Supporting Canada’s non-timber forest product sector 30

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: [email protected]

2 Chair o Sciences, Faculty o Arts and Science, University College o the North, Te Pas, MB R9A 1M7.

Email: [email protected] Research Associate, Centre or Livelihoods and Ecology, Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road,

Victoria BC V9B 5Y2. Email: [email protected]

4 Co-ordinator o Education and Capacity Building, Centre or Livelihoods and Ecology, Royal Roads University,

2005 Sooke Road, Victoria BC V9B 5Y2. Email: [email protected]

5 MEnv Candidate, University o Manitoba, MB R3 2N2. Email: [email protected]
http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/72/30mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/72/30


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/


3/19



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.


4/19



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


5/19



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.


6/19



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


7/19



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


8/19



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


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/192


9/19



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


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


10/19



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


11/19



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.pdf


12/19



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.


13/19



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.


14/19



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.


15/19



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.


16/19



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.pdf


17/19



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 [email protected]

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:[email protected]:[email protected]


18/19



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?


19/19



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

Supporting Canada’s non-timber forest product sector 30

Documents

Transcript of Supporting Canada’s non-timber forest product sector 30