East Nimba Nature Reserve Non-Timber Forest Product...

Nimba Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia Biodiversity Conservation Programme 2011-2015

East Nimba Nature Reserve

Non-Timber Forest Product Utilisation

Position Paper

Katharine Howell

VERSION DATE: 20 SEPTEMBER 2013

ArcelorMittal Liberia Ltd.

P.O. Box 1275 Tubman Boulevard at 15

th Street

Sinkor, Monrovia Liberia

T +231 77 018 056

www.arcelormittal.com

Western Range Iron Ore Project, Liberia

Biodiversity Conservation Programme, 2011-2015 Position Paper: Use of Non-Timber Forest Products in the ENNR

of 28

Contents

1. POSITION STATEMENT ................................................................................................................ 3

2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 What are NTFPs? ................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Why are NTFPs important? ..................................................................................................... 4

3. LITERATURE REVIEW: NTFPS IN CONSERVATION .................................................................. 5 3.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Basic assumptions and falsehoods of NTFP schemes ........................................................... 5 3.3 Factors affecting sustainability of NTFP collection ................................................................. 6 3.4 Management options ............................................................................................................. 11

4. NTFPS IN NIMBA ......................................................................................................................... 16 4.1 The East Nimba Nature Reserve .......................................................................................... 16 4.2 Research scope and methods .............................................................................................. 16 4.3 Key findings ........................................................................................................................... 17 4.4 Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 18

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 24

6. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 25

7. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE .............................................................................................................. 28

List of Abbreviations AML ArcelorMittal Liberia

CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource Management

CI Conservation International

CMC Co-Management Committee

ENNR East Nimba Nature Reserve

FDA Forest Development Authority

ICDP Integrated Community and Development Project

LAMCO Liberian-American-Swedish Minerals Company

LRCFP USAID Land Rights and Community Forestry Project

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product

NWFP Non-Wood Forest Product

PES Payments for Ecosystem Services

REDD+ United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation programme

USAID United States Agency for International Development

Acknowledgements Many thanks to my respondents, the CMC, Dada Konkah and Joe Dayee, A.B. Kaba and Moses Gonsah of the FDA, and to John Howell and Wing-Yunn Crawley at AML for making this research possible.



of 28

1. POSITION STATEMENT Summary of the context

Through its Biodiversity Conservation Programme, ArcelorMittal is providing support to government and communities to improve the management of the East Nimba Nature Reserve, to ensure that its conservation value is sustained indefinitely. However, it is clear from empirical evidence and the opinions of local communities that it will be challenging to manage non-timber forest product (NTFP) harvesting effectively in the ENNR as part of management for biodiversity conservation. This is particularly the case given the many – and increasing – pressures on the forest, the delays in the establishment of a permit system in nearby community forests, the challenges involved in making community forest management bodies financially self-sustaining and the lack of precedent in terms of practising community management, sustainable harvesting and cultivation of NTFPs. It is also clear that, while NTFPs contribute to household and community income and subsistence, and that decreased availability of NTFPs has therefore negatively affected livelihoods, this dependence on a declining resource is not only unsustainable but also an unattractive livelihood option.

Important NTFPs from the forests in and around the ENNR include wolo, xylopia, doe-leh, bitter kola, rattan, mushrooms, palm, snails, various bushmeat species, and firewood. Notably all these plant NTFPs (except possibly some of the firewood) are from green-star species, of low global conservation significance (Marshall and Hawthorne, 2013). Plants therefore may not need protecting for their own sake (which they would if they were gold- or black-star species), but they do need protecting as part of the forest ecosystem.

The findings of this document bring into question in particular the assumption that NTFPs can be harvested sustainably; and also the common related assumption that local people are either ignorant of the degradation they cause, or environmentally benign. Here the situation appears to be more complex, and strongly related to the availability of alternative livelihood strategies. Communities are largely aware of the fact that they are contributing to the degradation of the forest, and aware that there are more sustainable harvesting practices than they currently use, but nevertheless feel unable to avoid unsustainable forest use. The demarcation of the ENNR is criticised, as having restricted people's livelihoods and reduced their access to food and medicine, but also recognised as one of the only ways of protecting the forest for future generations. Managing the forest for biodiversity comes into conflict with local livelihoods, but not necessarily with local wishes.

When asked in interviews about what would ensure the sustainable use of NTFPs, communities rarely mentioned sustainable harvesting techniques, forest management or on-farm production of NTFPs even though these options had already been explicitly discussed. Instead they described the types of external support – training, seedlings, livelihoods programmes – which they feel are needed to discourage the unsustainable use of NTFPs and of the forests more generally. They largely agreed that they would rather have a nearby clinic than collect medicinal plants, and raise their own fish and cattle rather than need to hunt bushmeat. Alternative livelihoods programmes seem to be perceived as less time-consuming than NTFP collection. However, caution is needed: this kind of support is unlikely to provide a silver-bullet solution. Both global and local experience show that simple agricultural alternatives tend not to work on their own.

ArcelorMittal’s strategy

The development of adequate alternatives would be likely to reduce demand for NTFP collection in and around the ENNR. Adequacy needs to be considered in terms of the distribution of costs and benefits within and between households and communities – for example considering the work input of women – and the effective substitution of subsistence and commercial products, particularly those of traditional, ritual and medicinal value, and taking into account marketability and local taste, and environmental impacts on a landscape scale.

The ENNR will be 'managed for conservation' for the next five years. The company intends to pursue a strategy to support and assess the suitability and effectiveness of an appraised option that works on a landscape scale: strict management for conservation in the ENNR, accompanied by regulated, sustainable NTFP collection in the community forests, and NTFP cultivation and livelihoods-strengthening programmes in communities.



of 28

2. INTRODUCTION

This report explores the potential for sustainable harvesting of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) in

and around the East Nimba Nature Reserve. It consists of a literature review of academic work on the

social and ecological implications of NTFP harvesting and management, asking under what

conditions and arrangements NTFPs can be harvested sustainably in protected areas as part of pro-

conservation management. It then considers this question in the context of the East Nimba Nature

Reserve (ENNR) and surrounding areas in northern Nimba County, Liberia. Focus group discussions

were carried out with nine communities in this area to provide a snapshot of local NTFP utilisation and

sustainability. Key findings of these discussions are presented here and, together with the literature

review, inform recommendations for NTFP management in the ENNR.

2.1 What are NTFPs?

Essentially, non-timber forest products are what their name suggests: materials from forests,

excluding timber (Leakey et al, 2005). Definitions vary – for example, bushmeat is sometimes

considered separately, and sometimes as an NTFP, and despite the exclusion of timber, collection of

NTFPs may not preclude the felling of trees. NTFPs usually include only extracted materials of

biological origin: they are generally considered separately from mineral products and from forest

services, including ecosystem services, such as water supplies, and aesthetic or spiritual uses like

ecotourism. In the following report I use the term NTFPs to refer to its broadest definition. This

comprises animal products such as fish, bushmeat, fur and honey, and plant-based NTFPs, which,

using the broad classification used by Ndanglasi et al (2007), includes fruits, seeds, nuts and

associated products such as oils; plant exudates like resin, nectar and latex; vegetative structures

including bulbs, leaves, shoots, bark, roots, stems and apical buds; and wood products such as

stems, poles and sticks. Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) exclude this last category.

2.2 Why are NTFPs important?

NTFPs can contribute significantly to subsistence and household income. Certain NTFPs, such as

some bushmeat species and rare plants with medicinal uses, have high commercial value. More

commonly, NTFPs provide rural communities with food, medicine and construction materials, and

local marketing opportunities which can act as an important supplement to other income sources or

subsistence. NTFPs can provide an 'emergency safety net', for example as a food supply in times of

crisis and scarcity. Often, however, NTFPs can also be a 'daily safety net' – a livelihood or means of

subsistence, often initially resorted to as an emergency safety net, but one that becomes entrenched

because of poverty and a lack of alternatives (Shackleton and Shackleton, 2004).



of 28

3. LITERATURE REVIEW: NTFPS IN CONSERVATION 3.1 Background For much of the twentieth century, wildlife and biodiversity conservation were driven by a 'fortress'

mentality which promoted the separation of nature and people, usually through the creation of

national parks and other protected areas (Adams, 2004). Whilst this approach to conservation had its

successes, it also faced considerable challenges, particularly conflicts with and poaching by local

people whose access to land and resources, and therefore livelihoods, were compromised by the

demarcation of protected area boundaries. By the 1980s and 90s, conservationists were calling for a

greater consideration of the needs of local people, giving rise to a range of new approaches, including

integrated conservation and development projects (ICDP), community-based natural resource

management (CBNRM), and market-based conservation strategies (Igoe and Brockington, 2007). The

utilisation of NTFPs, which often contribute significantly to livelihood and household income, was

incorporated into a variety of these approaches, including the commercialisation of NTFPs and

community management of protected areas, sitting comfortably within broader ideologies of

sustainable development and conservation through use. NTFPs’ popularity continues, now, with the

resurgence of forest protection as a means to mitigate climate change. However, NTFPs have not

provided the automatic panacea for environmental degradation and rural poverty which they appeared

to offer, due to problematic underlying assumptions.

3.2 Basic assumptions and falsehoods of NTFP schemes

NTFP harvesting is less damaging to biodiversity than logging. NTFP harvesting,

especially of the bark, bulbs and roots of plants, and obviously of animals, can be very

damaging to individuals and can also alter the wider ecology. In the past, unlike logging, it has

tended not to be included in assessments of forest value or in forest management

programmes, which has exacerbated this problem.

The value of NTFPs is, or can be made, sufficient to support livelihoods and therefore

provide incentives against deforestation. The value of NTFPs tends to be driven by

demand. High demand and high prices can encourage unsustainable NTFP extraction, whilst

if demand and prices are low, extraction may be unsustainable but is unlikely to support

livelihoods. Further complicating this is the fact that the distribution of the costs of

conservation and benefits of NTFP harvesting, or indeed the costs of unsustainable NTFP

extraction and the benefits of that extraction, may be very unevenly distributed.

'Use it or lose it': fortress conservation and the criminalisation of NTFP harvesting

have not worked because they are resented by local people who have continued to use

forests, often resulting in degradation. In this context, illegal essentially means

unregulated. The exclusion of local people has clearly caused major problems for

conservation in the past, but do participation and inclusion necessarily have to mean direct

use?

NTFPs are only found in forest. NTFP species, or similar products, can often be found in

field and fallow areas and can in some cases be cultivated.



of 28

3.3 Factors affecting sustainability of NTFP collection

Common to these assumptions is a neglect of the social and ecological complexity underlying NTFP

collection and management. Table 1 summarises the findings of a review of the literature on NTFP

management, examining the social, ecological and economic factors which make sustainable NTFP

harvesting more or less likely, and providing general suggestions for maximising or mitigating these.



of 28

Table 1. Factors supporting and hindering sustainable NTFP extraction

Factors supporting sustainable NTFP extraction

How to maximise? Factors hindering sustainable NTFP

extraction How to mitigate?

Ecological

Abundant, fast-recovering/regenerating species, e.g. 'pioneer'-type species (Borges and King, 2000)

Species-specific harvesting management (Ticktin, 2004); consider cultivation and management, e.g. understorey plants benefit from canopy pruning (ibid.)

Slow-growing/recovering/ regenerating and sensitive species (Delvaux et al, 2010); endemic species and/or those with a limited geographical range (Sunderland et al, 2004)

Expand range, if possible; substitution - research alternative species with similar uses (Ndanglasi et al, 2007); species-specific harvesting management (Ticktin, 2004); intensification/ cultivation/ 'minilivestock' (Schippmann et al, 2002; Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999)

Plants and fungi easier to manage ‘Fugitive resources’ – those which move through forest, such as bushmeat species – are harder to manage

History of good management/little disturbance and degradation

Use ideas of high biodiversity and bioquality to promote conservation

External threats to ecosystem: fire, pests, logging, agriculture, long history of degradation (Gaoue and Ticktin, 2009)

Address threats, e.g. fire prevention measures, logging restrictions (Gaoue and Ticktin, 2009); manage NTFP harvesting to promote recovery (Ticktin, 2004)

Accurate, in-depth knowledge and/or monitoring of local NTFP species populations, seasonality, resilience, appropriate harvesting methods

Facilitate knowledge dissemination, including indigenous/local knowledge (Lombard, 2000). Intellectual property recognition (Leakey et al, 2005). Possibility for participatory research and experimentation

Lack of knowledge, understanding, monitoring

Research and training; set up management system (e.g. Cunningham, 1999; Chhetri et al, 2003)

Ecological variability in time and space Substantial, long-term ecological research (Sunderland et al 2004); dynamic management, including quotas which take into account variation between species and spatial areas (Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999)

Multiple NTFPs can mean greater difficulty in monitoring and management (Pandit and Thapa, 2003)



of 28




Economic

Incentives to limit NTFP harvesting to a sustainable level, through sufficient but not excessive demand; or high prices for niche demand, e.g. high-end luxury products or medicinal plants; or strengthened alternative livelihoods

Consider accreditation for sustainability (FSC, Rainforest Alliance), organic production (IFOA), fair trade (FLO), quality (ISO, GMP) etc. (Borges and King, 2000; Lombard, 2000; Belcher and Schreckenberg, 2007)

Selective, unreliable demand for NTFPs; low prices and/or very high demand – either is problematic without adequate management, alternatives and incentives for sustainable use

Implement more effective management system; cultivation of NTFPs as more reliable, if sometimes more labour-intensive, source of income (Schippmann et al, 2002); develop alternative livelihoods; develop processing facilities to increase value of NTFPs (Van Vliet, 2010)

Technical and financial support from NGOs, government, companies (Borges and King, 2000; Lombard, 2000; Chhetri et al, 2003)

Training and capacity-building to develop self-sufficiency in longer term

Lack of access to and knowledge about relevant markets, unsuccessful commercialisation (Shanley et al, 2002)

Training; external intervention (e.g. NGOs); investigate REDD+/PES funding; accept that commercialisation may be less appropriate than, e.g., improved agriculture in some contexts (Arnold and Pérez, 2001; Shanley et al, 2002)

Sufficient revenues to support conservation (i.e. not just provide incentives for sustainable use) (Newton, 2008)

Benefit sharing between stakeholders (Cunningham, 1999)

Lack of finance for conservation, monitoring, management etc.

Investigate other sources of funding: PES, REDD+, ecotourism, external funding through conservation organisations, governments, companies

Socio-political

Low level of collection, and/or regularly recalculated, monitored and enforced maximum sustainable yield (see Lombard, 2000)

Should consider maximum sustainable yield/restrictions for individual species as well as overall forest (Delvaux et al, 2010); could also take into account temporal and spatial variability (Chauhan et al, 2008); needs to be effectively communicated

Intense and/or large-scale NTFP collection (may be related to large human populations, high demand, ineffective management) (Pandit and Thapa, 2003)

Establish/improve management system; direct consumer preference away from bushmeat and other NTFPs; strengthen alternative livelihood options (Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999)

Collection entailing non-destructive practices, such as some leaves, fruit and flowers (Ndangalasi et al, 2007)

Maintained through effective, specific management, education and monitoring

Destructive harvesting practices and NTFPs, e.g. felling to access latex (Borges and King, 2000); some bark, roots, apical buds, bulbs, shoots, stems; fruit and flowers on slow-reproducing plants; hunting rare and/or slow-reproducing animals (Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999)

Restrict through management and reduce through environmental education; for bark, some species are more sensitive than others – research alternative sources (Delvaux et al, 2010)



of 28




Clearly defined, secure tenure system (Sunderland et al, 2004). Collaborative and dynamic management between stakeholders, over area with clearly defined boundaries, encouraging local people to play a role in enforcement (Cunningham, 1999; Chhetri et al, 2003; Newton, 2008)

Easier said than done – would take time to establish as requires significant local capacity building (Chhetri et al, 2003)

Unmanaged open access and/or conflicts over land and resource use (Pandit and Thapa, 2003), often related to exclusive protectionist conservation and inflexible management (Chhetri et al, 2003); NTFPs not considered under forest management (Pandit and Thapa, 2003)

Develop more inclusive management systems, including opportunities for and benefit-sharing between stakeholders – e.g. CSR for companies (Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999; Borges and King, 2000), employing local people as rangers (Chhetri et al, 2003), community development projects (Van Vliet, 2010)

Socially cohesive, low levels of inequality; harvesters reap benefits of sustainable collection

Uneven access to resources and markets, and power – benefits accruing to non-local middle men/ international , e.g. pharmaceutical, companies rather than harvesters; even within communities and households cost/benefit distribution can be highly uneven (Ros-Tonen, 2000)

Involvement of harvesters in management; involvement of community organisations e.g. women's co-operative (Newton, 2008); training; support of NGOs (Lombard, 2000; Chhetri et al, 2003)

Effective environmental education Lack of understanding of or interest in biodiversity conservation and sustainable harvesting (Pandit and Thapa, 2003)

Environmental education and training (Chhetri et al, 2003; Illukpitya and Yanagida, 2010); see economic factors

Secure livelihoods Consider how NTFPs fit into wider household economy/livelihoods, e.g. uses of 'waste' products, and encourage appropriate livelihood diversity (Belcher and Schreckenberg, 2007)

Lack of alternatives to NTFP harvesting – may be related to landlessness, poverty, e.g. cultivating NTFPs often has high establishment costs (Schippmann et al, 2002) – may not apply to all members of a community or household (Belcher and Schrekenberg, 2007)

Reduce dependence on NTFPs by improving efficiency and output of agriculture (Illukpitya and Yanagida, 2010) and access to alternative livelihood options

Disincentives to NTFP harvesting, e.g. low returns, legal and physical danger (Gubbi and MacMillan, 2008)

Permitting NTFP collection normalises human presence in forest and increases incidence of illegal collection/poaching (Gubbi and MacMillan, 2008)

Effective management would entail the enforcement of restrictions, perhaps by local people (Chhetri et al, 2003)

Local politics determine enforcement (e.g. who you are affects whether or not you get 'caught' for illegal NTFP collection – see Gubbi and MacMillan, 2008)

Anti-corruption measures; external support to ensure transparency and fairness of management system



of 28




Legislative support for NTFP use and management (Schippmann et al, 2002) – national and international, e.g. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.

Ensure programme considers national policy context as well as local project level (Belcher and Schreckenberg, 2007)

Dysfunctional governance (at local or higher level) (Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999; Mukul et al, 2012); lack of legislative support (Dovie, 2003)

Longer-term capacity-building (Ros-Tonen, 2000)

Potential for interactions between factors, e.g. positive feedbacks (Newton, 2008)

Any proposed NTFP harvesting needs to be proven to be economically, ecologically and socially sustainable before it should be permitted in any forest area – essentially, in the same way that timber use would have to be – and able to adapt to economic, ecological, social and political change. The pilot-testing and monitoring of the chosen strategy(ies) is crucial (Ticktin, 2004).



of 28

3.4 Management options

It is clear from the literature that many of the challenges listed in Table 1 have, to some extent, been

recognised by practitioners, policy-makers and academics, and many improvements and alternatives,

including those also noted in Table 1, have been proposed. However, few of these have been

implemented and those which have are often lacking thorough evaluation and review (Ferraro and

Pattanayak, 2006). Table 2 presents a review of NTFP management schemes, grouped into five

broad policy options. It is based on empirical case studies of such projects, where possible, but where

these are unavailable, on the recommendations of conservation and research organisations and

academics, based on experiences of earlier NTFP projects and their failings. It has also made use of

technical studies of the sustainability of harvesting from specific species. All five of these options

would need to include effective forest co-management within a clearly defined area; local livelihoods

strengthening; environmental education; and comprehensive monitoring. In practice few of these

approaches have been entirely clear-cut, and often combine a few elements of different approaches,

without necessarily doing so in the strategic manner of a multiple-use designation.

These management options raise further questions about management strategy and funding options.

The management of NTFPs, and whether NTFP harvesting can be sustainable, is clearly highly

context-dependent, affected by the local limitations of labour, land, capital, knowledge; biodiversity;

and external factors such as market demand and resource control. Consequently, the next section of

this report turns to the context of northern Nimba County and local NTFP utilisation and management.



of 28

Table 2. Options for potentially sustainable NTFP use. Note: references without explanation give recommendations for the strategy in question but without empirical

evidence/testing.

Policy Option Case studies Advantages Challenges and Trades-off

Strict management for conservation

Incentives for conservation: alternative/ strengthened livelihoods for former NTFP collectors, possibly including REDD+/PES funding and the external cultivation of NTFPs, for commercial and/or subsistence use, e.g. community plantation, cane rat breeding. Support could be administered directly, conditional on standards of conservation, through a conservation agreement, with separate compliance and biodiversity monitoring

Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999

Schippmann et al, 2002

Shanley et al, 2002

Dovie, 2003

Ndam and Marcelin, 2004

Edouard and Marshall, 2006 (pita cultivation, Mexico)

de los Santos et al, 2006 (camedora palm cultivation, Mexico)

Gaoue and Ticktin, 2009

Niesten et al, 2010 (review of 64 CI-supported conservation agreement schemes)

In theory, cultivation meets demand without (further) compromising biodiversity

Conservation boundaries and rules are clear and straightforward

Ideologically satisfactory to conservationists and qualifies for certain kinds of international conservation funding, e.g. REDD+

Provision of direct incentives can be more effective than integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) in encouraging conservation (Niesten et al, 2010)

Where will cultivation happen? Will it encroach on forest?

Not all NTFPs are easily domesticated

High establishment and in some cases maintenance costs, which may make cultivated NTFPs unmarketable (Gale, 2012) (for more challenges to commercialised cultivation, see 'High-end commercialisation' below)

May be more labour intensive

Questions of local ownership and intellectual property, e.g. germplasm and local knowledge: how to make domestication participatory (Leakey et al, 2005)? Cases of pharmaceutical companies developing cultivation of medicinal plants but excluding local actors (Wynberg, 2004)

Potential dependence on external support



of 28


Low-level local use

NTFPs used for subsistence/buffer/local commerce, under community/collaborative management for biodiversity and sustainability, e.g. discouraging some harvesting methods, harvesting of certain species or size classes, and possibly involving the domestication of some NTFPs where demand exceeds sustainable supply.

'Low-intensity sustainable commercial extraction of products from a diverse forest ecosystem as an income source for people living a relatively traditional lifestyle may be perfectly appropriate under some circumstances, and it should be encouraged in those cases' (Belcher, 1998: 66)

Shanley et al, 2002

Marshall and Newton, 2003

Mukul et al, 2010

Mukul et al, 2012 (Bangladesh: NTFP collection at sustainable level due to reduced dependency on forest through alternative livelihoods such as employment by Park authority, and some in-forest cultivation)

Allows local access to NTFPs where cultivation is limited, supporting livelihoods

Closest option to 'status quo'?

Relies on effective education, monitoring and enforcement, and sufficient alternative opportunities/livelihoods to ensure that NTFP collection does not exceed sustainable level (and to determine what level that is)

May obstruct development, and viability may be altered by population growth, modernisation and other threats to biodiversity (mining, logging etc.) Like shifting cultivation, largely seen as a use of forest that was historically appropriate but one that is decreasingly so due to these challenges

Forest management interventions

Co-management of forest to support a higher sustainable yield of particular NTFPs for commercial and/or subsistence use, for example cultivating sensitive/non-pioneer seedlings in a nursery, controlling predator/dominant species populations.

Anderson, 1992 in Belcher, 1998 (Brazilian Amazon)

Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999

Arnold and Pérez, 2001

Shanley et al, 2002 (Brazil: semi-domestication of fruit trees in cleared groves: seed selection, eradication of ants, weeding)

Mukul et al, 2012 (Bangladesh: lemon cultivation within forest)

Fairly low-level labour input for harvesters

Theoretically, ecologically low-impact

Species-specific

What level of intervention is deemed acceptable? Where is the line between forest management intervention and agro-forestry? How do you clarify and manage this line?

What effect does this have on biodiversity? - can encourage secondary vegetation (Ticktin, 2004)



of 28


High-end commercialisation

Harvesting high-value, low-impact NTFPs, observing a dynamic quota system and given the right market conditions. Some medicinal plants, or high-end products with the possibility of certification and niche marketing, might have potential. Could establish processing facilities to increase value.

Borges and King, 2000 (Brazil: latex in national and international markets)

Lombard, 2000 (Namibia: medicinal roots in international market)

Jensen and Meilby, 2003 (Laos: agarwood in national and international markets)

Stoian, 2005 (Bolivia: brazil nuts and palm hearts in regional market)

Newton, 2008

High-end commercialisation can be more specialised and therefore a more efficient and less destructive form of harvesting (Jensen and Meilby, 2003)

Is there a market for the raw product, and for the finished processed product(s)? Who will trade, process and market NTFPs? How will other actors in the value chain affect harvesting (Belcher, 1998)? Can we be sure that benefits will accrue to harvesters?

No ‘silver-bullet' NTFP species. Success depends on many factors (Belcher and Schreckenberg, 2007).

Does not have to be aimed at external markets (e.g. marula beer which is more profitable than taking fruit and kernels to market – Leakey et al, 2005)

Issues of quality, particularly for higher-end, international markets

Product development can take a long time relative to market trends – observations of markets in shea butter, uppage, chicle (Belcher and Shreckenberg, 2007)

Risks of focussing dependence on a single product (Leakey et al, 2005; e.g. vulnerability of Mexican community to crop disease in Edouard and Marshall, 2006)

Up-scaling may remove benefits away from women and the poorest of the poor (Leakey et al, 2005)

May be unsustainable without some degree of cultivation/ forest management intervention (Leakey et al, 2005)



of 28


Multiple-use

A combination of the above options, possibly involving a combination of different land uses, as appropriate to the economic, ecological and socio-political context and adaptive to change.

Cunningham, 1999 (Uganda)

Foppes and Ketphanh, 2000 (Laos)

Chhetri et al, 2003 (Uganda)

Van Vliet, 2010 (Cameroon)

Can determine and manage different uses for different spaces and species – flexible, sensitive, allows longer-term pilot-testing

Complex management and monitoring

May include any of the issues raised above



of 28

4. NTFPS IN NIMBA 4.1 The East Nimba Nature Reserve

The East Nimba Nature Reserve was established in 2003 by the Liberian Forest Development

Authority (FDA) to protect the biodiversity of Liberia's section of the Nimba Range, which is

considered to be of global importance. A number of NGO-led programmes, such as USAID's Land

Rights and Community Forest Programme, succeeded by the People, Rules and Organizations

Supporting the Protection of Ecosystem Resources programme, and AML's biodiversity offset

programme have supported the operationalization of the ENNR Co-Management Committee, which is

a joint committee comprising FDA staff and representatives from local communities. On the 26th April

2013 it was decided by the CMC and the FDA, with the wider consensus of other community

representatives, that the ENNR would be managed as a protected area for the next five years, on the

condition of the provision of alternative livelihoods, jobs and community development, and with fees

paid to CMC members in proportion to the lost opportunity costs (AML, 2013). Nearby, the Gba, Zor

and Blei community forests have been delineated, with the intention of making permits available for

the extraction of NTFPs.

In a USAID trip report, USAID, Waugh (2011:7) asserts that '[c]ommunities accept the ENNR

boundaries as absolute limits for farming and hunting, although their capacity to control hunters may

be somewhat limited under current arrangements. They have expectations of being able to collect

non-timber forest products within ENNR boundaries however, and there is no consensus on this point

between communities and ENNR authorities.' Whether or not a conservation agreement involves the

collection of NTFPs from protected forest, to satisfy the interests of the different stakeholders it needs

to protect Nimba's biodiversity; prevent conflict between the FDA and local communities and other

groups; and help ensure sustainable and resilient livelihoods for local people.

4.2 Research scope and methods

To assess the nature of local NTFP collection and the suitability of different management options,

focus group discussions were carried out in nine communities around the ENNR. These comprised

the Gba villages of Camp 4, Gonakollie, Leagbala and Cassava Farm Village, and the Zor villages of

Sehtontuo, Dulay, Geipa, Yolowee and Zortapa. Each discussion had a minimum of five participants,

who included the Chief, a youth representative, a women's representative, a hunter, a farmer and an

NTFP collector (usually with considerable overlap between these roles). The villages consulted, and

the participants, were selected by the CMC to provide a sample of the main villages close to the

ENNR, within our constraints of time, personnel and access. Bassa Village, which was also

suggested, was not included because the road was blocked. For each visit I was accompanied by

both a community representative and an FDA representative from the CMC, who arranged the

meetings, introduced me and translated questions into Mano where appropriate. Responses were

anonymous and grouped by village. For each community I used the same interview schedule, which

was discussed with and approved by members of the CMC, asking questions about what NTFPs are

collected, where and how they are harvested, the perceived sustainability of collection and attempts

at and opinions on the management of NTFP collection (see Section 7 for full schedule).



of 28

4.3 Key findings

The overwhelming trends included high numbers of responses stating that (number of communities

which explicitly agreed on this trend in parentheses):

NTFP availability is declining (9/9). This is seen to be due to the demarcation of the ENNR

and community forests reducing the area of forest in which NTFPs can be collected (3), and

because of animals taking refuge in the Reserve (3), the threats of population growth, farming

and over-harvesting outside the ENNR (7), and water pollution from the old LAMCO mine (2).

This has had severe negative impacts on people's livelihoods (7).

People feel that their use of NTFPs and forest is unsustainable (6) but that they have no

alternative (2).

An alternative livelihoods project would help address the problem of unsustainable

forest use – options suggested were a fish pond (6) or cattle raising (4), and pig raising and

poultry were also mentioned.

Only 2 communities had tried growing their own NTFPs. Major obstacles cited were a

lack of knowledge or technical know-how (6), insufficient land (2) and nowhere to get

seedlings, especially since the demarcation of the ENNR (1). 3 communities had had

alternative livelihood projects such as fish ponds, which they deemed to have been

unsuccessful for various reasons.

No communities are using the community forests, either because it is too far (6, including

all 4 Gba villages) or because the permit system is not ready (3, although all of these said that

once the system is functioning they will get permits and use this forest).

All the communities collect NTFPs for both commercial and household use. 5

mentioned that commercial income is primarily used to send children to school. NTFPs that

are sold mainly go to other communities, except in Zortapa, whose NTFPs are sold within the

community, and Cassava Farm Village, where buyers visit the community.

A number of other notable points were also made:

All the Zor communities (5/5) collect NTFPs from the high forest; most communities collect

from around their farms and on private lands (5/9). 5 communities explicitly mentioned that

they used to collect in what is now the ENNR. Respondents in Sehtontuo mentioned that

there is a sacred area of forest from which no one collects NTFPS but this was the only

instance mentioned of community restrictions on where NTFPs are gathered.

NTFPs are collected by everyone – by men and women (explicitly stated by 8) and often

children (4) in every household. In Leagbala respondents mentioned that there are restrictions

on which families could collect certain sacred NTFPs. Hunting is exclusively a male activity (4

mentioned explicitly); all other collection was reportedly done by both men and women.

There is little in-forest management; several respondents laughed when this question was

asked. In Cassava Farm Village some people weed around certain palm trees; in Sehtontuo

villagers planted trees in the ENNR prior to its demarcation. Otherwise communities have not

tried to manage NTFPs in the forest, since they 'just grow naturally' (Yolowee respondent).



of 28

A number of plant-based NTFPs are harvested destructively, particularly bush pepper and

bark. Respondents in Zortapa mentioned the problem of outsiders or others harvesting

destructively.

Some communities are aware of the need for sustainable harvesting (3) and have tried to

apply this in practice. Respondents in Dulay said that education was helping with this and

those in Geipa said that they felt they needed training in sustainable harvesting practices.

In the case of bushmeat, several communities were aware of practices such as avoiding

young and pregnant animals (5), but said that they were impractical after dark, when hunting

often happens, and given the scarcity of bushmeat species and the fact that many hunters

used non-selective traps (5). There was also a concern that the boundary of the ENNR is not

always clear, particularly in the context of night-time hunting.1

It is very difficult to gauge how often and what proportion of NTFPs are collected. Collection,

apart from bushmeat hunting, is strongly seasonal (9); when in season, NTFPs tend to be

collected every day (5). In Cassava Farm Village it was mentioned that NTFP collection is

adjusted according to the yield.

Concerns about cross-border poaching, including in the ENNR, were voiced by 6

communities.

Important NTFPs include wolo (various parts), xylopia (fruit), doe-leh (leaf), bitter kola (nut),

rattan, mushrooms, palm (branches, sap), snails, and various bushmeat species. It is notable

that all the plant NTFPs are from green-star species (Marshall and Hawthorne, 2013). This

contrasts with the findings of Bruner et al (2010) who suggest that the most important NTFPs

in Nimba are bushmeat and fuelwood.

4.4 Analysis

These findings bring into question in particular the assumption that NTFPs can be harvested

sustainably and the common related assumption that local people are either ignorant of the

degradation they cause, or environmentally benign. Here the situation appears to be more complex,

and strongly related to the availability of alternative livelihood strategies. Communities are largely

aware of the fact that they are contributing to the degradation of the forest, and aware of that there

are more sustainable harvesting practices than they currently use, but nevertheless feel unable to

avoid unsustainable forest use. The demarcation of the ENNR is criticised, as having restricted

people's livelihoods and reduced their access to food and medicine, but also recognised as one of the

only ways of protecting the forest for future generations. Managing the forest for biodiversity comes

into conflict with local livelihoods, but not necessarily with local wishes.

Interestingly, when asked about what would ensure the sustainable use of NTFPs, communities rarely

mentioned sustainable harvesting techniques, forest management or on-farm production of NTFPs

even though these options had already been explicitly discussed. Respondents were quick to

1 A report produced by CI/Sylvatrop (2012: 13) confirms the unsustainability of hunting: 'Hunting is

done aggressively and wildlife populations cannot regenerate... Many species are probably declining

or facing extinction in the area'.



of 28

describe the types of external support – training, seedlings, livelihoods programmes – which they felt

were needed to discourage the unsustainable use of NTFPs and the forests more generally.

Respondents agreed that they would rather have a nearby clinic than collect medicinal plants, and

raise their own fish and cattle rather than need to hunt bushmeat. Alternative livelihoods programmes

seem to be perceived as less time-consuming than NTFP collection. A note of caution is needed,

however. While this kind of support may indeed help achieve this, there is unlikely to be a silver-bullet

solution. Introducing cattle raising or a fish pond will not stop forest degradation overnight and on its

own, as has been shown around the world, and even in Yolowee.

In the following tables I analyse the suitability of each of the earlier policy options for the ENNR

context in light of these findings (Table 3), and draw direct recommendations from the findings (Table

4).



of 28

Table 3. Policy Options in light of research

Policy Option Relevance to ENNR Irrelevance to ENNR

Strict management for conservation

Incentives for conservation: alternative/ strengthened livelihoods for former NTFP collectors, possibly including REDD+/PES funding and the external cultivation of NTFPs, for commercial and/or subsistence use, e.g. community plantation, cane rat breeding. Support could be administered directly, conditional on standards of conservation, through a conservation agreement, with separate compliance and biodiversity monitoring.

In line with management of ENNR post-2013 agreement.

Both strict conservation of ENNR and alternative livelihoods programmes apparently supported in principle by local communities.

Some cultivation of NTFPs has been attempted by communities.

Failure of FDA cane rat breeding programme for a number of reasons (Gale 2012).

Most communities not tried NTFP cultivation.

Low success rate of projects including fish ponds, swamp rice farming, goat raising for a number of reasons.

Low-level local use

NTFPs used for subsistence/buffer/local commerce, under community/collaborative management for biodiversity and sustainability, e.g. discouraging some harvesting methods, harvesting of certain species or size classes (and possibly involving the domestication of some NTFPs where demand exceeds sustainable supply).

Due to be implemented and managed in community forests using permit system. Several Zor communities said they would use this system.

Local use limited by ENNR and AML demarcation and conversion of forest to farmland.

Current levels of use and collection methods mostly appear to be unsustainable.

Bushmeat hunting more difficult to manage.

Distance to community forest, particularly Gba forest which is currently separated from some communities by mine areas.

Forest management interventions

Co-management of forest to support a higher sustainable yield of particular NTFPs for commercial and/or subsistence use, for example cultivating sensitive/non-pioneer seedlings in a nursery, controlling predator/dominant species populations.

Several communities expressed an interest in training and a nursery.

Not been attempted by the majority of communities.

High-end commercialisation

Harvesting high-value, low-impact NTFPs, observing a dynamic quota system and given the right market conditions. Some medicinal plants, or high-end products with the possibility of certification and niche marketing, might have potential. Could establish processing facilities to increase value.

Most communities sell some NTFPs outside the community, and rely on this income particularly to send children to school – there is therefore evidence of a market of some kind for some, particularly medicinal, NTFPs.

No evidence of existing high-value NTFPs or wider (i.e non-local) markets – both would need to be found.

LRCFP griffonia cultivation with Zor communities has had mixed results.



of 28

Policy Option Relevance to ENNR Irrelevance to ENNR

Multiple-use

A combination of the above options, possibly involving a combination of different land uses, as appropriate to the economic, ecological and socio-political context and adaptive to change.

Already partly in motion in the wider landscape: strictly managed ENNR, managed community forests.

ENNR rules currently prohibit this, so would need changing.

Table 4. Findings and Recommendations.

Finding Policy implications

NTFP availability is declining. This is seen to be due to the demarcation of the ENNR

and community forests reducing the area of forest in which NTFPs can be collected, and because of animals taking refuge in the Reserve, the threats of population growth, farming and over-harvesting outside it, and water pollution from the old LAMCO mine.

Status quo unsustainable, but also suggests that ENNR demarcation is respected and serving its function of protecting wildlife. Other causes of declining availability need to be tackled: see suggestions from communities. GOL needs to examine how it can reduce water pollution from the old mine.

This has had severe negative impacts on people's livelihoods. People feel that their use of NTFPs and forest is unsustainable but that they have

no alternative. An alternative livelihoods project would help address the problem of unsustainable forest use – suggestions included a fish pond, cattle raising, pig raising

and poultry. 3 communities had had alternative livelihood projects such as fish ponds, which they deemed to have been unsuccessful for various reasons.

Pilot-testing alternative/strengthened livelihoods programmes and/or sustainable agricultural intensification programmes, drawing lessons from the failure of previous projects.

Only 2 communities had tried growing their own NTFPs. Major obstacles cited

were a lack of knowledge or technical know-how, insufficient land and nowhere to get seedlings, especially since the demarcation of the ENNR.

Pilot-testing NTFP cultivation, perhaps as part of an alternative livelihoods programme.

No communities are using their community forests, either because they are too far

or because the permit system is not ready. Implement permit system. Explore potential for establishing closer community forests. When the Tokadeh mine is decommissioned, will the Gba community forest be expanded to incorporate those areas of forest (closer to Gba communities interviewed)?

All the communities collect NTFPs for both commercial and household use. 5

mentioned that commercial income is primarily used to send children to school. NTFPs that are sold mainly go to other communities, with the exception of Zortapa, whose NTFPs are sold within the community, and Cassava Farm Village, where buyers come round.

Any alternatives to NTFPs need adequately to cover both these subsistence and income needs.



of 28


All the Zor communities collect NTFPs from the high forest; most communities collect from around their farms and on private lands. 5 communities explicitly

mentioned that they used to collect in what is now the ENNR. Respondents in Sehtontuo mentioned that there is a sacred area of forest from which no one collects NTFPS but this was the only instance mentioned of community restrictions on where NTFPs are gathered.

Scope for NTFP cultivation and in-forest management. Management needs to be intra- as well as inter-community, and support should reflect this.

NTFPs are collected by everyone – by men and women (8) and often children (4) in

every household. In Leagbala respondents mentioned that there are restrictions on which families could collect certain sacred NTFPs. Hunting is exclusively a male activity (4 mentioned explicitly); all other collection was reportedly done by both men and women.

Encourage greater participation of women in management. Gale (2012) notes that there is currently only one woman on the CMC. In community discussions, some of the strongest voices and opinions were from women.

There is little in-forest management; several respondents laughed when this

question was asked. In Cassava Farm Village some people weed around certain palm trees; in Sehtontuo villagers planted trees in the ENNR prior to its demarcation. Otherwise communities have not tried to manage NTFPs in the forest, since they 'just grow naturally' (Yolowee respondent).

Consult with CMC about guards pilot-testing in-forest management in the ENNR.

A number of plant-based NTFPs are harvested destructively, particularly bush

pepper and bark. Respondents in Zortapa mentioned the problem of outsiders or others harvesting destructively. Some communities are aware of the need for sustainable harvesting and have

tried to apply this in practice. Respondents in Dulay said that education was helping with this and those in Geipa said that they felt they needed training in sustainable harvesting practices.

Possibility for community education, involving women and children, and further distribution of educational posters.

In the case of bushmeat, several communities were aware of practices such as avoiding young and pregnant animals, but said that they were impractical after dark, when hunting often happens, and given the scarcity of bushmeat species and the fact that many hunters used non-selective traps. There was also a concern that the boundary of the ENNR is not always clear, particularly in the context of night-time hunting.

Bushmeat hunting unsustainable, and education alone cannot solve this: need for management and/or alternatives. Clearer demarcation could also help prevent opportunistic bushmeat hunting in the ENNR.



of 28


It is very difficult to gauge how often and what proportion of NTFPs are collected.

Collection, apart from bushmeat hunting, is strongly seasonal; when in season, NTFPs tend to be collected every day. In Cassava Farm Village it was mentioned that NTFP collection is adjusted according to the yield.

For a specific management plan to be developed, a detailed baseline survey of NTFP collection would need to be carried out.

Concerns about cross-border poaching, including in the ENNR, were voiced by 6 communities.

The CMC should consider a policy on cross-border issues, and perhaps deploy patrol guards accordingly. Potential to link up with Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve management. Clearer demarcation of the ENNR boundaries may also help.

Important NTFPs include wolo, xylopia, doe-leh, bitter kola, rattan, mushrooms, palm, snails, various bushmeat species. Notably all these plant NTFPs are from green-star species (Marshall and Hawthorne, 2013). This differs from the findings of Bruner

et al (2010) who suggest that the most important NTFPs in Nimba are bushmeat and fuelwood.

Plant species may not need protecting for their own sake (which they would if they were gold- or black-star), but they do as part of the forest ecosystem.



of 28

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is clear from empirical evidence and the opinions of local communities that it is likely to be

challenging to manage NTFP harvesting effectively in the ENNR as part of management for

biodiversity conservation, given the many – and increasing – pressures on the forest, the delays in the

establishment of the community forest permit system, the challenges involved in making community

forest management bodies financially self-sustaining and the lack of precedent in terms of practising

community management, sustainable harvesting and cultivation of NTFPs. It is also clear that, while

NTFPs contribute to household and community income and subsistence, and that decreased

availability of NTFPs has therefore negatively affected livelihoods, this dependence on a declining

resource is not only unsustainable but also an unattractive livelihood option.

If adequate alternatives are developed, there is likely to be little demand for NTFP collection in and

around the ENNR. Adequacy needs to be considered in terms of the distribution of costs and benefits

within and between households and communities – for example considering the work input of women

– and the effective substitution of subsistence and commercial products, particularly those of

traditional, ritual and medicinal value, and taking into account marketability, local taste and the

impacts of different policy options on Nimba’s biodiversity.

Since the ENNR will be 'managed for conservation' for the next five years, this seems to present an

excellent opportunity to assess the suitability and effectiveness of Options 5: strict management for

conservation in the ENNR, accompanied by regulated NTFP collection in the community forests, and

NTFP cultivation and livelihoods strengthening programmes in communities.



of 28

6. REFERENCES

Adams, W.M. (2004) Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation. London: Earthscan.

AML (2013) Framework of the Proposed Offset Programme Project Phase 2, 2015 to 2026. Monrovia:

AML.

Appasamy, P.P. (1993) 'Role of Non-Timber Forest Products in a Subsistence Economy: The Case of

a Joint Forestry Project in India.' Economic Botany. 47 (3): 258-267.

Arnold, J.E.M. and Ruiz Pérez, M. (2001) 'Can non-timber forest products match tropical forest

conservation and development objectives?' Ecological Economics. 39: 437-447.

Belcher, B. (1998) 'A production-to-consumption systems approach: lessons from the bamboo and

rattan sectors in Asia.' pp. 57-84 in Wollenberg, E, and Ingles, A. (eds) Incomes from the forest:

methods for the development and conservation of forest products for local communities. Bogor:

CIFOR.

Belcher, B. and Schrekenberg, K. (2007) 'Commercialisation of Non-timber Forest Products: A Reality

Check.' Development Policy Review. 25 (3): 355-377.

Borges, J.R and King, S.R. (2000) 'Croton lecheri, sustainable utilization of an Amazonian pioneer

species.' Medicinal Plant Conservation. 6: 24-26.

Bruner, A., Griffin, S. and Rao, N. (2010) Preliminary Evaluation of Ecosystem Services and

Conservation Costs: East Nimba Nature Reserve and Nimba West, Liberia. CI / USAID LRCFP

Chauhan, K.V.S., Sharma, A.K. and Kumar, R. (2008) 'Non-Timber Forest Products Subsistence and

Commercial Uses: Trends and Future Demands. International Forestry Review. 10 (2):201-216.

Chhetri, P., Mugisha, A. and White, S. (2003) 'Community resource use in Kibale and Mt. Elgon

National Parks, Uganda.' Parks.13(1): 28-38.

CI/SYLVATROP (2012) Bushmeat and Biomonitoring studies in the Northern Nimba Conservation

Area. Monrovia: AML.

Cunningham, A.B. (1999) 'The Management of Non-wood Forest Products in protected areas:

Lessons from a case study of multiple-use in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda.' Published

by FAO online at http://www.fao.org/docrep/x2161e/x2161e16.htm; accessed 25/08/13.

de los Santos, J., Edouard, F. and Marshall, E. (2006) 'Camedora palm: Chamaedorea elegans, C.

concolor, C. oblongata (Palmae). Mexican palm fronds for the US floral industry: opportunities and

threats presented by a successful entrepreneur.' pp. 57-60 in Marshall, E., Schrekenberg, K. and

Newton, A.C. (eds) Commercialization of nontimber forest products: Factors influencing success.

Cambridge, UK: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

Delvaux, C., Sinsin, D. and Van Damme, P. (2010) 'Impact of season, stem diameter and intensity of

debarking on survival and bark re-growth pattern of medicinal tree species, Benin, West Africa.'

Biological Conservation. 143: 2664-2671.

Dovie, D.B.K. (2003) 'Rural economy and livelihoods from the non-timber forest products trade.

Compromising sustainability in southern Africa?' International Journal of Sustainable Development

and World Ecology. 10 (3): 247-262.

Edouard, F. and Marshall, E. (2006) 'Pita: Aechmea magdalenae (Bromeliaceae): Traditional use,

organization and domestication contribute to a successful niche marketing strategy.' pp. 53-56 in

Marshall, E., Schrekenberg, K. and Newton, A.C. (eds) Commercialization of nontimber forest

products: Factors influencing success. Cambridge, UK: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre.

Ferraro, P.J. and Pattanayak, S.K. (2006) 'Money for Nothing? A Call for Empirical Evaluation of

Biodiversity Conservation Investments.' PLOS Biology. 4 (4): e105.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/x2161e/x2161e16.htm



of 28

Foppes, J. and Ketphanh, S. (2000) 'Forest extraction or cultivation? Local solutions from Lao PDR.'

Published online at

http://www.tabi.la/articlemapper/resources/NTFP%20Lao%20docs/Sustainable%20NTFP%20harvesti

ng,%20cultivation,%20forest%20management/Forest%20management%20and%20NTFPs%20in%20

Laos/Forest%20extraction%20or%20cultivation.pdf; accessed 25/08/13.

Gale, J. (2012) East Nimba Nature Reserve (ENNR) Protected Area Business Planning Framework.

Monrovia: Conservation International.

Gaoue, G. and Ticktin, T. (2009) 'Effects of Harvesting Nontimber Forest Products and Ecological

Differences between Sites on the Demography of African Mahogany.' Conservation Biology. 24 (2):

605-614.

Gubbi, S. and MacMillan, D.C. (2008) 'Can non-timber forest products solve livelihood problems? A

case study from Periyar Tiger Reserve, India.' Oryx. 42 (2): 222–228.

Igoe, J. and Brockington, D. (2007) 'Neoliberal Conservation: A Brief Introduction.' Conservation and

Society. 5 (4): 432-449.

Illukpitiya, P. and Yanagida, J.F. (2010) 'Farming vs forests: Trade-off between agriculture and the

extraction of non-timber forest products.' Ecological Economics. 69 (10): 1952-1963.

Jensen, A. and Meilby, H. (2008) 'Does commercialization of a non-timber forest product reduce

ecological impact? A case study of the Critically Endangered Aquilaria crassna in Lao PDR.' Oryx. 42

(2): 214-221.

Leakey, R.R.B., Tchoundjeu, Z., Schrekenberg, K., Shackleton, S.E. and Shackleton, C.M. (2005)

'Agroforestry Tree Products (AFTPs): Targeting Poverty Reduction and Enhanced Livelihoods.'

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 3 (1): 1-23.

Lombard, C. (2000) 'The Sustainably Harvested Devil's Claw Project in Namibia.' Medicinal Plant

Conservation. 6: 9-10.

Marshall, C.A.M. and Hawthorne, W.D. (2013) Important plants of northern Nimba County, Liberia: A

guide to the most useful, rare or ecologically important species, with Mano names and uses. Oxford:

Oxford Forestry Institute.

Marshall, E. and Newton, A.C. (2003) 'Non-Timber Forest Products in the Community of El Terrero,

Sierra de Manantlán Biosphere Reserve, Mexico: Is Their Use Sustainable?' Economic Botany. 57(2):

262-278.

Mukul, S.A. , Uddin, M.B. , Rashid, A.Z.M.M. and Fox, J. (2010) 'Integrating livelihoods and

conservation in protected areas: understanding the role and stakeholder views on prospects for non-

timber forest products, a Bangladesh case study.' International Journal of Sustainable Development

and World Ecology. 17 (2): 180-188.

Mukul, S.A., Rashid, A.Z.M.M., Quazi, S.A., Uddin, M.B. and Fox, J. (2012) 'Local peoples' responses

to comanagement regime in protected areas: A case study from Satchari National Park, Bangladesh.'

Forests, Trees and Livelihoods. 21 (1): 16-29.

Murali, K.S., Shankar, U., Shaanker, R.U., Ganeshaiah, K.N. and Bawa, K.S. (1996) 'Extraction of

Non-Timber Forest Products in the Forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills, India. 2.Impact of NTFP Extraction

on Regeneration, Population Structure, and Species Composition.' Economic Botany. 50 (3): 252-269.

Ndam, N. and Marcelin, M.T. (2004) ''Chop, but no broke pot': the case of Prunus africana on Mount

Cameron.' pp. 37-52 in Sunderland, T. and Nyode, O. (eds) Forest Products, Livelihoods and

Conservation: Case Studies of Non-Timber Forest Product Systems. Volume 2: Africa. Jakarta:

CIFOR.

http://www.tabi.la/articlemapper/resources/NTFP%20Lao%20docs/Sustainable%20NTFP%20harvesting,%20cultivation,%20forest%20management/Forest%20management%20and%20NTFPs%20in%20Laos/Forest%20extraction%20or%20cultivation.pdf





of 28

Ndangalasi, H.J. , Bitariho, R. Dovie, D.B.K. (2007) 'Harvesting of non-timber forest products and

implications for conservation in two montane forests of East Africa.' Biological Conservation. 134:

242-250.

Newton, A.C. (2008) 'Conservation of tree species through sustainable use: how can it be achieved in

practice?' Oryx. 42(2):195–205.

Niesten, E., Zurita, P. and Banks, S. (2010) 'Conservation agreements as a tool to generate

direct incentives for biodiversity conservation.' Biodiversity 11:1-2, 5-8.

Pandit, B.H. and Thapa, G.B. (2003) 'A tragedy of nontimber forest resources in the mountain

commons of Nepal.' Environmental Conservation. 30 (3): 283 292.

Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. (2000) 'The role of non-timber forest products in sustainable tropical forest

management.' Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff. 58: 196-201.

Schippmann, U., Leaman, D.J. and Cunningham, A.B. (2002) 'Impact of Cultivation and Gathering of

Medicinal Plants on Biodiversity: Global Trends and Issues.' Biodiversity and the Ecosystem

Approach in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Satellite event on the occasion of the Ninth Regular

Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome, 12-13 October

2002. Rome: Inter-Departmental Working Group on Biological Diversity for Food and Agriculture.

Shackleton, C. and Shackleton, S. (2004) 'The importance of non-timber forest products in rural

livelihood security and as safety nets: a review of evidence from South Africa.' South African Journal

of Science. 100: 658-664.

Shanley, P., Luz, L. and Swingland, I.R. (2002) 'The faint promise of a distant market: a survey of

Belém’s trade in non-timber forest products.' Biodiversity and Conservation. 11: 615–636.

Stoian, D. (2005) 'Making the best of two worlds: rural and peri-urban livelihood options sustained by

nontimber forest products from the Bolivian Amazon.' World Development. 33 (9): 1473-1490.

Sunderland, T. and Tanyi, T.C. (2000) 'The exploitation of Prunus africana on the island of Bioko,

Equatorial Guinea.' Medicinal Plant Conservation. 6: 18-20.

Sunderlin, W.D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., and Wunder, S. (2004)

'Livelihoods, Forests, and Conservation in Developing Countries: An Overview.' World Development.

33 (9): 1383–1402.

Ticktin, T. (2004) 'The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest products.' Journal of

Applied Ecology. 41: 11–21.

Van Vliet, N. (2010) 'Participatory Vulnerability Assessment in the Context of Conservation and

Development Projects: A Case Study of Local Communities in Southwest Cameroon.' Ecology and

Society. 15(2): 6.

Waugh, J.D. (2011) Trip Report. Monrovia: USAID.

Wilkie, D.S. and Carpenter, J.F. (1999) 'Bushmeat hunting in the Congo basin: an assessment of

impacts and options for mitigation.' Published online at

https://www.brookfieldzoo.org/pagegen/inc/ACWilkie.pdf; accessed 25/08/13.

Wynberg, R. (2004) 'Achieving a fair and sustainable trade in devil's claw (Harpagophytum spp.).' pp.

53-72 in Sunderland, T. and Nyode, O. (eds) Forest Products, Livelihoods and Conservation: Case

Studies of Non-Timber Forest Product Systems. Volume 2: Africa. Jakarta: CIFOR.

https://www.brookfieldzoo.org/pagegen/inc/ACWilkie.pdf



of 28

7. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

What do we mean by NTFPs?

Non-timber forest products are all the materials and things that we use from forests apart from the timber, including: fruit, seeds, nuts, leaves, bark, roots, buds and other parts of plants, fish, bushmeat and honey.

NTFPs and uses

What NTFPs are most important to the community?

What are they used for?

Who uses the products you collect? Are they used by the household, the community, or do you sell some products?

Who in the household and the community collects NTFPs?

Location of NTFPs

Where do you collect NTFPs?

Are there some NTFPs that you can only find in one place? If so, where?

Do you know about the community forest and the permits system? Have you thought about getting a permit for collecting NTFPs? If not, why not?

Sustainability of collection

How often do you collect NTFPs? How much do you collect each time? Minimum/maximum? Season?

What proportion of the NTFPs are collected by the community?

What are the NTFPs that used to be more but are rare now? Where can you find them now?

How has this affected your livelihood?

Are there any threats to NTFPs?

How do you collect the NTFPs?

For plants, what parts of the plants do you collect? Does this damage or kill the plants? Can you go back next season and take from the same plant?

Do you think the way you harvest NTFPs can be carried on for a long time into the future without the products running out and without damaging the forest's biodiversity?

Management

How do you make sure that the NTFPs you collect won't run out? Do you leave some plants? Do you make sure you don't hunt young or pregnant animals?

How do you make sure you don't damage the forest?

Do you work with/talk to other people/communities to help make sure that the NTFPs don't run out?

Have you tried to grow/farm your own NTFPs? Why/why not? Did it work?

Do you do anything to the trees and plants to help them grow?

What do you think should be done so that NTFPs can be maintained for future benefit and use?

East Nimba Nature Reserve Non-Timber Forest Product...

Documents

Transcript of East Nimba Nature Reserve Non-Timber Forest Product...