s awareness oftheir property rights.

The relationship between state and traditionallaws may be complementary or in conflict. Pastexperience has shown this to be an importantvariable.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROCESSINGINDUSTRY

In the description of the characteristics of theproduct, we included physical and use properties.Likewise, we need to characterize the finalproduct(s) that are produced from the naturalproduct (raw material). If there is more than oneimportant end product, the following descriptorsshould be completed for each. It is important tounderstand the processing of the product and thedegree to which it is transformed from rawmaterial to the final product. For example, rawfruit can be sold and consumed without anyphysical transformation. Other forest products,such as resins used as naval stores or plants usedas chemical constituents, are completelytransformed. It is difficult to devise an index oftransformation, but a useful proxy is theproportion of value of the forest product in thefinished product (e.g., the value of the rattan rawmaterial in the consumer price of a rattan sofaset). The retail price of raw fruit will be the sumof the costs of storage, transportation and tradersprofits, with the cost of the fruit (the farm-gateprice) making up a fairly large percentage. The

farm-gate price of the damar resin used in paintformulation will be relatively much smaller.Another indicator of the degree of transformationof a product is the number of processing stepsinvolved. A variable is included for the numberof processing steps within the country andoutside the country.

As in the production section, a variable isincluded to record the number of womeninvolved in processing.

The processing technology used is important.Clay (1992), Arnold et al. (1994) and othershave pointed out that low-cost, accessibleprocessing technologies make it much easier forpoor rural people to get involved. This relates tocreation and capture of value at the communitylevel; labour intensive technologies are moreaccessible than more capital intensivetechnologies. Although a number of attemptswere made, we have not found a feasible, non-ambiguous indicator of this measure. However,the scale of an operation is also important; this iscaptured with a variable that records the averagesize of processing units measured by the numberof employees in an average processing unit (inthe step with the largest numbers of employeesper processing unit). For this variable,household members working in familyenterprises are considered as employees. Adescriptors is also included for the total numberof processors.

As in the producer subsector, the level oforganization among processors is important asare barriers to entry. Variables are included toindicate whether or not an organization exists, itsage and the level of participation. Anothervariable records an assessment of whether or notthe processor’s organization is effective.

As in other subsectors, it is important to knowwhether and what kind of barriers exist to limitentry to the subsector.

Policy is also treated in a similar way as it was inthe production subsector (above) with variablesaddressing regulations, incentives, directinvestment, their respective effects and trends instate intervention.


CHARACTERISTICS OF TRADE ANDMARKETING

Many authors have emphasized the importanceof understanding the market in any effort todevelop a forest product (Warner 1995). Severalvariables are included to capture elements of thehistory, market trends, size and structure of themarket.It is interesting and useful to record the age ofthe market. Some markets are quite new (certainfruits, medicinal plants) while others haveexisted for hundreds of years (essences, spices).A trend variable is included to capture recentchanges in the market. The size of the market isaddressed through variables such as the totalnumber of sellers (raw material producers),number of traders (at different levels) of rawmaterial and of finished products, and the size ofthe trade of raw, semi-processed and finalproduct (domestic and export) in US$ terms. Avariable is included to record the average priceof the raw material at the farm gate. Theimportance of international markets in total tradeis also measured in US$ terms when appropriateand possible

Market structure and function is also affected byaccessibility. Many forest products are producedin very remote areas. Two variables are includedto indicate ease of access to the market by rawmaterial producers: the walking distance to thenearest road, river or rail transport, and; the timerequired and mode of transportation to move theproduct to the main market. Market transparencyis considered very important in the literature, butit is difficult to measure. It refers to the degreeto which market participants know about prices,quality requirements, seasonality, and otherissues relating to supply and demand in themarket. Raw material producers are typically theleast well informed and their lack of access toinformation often puts them in a position of“price-takers”. We include three simpleproportion variables to capture this information:the proportion of raw material sellers who knowwhat their product is used for; the proportion thatknow the price of the raw material paid bysecond order traders, and; the proportion thatknow what grading standards are used by thosetraders.

As with the raw material, the perishability of thefinished product has economic implications. Atthis stage the important question is how long itcan be stored under typical storage conditions;refrigerated, frozen, canned or otherwise. A

variable is included to indicate whether thefinished product is subject to adulteration.Another variable captures information on thedegree of variability in product quality byrecording the price difference (in percentageterms) of high quality vs. low quality finishedproducts.

Forest product markets are often characterizedby a high level of “vertical integration”(defined as firms owning enterprises at differentlevels in the PCS – e.g., processing firms alsoowning raw material production or export andmarketing firms). This is measured as aproportion of firms that have ownership in firmssupplying their raw material and in firmsinvolved in marketing and exporting. As withraw material production and processing, weinclude variables to capture the level oforganization among traders, barriers to entry andkinds and effect and trend of state intervention inthe sub-sector. Finally, in many forest productmarkets, corruption plays an important role. Avariable is included to indicate whether theexisting regulations encourage rent seekingbehaviour (such as bribe-taking, illegal fees,etc.).

OUTSIDE INTERVENTIONS

With the recent interest in forest products, therehas been increased attention to and investment invarious aspects of forest product development.We try to capture and characterize this with afew variables that indicate whether there hasbeen external support (donors, NGOs or privatesector) to the system and then identify to whichtargets this support has been directed (i.e., rawm a t e r i a l p r o d u c e r s , t r a d e r s ,processing/manufacturing industry, retail/exportindustry). Variables are also included to identifythe kind of intervention (financial support,technical support, organizational support,political support), the source of the externalsupport, and whether or not there is a trendtoward increasing or decreasing outside support.

DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATIONOUTCOMES

Ultimately, we want to be able to identifydifferent kinds of cases, characterized by certainvariables or clusters of variables, and we want torelate these to outcomes in terms of conservationand development.


Two approaches will be followed to characterizeoutcomes:

a) Some of the variables used for describingthe various stages of the production-to-consumption system can also be used tocharacterize the development andconservation outcomes of the cases.Assessment of conservation outcomes willuse variables such as the source of theproduct, information on trends towardintensification and all of the variablesincluded in the section on EcologicalImplications. Assessment of DevelopmentOutcomes will employ several socio-economic variables, market trends andinformation about organization and rights.

b) We will also do an independent assessmentof each case, using a qualitative assessmentbased on “expert judgement” by the caseresearchers and the CIFOR team. Keyissues addressed will include:- Welfare – has participation in the PCS

contributed significantly to welfare,measured in terms of human, social,economic, man-made and environmentalcapital?

- Economic sustainability – will the PCSbe economically viable in the medium tolong term?

- Sustainable harvesting of the product –is the product being managed on asustainable basis?

- Ecological sustainability – ismanagement leading to medium to longterm conservation of the ecosystem?

- Conservation incentives- is the value ofthe forest product sufficient toencourage local conservation efforts?

Methods for this assessment are still beingdeveloped as part of the project.

The overall analysis will depend on theparticipation of experts from the individualcases. The process, underway at the time ofprinting, involves a series of regional workshops,with representatives from each case. Preliminaryanalysis will be done in advance of theworkshop, but the final analysis will require theexpert judgement of the collaborators.

The main outputs from this work will include:

1. Three edited books, one from each region.The books w i l l i nc lude an

introductory/overview chapter, chapters oneach of the cases (authored by thecollaborators), and chapters describing theresults, discussing the outcomes, anddrawing conclusions and recommendations.

2. Regional analyses3. World-level analysis4. A s e r i e s o f m o r e d e t a i l e d

studies/assessments of key issues relevant tosub-sets of cases (classified on product,policy or other lines)

5. A decision support tool based on theanalyses to help target support to forestproducts systems

6. A data-base of forest product case studiesdocumented using a standardized approachas a basis for other research and synthesiswork.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper, and the method it describes, has beenthrough many iterations over a long period. Theapproach is constantly evolving, and we fullyexpect and intend that it will be further improvedthrough implementation in the project that isnow going on. The current version has benefitedfrom the input of many colleagues. Neil Byron,a co-author of the concept paper, has been awilling and helpful sounding board at differentstages. Our CIFOR colleagues working on theproject with us – Ramadhani Achdiawan, IrdezAzhar, Bruce Campbell, Wil de Jong, OusseynouNdoye, Dede Rohadi, and Trish Shanley - haveall contributed ideas, criticism and commentsthat have strengthened the approach. TonyCunningham, Dale Dore and Pete Frost acted asexternal reviewers, and Miguel Alexiades hasworked with us as a consultant – all four haveprovided invaluable feedback, notes of caution,and new ideas. Tony has subsequentlyparticipated in some related work and continuedto help refine the approach. And, mostimportantly, this idea has gained from the inputsof more than 70 collaborators all over the worldwho have worked to apply the method and havehelped to improve it where they found itwanting. We thank them for this and for theirpatience with a sometimes tedious process. Allthe problems and errors that remain are ourresponsibility, and we look forward to sortingthem out as we progress. Finally, we gratefullyacknowledge the support of DFID and ofCIFOR’s core donors that have made it possibleto implement this collaborative research project.

REFERENCES

Arnold, J.E.M., Liedholm, C., Mead, D. andTownson, I.M. 1994 Structure and growthof small enterprises in the forest sector inSouthern and Eastern Africa. O.F.I.Occasional Papers: 34.

Balee, W. 1989 The culture of Amazon forests.Adv. in Econ. Bot. 7:1-21.

Belcher, B.M. 1997 Commercialization offorest products as a tool for sustainabledevelopment: lessons from the Asianrattan sector. Ph.D. Thesis, University ofMinnesota, U.S.A.

Belcher, B.M. 1998 A production-to-consumption systems approach: lessonsfrom the bamboo and rattan sectors inAsia. In: Wollenberg, E. and Ingles, A.(eds.). Incomes from the forest: methodsfor the development and conservation offorest products for local communities, 57-84. Center for International ForestryResearch, Bogor, Indonesia.

Cavendish, M.W.P. 1997 The economics ofnatural resource utilization by communalarea farmers of Zimbabwe. Ph.D. Thesis,University of Oxford, UK.

Clay, J. 1992 Buidling and supplying marketsfor non-wood tropical forest products. In:Cousell, S. and Rice, T. (eds.). Therainforest harvest: sustainable strategiesfor saving the tropical forests? 250-255.Friends of the Earth, London.

Fairhead, J. and Leach, M. 1996 Misreading theAfrican landscape: society and ecology ina forest-savanna mosaic. University ofCambridge Press, Cambridge.

Falconer, J. 1990 The major significance ofminor forest products – examples fromWest Africa. Appropriate Technology17(3):13-16.

Falconer, J. 1992 A study of the non-timberforest products of Ghana’s forest zone. In:Cousell, S. and Rice, T. (eds.) Therainforest harvest: sustainable strategiesfor saving the tropical forests? 135-141.Friends of the Earth, London.

Hecht, S.B., Anderson A.B. and May, P. 1988The subsidy from nature: shiftingcultivation, successional palm forests, andrural development. Human Organization47(1):25-35.

Homma, A.K.O. 1992 The dynamics ofextraction in Amazonia: a historicalperpective. I n : Nepstad, D.C. and

Schwartzman, S. (eds.) Non-timberproducts from tropical forest: evaluationof a conservation and developmentstrategy. Advances in Economic Botany9, 23-31. The New York BotanicalGarden, Bronx, New York.

Jodha, N.S. 1986 Common property resourcesand rural poor in dry regions of India.Economic and Political Weekly21(27):1169-1181.

Maogong, Z., Maoyi, F., Belcher, B. and RuizPérez, M. 1997 Analysis of socialeconomy and policies on productionmanagement systems. A case study onChina’s bamboo industry. ForestryEconomics 5: 50-58 (in Chinese).

Muniz-Miret, N., Vamos, R., Hiraoka, M.,Montagnini, F. and Mendelsohn, R.O.1996 The economic value of managing theacai palm (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) in thefloodplains of the Amazon estuary, Para,Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management,87:163-173.

Neumann, R.P. and Hirsch, E. 2000.Commercialization of non-timber forestproducts: review and analysis of research.Center for International Forestry Research,Bogor, Indonesia.

Padoch, C. 1992 Marketing of non-timber forestproducts in Western Amazonia: generalobservations and research priorities. In:Nepstad, D.C. and Schwartzman, S. (eds.)Non-timber products from tropical forest:evaluation of a conservation anddevelopment strategy. Advances inEconomic Botany 9, 43-50. The NewYork Botanical Garden. Bronx, NewYork.

Peluso, N.L. and Padoch, C. 1996 Changingresource rights in managed forests in WestKalimantan. In: Padoch, C. and Peluso,N.L. (eds.). Borneo in transition: people,conservation, and development, 121-136.Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Peluso, N.L. 1992 The rattan trade in EastKalimantan, Indonesia. In: Nepstad, D.C.and Schwarzman, S. (eds.) Non-timberproducts from tropical forest: evaluationof a conservation and developmentstrategy. Advances in Economic Botany9, 115-127. The New York BotanicalGarden, Bronx, New York.

Peters, C. M. 1996 Illipe nuts (Shorea spp) inWest Kalimantan: use, ecology, and


management potential of an importantforest resource. I n : Padoch, C. andPeluso, N.L. (eds.). Borneo in transition:people, conservation, and development,230-244. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Pimentel, D., McNair, M., Buck, L., Pimental,M. and Kamil, J. 1997 The value offorests to world food security. HumanEcology 25(1):91-120.

Posey, D.A., 1984. A preliminary report ondiversified management of tropical forestby the Kayapo Indians of the BrazilianAmazon. Adv. in Econ. Bot. 1:112-126

Rohadi, D., Maryani, R., Belcher, B., RuizPérez, M. and Widyana, M. 2000 Cansandalwood in East Nusa Tenggarasurvive? Lessons from the policy impacton resource sustainability. SandalwoodResearch Newsletter, 10:3-6.

Ruiz Pérez, M., Maoyi, F., Belcher, B. andXiaosheng, Y. 2000 The potential ofbamboo resources in mountainous China.In: Price, M.F. and Butt, N. (eds.) Forestsin sustainable mountain development: astate of knowledge report for 2000, 318-326. IUFRO Research Series No 5 CABIPublishing, Oxon (UK) and New York(USA).

Ruiz-Pérez, M., Zhong M., Belcher, B., Xie, C.,Fu, M., and Xie, J., 1999. The role ofbamboo in rural development: the case ofAnji County, Zhejiang, China. WorldDevelopment. Vol 27 No 1:101-114.

Ruiz-Pérez, M. and N. Byron, 1999. Amethodology to analyze divergent casestudies of non-timber forest products andtheir development potential. ForestScience 45(1) pp. 1-14.

Ruiz-Pérez, M. and Arnold, M. (eds.). 1997Current issues in non-timber forestproducts. Center for International ForestryResearch, Bogor, Indonesia.

Schreckenberg, K. 1996 Forests, fields andmarkets: a study of indigenous treeproducts in the woody savannas of theBassila region, Benin. Ph. D. Thesis,London University, U.K.

Shanley, P., Pierce, A.R., Laird, S.A. andGuillen, A. forthcoming. Tapping thegreen market. Earthscan Press.

Terry, M.E. and Cunningham, A.B. 1993 Impactof commercial marketing on the basketryof Southern Africa. Journal of MuseumEthnography 4:25-48.

Tewari, D.D. and Campbell, J.Y. 1996Increased development of non-timber

forest products in India: some issues andconcerns. Unasylva 47(187): 26-31.

Townson, I.M., 1994. Forest products andhousehold incomes: a review andannotated bibliography. Oxford ForestryInstitute.

Warner, M.W. and Balcombe, K. 1996 Howuseful is gender in explaining theeconomic roles of Africa’s rural peoples?an application in logistic regressionanalysis. Series in Empirical AgriculturalEconomics and Econometrics No 5:20.


ANNEX I. DESCRIPTORS

Background to case study

1. Year of data. Give the year that your year-specific data refers to. While we will attemptto standardize by using 1998, enter adifferent date here if the bulk of the datadoes not come from 1998. Individualvariables may come from different years. Ifthat is the case, specify the year next to thosevariables.

2. Background to study. In a few sentencesindicate the purpose of the original study (orstudies) – whether academic research, ruraldevelopment, conservation project,consulting report, or other – and a note onthe scope and duration of the research.

3. Species name. Give the scientific name,trade name and common name of the speciesfor the case. In some case, more than onespecies will be mentioned – try to give anassessment of the relative importance (involume terms) of the different species.

4. Locality of raw material production area –Province, district, township, etc.

5. Country.6. Latitude and longitude.7. Names of collaborators. Where different

collaborators are contributing different setsof data for the same case, indicate this onthe spreadsheet.

A. Geographic Setting

1. Spatial extent of the raw material productionarea – Size of the raw material productionarea in the case study in square kilometers.In cases where the forest/collection area andthe village area are adjacent to each other,the spatial extent is the sum of these twoareas. Where the village area is embeddedin the collection area, then it is the area thatpeople in those villages use to collect theforest product.

2. Human population size – Number of peoplein the raw material production area of thecase study (including adjacent settlementareas). This number includes all peopleliving in the area, not just those engaged inthe forest product production toconsumption system (PCS). Large urbancentres should be excluded from the rawmaterial production area.

3. Human population growth trend – Has thehuman population in the area increased,remained stable or decreased over the past10 years (including changes due tomigration)5?

4. Predominant land-use – Major land uses inthe raw material production area, recordedin terms of absolute area (in squarekilometers) by the following categories:rainfed crop production; irrigated cropproduction; permanent crops; pasture(includes savannahs/woodlands which areused for grazing); swidden fallow; forest;settled area; marshy/swamped.

5. Level of available transportationinfrastructure – Total length of motorableroads and rail per square kilometer in the100,000 ha area centered on the rawmaterial production area.

6. Forest Type – Forest type according toHoldridge classification system.

7. Elevation of raw material production area –Mean elevation (m a.s.l.) of raw materialproduction area

8. Soil Type - Predominant soil type, asderived from the FAO Soils Map of theWorld.

9. Precipitation – Average annual precipitationof raw material production area in mm.

B. Characteristics of the Product

1. Source of Product (i) Animal

a . Whole or part of carcass, hides(harvesting kills animal)

b. Products made by animal, such ashoney, silk, or bird nest (harvesting doesnot kill animal)

(ii) Plantc . Vegetative structure (leaves, branches,

stem, bark, root)d. Reproductive propagules (flowers,

fruits, seeds, other)e . Plant product (exudate: latex, resin,

gum)f . Product of parasitic infection of plant

(e.g., stick lac; gaharu)

(iii) Fungusg. mushroom

_____________5 It is considered stable if less than 1% change.


(iv) Foresth. Tourismi. Ecological Services

2. Use of productUsing the list below, indicate the first, secondand third most important use of the product(on a volume basis). In this question, useincludes subsistence or commercial use.Select only one product per column.

3. Perishability of the product – Number of daysat ambient temperature but under cover for theharvested forest product (air-dried if applicable)to lose 50% of its farm-gate value.

C. Characteristics of the ProductionSystem

1. Importance of wild gathering (vs. managedand cultivated) in raw material productionarea – % of annual production in the rawmaterial production area that is collectedfrom (i) wild (natural reproducing)population, (ii) managed population in aforest/natural environment and (iii)cultivated population.

2. Importance of wild gathering (vs. managedand cultivated) in international production ofproduct –Is there significant national orinternational commercial production of thisproduct that is harvested from:a. wild (naturally reproducing) population?

(yes or no)b. managed population in a forest/natural

environment? (yes or no)c. cultivated population? (yes or no).

3. Trend towards increasing intensification inraw material production area – Percentageincrease in annual production from amanaged/cultivated/ domesticated resourcein past 10 years

4. Habitat type – Percentage of annualproduction of product in the raw materialproduction area from the following habitattypes: Primary forest; Disturbed primary

forest; Secondary forest (>10 years old; partof a forest system); Savanna/woodland;Fallow (part of an agricultural system);Agricultural fields (e.g. with very fewscattered trees); Plantation; Agroforest;Coastal/wetland). (If this classification doesnot work for your particular study site, thenplease add the appropriate categories, andexplain the categories)

5. Length of biological harvesting season(months of harvest/year) – Number ofmonths per year that harvesting can be doneaccording to biological limits of organism

6. Length of effective harvesting season (monthsof harvest/year)- Number of months per yearthat harvesting is actually done according toclimatic limitations (e.g., rainy season preventsaccess; high humidity limits processing),cultural norms, market demands (e.g., salesonly in particular festive seasons), orgovernment regulations (e.g., hunting seasons)

7. Production Technology: labour intensity –Average person-days/ha/year for growingand harvesting product (not includingtransport to/from the harvesting area).

8. Production Technology: technologyintensity – Average cost (US$) of inputs(other than labour) per ha per year forgrowing and harvesting the product (thiscovers tools, bullets, fertilizers, pesticides,etc.). The cost of large capital items lastingmore than a year should be averaged overthe typical life of the item

9. Gender representation in production –Percentage of production and harvestinglabour done by women

10. Land Tenure – Percentage of productionthat is done on different land tenurecategories (note that resource rights arecovered in a later section)a. Private landb. State landc. Communal land (common property)d. Open access

Primary use Secondary use Third use

a. Human food b. Feed for animalsc. Fibre (for weaving, paper, thatch, etc.)d. Construction material (used for structural purposes)e. Resins and dyesf. Medicinal/chemical/essential oilsg. Fuelh. Ornamental/aesthetic/fashion


11. Value of the land – (a) US$/ha/year ifrented; (b) US$/ha if sold; (c) US$/ha/yearif concession fee.

D. E cologi c al I mpl ic ati ons of Pr oduction

1. Geographic range – total area (global) overwhich the target species lives: large( > 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 k m 2 ) ; m e d i u m(<1,000,000>75,000 km2); small (<75,000km2).

2 Habitat specificity - range of habitats6

where target species can live: wide (manyhabitats); moderate (2-3 habitats); narrow (1habitat).

3 Regeneration period – Time (in years) fromgermination (birth) to harvesting maturity

4 Reproductive period – Time (in years) fromgermination (birth) to reproductive maturity

5 Life span – Average life span of individual(in years)

6 Impact of harvest on individual – Effect ofharvesting on the individual (kills, damagesor neutral)

7 Impact of harvest on target species – Effectof harvesting on local population of targetspecies (population is declining, stable orincreasing)

8 Impact of harvest on the ecosystem:(negative, neutral or positive)

9 Impact of harvest on dependent organisms:(negative, neutral or positive)

10 Exploitation history - length of time resourcehas been exploited commercially from theraw material production area (in years).

11 Density – number of economicallyharvestable individuals per ha.

12 Recruitment – percentage of matureindividuals ((mature individuals/totalindividuals) X 100) in raw materialharvesting area7

E. Socio-economic Characteristics ofthe Raw Material Production Area

1. Average household8 size – Average numberof people per household in raw materialproduction area

_____________6 Habitats defined above in C47 “Harvesting area” may be a smaller area or areaswithin the raw material production area, where theproduct is actually harvested8 “Household” designates a unit of production not aunit of social organization, though in practice thesewill often overlap.

2. Numbers of producers9 per household –Average number of people involved inproduction per producer-household

3. Average annual household income –A v e r a g e t o t a l a n n u a l(subsistence+barter+cash) householdincome in raw material production area inUS$ equivalent. Clarify the extent to whichthe data really represents subsistence use(e.g., many income statistics mayincorporate agricultural subsistence, but notthat due to forest products – please clarifythe nature of all the income data)

4. National10 annual household income for datayear – National average household income(US$) for the year of data collection

5. National annual household income for 1998– National average household income(US$) for the year 1998 (to explore cross-case comparability we will attempt to getdata for a common year – the previousquestion reflects the reality that the bulk ofdata from the studies may not come from1998)

6. Integration into cash economy – Percent ofaverage total income (subsistence+barter+cash) of households in raw materialproduction area that is earned in cash

7. Local labour rate – Average daily wage forlabour in raw material production area inUS$ equivalent

8. Proportion of households involved in PCS –Percentage of households in the rawmaterial production area that are involvedin: (a) production, (b) processing, (c)marketing and (d) production and/orprocessing and/or marketing. Generally (a),(b) and (c) do not sum up to give (d) asmany households may be doing more thanone function.

9. Trend of household involvement in PCS –Has the percentage of households involvedin production, processing and marketing theproduct increased, remained stable ordecreased?

10. Average household income of producerhouseholds - Average annual householdincome (cash+subsistence+barter) ofproducer households in US$ equivalent.

11. Degree to which product contributes tohousehold income of producers - Percentage

_____________9 ‘Producer’ covers collectors and harvesters10 For large countries (e.g. Brazil, India), with largedifferences between states, please give national andstate figures for E4 and E5.


of average producer-household totalincome (subsistence+barter+cash) derivedfrom the product

12. Numbers of products in the NTFP portfolio– How many other NTFPs are produced perproducer household for trade (inclusive ofbarter)? O-2, 3-5, 6 or more (averages perhousehold)

13. Trend of income from forest productproduction – Has relative household incomefrom production of the forest productincreased, remained stable or declined overthe past ten years?

14. Social attitudes toward forest productproduction:a . Within the local community, do

producers of the product have high,medium or low status, or no particularstatus?

b. At the national level, do producers ofthe product have high, medium or lowstatus, or no particular status?

F. Institutional Characteristics of

Producers

1. Level of organization among raw materialproducers- Is there a raw materialproducers’ organization that deals with theproduct in question (no; informal; formal)?

2. Effectiveness of organization – If yes, is itseffect on the producers generally positive,neutral or negative?

3. Age of organization – If there is aproducers’ organization, what is its age inyears?

4. Degree of participation in organization - %forest product producers who participate ina producers’ organization

5. Barriers that impede new households gettinginvolved in production of the product - Arethere barriers that make it difficult for newproducers to enter? (yes or no)a. Social barriers (local rules, restrictions

of caste, family or ethnic ties)b. Economic barriers (the costs of entry

are too high for some)c . T e c h n i c a l b a r r i e r s

(production/processing requiresspecial skills or knowledge)

d. Regulatory barriers (laws preventingentry)

6. Customary rules governing forest/productuse – Are there local (traditional orcustomary; non-statutory) rules governingaccess to and management of the product(yes or no)?

7. Respect by community of their customarylaws – (a) do raw material producersgenerally respect the traditional rulesgoverning access to and management of theproduct?(yes or no) (b) are the ruleseffectively enforced? (yes or no)

8. Effectiveness of customary rules – Is theeffect of traditional rules governing accessand management of the forest productgenerally positive, neutral or negative in:(a) influencing exploitation of the resourcefor the product in question (positive wouldmean resource exploitation is tendingtowards being sustainable); (b) promotingequitable access to the resource (positivemeans equitability is promoted); (c)influencing total production (positive meansproduction is increased). If “Negative” for(b), what groups are dominating resourceaccess?

G. Policies Affecting Raw MaterialProduction

1. Government regulationsa. Are there current regulations/rules that

are intended to influence the productionof the product (raw material) (yes orno)?

b. If yes, is their effect generally positive,neutral or negative in: (a) influencingexploitation of the resource (positivewould mean resource exploitation istending towards being sustainable); (b)promoting equitable access to theresource (positive means equitability ispromoted); (c) influencing totalproduction (positive means productionis increased). If “Negative” for (b),what groups are dominating resourceaccess?

2. Incentives (tax, subsidies, etc.)a . Are there taxes, fees or subsidies that

are intended to influence the rawmaterial production of the product (yesor no)?

b. If yes, is their effect generally positive,neutral or negative in: (a) influencingexploitation of the resource (positivewould mean resource exploitation istending towards being sustainable); (b)promoting equitable access to theresource (positive means equitability ispromoted); (c) influencing totalproduction (positive means productionis increased). If “Negative” for (b),


what groups are dominating resourceaccess?

3. Government direct investment (research,extension, direct ownership)a . Is there government investment to

support, encourage or develop rawmaterial production of the product (yesor no)?

b. If yes, is their effect generally positive,neutral or negative in: (a) influencingexploitation of the resource (positivewould mean resource exploitation istending towards being sustainable); (b)promoting equitable access to theresource (positive means equitability ispromoted); (c) influencing totalproduction (positive means productionis increased). If “Negative” for (b),what groups are dominating resourceaccess?

4. Trend of state intervention – Has stateintervention in the raw material productionof the product generally increased, remainedunchanged or decreased in the past tenyears?

5. Legal Recognition/Resource Tenurea . Do raw material producers have

recognized legal right to harvest theproduct for trade? (yes or no)

b. Do raw material producers haverecognized legal right to change theland use to another production system?(yes or no)

6. Trend in legal recognition – Have the legalrights of raw material producers to harvestthe product for commercial purposesimproved, remained unchanged or worsenedin the past ten years?

7. Knowledge by community of their legalrights – Are the raw material producers inthe community generally aware of the natureof their legal rights to harvest the productfor commercial purposes (yes or no)?

8. Legal action to claim land – Have there beenany official claims by producers to increaseland/resource rights over the last 10 years(yes or no)?

9. Relationship between state and traditional(local) laws – Are state laws and traditional(local) rules conflicting, complementary orneutral to each other with regard to theproduct in question?

H. Characteristics of the ProcessingIndustry

If there is more than one important endproduct, this section would be repeated,once for most important (by volume)commercialized end product, and once forthe second most important end product. Thequestions in this section refer to the entirePCS, not just in the raw material productionarea.

State the most important product and secondmost important product (e.g., for a case ofthe baobab tree, one could have bark as themost important product and fruit as thesecond most important product).

1. Product (Use categories in section B,question 2)

2. Degree of transformation from raw materialto finished product – Rank the degree ofprocessing that is required as low (e.g.,fruit, bush meat or other products that canbe used directly by the consumer), medium(e.g., fibre from grass used for weaving orhandicrafts; wood for carvings) or high(e.g., essential oil extracted from plant andused in incense or as a chemical componentin medicine).

3. Proportion of value of forest product infinished product – Value of the raw material(farmgate price) as a percentage of thevalue of the final product in the mainmarket.

4. Processing steps – What is the number ofmajor processing steps (e.g. drying;powdering; distilling; packaging) done (a)in country, and (b) out of country11? Pleaselist the steps in comments.

5. Size of processing unit – Average number ofemployees (including household members)per processing unit in the step with thelargest numbers per processing unit ( 1-5, 6-10, 11-50>50). . In some cases a processingunit will be a household-run operation, inothers a factory which hires employees.a) in countryb) out of country

6. Gender representation in processing –Percentage of processing labour done bywomen

_____________11 Information on out-of-country processing (H4,H5) may be omitted if it is too difficult to obtain.


7. Total number of processors – What is thenumber of processing units using rawmaterial originating in the raw materialproduction area

8. Level of organization among processors - Isthere a formal organization concerned withthe processing of the product in questionamong the processors at the lowest level(primary processors)? (yes or no)

9. Age of organization – If yes, what is the ageof the processors organization in years

10. Degree of participation in organization - %processing units that participate in theprocessors’ organization

11. Effectiveness of processors’ organization –Does the processing organization have apositive, neutral or negative effect on thebargaining power of processors?

12. Barriers to entry - Are there barriers thatmake it difficult for new processing units toenter the industry? (yes or no)a. Social barriers (local rules, restrictions

of caste, family or ethnic ties)b. Economic barriers (the costs of entry

are too high for some)c. Technical barriers (processing requires

special skills or knowledge)d. Regulatory barriers (laws preventing

entry)12. Regulation –

a. Are there current regulations/rules thatare intended to influence the processingsubsector? (yes or no)

b. If yes, is their effect on total productiongenerally positive, neutral or negative?

13. Incentives (tax, subsidies, etc.)a . Are there taxes, fees or subsidies that

are intended to influence the processingsector? (yes or no)

b. If yes, is their effect on total productiongenerally positive, neutral or negative?

14. Direct Investment (research, extension, directownership)a. Is there government investment to

support, encourage or develop theprocessing of the product? (yes or no)

b. If yes, is the effect on total output ofprocessed product generally positive,neutral or negative?

15. Trend of state intervention – Has stateintervention in the processing of the productincreased, remained unchanged ordecreased in the past ten years?

I. Characteristics of Trade andMarketing

If there is more than one important finalproduct, this section would be repeated,once for most important (by volume) endproduct, and once for the second mostimportant end product

1. Product (Use categories in section B,question 2)

2. Age of market – How long has the productbeen traded from the raw materialproduction area? (in years)

3. Market trend – Has the market for thisproduct expanded, remained stable,contracted or shown boom/bustcharacteristics in the past 10 years (refers tothe PCS)?

4. Total number of raw material traders in thePCS - What is the absolute number of:a. first order traders (traders who buy

from raw material producers) involvedin trading products that originate inthe raw material production area?

b. second order traders (traders who buyfrom first order traders) involved intrading products that originate in theraw material production area?

c. third order traders in the PCS (traderswho buy from second order traders)involved in trading products thatoriginate in the raw materialproduction area?

5. Trade opportunities for raw materialproducers – To what extent do raw materialproducers have a choice of who they selltheir product to? (they can sell to 1 buyer, 2-4 buyers, >4 buyers)

6. Price of raw material – what is the averageUS$price/kg. of the raw material at thefarm-gate (forest-gate)?

7. Distance to transportation network –Walking distance in km from raw materialproduction area to nearest road, river orrail transport.

8. Distance to markets – (a) time required totravel from raw material production area tomarket? (b) what is the mode of travel?

9. Size of the trade in raw material productionarea – What is the total annual farmgatevalue (in US$ terms) for the trade of the rawmaterial originating from the raw materialproduction area (farmgate prices)?


10. Size of national trade – What is the totalannual farmgate value (in US$ terms) forthe national trade of the raw material in thecountry (farmgate prices), including allproduction areas?

11. Size of raw and semi-processed productsexport trade – What is the value (in US$terms) of the total national export of rawand semi-processed product (Free on Board(FOB) prices))

12. Total number of finished products traders inthe PCS12 - What is the absolute number of:a. first order traders (traders who buy

from manufacturers) involved in tradingproducts that originate in the rawmaterial production area?

b. second order traders (traders who buyfrom first order traders) involved intrading products that originate in theraw material production area?

c. third order traders in the PCS (traderswho buy from second order traders)involved in trading products thatoriginate in the raw materialproduction area?

13. Size of finished products export trade –What is the value (in US$ terms) of the totalnational export of finished products usingthe raw material (from all production areas,not only the raw material production area ofthe case)

14. Market transparency –a. percentage of raw material producers

that know accurately what the product isused for

b. Percentage of raw material producersthat know accurately the price paid forraw material by second order traders

c . Percentage of raw material producersthat know accurately the gradingstandards used by second order traders

15. Perishability of finished product – Numberof days under typical storage conditions forthe finished product to lose 50% of its value.

16. Product adulteration – Is the finishedproduct subject to adulteration (e.g,. beingwatered down, other substitutes added)?(always, occasionally, never).

17. Price variation – How much higher is theprice (in percentage terms) of high pricedfinished products compared to low priced

_____________12 This question is especially relevant forhandicrafts (e.g. wood carving, basket making)

finished products of the same kind(function)?

18. Importance of “vertical integration” -Percentage of processing firms that haveownership in:a. firms supplying their raw-materialb. export and marketing firms (in this

question we are considering processingfirms that are using raw materials fromthe raw material production area)

19. Level of organization among traders - Isthere a formal trade organization? (yes orno)

20. Age of organization – If yes, what is the ageof the trade organization in years?

21. Degree of participation in organization - %of traders that participate in the tradeorganization

22. Barriers to entry - Are there barriers thatmake it difficult for new traders to enter thebusiness? (yes or no)

a. Social barriers (local rules,restrictions of caste, family orethnic ties)

b. Economic barriers (the costs ofentry are too high for some)

c . Technical barriers (marketingrequires special skil ls orknowledge)

d. Regulatory barriers ( lawspreventing entry)

23. Intensity of state involvement affectingforest product trade - A measure of thedegree to which state tries to influence thesector through the main policy instrumentsof: - (i) Regulation

a . Are there current regulations/rules that are intended toinfluence the trade of theproduct? (yes or no)

b. If yes, is their effect on totaltrade generally positive, neutralor negative?

- (ii) Incentives (tax, subsidies, etc.)a . Are there taxes, fees or

subsidies that are intended toinfluence the trade of theproduct? (yes or no)

b. If yes, is their effect on totaltrade generally positive, neutralor negative?

- (iii) Direct Investment (research,extension, direct ownership)

a. Is there government investmentto support, encourage or


develop the trade of theproduct? (yes or no)

b. If yes, is the effect on total tradegenerally positive, neutral ornegative?

24. Trend of state intervention – Has stateintervention in the trade of the productincreased, remained unchanged ordecreased in the past ten years?

25. Corrupt practices – Do the regulationscreate conditions that encourage illegalcosts for the trade?(Yes or no)

J. Outside Interventions

1 . External support for forest productproduction/producers/processing/trading –Have there been outside interventions fromdonors or NGOs (yes or no) to support thePCS in terms of:a. financial supportb. technical support (training, technical

backstopping, etc.)c . organizational support (capacity

building)d. political support and advocacy

2. Target of external support – Has externalsupport from donors or NGOs been targetedtoa. Raw material producers (yes or no)b. Traders (yes or no)c . Processing/manufacturing industry

(yes or no)d. Retail/export industry (yes or no)

3. Trend toward increasing or decreasingoutside support – Has outside support fromthe donors or NGOs increased, remainedstable or decreased to the following:a. Raw material producersb. Tradersc. Processing/manufacturing industryd. Retail/export industry

4. External support for forest productproduction/producers/processing/trading –Have there been outside interventions fromthe private sector (yes or no) to support thePCS in terms of:a. financial supportb. technical support (training, technical

backstopping, etc.)c . organizational support (e.g. capacity

building)d. political support and advocacy

5. Target of external support – Has externalsupport from the private sector beentargeted to:a. Raw material producers (yes or no)b. Traders (yes or no)c . Processing/manufacturing industry

(yes or no)d. Retail/export industry (yes or no)

6. Trend toward increasing or decreasingoutside support – Has outside support fromthe private sector increased, remained stableor decreased to the following:

a. Raw material producersb. Tradersc. Processing/manufacturing industryd. Retail/export industry

7. Source of external support – What is themain source of external support:a. Local/national NGOb. International NGOc. Foreign governmentd. National private sectore. International private sector

An International Comparison of Cases of Forest Product Development: Overview ... · 2005-05-09 ·...

Documents

Transcript of An International Comparison of Cases of Forest Product Development: Overview ... · 2005-05-09 ·...