non-timber forest products · instrumental in putting non-timber forest products on the...

Non-timber Forest Products

Ecological and economic aspects ofexploitation in Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia

IUCN'S FOREST CONSERVATION PROGRAMME

IUCN's Forest Conservation Programme coordinates and supports the activities of the IUCNSecretariat and members working with forest ecosystems. The goal of forest conservation isachieved through promoting protection, restoration and sustainable use of forest resources,so that forests provide the full potential range of goods and services.

The programme makes contributions to policy at various levels and uses field projects to derivelessons to feed into the policy debate. The principles of Caring for the Earth, published jointly byIUCN, WWF and UNEP in 1991, are applied to these projects, which combine the needs ofconservation with those of local communities. One major activity is to develop coherent andinformed policies on forest conservation in order to advocate the translation of policies intoeffective actions. IUCN frequently advises major development institutions on forest issues, toensure that conservation priorities are adequately addressed in their projects and programmes.

The Forest Conservation Programme receives generous financial support from the Governmentof the Netherlands.

PRINCE BERNHARD CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONALNATURE CONSERVATION

Prince Bernhard Centre for International Nature Conservation fosters and facilitates strategic andapplied research and training on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of naturalresources and biodiversity. The Centre is interested in conservation and development projectsincluding an implementation component. It works in bilateral or multilateral cooperation withuniversities and NGOs in tropical countries. Follow-up to the study presented in this book has ledto further research and a training programme on sustainable and multiple exploitation of forestproducts in Northern Bolivia. This programme, which involves eight Bolivian and five Dutchscientists, is a result of cooperation between the Universidad Tecnica del Beni, the Institutopara Hombre, Agricultura y Ecologia in Riberalta (Northern Bolivia), the Government of theNetherlands and the Prince Bernhard Centre.

THE NETHERLANDS COMMITTEE FOR IUCN

The Netherlands Committee is an independent foundation uniting the Dutch NGO members ofIUCN, the Dutch members of international IUCN Commissions, and the State as an observer.It promotes the implementation of IUCN's objectives within and by the Netherlands, addressingpublic and private sectors alike. Among other things, the Committee carries out programmes onpromoting ecologically sound development cooperation, including involvement in theSustainability Agreements between the Netherlands and Benin, Bhutan and Costa Rica, andlobbying the European Union, the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility and othermultilateral development agencies. Tropical forests have always been a major focus. At present,conservation and social aspects of foreign timber trade are a central issue. The Committeeadministers a fund for small local NGO projects aimed at conserving tropical forests. It has beeninstrumental in putting non-timber forest products on the international forest agenda with a studyon the economic value of such products in Southeast Asia in 1989, and pursues the subject inseveral ways. Its involvement in the present study should be seen in that perspective.

IUCN, the Netherlands Committee for IUCN, and Utrecht University are grateful to theGovernment of the Netherlands for the contribution, through the Ministry of DevelopmentCooperation (DGIS), to the study and to this publication.

The IUCN Forest Conservation Programme

Non-timber Forest Products

Ecological and economic aspects ofexploitation in Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia

Guido Broekhoven

IUCN - The World Conservation UnionDepartment of Plant Ecology

and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of Utrecht

1996

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK in collaboration withthe Department of Plant Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,University of Utrecht.

Copyright:

Citation:

ISBN:

Printed by:

Cover design:

Layout:

Cover photo:

Available from:

(1996) International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercialpurposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyrightholder.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes isprohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Broekhoven, G. (1996). Non-timber Forest Products: Ecological and economicaspects of exploitation in Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. pp. vi + 126.

2-8317-0308-5

SADAG, Bellegarde-sur-Valserine, France

James Butler

Patricia Halladay

Baskets from Colombia's Chocó region made with palm fibre and natural dyes.G. Broekhoven.

IUCN Publications Services Unit

IUCN Communications DivisionRue Mauverney, 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland.

The presentation of material in this document and the geographical designations employed do notimply expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or of other participatingorganisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or concerning thedelimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or the otherparticipating organisations.

The text of this book is printed on chlorine-free paper.

219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK or

Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1 Background

Extractive reserves in Brazil

Chapter 2 Valuing non-timber forest products

Chapter 3 Non-market values

Chapter 4 Other values

Chapter 5 National economies

Chapter 6 Sustainable harvesting

Chapter 7 Brazil nut and palm heart

Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations

Endnotes

References

Appendix

Contributors

1

3

9

11

14

28

35

67

81

92

96

97

111

122

Table 1Table 2Table 3Table 4Table 5Table 6Table 7Table 8Table 9Table 10Table 11Table 12aTable 12bTable 13Table 14aTable 14bTable 15Table 16Table 17Table 18Table 19Table 20Table 21Table 22Table 23Table 24Table 25aTable 25bTable 26Table 27aTable 27bTable 28Table 29Table 30Table 31Table 32Table 33

Indicators of valuePlant speciesNumber of tree speciesMeat consumptionGame meat consumptionProtein needsGame meat consumption: species groupsAgriculture vs. non-timber productsAnnual production value, Acre, BrazilIncome and NPVEconomic values of non-timber productsExport from Colombia: 1974-1982Export from Colombia: 1983-1991Production for 1990: ColombiaVolume: export of non-timber products, EcuadorValue: export of non-timber products, EcuadorExport of non-timber forest products, BoliviaProduction of non-timber forest products, BoliviaMonkeysExport valueExport of parrots and parakeetsCITES-reported exportRegistered exportExports, 1985Export of parrotsExport of non-timber forest products, PeruNon-timber forest products, Peru: 1978-1983Non-timber forest products, Peru: 1984-1989Export of non-timber forest products, BrazilVolume of non-timber forest products, BrazilValue of non-timber forest products, BrazilExport of non-timber forest products, Brazil: 1985Export of non-timber forest products, BelizeExport of non-timber forest products, GuatemalaSome non-timber forest products: ColombiaU.S. import of xaté from Guatemala and MexicoU.S. imports, non-timber forest products (average)

23242525262627333333345657575859606161616263646680

112113

114115116118120120120121121121

IntroductionThis report is the result of a study

of the value and the ecologicalimpact of the exploitation of non-timber forest products in Colombia,Ecuador and Bolivia. It is based oninformation derived from literature,statistics, interviews and a fieldsurvey in Bolivia.

The value of non-timber forestproducts should not be expressedonly in economic terms, since theseproducts are important in manyaspects of the lives of people wholive in or near the forest. The valueof local use and parameters formeasuring it are outlined in Chap-ters 2 and 3.

Non-timber forest products alsohave importance at national andinternational levels, as illustrated bythe development of medicines basedon plant extracts. The potentialvalue of related intellectual propertyrights is discussed in Chapter 4.Calculation of the Net PresentValue, in the same chapter, demon-strates that it is necessary to calcu-late value over a long period of time

in order to make correct estimates.Although several studies suggest thatthe value of extraction of non-timber forest products is higher thanthat of other types of land use, it isvery difficult to be more specificabout these findings.

Chapter 5 contains informationabout the volume and value ofexport and production of non-timberforest products in Colombia, Ecuadorand Bolivia. Experience from thepast illustrates the vagaries of themarket cycle as it has applied tospecific commercial products, par-ticularly rubber and quinine.

Ecotourism can be seen as an-other product of tropical forests. Thevalue of ecotourism at local andnational levels is discussed in Chap-ters 4 and 5. Sustainability of exploi-tation is discussed in ecological,economic and socio-cultural terms inChapter 6.

Several commercial extractionsystems are not sustainable and leadto over-exploitation, as is the casewith palm heart (Chapter 7). In

Non-timber Forest Products Page 2

addition, the benefits of exploitationare not equally distributed amongthe people involved in extractionand processing.

It is recommended that thesustainability of extractive systemsbe improved by:• developing legal and institutional

structures that will give greater

•

•

ownership of resources to thosewho harvest them, thus stimulat-ing a vested interest in steward-ship;determining sustainable harvestlevels; andincorporating extractive activitiesinto the land-use planning ofrelevant agencies.

BackgroundCertain areas are set aside and

protected as nature reserves toconserve the biodiversity of tropicalrainforests. Harvesting forest prod-ucts is usually not allowed in thesereserves. Only about five per cent oftropical rainforest is now legallyprotected (Sayer and Wegge, 1992)and it seems unlikely that this areawill increase substantially in thenext few years.

Within a few decades, if currentdeforestation rates continue (Myers,1988a), rainforests will be confinedto these protected areas. It is almostcertain that this will lead to a signifi-cant loss of species, although thepatterns of species extinction are stillpoorly understood (Whitmore andSayer, 1992). To prevent this loss ofspecies, conservation of biodiversityshould also take place outside strictlyprotected areas; for example, in areaswhere conservation is combinedwith some system of harvesting offorest products. This can occur incombination with exploitation of theforest.

For centuries, tropical rainforestshave been inhabited by people whouse its products for subsistence andtrade. These forest-dwelling peoplehave established sophisticatedmethods of sustainable production.Employing specific practices, theyuse the forest and its products whilemaintaining the ecosystem and whilesimulating the natural dynamics ofthe forest.

In trying to combine sustainabledevelopment and conservationwithin tropical forests, many govern-ments and international agenciesfocus on rediscovering these methodsof sustainable production. Theexploitation of non-timber forestproducts is an important componentof such methods.

Not only do non-timber forestproducts have a high economic value(de Beer and McDermott, 1989;Falconer, 1990; Myers, 1988b); incertain circumstances they can beharvested without threateningbiodiversity (Myers, 1988b). Theestablishment of the first extractive


reserves in Brazil in 1990 was anattempt to bring into practice a newstrategy for the conservation ofbiological diversity as well as forsustainable development (Gradwohland Greenberg, 1988; Allegretti andSchwartzman, 1987).

The establishment of extractivereserves serves two purposes:1.

2.

improving the lives of forest-dwelling people.Creating extractive reservesgrants legal protection andextraction rights to the tradi-tional users of forest resources.Establishing extractive reservesmay significantly improve thelivelihood of people living in thereserve area (Allegretti andSchwartzman, 1987; Fearnside,1989).protection of biodiversity.Exploitation of non-timber forestproducts may help to preserve asignificant part of the biologicaldiversity of the area by allowingonly sustainable harvesting of alimited number of non-timberforest products.The Netherlands Minister for

Development Cooperation is inter-ested in developing and applyingstrategies for sustainable develop-ment and for the conservation ofbiodiversity (DVL/OS, 1991). Hetherefore commissioned the Nether-lands Committee for IUCN andUtrecht University's Special Chairon International Nature Conserva-

tion of the Department of PlantEcology and Evolutionary Biology to:•

•

review current knowledge andexperience on establishingextractive reserves and discusspossibilities for further work inthis area;collect and review information onthe economic value of non-timber forest products and on thesustainability of their exploita-tion.

Objectives and approach

Initially, the aim of this study wasto evaluate whether the system ofextractive reserves could meet theobjectives of both development andconservation. It also set out to assesssocio-economic and ecologicalconditions related to sustainableextraction of non-timber forestproducts. The study focuses on theAndean countries, as does the Dutchgovernment's development work inLatin America.

For several reasons the focus ofthe study had to change slightly:•

•

in the Andean countries, severalnon-timber forest products areharvested and exported on a largescale but no legal extractivereserves have yet been estab-lished;there is no systematic monitoringprogramme to assess whetherdevelopment and conservationobjectives are achieved.

Chapter 1: Background Page 5

Monitoring should include aneconomic component (for develop-ment objectives) and an ecologicalcomponent (for conservation objec-tives). In order to monitor andevaluate these components it isnecessary to devise a way to measurethe economic value of non-timberproducts and the ecological impactof non-timber exploitation.

The present methods for calculat-ing the value of forests and relatedforest policies are narrowly focused.Economic models tend to focus onthe production of timber and rarelyinclude other factors, such as non-timber forest products or regulationof habitat. Peters et al. (1989)suggested that extractive use of non-timber forest products may generatehigher income than timber exploita-tion. They estimated the potentialvalue of non-timber forest productsin one hectare of tropical forest, butdid not speculate whether this valuecould be achieved in practice orextended to a larger area.

In traditional systems of resourceexploitation, hunting, gathering andagriculture are carried out in anintegrated way. Establishing extrac-tive reserves, to allow such sustain-able resource use practices to con-tinue, will help to address bothresource conservation and localdevelopment issues. Commercialexploitation of non-timber forestproducts is sometimes characterizedby high and increasing harvest

levels, however. There is also a lackof involvement by traditional forestinhabitants. Over-harvesting maylead to the exhaustion of naturalresources (Vasquez and Gentry,1989). It is not known if this intenseharvesting is sustainable or whichindicators are suitable for evaluatingits impact on the ecosystem.

After consultation with theadvisory board of this study, it wasdecided to redefine the objectives ofthe study. Revised objectives were asfollows:•

•

Which forest products have asignificant economic value, andhow can exploitation of theseproducts contribute to the socio-economic development of forestinhabitants?How can the ecological sustain-ability of the extraction of non-timber forest products be meas-ured, and what information isavailable about the sustainabilityof extractive systems?

The present study draws on theexperience of the NetherlandsCommittee's report on the economicvalue of non-timber forest productsin Southeast Asia (de Beer andMcDermott, 1989) and on theknowledge and expertise of UtrechtUniversity.

This report is based on thefollowing sources of information:• international publications avail-

able in The Netherlands;


•

•

•

information from governmentinstitutions, data banks, libraries,etc., collected in countries duringtwo visits to South America;interviews and discussions withexperts in the countries involved,in the Netherlands and duringseveral international meetings;visits to sites where non-timberforest products are being ex-tracted and processed, and exten-sive field research in Bolivia.

Details on export and productionof non-timber forest products aregiven in Chapter 4 and are presentedin various tables.

Definition

There is more than one definitionfor non-timber forest products. DeBeer and McDermott (1989) definethem as "...all biological materialsother than timber which are ex-tracted from natural forests forhuman use." This definition excludesthe use of wood for timber, but itincludes the small scale non-com-mercial use of wood for poles, char-coal and fuelwood.

Myers (1988b) explicitly includesthe role of genetic resources. He usesthe term "non-wood products" whichhe defines as "...all harvestable itemsother than timber and fuelwood..."and subdivides them into minorforest products and genetic resources.Falconer (1990) takes into account

the scale of forest use and definesnon-timber forest products as"...those forest products, includingby-products..., that are not processedby large forest industries". Thisexcludes large-scale exploitation,such as occurs with palm heart inColombia.

In this study, however, thedefinition of non-timber forestproducts does not include any systemor scale of extraction. The definitionused is adapted from de Beer andMcDermott (1989): non-timberforest products are "...all biologicalmaterials other than timber,fuelwood and carbon which areextracted from natural forests forhuman use." The explicit use ofwood (not only timber) for fuelwoodand charcoal is excluded, althoughthis use is certainly important in thelocal economy. Yet, the origin offuelwood and charcoal is oftendifficult to trace; it may come fromfarmland, shrubland or forest. In1985, for example, the annualfuelwood consumption in Colombiawas estimated at 9.6 to 12.5 milliontonnes in addition to another mil-lion tonnes that was converted intocharcoal (Departemento Nacionalde Planeación, 1990).

Non-timber forest products canbe categorised in different ways. Forecological purposes one can use thefollowing classifications:• parts of individual plants, such as

leaves, bark and latexes; or


• parts of the population life cycle,such as seeds, flowers, eggs, orentire plants or animals.

Many plant parts can be har-vested without destroying the indi-vidual plant, while the harvesting ofparts of animals (horns, feathers)usually entails killing the animal.

Anthropological and ethno-botanical studies complement thesesystems with classifications based ontypes of use: edible, constructionmaterial, technology, remedy orcommerce (Prance, et al. 1987). Forindustrial purposes, classification isbased on raw materials: rubber, dyes,fibres, cork, tannins, resins, gums,fats and oils (Smits, 1989).

In traditional resource use,agriculture and the extraction ofwild species are usually carried out asintegrated activities. Similarly,current extraction is nearly alwaysaccompanied by agriculture, which ispractised on small areas of landscattered throughout the forest. Oldgrowth fallows, which are scarcelydistinguishable from the forest thatsurrounds them, still render fruitsand other products, decades afterbeing abandoned as agriculturalland.

The introduction and loss ofcultivars is a dynamic process in sucha system of resource use (Boster,1984) and plant species are presentin all stages of domestication. Thedispersion of varieties was enhanced

by the indigenous communities'practice of moving regularly, leavingbehind and taking with them theresults of their agriculturalselection.

It is believed that 500 years agothe human population of the Ama-zon rainforest was larger than it istoday (Dufour, 1990; Denevan,1976). Human management hassignificantly influenced the fre-quency of occurrence of certainspecies in the forest. Consequently,the present forest has been affectedby both human activity and naturalfactors. The high frequency ofoccurrence of some species appearsto be a result of human activity.Balée (1988) has argued that babassupalm (Orbignya phalerata) and Brazilnut (Bertolletia excelsa) forests,among others, should be consideredanthropogenic, because the predomi-nance of these trees is associatedwith evidence of human settlement.He estimates that at least 11.8 percent of terra firma in the BrazilianAmazon is covered by forests whichhave been influenced by humanactivities.

This study includes only thoseproducts that clearly originate in theforest and have not been recentlyplanted. It excludes products whichare found in forested areas only as aresult of human activity; for exam-ple, Bixa Orellana (achiote) and manycitrus species.


Ecotourism1 can also be consid-ered a non-timber forest product. Itis included in several parts of thisreport, although it is discussed onlybriefly, since more comprehensivestudies have been published on itsstatus and its impact on the ecologyand the economy of tropical rainfor-ests (Boo, 1990; Lindberg, 1991).

Focus of the report

The study focused on tropicalrainforest ecosystems for threereasons:1.

2.

3.

The ecosystems have a highpriority for conservation in thecountries involved (Departemen-to Nacional de Planeación, 1990)and the Netherlands governmentis aware of their value (TweedeKamer, 1990-1991).Their biodiversity suggests thatthere is potentially a largenumber of useful non-timberforest products in tropical rainfor-est ecosystems.Utrecht University has carriedout research on the ecologicalimpact of exploitation of tropicalforests. This knowledge wasexpanded during the course ofthis study.

Colombia, Ecuador and Boliviawere chosen for these reasons:• The Andean countries are of

special interest for the DutchDevelopment Cooperation (DVL/OS, 1991).

•

•

•

There is a need for more informa-tion about the value of non-timber forest products from therainforests of these countries(Fearnside, 1989; Prance, 1989;Balick, 1985).The situation in these threecountries might be representativeof other Latin American rainfor-est countries. The countries aredifferent in terms of size, popula-tion and infrastructure, anddifferent products are importantin each of them.With a focus on Latin Americathe Netherlands committee forIUCN could extend its knowl-edge and compare its experienceswith a similar study previouslycarried out in Asia (de Beer andMcDermott, 1989). In addition,the knowledge and experience ofUtrecht University in LatinAmerica could be used.

In Brazil, many innovativeapproaches to the extraction of non-timber forest products are generatedand tested (see next page). Much hasalready been published about Brazil,however, and so preference wasgiven to countries with less readilyavailable information. Peru was alsoof interest but had to be excludedfrom the study because of its unstablepolitical situation. A systematicsurvey of available data from othercountries has not been carried out;however, some information from


outside Colombia, Ecuador andBolivia has been used in the text as acomparison and some of this data ispresented in the appendix.

The exploitation of two impor-tant products is described in detail inChapter 7 in order to evaluate theproblems in developing new non-timber forest products. Extraction ofBrazil nut in Bolivia and palm heartin Colombia were selected becauseof their importance in the regionaland national economies: there is aforeign market for them and they are

being exploited on a large scale.Furthermore, their growth patternsdiffer as does their exploitation.

Knowledge and experience aboutthese extractive systems can providea framework to evaluate other pro-ducts. The information in Chapter 7is based on existing literature and onexperience gained during a field stu-dy on the regeneration of the Brazilnut in northeast Bolivia and severalexcursions in the palm heart-produc-ing area of southwest Colombia.

Extractive reserves in Brazil

Introduction

About 300,000 people in the Brazilian Amazon region are depend-ent on natural rubber extraction (Schwartzman, 1989). Originally theywere organised on rubber estates called seringais. The tappers lived in adebt peonage system known as aviamento. They had to pay usufructrights in kind to the estate owners; there was no monetary circulation.Free rubber tappers have emerged in the last 20 years in places wherethe rubber barons have left or sold the estate to cattle ranchers.

The idea of creating extractive reserves initially emerged in 1985 inthe Brazilian state of Acre, where rubber tappers cooperated to counter-act deforestation and the expulsion of resident populations (Allegreti,1990). An important feature of this initiative was that the forest resi-dents suggested the idea themselves and presented it to the Braziliangovernment and multinational lending institutions (Allegreti andSchwartzman, 1987). The concept has now been accepted by theseinstitutions as a potential strategy for the sustainable development ofsome of the Amazon's fragile tropical forest lands.


Concept

The extractive reserves strategy focuses on combining traditionalactivities with new non-extractive uses to promote long-term mainte-nance and improvement of the traditional forest economy (Almeida,1990).

Extractive Reserves are defined by the Brazilian government as"...forest areas inhabited by extractive populations granted long-termusufruct rights to forest resources which they collectively manage"(Schwartzman, 1989).

This definition is compatible with that used for IUCN's ProtectedAreas category VIII, multiple-use management area or managed re-source area (WCMC, 1992)2. The state assumes ownership of theextractive reserve and cedes it for exclusive use by practitioners oftraditional extractive activities for a minimum of 30 years, in accord-ance with specific regulations governing land use (Schwartzman, 1989).The land cannot be sold or converted to non-forest use. Small clearingsfor subsistence crops are permitted; usually not exceeding five hectaresper family or one to two per cent of a reserve (Fearnside, 1989). Onlythe perimeter of the entire group of land holdings within a given rubberstand is delineated, and deeds for individual family units are not issued.This arrangement avoids potentially disruptive privatization and pre-serves the current form of land division, with its subtle borders, thatpredominates in the rubber stand. Individual families retain the right totap in their holdings within the reserves.

On rubber holdings, each family occupies 200 hectares or more. Inextractive reserves the average area set aside per family is only 50-100hectares, which is far too small. It also seems unlikely that sufficientland will be set aside for all tappers. Up till the end of 1992 nine extrac-tive reserves had been established in an area of 2,201,000 hectaresinvolving 7,560 families. Ten additional extractive reserves are in theplanning stage (pers. comm. Allegretti, 1992). Reserves are adminis-tered as associations or cooperatives by a group of people elected by thelocal inhabitants.

Valuing non-timberforest products

Tropical rainforests fulfil severalfunctions (DVL/OS, 1991):•

•

•

•

production of timber and non-timber products;regulation of regional climate,ecological and atmosphericprocesses and the prevention oferosion;habitat for people who depend onthem for their livelihood;provision of information forscience and technology, educa-tion and aesthetic experiences.

These different functions make itdifficult to assign an economic valueto the rainforest in general or tonon-timber forest products in par-ticular (McNeely, 1988). It is neces-sary to calculate this value, however,so as to be able to compare theeconomic importance of non-timberforest products with the value ofproducts from alternative land uses.

Traditionally, the value of tropi-cal forests has been judged only in

financial terms, by focusing on itsproductivity (McNeely, 1988). Thisis no longer an appropriate indicatorof the total value of tropical forests,for two major reasons (Munasinghe,1992).

Lack of market pricing

No market prices exist to valuethe non-marketable goods andservices produced by forests. Theuncertainties regarding valuationmethods make it difficult to includethe status of some important func-tions in financial equations such asthe Gross National Product (Gilbertet al., 1990).

It is even more difficult to dealwith non-extractive uses like culturalvalues. These are inherent valuesand are difficult, if not impossible, toquantify. There are several strategiesthat can be applied to estimate mar-ket prices, such as shadow prices andwillingness-to-pay (WTP).


The 'option value' is the value ofpeople's knowledge of the propertiesand possibilities of non-timber forestproducts. Option value indicates apotential source of information andis, strictly speaking, not a value ofthe product itself. It is very difficultto determine because it deals with afuture value. Very little experienceexists on calculating the optionvalue of non-timber forest products.

Compounding these problems isthe fact that the functions of theforest are appreciated differently bydifferent social groups. On thenational level the production of theforest is the most important, whileon a local level habitat may be mostvaluable.

Valuing resources

Natural resources are not treatedas national capital and are notreflected in national income ac-counts. Their exhaustion or degrada-tion is not considered to be a loss ofcapital. The first step toward includ-ing the value of natural resources isthe establishment of an NRA, orNatural Resource Account (Gilbertet al., 1990). An NRA can presentinformation on the pattern of envi-ronmental activity and its effect onnatural resource stocks. An NRAconsists of a physical account and avalue account. The physical accountincludes information on:

••••

the growing stock;growth and reproduction;harvesting; anddeforestation and degradation ordepletion.

NRAs have been carried out forIndonesia (Repetto et al., 1989) andfor Costa Rica (Solorzano et al.,1991) among others. Both studiesencompass timber resource accountsbut include non-timber forest prod-ucts only to a limited extent.

These factors demonstrate thatthere is no standardized approach invaluing non-timber forest products.Therefore, before discussing thetraditional economic value of non-timber forest products and ofecotourism, several approaches thatdiffer from this classical economicapproach will be described.

The following chapters will tryand identify, describe and sometimesquantify the values of non-timberproducts at local and national levels.An assessment of economic value ishampered by a lack of market infor-mation and market pricing. Non-timber forest products are not alwaystraded on the market and prices arenot available. Methods exist toestablish "shadow prices". Shadowpricing is the process of derivingprices for a good or service whenthere is no monetary market or whenthe market fails to price goods basedon their true value.

Chapter 2: Valuing non-timber forest products Page 13

Multiple values of tropicalforests

Non-timber forest productsrepresent only a part of all goods andservices derived from land underforest cover. Non-timber productsalso contribute to the total potentialforest value. Furthermore, tropicalforests have a number of values otherthan non-timber products (DVL/OS,1991):

••

•

•

•

•

production of timber;regulation of regional climate,ecological and atmosphericprocesses and prevention oferosion;habitat for people who depend onthem for their livelihood;source of information for scienceand technology, education;aesthetic experiences(ecotourism), cultural and reli-gious values; andoption value.

There are several techniquesavailable to calculate the benefitsderived from forest land, including

the use of non-timber forest prod-ucts. Yet it is difficult if not impossi-ble to quantify a total value for forestmanaged under a certain regime,since:•

•

•

costs and benefits of certain goodsthat are not sold on the marketare not readily available;costs and benefits of services(regulation of climate, provisionof information) are not easilyquantifiable; andthe discount rate is unknown.

Several publications have dis-cussed the problems and limitationsin quantifying values and benefits ofland use/management types; there isno need to repeat these discussionshere at length. The following chap-ters will further discuss the differenttypes of values of non-timber forestproducts. Chapter 3 will discuss non-market values and Chapter 4 willlook at some other values, includingoption value, net present value andecotourism. Chapter 5 will discussthe market value of non-timberforest products.

Non-market valuesLocal value might best be deter-

mined by asking people what theyvalue most from the forest, especiallyin areas where forest resources aredwindling (Falconer, 1990). Godoyand Lubowski (1992) discuss themethodological problems in quanti-fying this local value and Falconer(1990) and de Beer and McDermott(1989) present parameters for meas-uring it (Table 1).

Animals are particularly impor-tant as a source of protein. Plants areimportant for food, construction andmedicinal uses, not only for Indiansbut also for more recent inhabitants.Ethno-botanical studies in LatinAmerica focus on use by Indianpeoples. This might be reasonable,since these people have the longesttradition of living in the forest, but itis equally important to obtaininformation from the expandinggroup of people who have morerecently become forest-dwellers.

Plants

Prance et al. (1987) classifiedplant uses as follows:

1. Edible products: whole plantsand plant parts like fruits, seeds,tubers and consumable latex.

2. Construction material: polesused in post and beam constructionand canoes and bridges; leaves usedfor thatch.

3. Technology: a wide variety ofapplications, including lashingmaterial, pottery glue temper, dye,soap, pipe stem and arrow points.

4. Miscellaneous: toys, dog-fatteners, fermentation aids andperfume.

5. Remedies: plant material usedfor the treatment of sinusitis, conges-tion, diarrhoea, headaches, vomit-ing, fever, bleeding wounds, snake-bite, cradle-cap, cancer sores; asinsect repellents, aphrodisiacs,hallucinogens and also for fertilityregulation (Berlin, 1984) and dentalcare (Lewis and Elvin-Lewis, 1984).The World Health Organization

Chapter 3: Non-market values Page 15

(WHO) identified 20,000 species ofmedicinal plants all over the world, agreat majority of which have theirorigin in the tropical forests(Levingston and Zamora, 1983).WHO estimated that approximately80 per cent of the population ofdeveloping countries still rely ontraditional medicine for their pri-mary health care (Maries et al.,1988).

6. Religion: the significance ofplants for religious purposes, inmagic and myths. Luna (1984a,1984b) reports on the use of plantsby shamans (Indian medicine men).The plants are believed to teachvegetalistas or maestros how to diag-nose and cure illnesses, how toperform other shamanic tasks andhow to use medicinal plants.

Faust (1988) describes the posi-tion of plants in the cosmology andmythology of Coconucos Indians inColombia. Many plant species havemythical properties that determinethe way in which they are used.Several plant species are supposed tohave spirits. These species play aspecial role in the healing practicesof a shaman, especially in diagnosinghealth problems with the help ofdreams or hallucinations. Mythicproperties are related to physicalproperties of the species. "Warm"plants, used to cure various diseases,often grow in virgin forest and havea strong taste and smell. A shamancan distinguish over 130 species.

Ritual behaviour is also per-formed by non-Indians. Babassu, forexample, is used by farmers innortheast Brazil. These farmers aredescendants of colonial settlers whointermarried with Indians andAfrican slaves. The plant has manyuses: leaves are used for thatchingand basketry and fruits are used foroil. The leaves of the babassu areonly cut during the waxing of themoon in order to improve theresistance of the leaves to infestationor deterioration (May et al., 1985a).The plant plays a prominent role inthe annual babassu dance and party.

Much information is available ontraditional knowledge of plants.Documenting this knowledge is oneway of appreciating the local signifi-cance of plants and animals. In mostLatin American countries there arelists of hundreds or even thousandsof useful plant species found withinthe territory. See Pittier (1978a and1978b) for Costa Rica and Ven-ezuela; Perez-Abelaez (1956) andAcero Duarte (1979) for Colombia;Bennet (1990) for Ecuador andCardenas Martin (1969) for Bolivia.

Many of these lists are based ontraditional knowledge collectedduring anthropological, ethno-botanical or ethno-pharmacologicalstudies, describing the role of plantsin the local culture (Alcorn, 1984).Table 2 demonstrates the extensiveindigenous knowledge of plant andanimal species and their uses. This


demonstrates the diversity of prod-ucts being used by indigenous com-munities and others. There are strik-ing differences among the number ofplant species used in different cases.It is difficult to compare the indi-vidual studies, however: areas aredifferent in size, habitats of thecommunities are different andcollecting methods vary.

Lists do not supply informationon the value of the products, indi-vidually or collectively; or therelative diversity of the species. Oneindication of the value of forestresources is the presence of tradi-tional regulations governing the useof these resources (Falconer, 1990;Table 1). Falconer (1990) givesexamples from Africa of user rightsregarding trees. Similar systems areillustrated by hunting rules andtaboos of Amerindian tribes(Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1978). Theshaman can regulate hunting activi-ties by certain commands; theseregulations are embedded in themythology of the tribe. Non-Indianforest dwellers also have taboos andregulations for the use of the forestresources (May et al., 1985b).

Values of tree species

In order to obtain quantitativeinformation about the use value ofthe forest, Prance et al. (1987)studied four indigenous Amazoniangroups: the Ka'apor and Tembe in

Brazil, the Panare in Venezuela andthe Chácobo in Bolivia to determinethe number of tree species utilised asa percentage of the total number oftree species (Table 3). In each case itwas possible to indicate a "use value"for each species and each plantfamily by assessing the culturalimportance of each species as "mi-nor" or "major". Pinedo-Vasquez etal. (1990) did a similar study on a 7.5hectare plot in a ribereno community.The residents live on the river banksin Peru and are of mixed ethnicorigin. All communities used morethan 50 per cent of the total numberof tree species. Most of the speciesare used for food and constructionmaterial.

Commercial exploitation wasmore important for the riberenocommunity than for Indian commu-nities. This was probably due to abetter market infrastructure and tocultural differences. Originally thecategories "firewood" and "ediblegame animals" were also included inthe inventories. However, thecategories appeared to be too broadlydefined as almost all species could beused for those purposes (Prance etal., 1987). Detailed knowledgeexisted about different species andBoom (1987) noted that in emer-gency situations any tree specieswould be used as fuelwood. However,the Chácobo Indians normallyfocused on only 22 species for use asfuel for smoking rubber and for


cooking, ten species of which ap-peared to produce the dense smokethat is necessary to cure and coagu-late the rubber before it is trans-ported.

Of the nine species with a highuse value for the Ka'apor, five seemto grow exclusively in terra firmaforest (primary non-flooded forest).They are not encountered in oldswiddens, swidden fallow or theswamp forest. Five of the ten speciesused by the Tembe grow this way.

Some use categories have beenunderestimated in this study, becauseonly trees with a diameter at breastheight (DBH) greater than 10centimetres were sampled. Manymedicinal plants, for example, arenot tree species. In addition, notonly vascular plants are being used.Fungi (so called "Indian bread") areeaten by various groups of Indians inthe Amazon region and by caboclosand settlers, but at a far lower ratethan could be expected from itsabundant distribution. From reportsof Zaire and Nigeria it seems that theuse of fungi as food and in traditionalmedicine is more important on theAfrican continent (Prance, 1984)than in the Amazon region. TheYanomami Indians are the exceptionto the rule in this region: 21 speciesof fungi are collected and provide animportant dietary supplement. Thespecies that are used most often(Polyporaceae) grow primarily ondead wood in abandoned fields.

Pinedo-Vasquez et al. (1990)compared the non-timber forestproducts observed in their forestinventory with the supply of non-timber forest products at the nearbymarket in Iquitos. Forest fruitsrepresented over half of the non-timber forest products on the market.Construction materials were thesecond largest category, followed bya limited number of craft and remedyspecies. In addition, ten exudate-producing species have nearbymarkets. However, many of theproducts are not sold from thecommunity where the inventorytook place.

The two studies reveal thatdifferent indigenous groups usedifferent plant species for the samepurposes. This reflects the widerange of material available, since notall species grow within the range ofall tribes. The Indians were able tofind suitable plants for their needs,regardless of the local species compo-sition of the forest (Prance, 1989).

Palms

In the study by Prance et al.(1987), palms appeared to be themost useful of all families. Otherfamilies that are important for atleast two of the four indigenousgroups include Lecythidaceae,

Palms are the most versatilegroup of plants; they provide all of

Chrysobalanaceae and Malpighiaceae.


the basic necessities like food,shelter, fuel and fibre, as well asmany ameliorants, such as spices,oils, waxes, gums, poisons andmedicines (Plotkin and Balick,1984). Palms are important for dailyhousehold needs (Boom, 1986) andalso for religious purposes (Becker-man, 1977; Barfold and Barslev,1988; Wilbert, 1976; Schultes, 1974;Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1989).

Palm fruits are the most impor-tant fruits collected from the wild forthe Yanomami Indians in Venezuelaand Brazil (Anderson, 1978). Theyprovide protein that supplementserratic supplies of meat and are alsoused for wine-making (May et al.,1985a). Palm wood and fibres arewidely used by forest dwellers forbow wood, matting material andconstruction (Schultes, 1977).Plotkin and Balick (1984) list 48palm species that have knownmedicinal uses among aboriginalpeople in South America. For theIndians from the Colombian Vaupesregion palm trees provide a model fortheir social structure. Palm pollina-tion, as observed and interpreted bythe Indians, is comparable withhuman reproductive behaviour andfrom this analogy a series of socialnorms, ritual practices and mentalprocesses is derived (Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1989).

Palms are used so widely and forsuch a variety of products becausetheir physical construction differs

from that of other plants. Withinpalm stems there is a series of smallstrands, comprising phloem, xylemand fibres, which makes them verystrong (Balick, 1984). It is not onlytheir physical structure that isimportant, however.

Palms are relatively abundant inneotropical ecosystems because theyhave adapted to a great variety ofhabitats. For example, they havedeveloped gaseous exchange of theirroots in wet areas. According toBraun (cited by Beckerman, 1977) itis probably the abundance of palms(Geonoma sp. in this case), ratherthan their other properties, thataccounts for their popularity asroofing material. Enormous amountsof leaves are needed for roofing.Beckerman (1977) estimates that750,000 leaves of Geonoma are usedfor one roof of a community house ofthe Barí Indians in Venezuela andColombia. Lepidocaryum tessmannii,an understorey palm of terra firmaforest, is also used for thatching. Itcan attain densities of about 2,500 to3,500 axis per hectare. It was calcu-lated that two hectares are neededfor one roof (Kahn and Mejia, 1987).Although palms are vitally impor-tant to the economy, informationabout their taxonomy is very limited(Balick, 1984).


Animals

Dourojeanni (1985) reviewed theuse of wild fauna in the Amazoncountries. The importance of wildmeat has decreased for Amazonurban populations, where it hasbecome a luxury or contrabandarticle.

In the Amazon area, more than85 per cent of meat consumed isprovided by hunting and fishing,despite the availability of cows, pigsand farmyard birds (Table 4; Douro-jeanni, 1985). The price of meatfrom domestic animals, especiallycows, is very high; these animals areraised exclusively for sale to urbancentres. Peru has consolidatedstatistics about the meat productionfrom wild animals. Dourojeanni(1985) estimated a production of13,100 metric tonnes in 1976.

A large number of animals arehunted for subsistence. Redford andRobinson (1991) calculated thenumber of birds and mammals killedannually by the rural population ofAmazonas state, Brazil. This1,564,445 square kilometre areasupports a rural population of573,885 (in 1982). Every year, theyhunt approximately 3.5 millionvertebrates for local consumption,including 2,824,662 mammals and530,884 birds. Castro (1977) ex-trapolated data from 1973 on con-sumption of monkeys from theLoreto Department in the Peruvian

Amazon region. He estimated thatthe 249,000 inhabitants consumed370,000 monkeys; a rate of 1.5monkeys per inhabitant annually.

In general, less protein is pro-vided by wild fauna for the inhabit-ants at higher altitudes of the Ama-zon basin than for those living atlower or middle altitudes. Thediversity and density of fauna islower on the Andean slopes andexploitation pressure is higher(Dourojeanni, 1985). In lowlandareas which have been occupied for alonger period, the population densi-ties of the fauna have decreased, dueto hunting, change in habitat andother human activities.

In Coto Chato, Brazil (Table 5;Smith, 1976), the contribution ofwild fauna to the protein require-ment is less than in Nova Fronteraor Leonardo Da Vinci. The CocoChato area has been occupied byTransamazon settlers for 15 yearslonger than the other communities.In parts of Amazonian Peru, wildlifeprovided all animal protein con-sumed by colonists. In Nicaraguawildlife also seems to meet thedemand for meat and fish consumedby the Miskito Indians (Robinsonand Redford, 1991). The green turtle(Chelonia mydas) was the mostimportant game.

The majority of the Amerindiansin Amazonia rely on fish, rather thangame, for their principal source ofanimal protein (Dufour, 1990).


Tukano Indians in Colombia get 45per cent of their protein from fish, 12per cent from meat and 4 per centfrom insects (Dufour, 1990). Fergu-son Laguna (1990) calculated that inVenezuela the Indians receiveenough daily protein from hunting,while the non-Indian peasants donot (Table 5). Smith (1976), whostudied settlers along the Trans-amazon highway, concluded thatthese people do not receive enoughprotein (Table 6). In Ecuador,hunting and fishing provide about 25per cent of the total caloric intake ofthe Siona-Secoya Indians living inand around the Cuyabeno Reserve(Nations and Coello Hinojosa,1989). The Tukano Indians inColombia get only nine per cent oftheir calories from meat and fish,however (Dufour, 1990).

Big game like deer (Mazamaspp.), peccary (Tayassu spp.) andtapir (Tapirus terrestris) constitute 50per cent or more of the meatcomsumed from terrestrial wildanimals (Table 7). The tortoisespecies (Geochelone denticulata) waspreviously important as human foodin Andean countries, as was thewater turtle (Podiocnemis spp.) in theAmazon and Orinoco regions(Hildebrand et al., 1988). Bothspecies have declined in importancedue to excessive game hunting andegg collecting (Dourojeanni, 1985).For example, riverine Indians in Peruharvest the eggs of various species

that nest on river beaches. Sea turtleeggs and other eggs are also impor-tant sources of food in many parts ofCentral America (Robinson andRedford, 1991), but reptiles providethe most important source of eggs.Eggs of lizards, the iguana (Iguanaiguana) and the tegu (Tupinambissp.) are frequently consumed by ruralpeople in Latin America. In someareas such eggs have added value asthey are thought to be aphrodisiacs.Iguanas are also hunted for theirmeat (Cohn, 1989). In some areasfish is a more important source ofprotein than terrestrial animals(Table 4, see also Rodriguez and vander Hammen, 1991). Land inverte-brates may represent a significantpercentage of animal protein con-sumption (from three to seven percent) by natives as well as by settlers(Dourojeanni, 1985). However,Smith (1976) states thatTransamazon settlers have neverbeen observed to consume arthro-pods. Insects are an excellent foodsource as they can have a proteincontent in excess of 75 per cent(Myers, 1982). Among the speciesmost often consumed and consideredas delicacies are the larvae of certainpalm tree beetles (Rynchophorus spp.,Rhinostomus spp.) and the queen antsof the Atta and Acromyrmex genera.Dragonflies, various mollusca andfrogs are also eaten (Prance, 1984;Figueroa, 1983).


Smith (1976) and FergussonLaguna (1990) draw attention tocultural differences in huntingpractices. Indian groups hunt morewildlife than settlers of non-Indiandescent. They generally exploit amuch wider range of animals andtend to focus more on small animals,such as monkeys and birds (Table 7).The forest-dwelling people ofSurinam, for example, hunt at least27 mammal species, 24 bird species,three turtle species and two lizardspecies. Colombia's Maraca Indianshunt at least 51 species of birds,including ten species of humming-birds (Robinson and Redford, 1991).

Preferences may derive from themythology of the tribe (Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1978). People who havemore recently come to the forestconcentrate on relatively largeanimals such as peccary, tapir anddeer and also on reptiles. Crocodilesare hunted by both groups. Rats andmice, notorious agricultural pests, area source of food for some Indiangroups but they are not eaten by newcolonists (Smith, 1976). Rabbit meatis shunned by Amazonian peasantsand people from the northeast ofBrazil, since they find it too slippery(Smith, 1976). The meat of tapirs isconsidered inferior; that of capybara(Hydrochoerus hydrochoerus) isavoided by the colonists but is eatenin cities in Venezuela during HolyWeek (Dourojeanni, 1985).

Data from Fergusson Laguna(1990) support these observations onfood preferences, except for theinformation on reptiles. During foodshortages, inhabitants hunt forspecies that they would not normallyeat. Fergusson Laguna (1990) ob-served that indigenous and Campesinocommunities hunt primarily for foodbut also for market purposes. Smallspecies are more abundant than largespecies and are more often sold atmarkets. The favourite and moreexpensive meats are usually thosefrom the species of primates, agoutis(Dasyprocta spp.), pacas (Cuniculusspp.) and birds (Dourojeanni, 1985)but peccary and deer also fetch highprices.

Animals are not only used forfood. Skins, feathers, teeth, nails,wax, horns, shells, etc. are used inmedicines, clothing, ornaments,handicrafts and tools (Campos-Rozo,1987; Redford and Robinson, 1991).For a long time, the exploitation offeathers has been an important partof wildlife utilization in parts of theneotropics. The feathers of birdssuch as the quetzal (Pharomacchrusmocinno), the roseate spoonbill(Ajaia ajaia) and the macaw (Araspp.) were highly valued because oftheir decorative qualities. Feathersare still important in the ceremoniesof Indian groups in Latin America(Robinson and Redford, 1991).


Medicinal uses of wildlife con-tinue in many parts of LatinAmerica, as can be seen in themarkets of La Paz, Bolivia andBelém, Brazil, where dried animalparts are sold for use in rites(Robinson and Redford, 1991). Petsseem to be popular among all people.It was found that in four KayapóIndian villages, 31 species of animalswere kept as pets. In the Braziliancity of Rio Brazil, 15 species ofprimates were kept as pets. Cagedsong birds and parrots are alsocommon throughout Latin America(Robinson and Redford, 1991).

Hunting varies greatly during theyear. This is due to the changingavailability of game and the numberof hunting trips (Smith, 1976;Campos-Rozo, 1987). The consump-tion of wild meat varies, especiallyamong settlers who do not knowhow to preserve meat (Dourojeanni,1985).

The Desana Indians and theirneighbours in Colombia attributeundesirable qualities to certain gameanimals; consequently the consump-tion of these animals is restricted.The restricted game is mainly tapir,deer and white-lipped peccary(Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1978).

Dynamics

Although it is not always possibleto describe the use value in monetary

terms, non-timber products areeconomically important for manypeople. Estimates of the number ofpeople in the Brazilian Amazon whomake their living from extractiveactivities vary from 500,000 (Seul,1988) to 1,500,000 (Schwartzman,1989). In the whole Amazon regionroughly 2,500,000 people live intropical rainforests and depend onthem for a large part of their liveli-hood. They use non-timber forestproducts for the following reasons:•

•

•

the forest is nearby, the productsare easy to obtain and free ofcharge (de Beer and McDermott,1989; Dourojeanni, 1985);forest products serve as emer-gency food that supplements foodsupplies reduced due to agricul-tural disasters (Hazlett, 1986);people are accustomed to certaintastes and habits (de Beer andMcDermott, 1989).

The patterns of use are not static;Indians, for example, have becomemore sedentary. This may changethe pattern of use of non-timberforest products. Increasingly, Indiansare consuming tinned meat, whichhas higher prestige but requires cashfor purchase and draws the hunterinto a market economy (Robinsonand Redford, 1991).


Table 1. Indicators of value

Value of non-timber forest products to rural households.

qualitative indicators1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

response of people to resource degradation;

value of forest resources as reflected in tenure and usuary rights and their evolution;

uses of non-timber forest products and knowledge about them;

•

•

•

seasonal variation in the use and importance of non-timber forest products;

the emergency or buffer role of non-timber forest products;

number of non-timber forest product species known and used;

attitudes, preferences and perceptions of rural people to change regarding non-timberforest products;

use and distribution of indigenous forest species in homegardens, farms and fallow;

questioning the people or groups (women, rural poor) who rely on non-timber forestproducts.

quantitative indicators

quantity and frequency of forest product collection and consumption;

numbers and percentage of community who collect, consume, trade, process and/ormanufacture non-timber forest products;

percentage of nutrition (calories, proteins, etc.) provided by non-timber forest products;

percentage of household time spent on activities related to non-timber forest products;

availability of raw material from the forest/non-timber forest products.

indicators related to monetary value

gross income and the contribution of income from activities related to non-timber forestproducts to the household budget;

payment for labour for activities related to non-timber forest products versus alternativeemployment;

prices received by collectors;

availability and market prices for marketed non-timber forest products and substitutes.

Based on: Falconer (1990) and de Beer and McDermott (1989).


Table 2. Plant speciesNumber of plant species, cultivated and from the wild

group

Jicaque

Huastec

Cabecarand Guaymi

Coconucos

Siona-Secoya

Siona-Secoya

Quechua

Quijos-Quechua

Quechua

Shipino-Conibo

Jívaro

Cháboco

Belem market

country-wide

country-wide

country

Honduras

Mexico

Costa Ricaand Panama

Colombia

Ecuador

Ecuador

Ecuador

Ecuador

Peru

Peru

Peru

Bolivia

Brazil

Peru

Guyana

number of species

49 in use, 43 additionalnames, no uses defined

679 total, of which550 medicinal

more than 85

more than 130

224

46 liana species1, of which31 for food and medicine

212 mostly medicinal2

120 medicinal plants

250

211 medicinal plants3

720 wild species,of which 120 fruits

305 total: 102 food plantsof which 75 wild; 22 fuelwood,68 construction and craft

150 species, wild and cultivated

56 natural dye plants

75 liana species

source

Lenzt, 1986

Alcorn, 1984

Hazlett, 1986

Faust, 1988

Vickers and Plowman, 1984

Paz y Miño et al., 1991

Alarcon, 1988

Maries et al, 1988

Franquemont et al., 1990

Tournon et al., 1986

Berlin, 1984

Boom, 1987

van den Berg, 1984

Antúnez de Mayolo, 1988

Potters, 1989

Notes: 1. out of 98 liana species in a one-hectare plot; 2. inventory of large area (length several hundred kms);3. inventory of a 700-km stretch of river


Table 3. Number of tree speciesTree species (DBH>10 cm) encountered in five plots, percentage of useful tree species and (for Ribereños)percentage of useful individual trees per use category.

Ka'apor,Brazil;

1 ha

total: useful species 76.8

edible

construction

technology1

medicine

commerce

other2

total species

34.3

20.2

19.2

21.2

2.0

9.1

99.0

per cent of totalnumber of species

Tembé,Brazil;

1 ha

61.3

21.8

30.3

21.0

10.9

5.0

4.2

119.0

Chácobo,Bolivia;

1 ha

78.7

40.4

17.0

18.1

35.1

1.1

1.1

94.0

Panare,Venezuela;

1 ha

48.6

34.3

2.9

4.3

7.1

4.3

0.0

70.0

Ribereños,Peru;

7.5 ha

60.1

17.0

18.8

2.8

6.0

13.3

5.0

218.0

per cent oftotal number

of individuals

Ribereños,Peru;

7.5 ha

66.4

22.2

18.9

4.2

3.0

13.7

2.6

3,780.0

Source: Prance et al. (1987), except for riberenos: Pinedo-Vasquez et al. (1990).Notes: 1. Pinedo-Vasquez et al. (1990) substitute a more restrictive category "crafts" for "technology". Craftsinclude: uses for wooden bowls, canoe paddles, handbags and others. Lashing material is included in"construction"; 2. Category "other" includes religion.

Table 4. Meat consumptionFresh meat consumption in the Amazon region of Peru (average: g/day/person).

fish

game

farmyard birds

pigs

cows

total

Source: Dourojeanni (1985).

from Pucallpa toNauta (Ucayali River)

135.6

52.0

22.1

12.0

insignificant

221.7

in Jenaro Herrera(Ucayali River)

158.3

75.8

25.7

10.2

insignificant

270.0


Table 5. Game meat consumptionFresh meat from wild animals (excluding fish) in different sites of the Amazon region.

site

Brazil

Nova Fronteira1

Leonardo da Vinci1

Coco Chato1

F. N. Tapajoz2

Peru

Pachitea River2

Ucayali River2

J. Herrera2

R. Pichis2

Venezuela

Indians3

mestizos3

average meat consumptiong/day/person

25.9

42.1

6.6

246.0

460.0

75.8

649

110.0

25.0

years ofobservation

1973-1974

1973-1974

1973-1974

1978

1965

1966

1971-1972

1980

n/a

n/a

Table 6. Protein needsPercentage of protein needs provided by wild fauna in communities on the Transamazon highway.

site

Nova Fronteira

Leonardo da Vinci

Coco Chato

Source: Smith (1976).

per cent ofprotein demand

17

20

2

Sources: 1. Smith (1976); 2. Dourojeanni (1985); 3. Fergusson Laguna (1990)


Table 7. Game meat consumption: species groupsPercentage, in weight, of different animal groups in different case studies.

per cent weight

large mammals

monkeys

other small mammals5

total mammals

reptiles

birds

other

large mammals

monkeys

other small mammals'

total mammals

reptiles

birds

other

NovaFronteira

92.2

0.2

4.8

97.2

1.9

0.8

–

PachiteaRiver

49.3

6.6

24.3

80.2

17.2

2.6

—

Brazil1

Leonardoda Vinci

87.8

0.0

7.6

95.4

4.1

0.5

—

Peru3

UcayaliRiver

51.9

9.3

25.7

86.9

9.9

3.2

—

CocoChato

27.4

1.3:

65.6

94.4

3.0

2.6

—

Indians andMestizos

—

—

—

91.0-92.0

4.0-6.0

3.0-4.0

—

Venezuela2

Indians

50.5

11.7

19.8

82.0

5.4

9.0

3.6

Colombia4

Campesinos

79.4

3.3

10.5

93.2

4.4

2.2

0.2

Ticuna Indians% weight % kills

88.2

1.7

5.0

94.9

3.8

1.3

—

34.9

10.8

16.9

62.6

9.7

27.7

—

Sources and other notes: 1. Smith (1976); 2. Fergusson Laguna (1990), quoting other sources; 3. Dourojeanni(1985), quoting other sources; ethnic background unknown; 4. Campos-Rozo (1987); 5. Small mammals includeagoutis, squirrels, sloths, armadillos, among others

Other valuesOption value

The term "option value" is oftenused in discussions about finding anddeveloping new medicines. It refersto the possibility of a product havingvalue in the future. Farnsworth(1988) and Myers (1988b) arguethat plants represent a source that isstill untapped of compounds for newmedicines. Of all prescriptionsdispensed in the USA during the last25 years, 25 per cent containedplant-derived active compounds. Inaddition, 74 per cent of the chemicalcompounds used in drugs in industri-alized countries have the same orsimilar uses in traditional medicines(Farnsworth, 1988).

Traditional medicinal use of acertain plant species may be the firstindication that it contains a usefulchemical compound (Bird, 1991).There is a need to research ethno-pharmacological information in thesearch for new medicines (Elisabet-sky and Salvio-Nunes, 1990; Plotkinand Balick, 1984). The knowledge ofhow to use plant species is disappear-

ing faster than the species them-selves (Plotkin, 1988; Hazlett, 1986;Lewis and Elvin-Lewis, 1984). Thisis one reason traditional use ofmedicinal plants has received specialattention within ethno-botany (forexample: Ayala Flores, 1984;Ayensu, 1983; Davis and Yost, 1983;Eisner, 1991; Grenard et al., 1987;Heyde, 1985; Mello, 1980 and theextensive series De plantis toxicariis emundo novo tropicale commentationes,published by Schultes, 1985).

It is believed that medicines andproducts developed on the basis ofindigenous knowledge generatebillions of dollars of revenue. Up tonow, forest-dwelling people have notbeen compensated for their knowl-edge by the companies that used thisknowledge to develop and marketnew products. Developing mecha-nisms to compensate the actualowner of these intellectual propertyrights is still only at an early stage.Such mechanisms are now beingdiscussed in the framework of theglobal biodiversity convention.

Chapter 4: Other values Page 29

Bird (1991) describes the methodused by Biotics, a company that actsas a broker for developing countriesand finds buyers for their medicinalplants among pharmaceutical com-panies in industrialised countries.The suppliers and Biotics receive aninitial payment for the plants. Thecompany determines if the materialhas economic value; if this leads tomarketable products, the suppliersare guaranteed royalties in return forthe material. In another case, in1991, the USA-based pharmaceuti-cal company Merck paid US$1million to the Costa Rica govern-ment for the rights to exploit anddevelop active components from agroup of forest plants.

Net Present Value

The value of a natural resource atany specific point in time is the NetPresent Value (NPV) of that re-source, i.e. the present (discounted)value of expected future earnings.The NPV only takes into accountquantifiable economic value. Informula:

0 =

V0 value at t=0

P price

Q quantity

C costs

i discount rate

n time

The NPV does not calculate thevalue of the product that is actuallybeing harvested but instead calcu-lates the value of the productioncapacity. The constraints in calculat-ing the NPV of renewable biologicalresources are:

1. There are numerous uncertain-ties about the resilience of naturalresources after exploitation and thusof the life expectancy of the resource(Godoy and Lubowski, 1992). Thisimplies that Q and therefore C arenot constant.

2. In one accounting period, theprice of a natural resource canexperience two different changes(Gilbert et al., 1990): the naturalresource can be depleted, whichmeans physical depreciation; or theunit value of the stock may rise orfall, which means a capital gain orloss.

The overall value depreciation isthe sum of the physical depreciationminus capital gain or plus capitalloss. The NPV does not take intoaccount any loss or gain of othernon-economic values, such asbiodiversity, knowledge, etc.

3. In comparing present andfuture receipts and costs of naturalresource use, future earnings andcosts are downgraded by somediscount rates. Economists disagreeas to which discount rate to use(Repetto et al., 1989). A highdiscount rate means that long-terminvestments become more expensive

P1Q1 - C1

(1 + i)

P2Q2 - C2

(1 + i)2

PnQn - Cn

(1 + i)n

+ +V


than short-term investments. Theresult is that some renewable re-sources may be exhausted and long-term sustainable development basedupon these resources is no longer anoption. Conversely, at a lowerdiscount rate, higher value is at-tached to future land use. People willmake longer term investments ifthey feel that sustained yield of aresource has a higher value.

Several attempts have been madeto calculate the value of tropicalforests based on the production ofnon-timber forest products. Heinz-man and Reining (1988) calculatedthe NPV of forests in the NorthernPeten of Guatemala based on theextraction of xaté (palm leaves usedfor ornamental purposes). Theycompared this system with the NPVof milpa agriculture (a traditionalmixed crop system, predominantlycorn and beans). In reference to theconstraints mentioned above, theyassumed that:• the time horizon was infinite;• real prices (i.e. those that have

been adjusted for inflation) wouldstay constant;

• management regimes would notchange in the future.

In Guatemala the discount rate atthe time of publication was nine percent. The NPV was calculated atthree different percentages to dem-onstrate the effect of differentdiscount rates. Two scenarios were

presented; one with no plant mortal-ity and one with five per cent mor-tality each year. Their calculationsled them to conclude that thebenefits derived from the harvestingof xaté from the forest are greaterthan those of milpa agriculture(Table 8).

Alegretti and Schwartzman(1987) compared the incomesgenerated by cattle ranching, agricul-ture and extraction of rubber in theBrazilian state of Acre. While thearea occupied for extraction de-creased from 1970 to 1980, and thearea for cattle ranching and foragriculture increased dramatically;the per hectare value of extractionincreased much more than eithermeat production or agriculture(Table 9). At the same time rubberincreased its share of overall exportsfrom the state. Hecht and Cockburn(1989) add that forest extraction ofrubber and Brazil nuts has the high-est NPV of present land use in Acre.

Nations and Coello Hinojosa(1989) did a similar study with riverturtles. Raising river turtles canproduce 22,000 kg per hectare peryear of turtle meat in small ponds inthe Cuyabeno Reserve in Ecuador,with a value of US$ 20,000. Incontrast, beef cattle production inthe same region produces only 50 kgof meat per hectare per year, with avalue of US$ 47. Data from the sameauthors gathered in the BrazilianAmazon indicates that five large


animal species (peccary, tapir, paca,deer and agouti) can be harvestedwithout decreasing natural popula-tions at the average rate of 0.24 kg ofmeat per hectare per year, with avalue of almost US$ 5 per hectareper year. If other species are includedthat are normally consumed, thetotal value of wild meat reachesmore than US$ 40 per hectare peryear. In addition, each hectare ofswamp and river can produceUS$ 145 worth of caiman skins peryear. In total, Cuayabeno Reservecould produce millions of dollars peryear.

Peters et al. (1989) estimated theNPV of non-timber forest productsin one hectare of tropical rainforestnear Iquitos, Peru. They comparedthe NPV with timber logging andlivestock ranching. Based on theirestimates of the density, biologicalproductivity and market price ofeach fruit tree and palm, and using afive per cent inflation-free discountrate, they concluded that the fruitand rubber production of one hec-tare of forest has a greater NPV thantimber (Table 10).

The NPV of sustainable fruit andlatex harvests, assuming that 25 percent of the fruit crop is left in theforest for regeneration, is estimatedat US$ 6330 per hectare. However,there can be a great differencebetween this theoretical value,which is based on an inventory ofthe products in the forest, and the

actual value of what is in fact beingsold on the market. Padoch and deJong (1989) measured the potentialand the actual annual value of non-timber forest products in Iquitos, andfound that the actual value of thegoods extracted only reached 2.5 to 3per cent of the potential value, basedon the quantity of products in theforest.

Godoy and Lubowski (1992)reviewed studies that estimate theeconomic value of non-timber forestproducts (Table 11). They con-cluded that the values of non-timberproducts calculated in these studieswere incompatible. There werevariations that might be explainedby the biological and economicdiversity of the different study sitessampled. Also, different kinds ofnon-timber forest products havedifferent yields. For example,extractivism is more likely to beeconomically successful in forestswhere a few marketable speciesdominate (Browder, 1992).

In addition, the full array of non-timber forest products is not alwaystaken into account in these studies.Although hunting is reputed toproduce benefits comparable to thoserealized in converting forest tofarmland, few authors have esti-mated the economic value of thefauna extracted. Neither has thecombined economic value of plantsand animals been measured (Godoyand Lubowski, 1992).


Furthermore, even when studyingthe same goods, independentvaluations conducted at nearly thesame time and place produceddifferent results. A single plot canyield different values depending onthe valuation technique used. It

remains unclear to what extend theoutcome of these calculations can beextrapolated to larger areas andwhether it can be concluded thatextraction of non-timber forestproducts is in general more profitablethan other types of land use.


Table 8. Agriculture vs. non-timber productsNPV (US$/hectare) for milpa agriculture and xaté extraction.

discount rate

5 per cent

9 per cent

15 per cent

constant yield

288

182

130

milpa

declining fertility1

172

138

114

xaté

constant yield declining production1

480

380

160

240

171

120

1970

1980

beef

3.24

3.72

agriculture

14.25

19.42

extraction

2.49

8.99

annual income

fruit

rubber

clear-cutting

selective cutting

Source: Peters et al. (1989).

400

22

1,000

310

NPV

6,330 (fruit and rubber together)

0

490

Source: Heinzman and Reining (1988)Note: 1. decline of 5 per cent per year.

Table 9. Annual production value: Acre, Brazil(US$/hectare) for different types of land use in Acre, Brazil.

Calculated on basis of total extractive value for the state of Acre/total area dedicated to specific type of landuse. Source: Alegretti and Schwartzman (1987)

Table 10. Income and NPVValue (in US$) from one hectare of forest in Peru.


Table 11. Economic values of non-timber productsSurvey of Net Economic Values of non-timber forest products

location

Venezuela

Mudumalal Sanctuary,India

Ituri Forest, Zaire

Amazon, Brazil

Sarawak, East Malaysia

Iquitos, Peru

Amazonian region,Brazil

Hantana, Sri Lanka

Kalimantan, Indonesia

State of Para, Brazil

Veracruz, Mexico

Amazon, Ecuador

Jenaro, Herrera

Iquitos, Peru

value(US$/ha/year)

0.75

3.0

3.18-0.50

4.8

8.00

16-22

40

50

53

110

116

120

167

420

comments

experimental caiman harvest

0.02 elephants/hectare at US$ 1,500/elephantexcludes costs of domestication and trainingprice refers to a domesticated animal10 per cent discount rate assumed

at US$ 1/kg, estimate excludes costs.

estimate is gross return/hectare/year, only values flora

wildlife over 1 km2

based partly on community diaries, only values flora

potential value of sustainable annual bushmeatharvest

50 randomly chosen households surveyed in 3villages; used contingent valuation and opportunitycost approach; estimate excludes cost of extraction,only values flora

NPV of cultivated rattan at US$ 529/hectare over 25years with real discount rate of 10 per cent

value after selective thinning of competitors andpruning of acai palm

only values flora; estimate excludes lumber andcoffee

values wildlife over 500 km2

values only harvest of wild camu camu

values the inventory in 1 hectare; only values flora.

Source: Godoy and Lubowski, 1992

National economiesSources of information

Information on the productionand export of non-timber forestproducts has been obtained from:

1. National export registers. In-formation is maintained by govern-ment institutes in charge of foreigntrade. These institutes are beginningto use internationally standardisedcodes for products; in the future thiswill make it easier to compare datafrom different countries.

2. Forest production registers,maintained by forestry or agriculturaldepartments.

3. Data on international trade inendangered species, mostly animals,which is compiled by the WorldConservation Monitoring Centre(WCMC) from annual reports sub-mitted to the Convention on Inter-national Trade in EndangeredSpecies (CITES) secretariat bymember states.

4. Secondary sources, specialreports, case studies, local marketstudies, etc.

In Colombia, information onexports and imports have beenpublished for the Tropical ForestryAction Plan by Delgado (1990).Total and annual averages of bothquantity and monetary value areavailable for 1970 to 1989 (Table12). This information is based onextracts from Customs files. Addi-tional information has been col-lected by Rincon (pers. comm. andRamirez Perdomo (1988). Wheredata is contradictory, preference isgiven to Delgado (1990), which ismore recent and complete.

INDERENA, the Colombiangovernment's Natural ResourcesInstitute, keeps track of informationon exploitation of products from theNational Forest Estate. Few non-timber products are being registered(Table 13). Data from areas thatbelong to the jurisdiction of a Re-gional Development Corporation isonly collected on a regional basisand is therefore not included inTable 13. Over 25 per cent of Co-lombia's forest is being managed by


corporations, particularly in depart-ments like Putumayo, Nariño andCaqueta (Jimenez, pers. comm.).

In Ecuador national export data isregistered by the Central Bank(Table 14). Export permits aregranted on the basis of nationalquotas; in the case of forest products,these quotas are set by the ForestDepartment. Data on nationalproduction is not available, althoughthe Ministry of Agriculture receivesregular reports from its 21 provinceson the production of timber and"other products".

In Bolivia information is sparseand difficult to obtain. The publica-tions of the National Institute forStatistics are the most importantsources of information. The Foodand Agricultural Organization(FAO) carried out a study on theopportunities for exploitation ofnon-timber products within theframework of the Bolivian TropicalForestry Action Plan, (Mendoza,1991). This study included data onexports, based on customs informa-tion collected by the BolivianInstitute of Export (INPEX) (Tables15 and 16).

For a number of reasons, thesesources give only a rough indicationof the real amount and value of thetrade in non-timber forest products.

Not all non-timber forest prod-ucts marketed are registered. Delga-do (1990) lists some products thatare marketed in Colombia; unfortu-

nately, no information is availableabout their quantity or value (Table31). In Colombia, Ecuador andBolivia relatively few non-timberforest products are being registered,although Brazil has a more extensivelist (Tables 26 and 27).

In addition, calculating the actualvolume and value of the productionand export is not straightforward.Production figures are sometimesbased on issued permits, instead ofthe amount that is actually beingharvested, which is quite oftengreater. Only the official export isregistered; the illegal export, whichis not registered, can be equal to theofficial amount (Mendoza, 1991).Harvesting and trade in some prod-ucts; for example many animalspecies, is illegal. It is difficult toobtain data about this illegal trade.Registration of seized goods mightallow countries to estimate thevolume of illegal trade. Clericalerrors also lead to inaccurate statis-tics; mistypings and miscalculationshave been reported (Instituto deEstadisticas, 1989).

The origin of products in theexport registers is not always clear(i.e. geographical, species, planta-tions versus semi-natural ecosys-tems). Also, the use of commonnames is confusing. One name maybe used for different products, or oneproduct may have different regionalnames. Furthermore, it is difficult tocompare historical data with recent

Chapter 5: National economies Page 37

information because the borders ofnations have changed.

The lack of distinction betweenproducts from natural stands andthose from plantations presents aproblem for this study, which focuseson products from natural forests.Unless otherwise specified, onlyproducts that clearly originate intropical forest are considered here.

These circumstances may lead to. misleading or inconsistent informa-tion (see Table 15, note 5). Compar-ing different sources may revealdifferent data for the same product(see Table 12 or compare Table 26with Table 27). It would require aspecial study of each product fromharvest to market to obtain insightinto real production figures andmonetary values. Such research wasbeyond the scope of this study.

Consequently, the figures pre-sented in this report should beregarded as approximate estimates.In spite of these limitations, thefigures that are presented in thischapter are the most reliable onesavailable. Although the figures inthe official registers may differ fromactual numbers, registered informa-tion can at least make trends visible.

Plant products

Latex-producing plants

Products made from latex aredivided into two categories: elastic

and non-elastic gums. The termelastic gums is often replaced by theSpanish terms caucho or jebe, becausethese are the most common mixturesof elastic gums. Strictly speaking,caucho stands for Castilla spp.(caucho bianco), Sapium spp. (cauchobianco) or Ficus spp. Jebe or seringameans Hevea spp. (Dominguez andGomez, 1990). Castilla spp. were themost important elastic gums fromCentral America, the Pacific coastand Colombia's Andean foothills.

The natural distribution of Heveaspp. is restricted to the varzea (river-side) of the Amazon and Orinocoregions. In Colombia, Heveabrasiliensis can be found only in thesouthernmost part of the country.The gum of H. brasiliensis is thepurest and most manageable of allgums. Other Hevea spp. produce gumwhich is less valuable.

Commercial extraction andexport of gums started in the 19thcentury. Important industrial appli-cations had been discovered whichmade use of gum's specific properties:the material can isolate electricity,and is impermeable and elastic. Theinvention of the vulcanizationprocess by Goodyear in 1840 was alandmark in the demand for rubber(Seul, 1988).

Toward the end of the 19thcentury, exploitation produced shortbut intense economic upheavals indifferent regions throughout thecountry. In Colombia exploitation


started with caucho bianco (Castillaspp). This produced a premium latexthat was sometimes mixed withlower quality latex from otherspecies. Caucho could be found inmore accessible places than jebe. Theexploitation of caucho was destruc-tive: trees were cut down and thelatex was collected from carvesafterwards. Only after the source ofcaucho was exhausted did people turnto jebe. The method of obtaining thelatex of jebe was different. The barkof the tree was weakened along thewhole length of the trunk by beatingit with a pole, cuts were made in thebark in an unsystematic way andlianas were tied around the trunk inorder to extract all the latex.

In Colombia there were strikingdifferences between the exploitationstrategy of jebe and that of caucho:

1. The latex of jebe is found ininter-connected conduits, so one cutin the bark is enough to release it. Incaucho the latex is stored in isolatedcells and has to be released withmany cuts.

2. Jebe trees can be cut everythree days during a period of three tofive months, whereas caucho treescan be cut only once or twice a year.

3. Caucho trees seem to be moresusceptible to diseases after deep cutsare made and the trees often die afterthey are treated. Because of thesefactors it was possible to develop asedentary system for exploitation ofjebe, but not for caucho.

Latex exploitation changed asdemand increased and as transportimproved with the arrival of riversteamers. This stimulated the takeo-ver of the seringales by new investors,who were interested in continuousexploitation. As extraction becamesedentary there was a need to exploitthe resource without exhausting itand new systems for carving the treeswere introduced (Seul, 1988).

There was a difference betweenthe situation in Brazil and Colombia.In Putumayo, Colombia, only speciesof lower quality occurred. Sincethere was enough cheap labourproduction was not modernized. Thejebe of Brazil was of higher qualityand productivity than the caucho ofColombia. Because there was ashortage of labour in Brazil, therewas a compelling need to modernizeproduction. This provided Brazilwith a virtual monopoly on theworld market.

The world consumption of cauchoincreased rapidly: from 1,965 tonnesin 1850 to 50,668 tonnes in 1900,and to 374,745 tonnes in 1919. In1906 rubber production on planta-tions in Asia started up. It proved tobe much more economical. In 1911production from plantations in Asiaamounted to 15,520 tonnes, increas-ing to 70,117 tonnes in 1914. Forthe first time, plantations producedmore rubber than wild sources, asituation which has continued to thepresent time.


In South America production onplantations was hampered by SouthAmerican Leaf Blight (Richards,1992). The proportion of Amazo-nian rubber on the world market fellfrom 60 per cent in 1900 to two percent in 1930. During World War IIthe last revival of Brazilian rubberproduction occurred: it tripledbetween 1941 and 1945 (Seul,1988). The world rubber market isstill increasing but there is moredemand for synthetic rubber, whichmakes up about 70 per cent of themarket. For some purposes naturalrubber will continue to be usedbecause of its unique properties.

In 1984 rubber production inColombia was estimated at 982tonnes, 469 tonnes of which waswild rubber from the departments ofAmazonas, Putumayo, Vaupes andGuaviare (Ministerio de Agricultura1990). Most wild rubber is barteredwith neighbouring countries. Colom-bia imports and exports rubber andrubber products; exact flows aredifficult to trace. It is estimated thatproduction is about five per cent ofnational consumption (Delgado,1990). The value of annual wildnatural rubber production is esti-mated at about US$ 6.2 million(based on data from Instituto deEstadisticas, 1989).

In Bolivia income from rubberexports has decreased since the mid1980s; until then, Bolivia had itsown rubber processing factory. This

explains the difference between theproduction and export of rubber,since part of the production wasprocessed for the national market(Tables 15 and 16). Smuggling ofrubber to Brazil may also explainpart of the difference. The tenfoldincrease in the production of rubberballs (bolache) between 1986 and1987 remains unexplained (Table16) as this is not reflected in acorresponding increase in exports.

Balata and bullet tree (guta-percha) are non-elastic gums. Balatais produced from Mimusops balatabut the name is also used for latexfrom Manilkara amazonica and otherspecies. The name balata is oftenconfused with gutapercha, although,strictly speaking, the latter refers tolatex from the bullet tree (Palaquiumspp.). Both types of latex are used forindustrial purposes. Since the latexfrom batata-producing trees can beharvested only once in 15 to 20years, a sedentary exploitationsystem did not develop. Exploitationwas destructive: trees were cut downor died because too much latex wastapped or the cuts were too damag-ing.

Chicle is the collective term foranother group of non-elastic gums.Chicle is used for the production ofchewing gum. The Sapodilla orNispero tree (Manilkara zapota) is theprincipal source and is found in thenatural forest in Mexico and Guate-mala. It is cultivated mainly for its


fruits in the rest of equatorial Ameri-ca. Other species are Manilkaraachras and M. chick (real chicle),which are exported from Belize. Theextraction method for chicle is thesame as it is for balata; that is, byfelling the tree. Overexploitation hasled to its near extinction in Yucatan,Mexico. Many other species havebeen used to replace it. In Colombia,a large quantity of chicle was ex-ported at the beginning of the 1980s.The latex of the Pendare tree(Couma macrocarpa) is used as analternative or additive for chicle.Pendare latex is also used for medici-nal purposes. This latex is also calledsorva latex or leche caspi.

In Brazil, sorva latex is harvestedfrom Couma rigida and C. utilis.Sorva was also traditionally extractedby felling the tree. Techniques haverecently been devised to tap the treesinstead (Prance, 1989). Extractiontook place in Colombia until 1973and it is still important in Brazil.

Medicinal plants

Quinine is a pharmaceuticalproduct produced from the bark ofthe cinchona tree and is used mainlyas a basis for medicine to treatmalaria. Malaria is now mostly atropical disease, although until theend of last century it also affectedlarge regions of the United Statesand Europe (Dominguez and Gomez,1990).

The genus Cinchona has anintricate classification. Cinchonacondaminae, C. officinalis and C.pubescens are some of the species thatproduce quinine; related speciesbelong to the genera Ladenbergia andRemijia. These species producealkaloids which differ from quininebut which also have economic value.

Quinine was isolated for the firsttime in 1820. The history of itsexploitation is very similar to that ofrubber exploitation. The demand forquinine rose in the 19th centurywith the increase in European acti-vities in the colonies (Dominguezand Gomez, 1990). Commercialexploitation started in the Ecuado-rian Andes near Loja and spread toAlto Peru (Bolivia), Peru, Quito andNueva Granada in Colombia.

In Colombia, quinine extractionstarted at the end of the 18th cen-tury (Patiño, 1980). In the next cen-tury it was accompanied by a con-tinuous colonisation of new areas.Fierce competition in exploitationand marketing led to over-harvest-ing, similar to the history of Conchoextraction. Individual labourersalways had to choose between fellingthe tree or only stripping its bark.The lack of a system to regulateharvesting meant there was alwaysthe danger of others harvesting thebark that was left behind. There wasalso a susceptibility to disease afterthe bark was stripped, although thiscould be decreased by tapping moss


onto the trunk (Domiguez andGomez, 1990). The annual exportvolume rose to over 5,597 tonnes in1880, when Colombia became theprincipal export country in the world(Patiño, 1980).

The last boom of naturally-harvested quinine occurred duringthe American civil war. In thesecond half of the 19th centuryGreat Britain and Holland estab-lished plantations of Cinchona spp. inAsia using genetic material fromSouth America. The Dutch appliedmodern selection and propagationmethods in Indonesia and were ableto produce a variety with a highquinine content. This, together withthe efficient production system inIndonesia, broke the monopoly ofnaturally-harvested quinine.

From 1880 over-productionexisted on the world market. Naturalstands in Latin America could nolonger compete with the Dutchplantations, and after 1883 Colom-bian exports declined steeply. Therewas a brief revival during World WarII, but since then the demand hascontinued to decrease. Attempts togrow cinchona in plantations inColombia were not successful.

In Bolivia quinine production wascontrolled and marketed nationallyuntil 1970 to supply medicines topeople in high-risk malarial areas.The country possessed a state-ownedquinine factory and harvesting was astate monopoly. Between 1970 and

1990 a few attempts to grow quininetrees on plantations failed due tolack of a long-term commitment andinvestment (Mendoza, 1991). From1970 to 1980 some export occurred;during the 1980s export totalsfluctuated but remained low.

Dominguez and Gomez (1990)conclude that the long history ofquinine extraction in South Americadid not result in any modern planta-tions or prolonged economic benefitfor the Andean equatorial region.The world market for quinine issteadily increasing, but Boliviacannot benefit from the increaseddemand due to a lack of raw material(Mendoza, 1991). This lack of rawmaterial is caused by over-exploita-tion and lack of new sources.

The roots of ipecacuanha or raicilla(Cephaelis ipecacuanha and otherC. spp.) are used for medicinalpurposes. Harvesting from the wildoccurs and the species is also culti-vated. Well-known production areasare Colombia, Nicaragua andRondônia and Mato Grosso in Brazil.The area of Manaus in Brazil is thecentre of production. Annual pro-duction in Brazil was around 130tonnes from 1962 to 1968.

Tonka beans or sarrapia (Dipteryxodorata or Coumarouma odorata andC. rosea) are used for medicinalpurposes, perfume, resins in soap andas an aromatic for tobacco. Sarrapiareal (or yape; Dipteryx punctata) isused to scent tobacco. No planta-


tions are known in Colombia andharvesting by Indians takes placeonly from wild sources (Delgado,1990). Export was very profitable inthe last century but sarrapia has nowbeen replaced almost entirely byartificial products. Export informa-tion exists for Venezuela only, butpart of the export probably originatesin Colombia. In the first 25 years ofthis century the annual export ofSarrapia real from Venezuela was170,000 kilograms. Extraction washighly destructive; the vegetationaround the trees had to be burned tofacilitate harvesting.

Tolu balsam (Myroxylon balsa-mum var. genuinum) and Peru balsam(M. balsamum var. pereirae) are usedto make ointments and tinctures.Other species of interest are canimeor Maracaibo balsam (Copaiferacanime) and algarrobo (Hymenaeacourbaril) (Delgado, 1990). Thefigures in Table 8 refer mainly toTolu balsam. Annual world produc-tion (1981) of Tolu balsam wasabout 65 tonnes, of which El Salva-dor exports 48 tonnes or 74 per cent(Levingston and Zamora, 1983). Theresin can only be obtained by cuttingand burning the tree, so harvesting isdestructive.

Trade in zarzaparilla (Smilax sp.)has existed since the first Europeansettlement, at least in LatinAmerica. The root of zarzaparilla isin great demand for its medicinalproperties, among which is the

ability to cure syphilis. In 1853 theexport of 11,662 kilograms ofzarzaparilla was registered fromIquitos. Zarzaparilla is harvested fromthe wild and frequently grown inhome gardens, but it has neverdeveloped into a major plantationcrop. It is discussed here brieflybecause it is often mentioned as anexample of a promising new forestproduct. Strictly speaking it is not anon-timber forest product because itis not harvested exclusively from thewild. It is therefore not included inthe statistics of this report.

Palm products

Palms produce several productsthat are commercially important. Oilproduced from seeds is the mostimportant, followed by fibre, palmheart and others. Some species aresuitable as multi-purpose cash crops(Johnson, 1987). Moriche (miriti oraguaje, Mauritia flexuosa), for exam-ple, is a species found in inundatedareas; like the peach palm (chonta-duro or pejibaye, Bactris gasipaes) itsfruits, leaves, palm heart and stemare used. Palms are mostly usedlocally by Indians and colonists ofthe Amazon region and the Llanos,although palm products are also soldin markets in larger cities.

The peach palm has a widedistribution in northern SouthAmerica and in Central Americaand is an example of a species that


can be found in all stages of domesti-cation. It is presumed that thisspecies was domesticated more than4,000 years ago (Seul, 1988) andthat it is found in Central Americabecause of human activity.

Jessenia spp. and Oenocarpus spp.are used for the commercial produc-tion of oil and medicines (Balick,1986). Commercial products ob-tained from Murumuru or tucum,(Astrocaryum spp.) are palm heart,edible oil and fibres. Fruits of thesespecies are steamed and served inrestaurants as appetizers in the majorcities of the Amazon. The wildstands are threatened due to destruc-tive palm heart production andhabitat alteration (Balick, 1984).

Chiquichique or piassaba (Leopol-dinia piassaba) is used for makingropes and brooms. Its fronds are usedfor roofing and its fruits for makingjuice (Putz, 1979). Its distribution islimited to the upper Rio Negroregion (Prance, 1989). The Colom-bian chiquichique has often been soldunder its Venezuelan or Brazilianname, piassaba. Although this prac-tice has been discontinued, it mightconfuse the figures presented inTables 13, 26 and 27 (Patiño, 1980).

The palm tree remains alive afterharvesting chiquichique; cutting thefibres does not damage the terminalbud. Trees are only cut down whendemand is high and they are too tallfor the usual collecting operations. Amature tree has an annual produc-

tion of approximately one kilogramof fibre, which is sold for aboutUS$ 0.10. One person can harvest25 to 30 trees a day. Cutting is usu-ally repeated after two or three years.

In Ecuador palm fibres are used tomake Panama hats. The most impor-tant species are toquilla (Carludovicapalmata), mocora (Carludovica sp.)and totora (Scirpus californicus).Fibres are harvested in the lowlands,but processing takes place in themountain chains of Ecuador(Budowski, pers. comm.). In thesecond half of the 19th centuryPanama hats were also an importantexport from the Department ofLoreto (Peru) to Brazil, comprisingbetween 20,000 and 190,000 hatsper year (Coomes, 1991).

The waxy layer on the leaves ofCopernicia prunifera, known ascarnauba wax, is the basis of amultimillion dollar industry in Brazil(Balick, 1984). The wax of this palmis extremely hard, durable and ofhigh quality.

Edible palm fruits are plentiful inBrazil (Johnson, 1982), but onlyassai (Euterpe oleracea) is consideredin Brazilian statistics (Richards,1992). Palm fruits are used in themanufacture of soft drinks and icecream and production is increasingrapidly. In 1966 there was no recordof the extraction of these palm fruitsbut by 1987 they had become themost important extractive product inBrazil.


In 1979, Brazil earned more thanUS$ 100 million from the harvestand sale of products from six nativepalm genera: Astrocarium, Attalea,Copernicia, Euterpe, Mauritia andOrbignya. The production of palmheart is discussed in more detail inChapter 7.

Fruits

Tagua

Tagua nuts (or vegetable ivory,marfil vegetal, la yarina or cabeza denegro) are mainly harvested fromPalandra aequatorialis and Phytelephasseemannii, but also from other Phyte-lephas spp. Tagua is not limited toprimary forest; it is also found indifferent types of secondary forests.In processed form, the nuts resembleivory and are used in the manufac-ture of buttons and other ornamentalarticles. Production and exportbecame important towards the endof last century (Patiño, 1980).

An annual export from SouthAmerica valued at US$ 5 millionwas reported for the beginning of the20th century (Barfod, 1989). Ecua-dor has always been the main ex-porter, with Río Bamba as the centreof the processing industry. In 1887the port of Esmeraldas (Ecuador)received 76.2 per cent of its earningsfrom the export of vegetable ivory;in 1931 about half its export earn-ings still came from the same source.

By that year, 92 per cent of the taguanuts imported by the United Statescame from Ecuador (Barfod, 1989).

Colombia, Brazil, Peru and Pana-ma also produced vegetable ivory.Between 1845 and 1898 Colombiaexported 117,876 tonnes of taguanuts; in 1910 it exported about16,700 tonnes (peeled and unpeeled)(Patiño, 1980). In the 1920s, 20 percent of all buttons produced in theUnited States were made of vegeta-ble ivory. Export decreased sharplyduring and after the Second WorldWar due to fraud (similar, lowerquality species) and substitutes likeplastic and Bakelite (Patiño, 1980).In the mid 1980s there was a re-newed interest in vegetable ivoryand the sale of souvenirs made fromtagua nuts is increasing.

Brazil nut

The extraction of Brazil nut isdiscussed in detail in Chapter 7.

Dyes

In the past the exploitation ofseveral dyes was economicallyimportant. Brasilete or dyewood(Ematoxylon brasiletto or H. campe-chamum) has been exploited forcenturies. From 1834 to 1865 theannual export from Colombia of palode mora (Chhrophora tinctoria) wasbetween 2,200,000 and 4,800,000kilograms (Patiño, 1980). After


1873, pah de mora disappeared fromthe statistics. The export of othernatural dyes also decreased in thelast quarter of the 19th century dueto the use of synthetic pigments.Dyewood is still being exported fromBelize, however (Table 33).

Tannins

The exploitation of tannins wasalso much more important in thepast. The fruits of dividivi (Caesalpiniaspinosa) and the bark of the redmangrove (Rhizophora mangle) fromColombia and Ecuador and of thepashaco tree (Parkia verrutina) fromPeru (Coomes, 1991) were impor-tant sources of tannins. Tannins canbe extracted from many species thatoccur in the wild; for example,encenillo (Weinmannia spp.), guamo(Inga spp.), alcaparros (Cassia spp.),palosanto (Aegiphila spp.) and man-gle (Rhizophora spp.).

Dividivi appears in the statisticsfrom 1857 on. Annual export from1866 to 1871 was between 1,000 and2,500 kilograms. At present the onlyregistered export is from Brazil. Thisexport includes mangrove (Rhizo-phora mangle) and barbatimao(Strychnodendron barbadetiman).Dividivi de tierra caliente (Caesalpiniacoriaria) was an important rawmaterial for Colombia's local tan-ning industry but overexploitationand lack of proper management haveexhausted supplies (Patiño, 1980).

Ornamental plants

No quantitative information isavailable on the extraction of orna-mental plants from the wild. Orchidsare very popular both within thetropical countries and abroad,although the extraction of Anthur-ium species, such as capotillo debarbacoash, is a recent development.In Central America there is a thriv-ing export in palm leaves (Chamae-dorea spp.) for ornamental use in theUSA and Europe. Processing is verywasteful; 45 to 65 per cent of theleaves are thrown away before export(Heinzman and Reining, 1988).

Other plant products

The Ecuadorian Ministry ofAgriculture reports on products suchas bamboo (caña guadua, Bambusaguadua) and pambil (Socrateaexorrhiza and/or Iriartea deltoidea)which are used for construction(Valencio, pers. comm.). Dragon'sblood (Croton spp.), a well-knownmedicinal product, is also widelyused and is economically importantlocally. At the moment, however, itis not exported.

Mushrooms are harvested in thepine forests near Río Bamba inEcuador. As well as being exported,they are an important source ofincome locally.


Animals

Introduction

Between World War II and the1970s there was an extensive inter-national trade in wild animals andtheir products, but since 1970 tradehas been restricted by national andinternational legislation. Brazilrestricted animal trade in 1968 andPeru prohibited trade and export inmonkeys in 1973. Colombia fol-lowed (Whitney, 1977). Prohibitionof trade in one country led to anincrease in other countries. Theexport of birds from Bolivia in-creased enormously during the1970s, partly because of stricterBrazilian legislation. Many of theBolivian birds were probably ofBrazilian origin (Nilsson, 1981). SeeTable 19 for other examples.

All countries in Latin Americaare now members of CITES. CITESmember states agree to prohibitcommercial international trade inendangered species and to monitortrade in species that may be depletedby trade. Table 20 is based on datacompiled by WCMC from reportssupplied by CITES members; figuresrefer primarily to legal trade, butinclude illegal trade when known(World Resources Institute, 1990).

The totals presented in Table 20generally over-estimate the actualnumber of traded specimens becausethe same specimen could be im-

ported and then exported by anumber of countries within a singleyear. On the other hand, the numberof individuals of a particular speciesinvolved in trade can also be greaterthan the numbers reported becauseof mortality (during capture, transitand quarantine), illegal trade, tradeto or from countries that are notCITES members, and lack of domes-tic trade data (World ResourcesInstitute, 1990).

Permits may be issued for the cap-ture of animals for specific purposes.In Ecuador, around 100 permits areissued annually for the export of floraand fauna, mainly for insect and birdskins (Figueroa, pers. comm.). InColombia in 1988, about 150,000animals were legally captured forcaptive breeding programmes. Thisfigure included 78,000 crocodiles,1,200 boa constrictors and 100poison-arrow frogs (INDERENA1990). In many Latin Americancountries CITES legislation is widelyignored; it is estimated that onethird of the international trade inwild flora and fauna is illegal (Jaeger,1992). In some cases, the percentagemay be even worse. For example,only three per cent of the export ofparaba jacinta (Anodorhynchushyacinthinus) from Bolivia to theUSA is reported to be legal (CDC:Bolivia et al., 1988).

The annual value of internationaltrade in wild flora and faunaamounts to between US$ 5 and 7


billion (Jaeger, 1992). Tens ofthousands of primates, millions ofbirds and tropical fish, about 10million reptile skins, 15 million fursand one million orchids are tradedannually (Jaeger, 1992).

Where available, information ondomestic and international trade ispresented together in this chapter. Itis not always clear whether animalsactually come from rainforest areas.Caimans and capybaras, for example,can be found not only in forestecosystems but also in savannas.Often, bird species are not specified,which makes it difficult to determinetheir origin.

Food

Although game is no longerpresent in its former numbers, it isstill readily available at many localmarkets. Unlike the situation inEurope and the USA, game is usuallycheaper than the meat of domesticanimals, except in areas where wildanimals have been largely huntedout (Robinson and Redford, 1991).

Manatee, caiman and river turtleswere important sources of commer-cial meat in the Amazon. There arereports of loggerhead turtle (Carettacaretta) being commercialized by In-dians from the bay of Urabá, Colom-bia from around 1760. During the17th century Europeans established acommercial trade in the meat of themanatee (Trichechus manatus and

T. inunguis). The market increaseduntil 1959, when a minimum of6,500 animals were traded. Now thesale of manatee is prohibited,although it is still available in localmarkets.

Several species of caiman, espe-cially Caiman crocodilus, are impor-tant sources of meat in some areas ofthe Amazon basin. The currentannual trade in meat is estimated at21,500 to 32,000 individuals.

Traditionally, turtles have alsobeen hunted. Tartaruga (Podocnemisexpansa) and several other species offreshwater turtles that were oncecommercially exploited have becomeendangered. These river turtles areconsidered a delicacy and can still befound in markets. Other species,such as the green turtle, were alsocommercially important.

Capybara meat is an importantsource of protein in several areas inLatin America. A limited localmarket in fresh and salted capybarameat exists within the Amazonbasin. The only large commercialexploitation of capybara meat is inVenezuela. Over 90,000 animalswere harvested there for trade in1981.

Bird eggs and reptile eggs areimportant food sources in someareas. Of the reptiles, turtles are themost important source of eggs.Freshwater turtle eggs have beenexploited intensively in the past forindustrial and nutritional purposes.


In the Amazon basin, there were somany tartarunga eggs available that acomplete processing industry devel-oped. Oil from the eggs was used forcooking and for lighting. In 1719,the upper Amazon produced 87,300kilograms of oil from about 24million eggs. In 1860 this amountdoubled due to the industrial de-mand. In Honduras exploitation stillprovides an important source ofincome and is so intense that virtu-ally all nests of the olive ridley turtle(Lepidochelys olivacea) have beenharvested. Oil has also been ob-tained from nestlings of oilbirds(Steatornis caripensis) (Patiño, 1980).

Furs and skins

The export of skins and fursbecame important in the 19thcentury. Most leather is used forluxury goods such as purses, gloves,shoes and overcoats. While deer andmanatee were formerly exploited,today the principal sources of leatherare peccaries, capybara and, aboveall, reptiles, including caiman lizards,tegu lizards, crocodiles and, to alesser extent, sea turtles, toads andsnakes (Table 21).

Sea turtle leather originatesmostly from the olive ridley and thegreen turtle and is second in priceonly to crocodile leather. Crocodiles,especially Caiman crocodilus, greatlyoutnumber all other species in trade.Between 1950 and 1970, five to ten

million crocodile skins were tradedworld-wide annually. It is estimatedthat one million caiman skins stillleave South America each year,despite current legislation in manycountries prohibiting such export.

There is still trade in peccaryhide, although it is less extensive. AGerman importer reported a yearlypurchase of 36,000 peccary hidesfrom Paraguay (Robinson andRedford, 1991).

Europeans introduced large-scalecommercialization of skins in LatinAmerica as they did with leather.Both types of products are sold atluxury markets in Europe, Japan andNorth America.

The skin trade in the Amazonbasin has always focused on a fewspecies: giant otter (Pteronuro brasili-ensis), river otter (Lutra longicaudis),jaguar (Panthera onca) and ocelot(Felis pardalis, and much smallernumbers of F. wiedii and F. tigrina).The trade in cat skins started withjaguars at the end of the last century.In the 1960s the cat trade shifted tosmaller species, apparently in re-sponse to overexploitation of thejaguar and the subsequent decreasein supply. The period betweenWorld War II and the early 1970ssaw a great increase in the trade ofskins that originated in the AmazonBasin (Table 21). The value of the2,281,400 skins and living animalsexported from Colombia in 1973(Table 21) totalled US$ 15,329,600.


After the 1970s, the internationaltrade in skins decreased dramatically.This was partly due to legislation andprobably also due to a lower demandin Europe and the United Statesbecause of public awareness. This hasnot, however, stopped animals beingkilled for their skins. In 1982, 34,915skins, 77 per cent of which belongedto carnivores, were seized in Brazil,and in 1986 over 6,000 carnivoreskins were seized in Uruguay. In1983 more than 600,000 hides ofyacare amazonico were seized inColombia and in 1988 2,000 macawsfrom Colombia were intercepted inone action at the Charles de Gaulleairport in Paris (Uribe, pers. comm.).The macaws had a market value ofUS$ 5,000 each. Illegally huntedskins, such as those of snakes andother reptiles, otters, monkeys,peccaries, etc. (Fergusson Laguna,1990) are still being marketed.

The exploitation of living wildanimals and skins and furs is verywasteful; it has been estimated thatfor each animal that is exported alive(Patiño, 1980), another five dieduring capture and transport. Presentpractices under-utilize the animalsthat are killed for their skins: themeat is not collected, although anational market exists for the meatof some species, such as the capybarain Bolivia (CDC-Bolivia et al.,1988). This market, although lim-ited, can be extended. Wetteberg etal. (1976) revealed that restaurants

in Manaus show considerable inter-est in serving wild game meat pro-vided it is available regularly. Themost preferred species seemed to betartaruga, paca (Cuniculus paca), deer(Mazama, Odocoileus and Pudu spp.),tapir and peccary (Tayassu tajacu andT. pecari). This might provide anargument for the establishment ofgame farms, although expertise inraising animals is still not wide-spread. Farming could help to relievepressure on wild species.

In 1988 Colombia started anactive policy of stimulating theraising of non-traditional animals forexport in game farms or zoocriaderos.Export earning from these zoocria-deros up to the end of 1990 wasUS$ 3,346 (INDERENA 1990). Thecapture of a certain number of speci-mens from the wild is permitted toobtain a suitable stock of parentmaterial. The actual number of cap-tured animals is unknown, however.The animals are state property andfive per cent of the animals raised inthe zoocriaderos have to be releasedinto the wild. This policy has re-sulted in 25,196 animals of differentspecies being released up till 1990.Venezuela has a similar programmefor the use of capybara and caiman(Fergusson Laguna, 1990).

Feathers

Birds and bird feathers have beenexported since the time of Columbus


(Patiño, 1980). Feathers were oncevery important elements in fashion.In the second half of the last centuryand the first years of this century,heron feathers were one of the mostimportant export products of somecountries, especially Colombia andVenezuela (Patiño, 1980). Between1899 and 1920 South America —principally Argentina, Brazil andVenezuela — exported 15,000kilograms of egret and heron feath-ers, representing plumes from anestimated 12 to 15 million smallerspecies of birds and 3 to 4.5 millionlarger ones. To a large extent thetrade in feathers has disappeared.

Pets and animals for biomedicalresearch

A few decades ago there was anactive trade in officially registeredwild animals from the neotropicalforests. Leticia, Colombia andIquitos, Peru were important centres.Each year about 130 animal species(living animals) were exported fromIquitos. The majority of trade wasrestricted to a relatively smallnumber of species (Whitney, 1977).Monkeys for biomedical research(Moro, 1977) and parrots (Psitta-cidae) for pets made up 50 per cent ofthe total.

In 1972, the USA imported27,288 monkeys from Colombia and16,124 from Peru (Whitney, 1977),with smaller numbers from Nicara-

gua and Paraguay. There were339,080 monkeys registered between1964 and 1974 as exports fromIquitos, yielding US$ 1,460,000.Squirrel monkeys (Saimiri spp.),night monkeys (Aotus spp.), marmo-sets of the genus Saguinus andcapuchine monkeys (Cebus spp.)were the most common. In Table 17,Castro (1977) estimates that forevery monkey exported, two mon-keys died before export. Moro (1977)estimates pre-export loss at 30 percent. In addition, a considerablenumber die during transport. Forevery exported monkey that isregistered, one is exported withoutbeing registered. Including thoseanimals killed for local consumption(Chapter 3), the total number ofmonkeys taken from around Iquitos(Department Loreto, Peru) between1964 and 1974 amounted to5,056,320 (Table 17). From 1979 to1984 Bolivia was the most importantexporter and re-exporter of wildlifein the neotropics (CDC-Bolivia etal., 1988). The most commonlytraded animals were reptiles, mon-keys, peccaries and parrots, includingsix species of parrots from neighbour-ing countries.

There is a well-established tradi-tion of keeping pets among Indiansand people of European descent.Primates and birds, especially parrotsand songbirds, are the most popular.Based on information from Dr. S.Figueroa, in Ecuador's Department of


Natural Resources, it was estimatedthat 10,000 living birds arrive in thecountry's major cities annually, aswell as 1,000 monkeys and 3,300turtles and tortoises.

There is a thriving export trade inwild animals for pets, particularlyparrots (Table 17). Between 1981and 1986 the USA imported703,000 parrots from the neotropics.The retail market in parrots in theUnited States, both wild and cap-tive-bred, is estimated at US$ 300million. The cardenalito (Cardueliscucullata), also highly valued, iscross-bred with canaries to obtainvery showy birds. Illegal commercialhunting for this bird is one cause ofthe species being on the verge ofextinction; only 600 to 800 individu-als survive in the wild. Ornamentalfish and, to a lesser extent, poison-arrow frogs and other animals, havebecome important exports during thelast 20 to 25 years (Patiño, 1980).

Less important than export forpets and for biomedical purposes isthe export of animals for zoos.Although small in scale, the zootrade frequently focuses on rarespecies (Robinson and Redford,1991) and on animals like tapir andspectacled bear, which are large andnot otherwise traded.

Ecotourism and sport hunting

Globally, ecotourism is one of thefastest growing segments of the

tourist industry (Ceballos-Lascurain,1992). Ziffer (1989) estimates anannual increase of 20 per cent, dueto an overall rise in tourism, agrowth in specialty travel and anincreasing awareness of and concernabout the environment.

Estimates of the total value ofecotourism activities vary consider-ably. According to Lindberg (1991)the ecotourism industry generatedbetween US$ 2 and 12 billion inincome for developing countriesworldwide in 1988. Ziffer (1989),however, estimated that US$ 12billion, excluding airfare, was spentannually just by the four to sixmillion US citizens who travelledabroad for nature holidays. Ceballos-Lascurain (1992) estimated that,worldwide, 235 million people — 78million of whom were bird watchers— went abroad in 1990 for eco-tourism purposes. He estimated thatthey spent an average US$ 1,000 perperson; in total, well over US$ 200billion.

These amounts, however, relatenot just to tropical forests but to allnatural or semi-natural ecosystems.Furthermore, it should be taken intoaccount that not all revenue stays inthe countries; there is considerable"leakage" of income from touristactivities in less developed econo-mies. This is due to the need toimport luxury goods and becausemany facilities like hotels and lodgesare owned by foreigners (de Groot,


1992). The World Bank has reportedthat 55 per cent of gross tourismrevenue in developing countriesleaks back to developed countries(Lindberg, 1991).

The ecotourism situation isdifferent in each of the three coun-tries: Colombia, Ecuador and Brazil.In Colombia, INDERENA registered124,228 visitors to national parks in1990 (Files INDERENA). TayronaPark is the most popular site andattracted 81,208 visitors during1987, about eight per cent of whomwere foreigners (Nariño and SilvaAyala, 1988).

In Ecuador, tourism, togetherwith oil, coffee, fish and bananas,has been the most important foreignexchange earner since the mid1980s. It generates between US$ 133million and 260 million annually(Feprotur, 1990; Boo, 1990). About370,000 people, or 12 per cent of theeconomically active population, areemployed in the tourism business.Most visitors come to see parks andprotected areas (Boo, 1990). Theannual number of visitors to pro-tected areas in Ecuador increased toabout 250,000 at the beginning ofthe 1980s. The actual number ofvisitors might be considerably higherthan the statistics indicate, becausethe data are not always complete(Files Information Ministry ofAgriculture).

Ecuador's most popular site is theGalapagos Archipelago. Each year

60,000 to 125,000 people registeredand unregistered visitors spend anaverage of four to five days on andaround the islands. Direct revenue isas high as US$ 700,000 a year. Thepark's revenue helps to maintainEcuador's 14 other national parksand reserves, which together bring inonly US$ 40,000 a year (Lindberg,1991).

In Bolivia information onecotourism is scarce; the industry isnot as developed as it is in Ecuador.Most foreign tourism in Bolivia iscentred on walking, climbing andskiing in the mountains, and visitingLake Titicaca and cultural andhistorical sites. Ecotourism in thelowlands rain forests is less impor-tant, except for the Beni BiologicalStation.

In other Latin American coun-tries, such as Costa Rica and Guate-mala, ecotourism is a source ofconsiderable foreign exchange. InCosta Rica, tourism — which ispredominantly ecotourism — rankedsecond or third over the last fewyears as a source of foreign exchangeand is increasing at a rate of 20 percent annually (T. Budowski, pers.comm.). In 1989 tourism brought inalmost US$ 200 million in foreignexchange (de Groot, 1992). InGuatemala the 350,000 tourists whovisited there generated US$ 101.6million in 1987 (Heinzmann andReining, 1988).


Most of these statistics relate tonon-consumptive forms of tourism.Big-game hunting has not developedin the Amazon region because of thedifficulty in finding game and thelack of trophy species (Dourojeanni,1985). In the upper Amazon regionthe few game hunters look mainly forspectacled bears. Jaguars and pumasand, to a lesser extent, tapirs andpeccaries are hunted in the middleand lower regions.

Latin America does have atradition of bird hunting, however(Robinson and Redford, 1991) and itis a popular sport. Bird-huntingsafaris have been organised intoColombian Amazonia. There is verylittle implementation or enforce-ment of regulations for this huntingand information is scarce. About200,000 ducks were hunted for sportin Venezuela in 1979 and 1980(Fergusson Laguna, 1990).

Ecotourism can directly supportconservation; for example, by fund-ing park maintenance throughentrance fees. In many countries,however, its full potential has notyet been realized. It has been esti-mated that the annual income fromvisitor fees to Ecuador's GalapagosArchipelago may be increased from$US 0.7 million (1986 actual figure)to $US 26.7 million. This is basedon the same number of visitor daysbut a higher foreign visitor fee ($US770, up from $US 40). In CostaRica, income from visitor fees in

Manuel Antonia, Poas and Cahuitanational parks (290,000 vistors peryear) could increase from $US87,000 annually to as high as $US234,000. Experience in other coun-tries shows that when prices areincreased, the number of visitorsremains stable while revenue in-creases considerably (Lindberg,1991).

Much of the income generatedflows back to the central govern-ment, however, and is not necessar-ily used to maintain parks or relatedinfrastructure (Lindberg, 1991). Inorder to make parks less susceptibleto economic downturn, their incomeshould be earmarked for natureconservation.

Ecotourism can also bring indi-rect economic benefits. It stimulatesthe souvenir industry; a surveyrevealed that tourists arriving by airto Guatemala spent an average ofUS$ 82 each on handicrafts. InEcuador, Panama hats made of palmfibre are sold to tourists. An interest-ing development is taking place inCosta Rica, where Nature Shops(Tiendas de la Naturaleza) sellhandicrafts and non-timber productsto tourists (Fundacion Neotropica,1990) as a means of generatingincome and of creating awareness ofthe value of the forest.


Economic importance ofnon-timber forest products

Export and production

Information on national produc-tion is not complete enough to allowfor reasonable estimates or to com-pare the situations in differentcountries. Export data from the threecountries in this study reveals thatonly a few products comprise thebulk of the export volume and valuein each country. For Colombia, palmheart has recently become the mostimportant export commodity; forEcuador it is fibre products and forBolivia it is Brazil nut.

Other countries have similarexport patterns. Although no sys-tematic survey of data from othercountries has been made, somefigures from Peru, Brazil, Venezuela,Guatemala and Belize have beencollected (see appendix). The mainexport product in Peru is Brazil nut(Table 24). Harvesting totals aremuch higher than export totals,which suggests that there is a consid-erable internal consumption orillegal export (Table 24 and 25).Brazil has a large variety of productsregistered (Table 26), the mostimportant of which are Brazil nutand palm heart. Chicle and orna-mental plants are important exportproducts in Belize (Table 29) whilein Guatemala (Table 30) allspiceand xaté are important.

Table 22 summarizes export datafor 1985. In that year the total valueof registered exports amounted toUS$ 54,741,800 for the most impor-tant products. This figure only refersto officially registered exports. Table18 provides a conservative estimateof the total export value in 1990 ofnon-timber forest products forseveral countries. It is based onavailable data and trends and in-cludes estimates of non-registeredexports. There are remarkabledifferences in export values betweencountries, which could partially beexplained by inconsistent registra-tion of one or more marketableproducts. For the South Americanrainforests as a whole, palm heartand Brazil nut have the highestexport value (Table 22); theseproducts are discussed in more detailin Chapter 7.

In 1986, the value of the exportof non-timber products from Colom-bia was US$ 144,000, while the totalvalue of exports for all forest prod-ucts together was US$ 50 million(Motta Tello, 1988). This lowrelative value of non-timber forestproducts is probably the case inBolivia and Ecuador as well.

Fluctuations in export andproduction

There are large fluctuations inthe export pattern of many non-timber forest products. Products that


have recently shown an increase inproduction and export are palmheart, in several countries, and Brazilnut in Bolivia. The importance offibres is decreasing in Brazil. Certainfluctuations are difficult to explain,such as the peaks in the productionof piassaba fibre in 1977 and 1979(Tables 27a and b). Fluctuationscould be caused by changes on thesupply side, such as weather ordisease, or by factors on the demandside like world market prices, legisla-tion or fashion trends.

Patterns of production and exportare not necessarily the same. InBrazil the production of juice fromassai (Euterpe oleracea), for example,has increased enormously in the lastdecade, but does not seem to havebeen exported (Tables 27a and b).

The export patterns of quinineand several gum species are remark-ably similar. Production and exportincreased initially, in some casesrapidly, after the discovery of animportant product or application.

After some time, the monopoly ofthe wild product was broken by cul-tivated varieties, plantations wereestablished in other parts of theworld, and the countries of originwere not able to keep up with thesedevelopments. Depletion of a naturalresource may also lead to a decreasein production.

Profitable non-timber forestproduction does not always lead toproduction on plantations. Thereason for this can be biological: itmight be difficult to grow the pro-duct on plantations, as is the casewith Brazil nut; the production innatural stands is very high, as withpalm heart; or extraction fromnatural stands might be cheaper thaninvesting in plantations.

Furthermore, a country may wishto continue producing certainstrategic goods even if it could buythose same goods less expensively onthe world market. Such is the casewith rubber in Brazil and quinine inBolivia.


volume (tonnes)

balsam

palm heart

quinine

balata latex

gutapercha latex

1974

270.7

—

0.2

16.4

< 0.1

value (US$ 1,000 FOB)

balsam

tolu balsam

palm heart

quinine

balata latex

gutapercha latex

chicle

insects

total

222.3

—

—

4.2

22.5

0.6

—

—

249.6

Source: see Table 12b.

1975

3.9

—

0.4

0.7

—

128.7

—

—

11.3

0.7

—

—

—

140.7

1976

4.2

—

0.2

8.2

—

100.9

—

—

9.9

13.0

—

—

—

123.8

1977

6.8

830.0

0.2

8.8

—

157.9

—

878.6

13.2

8.8

—

—

—

1,058.5

1978

5.4

148.8

—

—

—

116.5

—

165.1

—

—

—

—

—

281.6

1979

1.8

—

—

—

—

50.3

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

50.3

1980

1.6

—

—

—

—

57.5

—

——

—

—

—

—

57.5

1981

1.2

—

—

—

—

50.5

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

50.5

1982

1.3

—

—

—

—

49.6

45.1

—

—

—

—

625.3

—

674.9

Table 12a. Export from Colombia: 1974-1982


Table 12b. Export from Colombia: 1983-1991

balsam

palm heart

quinine

balata latex

1983

1.2

—

—

—

gutapercha latex —


balsam

tolu balsam

palm heart

quinine

balata latex

43.3

43.3

—

—

—

gutapercha latex —

chicle

insects

total

216.3

—

259.6

1984

< 0.1

13.1

—

—

—

2.0

18.2

28.9

—

—

—

37.2

1.4

69.5

1985

1.2

—

—

—

—

45.2

36.5

—

—

—

—

19.3

70.9

135.4

1986

0.8

14.2

—

—

—

33.7

—

19.8

—

—

—

78.7

—

143.7

1987

0.7

111.6

—

—

—

36.5

0.7

202.5

—

—

—

55.3

—

294.3

1988

0.4

264.5

—

—

—

21.0

—

500.3

—

—

—

—

—

521.3

1989

0.1

748.5

—

—

—

5.5

—

1,455.6

—

—

—

—

—

1990

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

2,600.0

—

—

—

—

—

1,461.1 2,600.0

1991

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

*3,200.0

—

—

—

—

—

3,200.0

Sources: balsam, palm heart, quinine, balata latex, gutapercha latex: Delgado (1990); tolu balsam: RamirezPerdomo (1988). These data have not been included in the calculation of total export value. Palm heart (value):Delgado (1990) for 1977-1989; Rincon (1991) for 1990 and 1991. Rincon (1991) gives a much higher figure for1987(390.0) and much lower for 1989 (521.0); Ramirez Perdomo (1988) gives comparable figures for 1984,1986 and 1987. Chicle, insects: Ramirez Perdomo (1988); see further explanation in the text. *estimate

Table 13. Production for 1990: ColombiaNon-timber forest products from some departments of Colombia's National Forest Estate.

product

palm heart

yunce palm

yare palm/liana

piassaba fibre

rubber

quantity

66,400 cogollos1

4.2 tonnes

10.5 tonnes

509 tonnes

477 tonnes

department/region

Pacifico Medico

Llanos Orientalis

Llanos Orientalis

Llanos Orientalis

Amazonas, Putumayo, Vaupes and Guaviare

Source: INDERENA, except for rubber: Ministerio de Agricultura (1990), data for 1984.Notes: 1. A cogollo is the meristem of the palm, used as raw material for the production of palm heart; it is a poleabout one metre in length.


Table 14a. Volume, export of non-timber products: Ecuador

volume (tonnes)

palm heart

chicle, chewing gums

natural rubber1

other natural gums

toquilla and mocora fibre

totora fibre

articles of toquilla and mocora fibre

articles of totora fibre

bark of red quinine

bark of yellow quinine

bark of quinine, unspecified

condurango

tagua nuts and products

living animals, not for food

birds (mainly tanagers)

living ornamental fish

1981

—

194.7

—

4.1

0.8

2.0

235.4

—

1.0

90.1

—

25.0

1,109.5

0.9

—

—

1985

49.1

37.0

6.3

—

7 4

—

147.1

0.1

—

39.0

61.5

18.4

217.8

0.6

0.2

0.5

1990

603.4

1.1

—

—

7.5

—

268.7

—

—

—

—

8.0

678.8

0.4

—

29.4

Source/Note: see Table 14b.


Table 14b. Value, export of non-timber products: Ecuador


palm heart

chicle, chewing gums

natural rubber1

other natural gums

toquilla and mocora fibre

totora fibre

articles of toquilla and mocora fibre

articles of totora fibre

bark of red quinine

bark of yellow quinine

bark of quinine, unspecified

condurango

tagua nuts and products

living animals, not for food

birds (tanagers)

living ornamental fish

total

1981

—

323.8

—

5.6

9.0

2.0

8,246.7

0.7

0.8

100.4

—

—

350.3

4.2

1.2

0.5

9,065.1

1985

77.4

60.3

7.7

—

3.7

—

3,577.6

1.8

—

36.8

48.7

19.4

956.4

3.8

1.4

46.1

4,841.1

1990

932.8

2.3

—

–

7.7

—

7,871.5

—

——

—

4 2

4,047.7

74

—

—

12,875.8

Source (Tables 14a and b): Central Bank of Ecuador,Note: 1. This figure is 30 per cent of the total rubber export; about 70 per cent of natural rubber is beingharvested from plantations.


Table 15. Export of non-timber forest products: Bolivia

1980 1981

volume (1,000 tonnes)

Brazil nut

total

with shell

unshelled

rubber

total

bolache1

laminada2

sernanby3

quinine

palm heart(tinned)

6.01

1.60

4.41

1.65

0.69

0.69

0.27

0.18

—

2.11

1.50

0.61

2.16

0.33

1.54

0.29

0.02

—

value (US$ 1,000,000)

Brazil nut

total

with shell

unshelled

rubber total5

quinine

palm heart(tinned)

total

1.76

—

—

4.6

0.09

—

6.5

2.05

—

—

3.4

0.02

—

5.5

1982

1.04

0.80

0.24

1.04

0.14

0.80

0.10

0.71

—

1.29

—

—

4.1

0.12

—

5.8

1983

6.01

5.92

0.09

2.39

1.47

0.72

0.20

0.17

—

1.25

—

—

2.8

0.05

—

4.1

1984

6.17

5.87

0.31

1.44

0.27

0.90

0.27

0.03

—

1.91

—

—

0.8

0.01

—

2.7

1985

5.56

5.00

0.56

2.18

—

0.77

0.15

0.02

0.01

1.47

0.71

0.76

0.53

0.00

0.01

2.01

1986

10.46

9.20

1.26

2.77

0.60

*0.67

0.20

11.93

0.01

3.54

2.39

1.15

2.01

2.58

0.01

8.14

1987

6.69

4.51

2.18

1.97

12.15

*0.63

0.34

0.20

0.01

6.87

2.73

4.14

1.85

0.21

0.02

8.95

1988

4.97

2.91

2.06

2.43

—

—

—

—

0.03

5.63

0.91

4.72

2.25

—

0.05

7.93

1989

5.71

2.39

3.32

1.36

0.21

—

1.15

—

0.14

10.24

1.17

9.07

1.27

—

0.28

11.79

1990

8.42

1.68

6.74

1.22

—

—

—

—

0.25

15.19

1.11

14.08

1.44

—

0.50

17.13

Source: Instituto de Estadisticas (1989): data up to 1984 inclusive; data on specific rubber types up to 1987inclusive; Mendoza(1991): data from 1985 onward.Notes: 1. bolache = rubber balls; 2. laminada = flattened rubber; 3. sernanby = not dried with smoke but inopen air, of lesser value than bolache; 4. Figures up to 1984 inclusive seem to be based on export data of"Brazil nut with shell" only; 5. Figures up to 1984 inclusive based on other export volume than in this table,namely: 1980 2.7 x 1,000 tonnes; 1981 1.7 x 1,000 tonnes; 1982 2.5 x 1,000 tonnes; 1983 4.0 x 1,000 tonnes;1984 3.6 x 1,000 tonnes. These figures are derived from another table in the same source (Instituto deEstadisticas, 1989). * estimate


Table 16. Production of non-timber forest products, Bolivia

1980

volume (1,000 tonnes)

Brazil nut (total)

with shell

unshelled

rubber (total)

bolache1

laminada2

sernanby3

10.54

6.13

4.41

2.83

1.62

0.84

0.37

1981

3.76

3.15

0.61

4.09

2.25

1.54

0.30

1982

1.04

0.80

0.24

2.20

1.30

0.80

0.10

1983

22.11

5.93

16.18

2.71

1.77

0.74

0.20

1984

7.38

6.99

0.39

3.25

1.70

1.28

0.27

1985

5.99

5.61

0.38

3.71

2.50

1.06

0.15

1986

11.39

10.28

1.11

4.84

3.68

0.94

0.22

1987

15.83

12.63

3.20

41.70

40.49

0.87

0.34

*1988

14.27

8.97

5.30

29.98

28.69

0.81

0.48

consumption: 10 years X 370,000/year

registered export

died before export: 2 per registered individual

unregistered export: 1 per registered individual

total

3,700,000

339,080

678,160

339,080

5,056,320

Source: Instituto de Estadisticas (1989). For explanation of notes see Table 15. *estimate

Table 17. MonkeysEstimate of number of monkeys hunted around Iquitos 1964-1974.

Source; Castro (1977).

Table 18. Export valueEstimate of total export value of non-timber forest products in 1990,

Colombia

Ecuador

Bolivia

Peru

Brazil

export value (US$ 1,000)

4,000–4,500

13,000–15,000

20,000–25,000

10,000-12,000

50,000-55,000

Source: based on information in this report.


South America

Bolivia

Brazil

Colombia

Ecuador

French Guiana

Guyana

Peru

Surinam

Venezuela

Central America

Belize

Costa Rica

Guatemala

Honduras

Mexico

Nicaragua

Panama

El Salvador

Total

1982

56,340

27

260

3,648

0

26,693

39,303

1,984

67

13

47

87

6,501

7,042

100

184

877

143,173

1983

48,774

30

220

398

0

25,300

19,463

1,924

81

29

46

69

9,253

135

121

101

552

106,496

1984 1985

11,584

47

188

3,989

1

38,177

51,671

1,764

21

7

5

3,142

14,483

28

96

55

1,388

126,646

115

16

31

278

0

27,386

33,921

7,322

53

15

313

10,043

17,164

9

282

50

2,065

99,063

1986

17

75

30

62

0

30,324

16,997

8,737

9

41

4

3,628

14,769

227

1,827

54

16

76,817

1988

0

—

2

11

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

13

1989

0

—

0

3

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

3

Sources: Thomsen and Brautigam (1991); on the basis of CITES annual reports; 1988 and 1989: WorldConservation Monitoring Centre, also on the basis of CITES annual reports.

Table 19. Export of parrots and parakeetsPsittacine species (parrots, parakeets) exported from mainland neotropical countries

—


Table 20. CITES-reported exportWildlife and wildlife products in 1986, 1988 and 1989

Colombia

Ecuador

Bolivia

Costa Rica

El Salvador

Guatemala

Honduras

Mexico

Nicaragua

Panama

Brazil

Guyana

Peru

Surinam

Venezuela

live primates1

1986

2

—

361

0

—

30

1

3

13

—

20

5,305

311

120

4

1988

2,748

0

0

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1989

326

2

0

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1986

2

11

6,124

1

—

2

2

59

2

—

1

3

4

1

3

cat skins2

1988

0

0

0

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1989

0

0

0

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

reptile skins3

1986

0

—

97,922

1

70,000

0

4

5,211

113

123,120

16

52,333

2,852

—

79,563

1988

66,884

3

93,708

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1989

5,400

66

0

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Source: 1986: World Resources Institute (1991), based on data of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre;1988 and 1989: World Conservation Monitoring Centre.Notes: 1. includes all captive-bred and wild-caught specimens of non-human primate species;2. include skins of all species of Felidae (cats), excluding a small number of skins reported only by weight orlength; 3. include whole skins, reported by number, of all crocodiles and many commonly traded lizard andsnake species


Table 21. Registered exportLeather, skins and living animals from Latin American countries

leather

deer1

deer

white-tailed deer

manatee

collared peccary

white-lipped peccary

caiman lizard

sea turtle

caiman

caiman sclerops

crocodile

skins

giant otter

giant otter

river otter

jaguar

ocelot

jaguar

ocelot

margay

skins2

from

Ciudad Bolivar,Venezuela

Belém, Brazil

Costa Rica

Amazonas

Iquitos, Peru

Iquitos, Peru

Venezuela

Latin Americaand Caribbean5

Latin America

Colombia

South America

Peruvian andBrazilian Amazon

Iquitos, Peru

"

"

"

Nicaragua

"

"

Colombia

amount

1,100,000

54,000

832,000

19,000

2,013,006

848,364

278,046

455,000

3-4000/day

11,649,655

2,593,834

23,900

22,644

90,574

12,704

138,102

1,751

17,157

21,473

1,960,100

to (if known)

Europe and Japan

Europe and Japan

Japan

1930-1931

1951-1980

period

1856-1874

1898

1900-1950

1930s-1950s

1946-1966

1946-1966

1980-1985

1970-1986

1980-1984

1960-1969

1946-1966

1966-1971

1973

continued next page


skins (continued)

cats: mostly ocelotand some jaguars'

living animals

parrots

living animals2

primates

primates

primates4

carnivores4

reptiles4

batracios4

rodents4

tapirs4

edemata: ant eaters,sloths, armadillos4

birds

birds

birds

from

Venezuela

"

"

"

"

"

"

neotropics

Colombia

Iquitos, Peru

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

Peru

Bolivia

Bolivia

amount

3,8024,171

2,832

515

4,833

7,438

10

3

703,000

321,300

139,000

91,662

26,099

1,173

1,076

296

282

4

23

20,514

481

24,251

to (if known)

United States

United States

United States

United States

period

19681969

1970

1977

1978

1979

1985

1986

19814986

1973

1961-1965

1973

1971

1971

1971

1971

1971

1971

1971

1975

1970-1972

1979

Source: Redford and Robinson (1991), except for 1 to 5sNotes:1. Source: Fergusson Laguna (1990); 2. Source: Patiño (1980), based on information of Regional Statisticreports of INDERENA. It is assumed that the data are related to wildlife. It is unclear whether "export" meansfrom the administrative regions or from the country. 3. Sources: Fergusson Laguna (1990), quoting WorldResources Institute (1988); for 1986: World Resources Institute (1990). 4. Source: Moro (1977), presumably allliving animals. 5. Of which 75 % from Ecuador


Table 22. Exports, 1985Export of most important non-timber forest products from South American countries in 1985

product

palm heart

gums

fibres

tagua

Brazil nut

tara

babassu oil

barbatimao

total

country

ColombiaEcuadorBoliviaPeruBrazil

ColombiaEcuador

BoliviaBrazil

EcuadorBrazil

Ecuador

BoliviaPeruBrazil

Peru

Brazil

Brazil

volume (tonnes)

0.849.110.0

1257.25,136.0

n/a43.3

2,108.01,148.5

154.6383.0

217.8

5,506.01876.1

25,915.0

13,544.4

5,671.0

3,612.0

value (US$ 1,000)

19.877.410.0

1425.410,220.0

78.768.0

530.03,793.3

3,583.1475.0

956.4

1,470.011,598.725,155.011,207.0

4,258.0

816.0

54,741.8

Sources: based on other tables in this report.Notes: 1. data for 1981

Sustainable harvestingAchieving sustainable develop-

ment through the exploitation ofnon-timber forest products encom-passes three factors:•

•

•

ecological components, whichinclude the maintenance of theresource, the functioning of theecosystem and the biodiversity;economic components, whichinclude a positive cost-benefitbalance;social, cultural and politicalcomponents, which include thedistribution of benefits, organisa-tion of the exploitation, legalarrangements, etc.

Individual and communitylevel

Extraction of non-timber forestproducts interferes with severalprocesses:• the life cycle of individual organ-

isms: certain plant parts, such asleaves, can be harvested withoutdestruction of the complete plant;

•

•

•

the life cycle of populations ofplants and animals. Extraction ofother plant products, such asseeds and fruits, or of completeplants or animals, includes theremoval of a individual from thepopulation;food web relations and otherbiotic relations in the ecosystem;large scale and/or intensive har-vesting may also effect soil andwater conservation in the forest.

Appraising and measuringsustainability of these processesrequires different approaches.

Effects of harvesting on individualorganisms

Parts of the plant that can beharvested include fluids that arefunctional in the physiology of theplant, such as latexes and resins. Aswith the extraction of rubber (Heveaspp.) production can go on for yearswithout destroying the plant.


Sustainability may depend on subtlecharacteristics of the species in-volved, however, as is shown in thethe difference in extraction betweenhevea and Castilla (Chapter 5).Extraction may effect production offluids, biomass production, phenol-ogy, etc.

Other components that can beharvested are those that are func-tional in the physiology and mor-phology of the plant, such as bark,leaves and fibres. Regrowth of theseparts will take place as long as thephysiological functioning of theplants is not hampered.

Extraction of plant parts willhave an effect on the whole lifecycle of the plant; for example, itmight effect the production ofbiomass and seeds. The effect of theharvesting of leaves can be offset bycompensatory growth. The netbiomass production of the plant canincrease after extraction, providedthat the extraction level is modestand that the removal of the plantparts results in an increase of the netphotosynthesis of the whole plant.

Analysis of phenology and of car-bon and nutrient use by the differentplant components can provideinsight into the overall effect ofextraction. In general, a modestharvest of plant parts should affectneither the survival and functioningof the plant nor the population orecosystem.

Effects of harvesting on populations

Organisms can be harvested atdifferent phases in their life cycle:mature or immature individuals,flowers, seeds, fruits or eggs.Sustainability of extraction dependson the renewal of the resourcepopulation being unhindered.

In general, extraction interfereswith the population life cycle eitherat the beginning of the cycle (seedsor fruits) or at the level of matureindividuals. Stable populations havea more or less triangular age struc-ture; the number of younger indi-viduals is higher than the number ofmature ones. To maintain a stablepopulation, mature individuals haveto produce more offspring than theirown number, since young individualshave an ongoing chance of dyingand not all will reach maturity. Theactual number of seeds, fruits andeggs is indeed much larger than thenumber of mature individuals and itmight be assumed that there is asurplus of offspring to be harvested.In some cases, as with plants likeBrazil nut or tagua nut, harvestingcan be sustainable if enough seedsare left for natural regeneration.

Extraction of entire individualsdoes not automatically mean thatthe population size will decrease. Itwill affect the competition within aspecies. A decrease in competition,due, for example, to a lower densityof individuals, might stimulate the

Chapter 6: Sustainable harvesting Page 69

total population growth. The rate ofrejuvenation of the populationwould therefore be enhanced. Ex-traction of mature individuals fromthe population also means, however,a temporary decrease in the produc-tion of offspring. Therefore theremoval of a mature individual has asimilar effect to harvesting the off-spring itself. This is compounded bythe fact that the mature individualcould have gone on to produceadditional offspring.

In addition, harvesting a seg-ment of the population may influ-ence the process of natural selection.Animal populations may adapt tosome extent to hunting pressure; forexample, whales are known tomature and reproduce earlier whenpopulations are threatened.

Experience with measuring theeffect of harvesting on populationshas been very limited. Few investiga-tions have been carried out intropical forests (Hartshorn, 1989;Sarukhan, 1978); most have focusedon the effect of removing timbertrees. Development of populationmodels is underway, but refinementof these models is needed and theirapplicability has yet to be investi-gated (Usher, 1966 and 1969).

Effects of harvesting on theecosystem

Even if harvesting of non-timberforest products does not threaten the

products' populations themselves, itcan have an effect on the forest.Harvesting of products changes theavailability of certain food resourcesand affects functional processes inthe ecosystem. Food resources orprey can be affected because of theextraction of seeds or eggs or byhunting activities (Redford, 1992).

Competition between species canchange, and this in turn mightthreaten the biodiversity of theecosystem. In spite of the highspecies diversity of tropical rainfor-ests, there are many cases in whichindividual species play an irreplace-able role in the functioning of theecosystem. Some plant speciesprovide sustenance for animals inperiods of food shortage. The extrac-tion of keystone species — thosewhich play a vital role in the func-tioning of the ecosystem or in thesurvival of other species — can havea severe impact on the ecosystem(Terborgh, 1989).

An interesting aspect of inter-species competition for non-timberforest products has been noted byBeckerman (1977). Barí Indians eatOenocarpus and Jessenia palm seeds.The fruits are also eaten by birds,monkeys, peccaries and other ani-mals that the Barí hunt for food. TheBari are thus in competition withtheir prey animals for palm fruits.The competition is not without itsadvantages, because when fruit isscarce, both the Barí and the animals


are likely to converge on the sametrees, thus simplifying the location ofgame. The fact that seeds are col-lected by the Barí works to theiradvantage; the fewer trees there are,the more likely it is that animals andman will come to the same tree atthe same time.

Large mammals may also play animportant role in the form of seedpredation, seed dispersal and preda-tion of other animals. Their absencemight result in significant changes tothe forest ecosystem (Redford,1992).

It is difficult, however, to knowthe exact consequences of exploita-tion on ecological relationships.Competition within the ecosystemand the dynamics of this competi-tion due to extraction of productsare, as yet, poorly understood. Itmight be possible to describe andquantify these relations; it is muchmore complicated to simulate orpredict changes in the food selectionof a species, if the availability of itsfood resource were to decrease due toexploitation.

Large-scale removal of non-timber forest products might alsoaffect the abiotic environmentalfactors of the ecosystem. If the forestcanopy is opened by extractiveactivities, nutrients are removed thatmay also change the soil structure,hydrology and microclimate.

Extractive activities may alsoindirectly affect the ecosystem. Forexample, indiscriminate hunting

often accompanies other extractiveactivities. Extraction sometimespromotes the development of aninfrastructure and the colonisation ofnew areas, which may also have animpact on the ecosystem.

Management

Traditional management

The ecological effects of tradi-tional Amerindian agricultural andforestry are still poorly understood(Gómez-Pompa, 1987; Dufour, 1990)and it is still unclear whether tradi-tional use of rainforest resources issustainable. The population densityin the Amazonian forest has alwaysbeen low, although it may have beenhigher in the past than at present(Dufour, 1990).

In traditional systems agricultureand forestry are closely associatedand agricultural practices are adaptedto obtain high production within theenvironmental constraints of theforest ecosystem (Posey, 1985;Padoch 1984; Padoch and de Jong1989). Swidden agriculture as prac-tised by Amerindians, with shortcropping and long fallow, is consid-ered a relatively benign disturbanceand does not seriously impair thefunctioning of the ecosystem (Salda-rriaga and Uhl, 1990). Forest regen-eration during the fallow is consid-ered key to the sustainability ofswidden systems.


Amerindian forest management,through the selective removal ofsome trees and the protection andplanting of others, appears to have agreater impact on species diversitythan it does on forest regrowth inbiomass (Saldarriaga and Uhl, 1990).For example, the Tukano Indians inthe Vaupes region in Colombia openup one or two agricultural fields(chagra) every year, with a total sizeof 0.5 to 2 hectares. At any one timethere are chagras in different phases:one recently sown with annuals(biches), one producing yucca and anold growth fallow (barbecho) alongwith a variety of fruit-producing treesand medicinal plants (Dufour, 1990).

Old growth fallow remains in useby the Indians. Agricultural fieldsalso attract game animals, whichfeed on the crops. Uhl (1983) hassuggested that heavily managedsuccessions in areas like homegardens may grow to forest stature asfast or faster than natural ones.Recovery to primary forest in termsof biomass and species diversity maytake 100 years or more, however.

Traditional systems of resourceuse are generally small scale andhighly diverse and make use of subtledifferences in the forest environ-ment. Traditional forest-dwellers usea wide range of forest products andadapt their resource use strategiesaccording to differences in soil andhydrology and between seasons.

The Kayapó Indians in Brazil'sAmazon Basin divide their environ-ment into a series of ecologicalzones. Agricultural plots, streams,forest stands and trailsides may formsuch zones. Trailsides and campsitesare used for sowing certain species.Each zone is associated with a speci-fic set of plants and animals. Con-centrations of specific resourcescharacterize certain ecological zonesfor the Kayapó. These concentra-tions reduce the heterogeneity of theforest to "resource islands" that canbe periodically exploited for specificpurposes (Posey, 1985).

The Desana Indians in Colombiaalso distinguish ecological environ-ments, related at least in part todifferent animal groups. The Mayasalso seem to have had very specificand efficient forest managementtechniques (Barrera et al. 1977;Gómez-Pompa, 1987). Not onlyIndians but non-Indian settlers(caboclos), who have been living inthe forest for several generations,have developed a detailed knowledgeof their environment and recogniseup to ten different vertical zones inthe forest (Posey, 1985).

Sometimes specific protectionmeasures are part of traditionalstrategies for resource use and man-agement. The flooded forest (igapo)is an important feeding ground forfish; consequently, the Indians haveprotected it from deforestation. On


the other hand, there has beenlocalized depletion of products suchas cedar (Cedrela odorata) for canoes,palms for thatch and palm fruits(Vickers, 1988; Beckerman, 1977).

This depletion might be theresult of a shift from a nomadic to asedentary life style, as suggested byAnderson (1978). He notes that therate of palm exploitation by the tribehe studied was far lower than that ofmany other South American Indi-ans. He suggests that one of the rea-sons might be the scarcity of palmsin the vicinity of the village. It islikely that some species like moriche(Mauritia flexuosa) and Socrateaexorrhiza have been over-exploitedduring the relatively long period —at least 15 years — that the triberesided in a particular place. Thepractice of cutting down the palmsto obtain fruits and palm heart hasdefinitely contributed to its scarcity.This pressure might explain why theIndians were traditionally nomadic.

The effect of indigenous huntingand fishing practices is also difficultto determine (Dufour, 1990). Theonly long-term monitoring of theeffect of indigenous hunting onanimal densities has been withSiona-Secoya Indians in Ecuador(Vickers, 1988). This showed thatsome animals would become rarelocally while others would not. Ingeneral, it seems that certain speciesdo not occur in areas where therehas been no human interference.

Some species, like tapir, deer andpeccary, can reach higher densitiesin areas affected by human activity.

The effects on fishing are alsounclear. The use of fish poisons, suchas barbasco, may negatively affect thelocal fish populations, but the extentof this is not clear. The use of poi-sons was traditionally controlled bythe shaman (Reichel-Dolmatoff,1978) and restricted to small foreststreams that could be temporarilydammed. The effects of these poisonsappear to be temporary and highlylocalized (Dufour, 1990).

Commercial systems

Commercial rubber exploitationin Brazil was thought to be sustain-able, since many rainforest areas hadbeen occupied by rubber tappers forover 60 years. Some families hadbeen on the same holdings for 40 or50 years, with about 98 per cent ofeach holding remaining in naturalforest. The mixed economy of therubber tappers produces a surplus atthe seringal itself, apart from thesurplus obtained from the commer-cialization of latex. It does so with-out degrading the natural resourcebase. The effect of long-term occupa-tion of the forests on biodiversity isunclear, however (Schwartzman,1989).

In the case of the exploitation ofassai, a palm species dominant infloodplain forest (varzea forest), spe-


cific management activities enhancefruit production. The Ribereños useselective thinning of forest competi-tors — vines and trees used fortimber and firewood — and pruningof young juveniles and old adultstems to increase production(Anderson and Jardim, 1989;Anderson, 1990). A beverage isproduced from the pulp of the fruit.

Not all commercial non-timberforest products are harvested andmanaged sustainably, however. Inseveral regions of Amazonia duringthe 19th century, rapid depletion ofthe resources of commercial productsoccurred, such as several latex-producing species, quinine andpashaco (Dominguez and Gomez,1990; Coomes, 1991). Rosewood oilwas depleted after five years ofexploitation in the Peruvian Depart-ment of Loreto (Coomes, 1991).During this century some palmspecies were regionally over-ex-ploited even though non-destructiveharvesting methods were available(Vasquez and Gentry, 1989).Heinzman and Reining (1988) did apreliminary survey on what theytermed the reproductive health ofthe population of xaté. Their studytook place in Guatemala, whereharvesting pressure is high. Whenresults were compared with Mexicanstudies, where harvesting pressure islower, the preliminary conclusionwas that exploitation was unsustain-able because of the lower population

density and flowering intensity inharvested areas.

Furthermore, it has been sug-gested that several larger vertebratespecies have become ecologicallyextinct; that is, diminished to such alow density that they can not fulfiltheir role in the ecosystem. This isthought to be a result of commercialexploitation (Redford, 1992). Heavyexploitation pressure is not necessar-ily negative in terms of productivity,however, as Cornelius et al. (1991)showed. They compared the repro-duction rate of olive ridley sea turtlesat a protected site with the rate at anexploited site in Costa Rica. Thereproductive rate at the exploitedsite appeared to be slightly higher,mainly because of the absence oflarge predators.

The exploitation of babassu palmin the southern Amazonian region isa special case (May et al., 1985a and1985b). This palm is an exception-ally aggressive coloniser that cansurvive cutting and burning becauseof its method of germination. Aftergermination, the apical meristempushes itself into the ground where itremains protected until verticalgrowth commences several yearslater.

Cultivated lands that have beenabandoned can be recolonized byhigh density stands of babassu. Indense babassu stands, shifting culti-vators thin rather than clear-cut themature palms. This allows sufficient


light for cultivation of crops whileassuring the production of forestresources during the subsequentfallow.

In the wetter portions of thebabassu zone, formerly cultivatedsites are being converted to im-proved pastures at an acceleratingrate. This pasture conversion, to-gether with the recent technologyfor industrial breaking and separa-tion of babassu fruits, threatens thesubsistence benefit of babassu (Mayet al.,1985a and 1985b).

Economic factors

The economic feasibility of theexploitation of non-timber forestproducts depends on the relationbetween supply and demand and theavailability of alternatives. It hasbeen suggested that a large quantityof new rainforest products can bemarketed in western markets (Clay,1992).

This, however, seems to be overlyoptimistic; an international markethas only been secured for a relativelylow number of non-timber forestproducts. The international marketdemands a regular and reliablesupply, which might be culturallyand biologically problematic. Inorder to ensure a regular supply ofhigh-quality products, infrastructure,including transport, storage andprocessing facilities, needs to be setup and capital, knowledge and

technology have to be made avail-able (Harvard Institute for Interna-tional Development, 1988).

In Colombia, Ecuador and Bo-livia, government programmes existor are being developed to increasethe exploitation of non-timberproducts. If extraction of productsappears to be profitable there willalways be the tendency to domesti-cate these products, with agricultureand agro-forestry displacingextractivism.

This is illustrated by the case ofchicle from Guatemala, used to makechewing gum and for a variety ofmedicinal purposes (Heinzman andReining, 1988). The demand forGuatemalan chicle is low due toseveral factors:• subsidized Brazilian chicle;• a highly variable external market

(the raw material can only bestored for a few months); and

• a lack of consistent quality.

Natural chicle must also competewith synthetic substitutes which,though of lower quality, taste andconsistency, are uniform and free ofimpurities.

Making profitable extractivesystems conform to sustainablemanagement regimes might makethem less profitable in the shortterm. On the other hand, by imple-menting some kind of resourceaccounting (see Chapter 4) sustain-able extraction of non-timber forest


products might become more profit-able than other types of land use.

Often the comparison of profit-ability of various types of land usetakes place in a distorted market. Ithas been argued, for example, thatthe major flaw of the extractivereserves system in Brazil is the pricesubsidy that protects traditionalmethods of domestic natural rubberproduction. The subsidy is in fact atax paid by industry on importedrubber, which protects Brazilianrubber producers from lower worldmarket prices (Schwartzman, 1989).Considerable income is generatedthrough this tax, however. Therubber subsidy is relatively minor incomparison to subsidies to othersectors, such as cattle ranching, thatcompete for land in the Amazon.Furthermore, the exploitation ofrubber from plantations may alsoreceive financial support. For exam-ple, major rubber exporting countrieslike Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailandand Cameroon received World Banksupport in the 1970s to developrubber production.

The exploitation of non-timberforest products can provide signifi-cant employment and economicactivity at regional and local levels.Harvesting, for example, is labourintensive. The regional economicimportance of non-timber forestproducts is illustrated by the case ofbabassu. The fruit of the babassupalm is of great importance to the

economy of the southeastern Amazo-nian region in Brazil. In addition togenerating income from the sale ofkernels or entire fruits to regionalindustries, babassu fruits are animportant source of food and fuel forrural families. According to oneestimate at least 450,000 familiesthroughout Brazil harvest babassufruits for extraction and sale ofkernels (May et al., 1985a). Anotherexample is the xaté industry inGuatemala, which provides employ-ment for 8,000 individuals(Heinzman and Reining, 1988).

Social, cultural and politicalcomponents

An important aspect of sustain-ability is whether extraction of non-timber forest products will combinewith or compete with other eco-nomic activities of people living inthe forest. Exploitation of non-timber forest products can contributesubstantially to the income of ruralpeople (Panayotou, 1991b) and issometimes the only source of cash.The fact that many people areinvolved in the exploitation of non-timber forest products demonstratesits value, especially to those withoutan alternative way of earning alivelihood. Sustainable developmentmeans, however, that extractiveactivities require a certain degree ofstability and independence; stabilityin revenue from products and in


guarantees for land use, and inde-pendence in the control over the useof the resource. These conditions areoften lacking.

Socio'economic relations

Often, but not always, the extrac-tion of non-timber forest productsforms only a part of the economy ofrural people and is complemented byagriculture and livestock. Non-timber products are often the onlysource of cash income, however, as isthe case with rubber tappers in Bra-zil. The economy of the autonomousrubber tappers is based on a combi-nation of subsistence and marketgoods. The basic unit is a family or agroup of families. Household subsist-ence is generated from small-scaleagriculture and livestock, as well ashunting, fishing and gathering. Cashincome is generated from rubber,Brazil nuts — up to 50 per cent ofcash income — and babassu fruits.Extractive activities involve seasonalwork and complement other eco-nomic activities carried out by ruralhouseholds (May et a l , 1985a).Local processing of non-timber forestproducts often consists of no morethan drying, packing or tinning, andgenerally requires relatively littlecapital input. In some cases, techni-cal improvement of harvesting andprocessing is also possible with smallamounts of capital. Handicraftsinvolve the use of several products

that require a low capital input butare labour-intensive.

Furthermore, extractive econo-mies are often characterized byrevenue from exploitation not beingevenly distributed among the peoplewho harvest the products and thosewho are involved in transport,processing and sale. Transport andtrade are carried out by the samepeople; they also have harvestingrights or concessions and somecapital, or are able to borrow money.Harvesters are dependent on thetraders for transport.

Traditionally, the rubber tapperslived in a seringal. This consisted ofthe depot or headquarters of thepatron (barracão) and the holdingsor residence of the rubber tappers(colocacões). Although rubber tap-pers are generally no longer tied to asingle patron for all transactions asunder the traditional debt peonagesystems, many rubber tappers are stillin debt to intermediaries who ad-vance goods and cash against futurerubber production. Rubber tappersand other extractivists live somedistance from each other, so organis-ing them is difficult. Health care andeducational facilities are expensiveand almost non-existent (Fearnside,1989).

This system of dependency anddebt continues on the world market.International trade in palm heartand Brazil nuts is controlled by a fewbrokers.


Heinzman and Reining (1988)investigated the distribution ofincome derived from the extractionof palm leaves in Guatemala anddiscovered the following:•

•

•

46-73 per cent of the gross ben-efits go to the 8000 harvesters;12-28 per cent went to the 120intermediaries; and11-36 per cent went to the sevenexporters in Guatemala.

In 1984 in Colombia the follow-ing prices were reported for the rootsof ipecacuanha or raicilla:•

•

•

for the producer, US$ 20 perkilogram;for the intermediary, US$ 25 perkilogram; andfor the exporter, US$ 50 perkilogram.

There is also an enormous differ-ence in the price paid to the hunterfor captured birds and the price thatis paid abroad (Table 23). The pricepaid for monkeys in the UnitedStates is six to 13 times the pricepaid in the country of origin(Quevedo, 1977; Castro, 1977).

Culture

Extraction of non-timber forestproducts is part of the culture andtradition of various groups and thereare cultural differences in the exploi-tation of these products. Rodriguezand van der Hammen (1991), in

their study of the use of a river in theColombian Amazon region, noticedifferent perceptions of the environ-ment on the part of recent colonistsand Indians. This might partlyexplain the different exploitationsystems between the two groups.Colonists use the river for commer-cial extraction of large fishes andturtles, while the Indians use it onlyto catch small fish for subsistence.For the colonists it is essentiallyunoccupied territory: a source ofresources.

The Indians see the river space aspart of the shamanistic territory,where every section has its owner.Forest management practices areregulated by symbolic models, rulesand restrictions, which are laid downin the cosmology of the Indiancommunity. The shaman plays acentral role in this system by defin-ing the obligations and rights ofgroups within a community. Thesymbolic models represent relationswith the environment and naturalresources (Walschburger and vonHildebrand, 1988). The sections thatare being used for fishing, hunting,gathering, agriculture and living arewell defined and are used accordingto patterns of annual events, climaticchanges, hydrology, and fruiting ofcrops and wild fruits (Rodriquez andvan der Hammen, 1990).

Important animal species havespecific places in the cosmology thatdefine their uses. The tapir, for


example, is a representative from theancestors within the cosmology ofcertain Indian groups; consequentlyits use is restricted. The Desana ofColombia have a system that estab-lishes rules of compatibility, of whatmay be eaten, how, when and bywhom. These prescriptions andrestrictions form the foundation ofan important network of behavioralrules (Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1989).Morales (1991) describes aspects of asimilar system for Colombia's CunaIndians.

Legislation and government policy

Management laws

Exploitation regulations arebasically the same for Colombia,Ecuador and Bolivia. They compriselaws for natural resources, forestryand/or wildlife (INDERENA, 1977;Program Nacional Forestal, 1981;Centro Desarallo Forestal, 1975a en1975b). Permits are needed forexploitation of non-timber forestproducts and require that the re-source is maintained, whether it is inplantations or natural forest. InBolivia the exploitation of bark forquinine is regulated by a separatelaw, because it is considered astrategic product. In general, thereare different rules for subsistence useand for commercial exploitation. Atax has to be paid for the right tocommercially exploit non-timber

forest products. In Bolivia thederecho de monte, or wildland right,ranges from one per cent (Brazil nut)to ten per cent (palm heart) of thevalue of the product. There is unre-stricted subsistence exploitation (conla finalidad de atender las necesidades)of edible forest fruits and of medici-nal products used for home purposes.In Ecuador permits are required forsubsistence use but no tax is im-posed. The Ecuadorian governmentdefines subsistence use as occurring ifthe product is not removed from thecanton (pers. comm. Valencio).

Application of laws is a con-straint. The government depart-ments responsible are weak and haveinsufficient money, staff and knowl-edge to execute and enforce laws andregulations. In addition, taxes fromexploitation of non-timber forestproducts are not being collected orapplied to forest management(Vasquez and Gentry, 1989). InEcuador, for example, permission isrequired for exploitation of non-timber forest products from theNational Forest Estate, but only twoout of 21 provinces have enforcedthis rule (pers. comm. Troncoso).

Although technically, hunting ispermitted only with a licence, inEcuador in 1987, only three indi-viduals obtained licences out of anestimated total of one millionhunters (Freiherr von Fürstenberg,1987). It is therefore no exaggerationto state that hunting regulations are


widely ignored. In Ecuador, fishingwith toxic material or explosives isprohibited, but dynamiting andpoisoning are common practices(Freiherr von Fürstenberg, 1987).

Land tenure

The history of the extraction ofthe bark of quinine is a typicalexample of the problems inherent inharvesting open access resources(Hardin, 1968). Extracting quininebark always gave rise to a dilemma:choosing between felling the treeand taking the bark of the standingtree (Dominguez and Gomez, 1991).Partially harvesting the bark andcovering the cuts with mosses, whichprevents infectious diseases, carriedthe risk that other harvesters wouldtake the bark that was left, or cut thetree down. Because of this risk,sustainable activities that wereeconomically feasible were notcarried out and the tree populationwas over-exploited.

Experiences with other products,such as latexes, suggest that a seden-tary exploitation system with clearlydefined land tenure might result inbetter management practices thansystems that are not bound to onearea.

Agricultural land reform pro-grammes and land title programmesexist in almost all Latin Americancountries. Their object is to redis-tribute land to landless people or to

those with small farms. Such pro-grammes focus mainly on agriculturalactivities but, with some modifica-tions, could be applied to extractivesystems. An important disadvantageof some systems is the fact that thegranting title and fiscal incentivesare linked to the clearing of forestland for agricultural use.

In classifying public land, specificcategories may be defined for the useof natural resources, including non-timber forest products. In Ecuador,for example, a Reserve for FaunisticProduction may be established foreconomic use of wildlife. The areacan be used for excursions for hunt-ing or photography, hunting orcapturing wildlife for meat, skins,living animals and other products.The legislation includes regulationsfor improved control of the managedwildlife population. Cuayabeno is atpresent the only area in this category(Freiherr von Fürstenberg, 1987).Ecuador also has proposed areas forhunting and fishing, with the objec-tive of maintaining, promoting andharvesting wildlife for sports andrecreation. To date no areas havebeen set aside.

In trying to combine rights toexploit non-timber forest productswith the establishment of land useregulations, a third approach togranting legal status to extractivetypes of land use is the recognition ofspecial rights for traditional commu-nities. Indigenous communities in


Ecuador have the exclusive right toharvest products other than timberand wildlife on their own land.Similar rights are applied in thecommunal reserves in Peru (Pinedo-Vasquez et a l , 1990) and Brazil(Anderson, 1990) and in the indig-enous reserves (resquardas indigenas)in Colombia (Ruiz et al., 1993).

All these systems have elementssimilar to the Extractive Reserves ofBrazil (see Chapter 1). As far as isknown, however, Brazil is the onlycountry in Latin America wherethere is an active government policyon establishing extractive reserves.

Table 23. Export of parrotsEstimated income from parrot species exported from neotropical countries

region and year

South America

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

total number

236,743

243,788

256,022

268,007

256,079

Central America and Mexico

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

14,851

10,306

19,204

29,941

20,566

estimated minimum gross income (US$)

trapper1

5,894,900

6,070,321

6,374,948

6,673,374

6,376,118

369,790

256,619

478,180

745,531

512,093

intermediary2

19,924,291

20,517,198

21,546,812

22,555,469

21,550,767

1,249,860

867,353

1,616,209

2,519,835

1,730,835

retailer3

284,965,181

293,445,178

303,171,121

322,597,345

308,227,694

17,876,000

12,405,229

23,115,663

36,039,682

24,816,787

Source: Thomsen and Bräutigam 1991,Notes:12.3.

N=7N=25N=61

$X = 24,9$X = 84.16$X = 1,203.7

$ range = 2.5-65.0$ range = 5.0-650.0$ range = 37.5-9,000.0

N = 61 species represents a total sample of 310 prices for 61 species; when more than one price was found fora species, an average was used.

Brazil nut and palm heartBrazil nut

Ecology

The Brazil nut tree (Bertholletiaexcelsa) can be found all over theAmazon basin and the Guianas onwell-drained soils in areas with anannual rainfall between 1400 and2800 millimetres (Salhuana Sanchez,1973). Balée (1988) considers atleast part of the Brazil nut forests ashaving been affected by humanactivities; pre-Colombian activitiesmay have influenced their distribu-tion (Müller, 1980). Kayapo Indiansin Brazil plant Brazil nuts as a sourceof food for themselves and for thegame they hunt (Posey, 1985). Innatural forests the tree density ofBrazil nut is variable and mayamount to 15 to 20 trees per hectare(Salhuana Sanchez, 1973). Treesmay occur in clusters of up to 100.Studies in Bolivia indicate thatapproximately 1.5 to 5 mature treesper hectare is most common (vanRijsoort et al. 1993). In natural

forests the tree starts to fruit after 10years. On plantations this can beshortened to five or even 3.5 years(Müller, 1982).

The establishment of Brazil nutin the forest depends on its germina-tion and growth requirements. Thenumber of seeds that will germinatemay be low because of the compli-cated process that liberates the seedfrom the pod (UFA, unpublisheddata). About ten to 21 seeds areenclosed in a strong hard pod thatdrops between November to Febru-ary. Seeds are released from the podby animals, especially agoutis, or bydecay.

There have been no specific stu-dies on seed dispersal of Brazil nut,but studies on the seeds of Gustaviasuperba, which also belongs to thefamily of Lecythidaceae, showed thatagoutis remove and bury significantnumbers of seeds (Forget, 1992).After burying, it takes six to 18months before the seeds germinate(Müller, 1980).


Dehydration inhibits germination(Müller, 1982); therefore, germina-tion is most successful in the dampforest understorey and is also helpedif the shells are removed or gnawedby animals (Zonta and Llanque,1987). Light is required for growth tomaturity (van Rijsoort et al., 1993);the tree is defined as a light-depend-ent gap specialist (Mori and Prance,1990). Preliminary data suggest that,in secondary forest, more naturalregeneration — that is, more plantsof different sizes, and life stages —can be found than in primary forest(van Rijsoort et al., 1993).

Brazil nuts are produced almostexclusively from the natural forest.Plantations have had limited successand there are none in mainstreamproduction. There are no significantplantations in Bolivia.

The low production on planta-tions is thought to be a result of theBrazil nut's complicated pollinationbiology. Although it has beensuggested that the flowers can onlybe pollinated by large species of bees(Euglossine and carpenter bees),more recent evidence seems todispute this (Nelson et al., 1985;Kitamura and Müller, 1984; Moriand Prance, 1990). Soil and climatemay also influence production.

Economy

The Brazil nut has long been usedas a source of food by Indian groups

(Boom, 1987; Mori and Prance,1990). Seeds are eaten roasted or rawor oil is extracted from them. Agri-cultural fields are often cultivated inthe vicinity of Brazil nut trees. Inthis way, people can collect nutswith minimal effort.

The marketing of Brazil nuts onlybecame important after the voyagesof Von Humboldt and Bonpland inthe 18th century. Regular extractionstarted at the beginning of thiscentury (Patiño, 1980; Tables 25 and26). The main use of nuts is confec-tionary; the oil is also used for cos-metics, soap and aviation lubricant.Brazil nut oil is being produced inPeru (Department of Madre deDios), Bolivia (almost exclusivelyfrom the Department of Pando) andBrazil. It is now one of the most im-portant non-timber exports from theBolivian and Brazilian rainforests.

The main export of Brazil nut(INPEX, 1990) is to:• the United States and the United

Kingdom (40 per cent each);• Australia (eight per cent); and• Germany (two per cent).

The world export value of nuts ingeneral has been increasing since thebeginning of the 1980s. The Brazilnut has 1.5 per cent of this worldmarket, for a value of about US$ 30million per year.

The extraction of Brazil nutsshows sudden and extreme fluctua-tions, as does the world market price.

Chapter 7: Brazil nut and palm heart Page 83

Brazil nuts are often used in mixturesand are easily replaceable. In the lastfive to ten years the production ofBrazil nuts increased dramatically. In1990 the price per kilo was US$ 1;this was inexpensive compared toother nuts, but that year supply out-stripped demand. As a result worldmarket prices declined and someprocessing plants had difficulties.

Until very recently, Brazil was themain producing and exporting coun-try. Bolivia was the second largestproducer although its officiallyregistered annual production andexport volumes during the 1980sfluctuated a great deal (Table 15).Biological factors may have affectedthese levels; in addition, nuts mayhave been kept in stock when priceswere low.

The actual level of production inPando was estimated to be muchhigher than the registered amount.There weren't enough processingplants in Pando; many of the nutswere therefore exported unregisteredto Brazil and, to a lesser extent, Peru.In recent years, Bolivia's importanceas an exporter of processed nuts hasincreased at the expense of Brazil.Production in Brazil has decreaseddue to deforestation, while in Boliviaprocessing capacity has increased.Bolivia became the main exporter in1991 and export values continue toincrease. The main production cen-tres in Bolivia are Riberalta, throughwhich 60 per cent of the tradepasses, and Cojiba. About 8,000

seasonal workers and around 600permanent workers are employed inthe industry there (Driest, pers.comm.).

The extraction system in Pando,Bolivia

The Pando region was colonizedfor rubber extraction between 1894and 1915 (Lopez, 1991). The collec-tion areas are mostly large legalconcessions, at the centre of which isthe barraca. This is the house of theowner (barranquero), which issurrounded by a storage base, a fewhuts for the workers and a football-ground. From the barraca, paths leadto sub-centres for collection, a fewinvolving travel of some days. Fromthe sub-centres paths (estradas) leadto the trees. An estrada is the basicunit for the production of rubber; abarraca consists of many estradas.Alternately, in areas where familiesof independent rubber tappers orBrazil nut collectors have obtainedlegal title to the land, they own oneor a few estradas.

Extraction is largely based on thetraditional extraction system ofrubber tapping (see Chapter 5).Formerly, rubber and Brazil nut wereextracted in a combined system:rubber could be harvested during aneight- or nine-month period, and therubber trees were able to recoverduring the three or four months thatBrazil nut was harvested.


Little rubber is being tapped sincethe collapse of rubber prices in themid 1980s. People left the region tolook for work in places like Riber-alta. During Brazil nut harvestingthey return to the forest. Nuts areharvested from the end of October tothe end of January. They have to becollected quickly to prevent waterfrom entering the pods through thehole in the pericarp. In Peru harvest-ers first turn the pods upside down sothat water cannot enter; they returnlater to collect the seeds.

The pods are cut open and theseeds are collected in the forest.They are temporarily stored at thebarraca, transported to the processingplant by river and stored again in theplant. Usually the nuts are shelledmanually in large processing plants(beneficiadores), where children,elderly people and temporary labour-ers can make some money. One thirdof the legally exported nuts areshelled. Most processing takes placein Riberalta, which has over tenplants. It is the single most impor-tant business in Riberalta.

Traditionally the barranqueroswere key to the economy of theextraction system. They owned thelegal concessions and processingplants. The collectors are dependenton loans from the barranquero fortheir income. Loans are paid off inBrazil nuts. Barranqueros also sellprovisions at the barraca at pricesmuch higher than in Riberalta and

other towns. Workers are often indebt to the barranquero, similarly tothe situation in timber and rubberexploitation (Ros-Tonen, 1992;Schwartzman, 1989). Brazil nutcollectors receive only a smallproportion of the overall profit. Thefollowing breakdown applies to theprice paid for Brazil nuts leavingBolivia:•

•

•

•

about 67 per cent is destined forthe processing plant;15 per cent goes to post-process-ing transport;nine per cent goes to collectors inthe forest; andnine per cent goes to transportfrom the forest to the plant(Mendoza, 1988).

Production is still concentrated ina few hands (Emmi, 1988), althoughland reforms have changed thissituation slightly. Ormachea andFernandez (1986) studied ownershipof Brazil nut production. They madea distinction between two types ofeconomic units. Barracas are ownedby barranqueros, who employ peopleto harvest the estradas; while infamily units, family members harvestone or a few estradas. In 1984 theyfound that 75 per cent of the tradi-tional estradas in Pando were stillpart of barracas, which made up 52per cent of the total number ofeconomic units (barracas and familyunits). A few very large barracasexist: 31 per cent of the estradas


belong to 1.3 per cent of the eco-nomic units.

Where road access exists thepercentage of small family units ishigher. Transport by road to theprocessing plant is easier and cheaperthan by river, making it easier for theworkers to organise themselves andwork more independently. A similarsituation can be seen in the extrac-tive reserves in Brazil.

The wood of Brazil nut trees isutilized as well, although laws inBrazil and Bolivia favour the long-term benefits of nut extraction overthe short-term benefits of timberexploitation. It is forbidden to cutdown Brazil nut trees, althoughwhen the forest around the trees isdestroyed, nut production diminishesand the tree will then be cut.

Sustainable harvesting

For decades, Brazil nuts havebeen harvested in large quantitiesfrom the Bolivian rainforest. Thehuman population density is stillvery low; deforestation is limited toabout one to two per cent and isconfined to small agricultural plotsor chacos (Alexander, 1989). WhenBrazil nut is not being harvested,people harvest rubber, work on theirchaco, maintain the barracas or workin the processing plants in Riberalta.

The existing land use seems to besustainable, although two factorsmight change this:

•

•

Pressure on the land and subse-quent deforestation may increasethrough migration. Two groupsmigrate into the sparsely-popu-lated Pando: Bolivians from otherregions and illegal Brazilians (upto 25 families per day). Deforesta-tion on the Brazilian side of theborder is already much higherthan in Bolivia. Bolivianbarranqueros are also convertingforest into pasture for cattleranching.Pando's potential production ofBrazil nuts is much higher thanexisting production. The poten-tial production has been esti-mated at 35,000 to 40,000 tonnesper year, roughly twice as high asexisting production (Alexander,1989). Yet, market prospects areuncertain: some say that theglobal market is saturated andthat the production of Brazil nutsis too high; others claim that newinitiatives by The Body Shop andother retailers promise an in-crease in demand.

Natural generation of the Brazilnut tree seems to be limited inexploited areas; an increase inhuman exploitation may worsen this(van Rijsoort, et al., 1993). Harvest-ing Brazil nuts involves removingthe seeds. It might be expected thatthe extraction of Brazil nuts from theforest would not affect the ecosys-tem, since the tree produces a lot of


seeds and trees in general produce asurplus of seeds (Chapter 7). Thegermination process of the Brazil nutis complicated, however, and innatural conditions only a few willgerminate. If most of the seeds areextracted, the number of seedsavailable for germination will de-crease.

Exploitation is accompanied byhunting of agoutis. These animalsopen the pods and consume theseeds; by opening the pods, theagoutis allow the remaining seeds togerminate. A decrease in the numberof agoutis and in the availability ofseeds for germination due to humanexploitation may hinder naturalregeneration. Extraction activitiescould possibly increase the amountof liberated seeds, however, if peoplewho collect the seeds also open thepods and leave some nuts on theforest floor (van Rijsoort et al.,1993). Unfortunately, there is notenough information available tocompare the situation with that atan unexploited site.

Extraction can affect food rela-tions within the forest as well aspopulation densities of trees. Col-lecting the nuts also means removingfood resources from animals that feedon these nuts. Although only a fewspecies feed on Brazil nuts, thesespecies may be directly affected byhuman extraction.

The ecosystem will be indirectlyaffected by extraction activities as

well. Collectors also participate inagricultural and other extractiveactivities, which have been in-creased by the infrastructure devel-oped for Brazil nut collection. Untilnow, agriculture has not presented aserious threat to the ecosystem, butthat may change.

One option for improved man-agement of Brazil nut exploitation isenrichment planting in the forestadjacent to the communities andstill within the natural forest. In thisway, extraction can be concentratedin these areas, the infrastructure isused more efficiently and the pres-sure on the more remote forest canbe kept low.

The sustainability of the exploita-tion system also depends on thesocio-economic status of the harvest-ers. There are several ways to im-prove their standard of living:•

•

•

•

development of small scaleagriculture near the communities;involving the collectors inprocessing in the factories;improving wages and workingconditions; andstimulating other extractiveactivities, such as rubber tapping,small scale timber exploitation,handicraft, ecotourism, etc.

As a result of this study, researchprojects have evolved to developmanagement plans for multiple useof the forest. One study will focus onthe current socio-economic status of


several groups of collectors of Brazilnut in the Amazon region. It willstudy their income and debt as wellas other dependency relations. It willmake recommendations about theorganisation of the productionsystem of Brazil nuts as well asagricultural activities that are eco-nomically feasible.

Additional knowledge about thegermination and growth of Brazil nutis needed for estimating the maxi-mum number of seeds that can beharvested in the long term and forrecommendations about enrichmentplanting. A research program wasdeveloped by the University of Beniin Riberalta (UFA), Utrecht Univer-sity and the Netherlands Committeefor IUCN. This program will becarried out in the forest in northeastBolivia.

The program will develop apopulation transition model tosimulate and calculate populationgrowth rates in the long term. Basicknowledge about the populationbiology and ecology of the specieswill be collected. It will includepopulation structure in relation toforest structure, seed production anddispersion, and germination andestablishment of the species.

These studies will be accompa-nied by experiments with enrich-ment activities in the natural forest.The findings will be incorporated inthe forest management plan.

Palm heart

Ecology

Palm heart is produced fromseveral palm species, such as peachpalm (Bactris gasipeas, pejibaye orchontaduro), Astrocaryum jauani ormurumuru, but the main sources areseveral species from the genusEuterpe: E. edulis, E. cuatrecasanaand E. oleracea (Delgado, 1990;Arce, pers. comm; Mendoza, 1991).

An important producing region isthe Chocó, a bio-geographical areaalong Colombia's Pacific coast andseparate from the Amazon region.The Chocó is thought to be one ofthe areas of exceptionally high butthreatened biodiversity (Myers,1988a). Palm heart exploitation inthe Chocó is concentrated in theDepartment of Nariño in southwestColombia. E. cuatrecasana, locallyknown as ruddí, and E. edulis arebeing exploited.

The natural vegetation of theChocó is determined by its locationwest of the Andes, isolated from theAmazon and Orinoco catchments.This vegetation varies from theseashore to the foothills according torainfall, hydrology — influence oftide, salinity and inundation — andsoil types. Naidizales, the vegetationtype in which naidí is dominant,occurs in intermediate situations.The soils of the naidizales are inun-


dated periodically or almost perma-nently. Naidí can tolerate some saltyinfluence but does not mix withmangrove species in the outermostseashore lines. It is a pioneer speciesand can quickly colonize new areasin the highly dynamic system inwhich it lives: currents of rivers areconstantly changing, taking landaway and creating new land.

The total area of naidizal has beenestimated at around 90,000 to100,000 hectares (Arbelaez, 1991),including secondary and mixedstands: naidí can be found in associa-tion with several other tree species(known as guandales and natales).Although the density of palms inmonostands can be very high —more than 60,000 palms per hectare(Arbelaez, 1991) — there can alsobe high biodiversity. Herb speciesseem to grow especially well underthe palm vegetation.

Naidi is a clonal species, whichmeans that one plant or genet hasseveral shoots or ramets of differentages. After one or more ramets arecut, the genet produces new rametswith the support of the existing ones.Regeneration can be either genera-tive (seeds) or vegetative (ramets).Fruiting can take place twice a year.One sprout may produce six clusterswith around 2,000 fruits each (Arbe-laez, 1991). In contrast, exploitationof palm heart from E. edulis kills theindividual plant, which has only onestem. Due to over-exploitation, this

species is almost extinct in the southand southeast of Brazil.

Economy

Palm heart is exploited in Brazil,Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador,Colombia and Central America.Large-scale commercial productionstarted only a few decades ago but isincreasing rapidly. Exploitation isprone to the same fluctuations asother non-timber forest products,like rubber and Brazil nuts. Prices forthe collectors have decreased dra-matically during the last few years.

The first export of naidí fromColombia was registered in 1977. Inthe following year the governmentrestricted exports until more infor-mation was available about itsrational exploitation. From 1984 to1986 exports were not significant.Between 1977 and 1987, Colombia'saverage annual export earnings frompalm heart were US$ 202,500.Export volume and value haveincreased rapidly since then. Palmheart is Colombia's most importantnon-timber forest product.

In 1991 there were seven canningfactories in Colombia, six of whichwere exporting. The exploitation ofpalm heart has generated direct orindirect employment for about 1,000workers. Annual production capacityis 2,210 tonnes, 50 per cent of whichis utilized.


The extraction system in Nariño,Colombia

Harvesting of palm heart iscarried out by people who live in theregion. The workers sell the rawmaterial (cogollos) on the riverside tointermediaries or to representativesof the processing company. Thefactory can also employ workers onits own concessions. The people arenot involved full time in harvestingbut instead combine it with agricul-ture and other activities. Thenaidizales are used by inhabitants forfishing and hunting and the fruits ofnaidí are consumed locally. Theexploitation of naidí is by far themost important economic activity,however, having surpassed timberexploitation in the 1970s (CONIF,1990).

There are different phases in theexploitation of palm heart (CONIF,1990):••

•

selecting palms to be harvested;"liberation thinning" of rametswhich are not valuable and whichhinder the workers in cuttingharvestable ramets;cutting the ramets, and cuttingand peeling the harvestable partof the ramet. The actual palmheart is the meristem of the palm,situated in the top of the rametand protected by the leaf-sheaths.The resulting raw material(cogolb) is a pole about one metrelong and several centimetres in

•

•

diameter. Different techniques forcutting are used: in some placesone or two large ramets are left inthe genet to enable them to setfruit. In other places all themature stems are cut;transport of the cogollos to theriverside, often with the use ofcanoes; andtransport to the processing plant,peeling the remaining leaf stemsand tinning.

Tinning takes place in the regionitself. Transport to the tinningfactory is by boat and most harvestareas are within one day of thefactory. Transport is still the mainreason for loss of production, becausecogollos can only remain untinned fora few days and the collecting boatdoes not always pass frequentlyenough to prevent them from spoil-ing. Losses of up to one third of theharvest have been reported.

Without any management plan orrestrictions, the area will be ex-hausted within several years. Theregional development cooperation(Corponariño), the local governmentand the federation of palm heartprocessing industries realise that inthe long run, development andnature conservation will be threat-ened if no restrictions are put inplace. Establishment of plantations isnot likely, as natural stands producenearly the same amount as planta-tions.


Sustainable harvesting

Production of palm heart fromruddi is important for the economicdevelopment of the region. naidí isan export product that can beprocessed in the area where it isgrown and harvested. This meansthat some added value remains inthe region. Naidí's clonal growthsuggests that reproduction andregrowth after harvesting can be veryefficient.

The naidizales are being threat-ened by conversion to agriculturalland and, even more, by over-exploitation. It has been estimatedthat about 40 per cent of the originalarea of naidizal has been severelydisturbed and only 24 per cent hasbeen disturbed slightly or not at all(CONIF, 1990).

The exploiting companies andlocal authorities have noticed adecrease of available raw material. Intheory, the companies have topresent management plans beforethey can obtain a concession, butthese plans are quite cursory. Thereis a lack of knowledge about thestate of the naidizales from which thecompanies collect cogollos along therivers. Non-compliance with the lawis not restricted to Nariño. In Ecua-dor, for example, the actual exportvolumes often exceed the quota setby the Central Bank. In 1990 thenational annual allowable cut ofpalm heart was 9.8 tonnes, compared

with an actual registered export of593 tonnes (Table 14).

There are two directions forfuture exploitation: rationalsilvicultural exploitation of naturalstands of naidí and planting ofE. oleracea (Rincón, pers. comm.).Because of a lack of information,industry has not yet decided whichstrategy will be better. The body incharge of management of naturalresources, Corponarino, is developinga land-use plan for the region.Corponarino recognized the value ofcertain areas for the protection ofbiodiversity and established somenature reserves in which extractionis prohibited. Land tenure is stillunclear in the region and has to besettled as part of a land-use plan. Forthe exploitable areas, managementplans are required and are beingdeveloped in cooperation with theindustry and with specialized institu-tions like CONIF.

In developing these managementplans, industry is conducting someapplied research on the growth ofthe species and on the effect offertilization. The local government,Corponarino and CONIF invitedUtrecht University to develop andexecute a joint research programwhich can contribute to the techni-cal and social-economic organisationof production.

In order to develop a model foroptimum production, more informa-tion is needed about the growth


characteristics of naidi. There is littleknowledge about the growth orregrowth habits of this clonal spe-cies. The layered position of theramets within the total genet indi-cates that there is no continuouslength growth or continuous sprout-ing of ramets. The species has aphalanx strategy; that is, rametssprout and grow in "cohorts" close tothe genet. Due to this clonal growthit can be hypothesised that harvest-ing of sprouts from the clone willenhance the net biomass production.

New sprouts are supported by theolder ones, but it is not clear to whatextend this integration within onegenet is developed at a physiologicallevel. This is important for theselection of the harvestable ramets.It is supposed that an optimum ratefor the maximum net biomassproduction and thus the harvestlevel exists between the amount ofharvested ramets and those that areleft. As a result of the physicalstructure of the genet, light climateeffects growth and resprouting.

Conclusions and recommendationsThere is a growing interest in the

commercial exploitation of non-timber forest products from rainfor-ests among forest-dwellers and policymakers. This interest arises from theneed to develop strategies to con-serve the rainforest and from grow-ing recognition of the traditionalrights of forest-dwellers.

Extractive reserves

Brazil and Peru are the only LatinAmerica countries that have legalmechanisms to preserve rainforestareas specifically for the exploitationof non-timber forest products. Theextractive reserves in Brazil wereestablished to safeguard rubberresources and combine the objectivesof conservation and development.The sustainability of the extractionof non-timber forest products inthese reserves has not been evalu-ated, however.

Value of non-timber products

Non-timber forest products haveboth a subsistence value and amarket value. The subsistence valueis especially important to peoplewithout many cash resources, sincethe products are often available freeof charge.

Animals are an important sourceof protein, while plants provideconstruction material and medicine.Non-timber products also haveimportant cultural uses. In addition,commercial exploitation generatescash income at local, national andinternational levels.

The main products from Colom-bia, Ecuador and Bolivia in theinternational market are palm heart,Brazil nut, tagua, palm fibres andgum. Bolivia and Ecuador havehigher total export values thanColombia.

Many products are used forsubsistence but not marketed com-mercially. The reasons for lack ofmarket development include lack of

Chapter 8: Conclusions and recommendations Page 93

infrastructure, limited technology,lack of access to markets and unfa-miliarity with products on the part ofconsumers.

The commercial exploitation ofnon-timber products must be stimu-lated by creating new markets forexisting products and by improvingmarket structures and facilities.

Assessing value

The usual method of valuingnon-timber forest products does notinclude their total worth but repre-sents only their monetary value. Asustainable extraction system alsoenhances other forest values, such ascultural values.

The long-term benefits of sustain-able extraction should be consideredwhen placing a value on non-timberproducts. Maintaining the forest isachieved more easily through sus-tainable exploitation than by othertypes of land use.

Ecotourism

Ecotourism can generate consid-erable income, both locally andnationally. Its full economic poten-tial has not yet been realized in LatinAmerica. Income from ecotourismcan be increased by creating newfacilities and increasing fees forexisting facilities, and should be usedfor conservation and development.

Other land use

The exploitation of non-timberforest products can be the mostprofitable use of the rainforest. Rain-forests are still being converted toagricultural land; however, for thefollowing reasons:•

•

•

newcomers clear land for agricul-ture because they have limitedknowledge of sustainable landuse;land title, credit and fiscal poli-cies often favour clearing land;andshort-term income from otherland uses is generally higher.

Brazil nut and palm heart

Although in theory, the exploita-tion of non-timber products can bemanaged in a sustainable way, inpractice, resources have often beenover-exploited. Over-exploitation ispartly related to the type of lives ledby local residents; generally, themore sedentary the life, the betterthe management. There has stillbeen considerable forest destructionin some extractive reserves in Brazil,however, even with inhabitantsliving sedentary lives.

There is not enough informationabout sustainability, even for impor-tant products like Brazil nut andpalm heart. Brazil nuts have beenharvested for many years, althoughexploitation has intensified in the


last few decades. Models for popula-tion growth and dynamics have beendeveloped for tropical tree species,but these types of studies have notyet been applied to Brazil nut.

The effects of intensive exploita-tion will only be fully understood inthe long term. It is known thatincreased harvest levels limit regen-eration; furthermore, exploitationgenerates secondary activities such ashunting. Harvesters of non-timberproducts often carry guns and hunton their way to and from the har-vesting area.

In southwest Colombia, extrac-tion of palm heart is carried out in adestructive way and resources willsoon be depleted. This is an areawith a high but poorly-understoodbiodiversity; there is limited infor-mation about growth, effects ofcutting and the ecosystem. Thedevelopment of management plans isstill in the initial planning stage.

It is necessary to establish maxi-mum sustainable harvest levels inorder to develop sustainable exploi-tation systems. This must include anevaluation of the effects of harvest-ing on individuals, on other speciesand on the ecosystem in general.Management plans must be devel-oped that utilize this knowledge.

Socio-economics

The exploitation of Brazil nuts innorthern Bolivia and palm heart in

Colombia is important to regionaleconomies. The export value ofthese products has increased rapidlysince 1985 and there are plans tofurther increase production. Exploi-tation systems are unstable andsocially inequitable for the followingreasons:•

•

•

people in the field often workunder a debt peonage system andare financially dependent onconcession owners;working conditions are harsh andwages in the processing plants arelow; andhealth care and education areoften lacking in remote areas.

Improving harvesters' socio-economic situation can be achievedby granting them land tenure, and byimproving facilities for transport,processing and marketing. Govern-ments can contribute by developingmanagement guidelines and promot-ing health care and education.

Domestication

Often, extractive products with acommercial value are domesticatedand grown on plantations, as is thecase with rubber and quinine. This isnot always possible, however, for thefollowing reasons:• in some cases, as with rubber in

certain regions and with Brazilnut, domestication is technicallydifficult or impossible;

Chapter 8: Conclusions and recommendations Page 95

• it is not profitable (as is the casewith plants such as palms, whichoccur in monostands) or the highinvestments necessary do notoutweigh the advantages of lowlabour costs.

It may be appropriate to developan intermediate strategy. For exam-ple, enrichment planting can bebeneficial and still be an appropriateconservation step.

Conservation and development

Total protection can be, incertain cases, an appropriate strategyto conserve biodiversity. Given the

current situation and conflictingclaims on forest resources, however,it is unlikely that enough forest landwill be set aside. The sustainableextraction of non-timber forestproducts seems to offer a viablealternative for certain areas, provid-ing it is well managed and generatesadequate income. Sustainableextraction can save habitat, contrib-ute to production and maintainforest function.

Land use plans must be devel-oped. These should include managedareas, like buffer zones, to allow forsustainable exploitation. Enrichmentactivities may enhance the viabilityof these extractive areas.


Endnotes

1. Ecotourism has been defined as: "That segment of tourism that involvestravelling to relatively undisturbed natural areas with the specific object ofadmiring, studying, and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals,as well as any existing cultural features (both past and present) found in theseareas" (Ceballos-Lascuraín, 1992). There is no strict distinction betweentraditional tourism and ecotourism (Ziffer, 1989), either in definition or in theway tourists behave. People visiting nature parks also want to spend some timeat the beach or visiting cultural institutions. Scientific activities might beincluded as well. Scientific field stations can generate considerable income forthe maintenance of natural areas.

2. The objective of Protected Areas in category VIII is defined as: "to providefor the sustained production of water, timber, wildlife, pasture and outdoorrecreation, with the conservation of nature primarily oriented to the support ofeconomic activities (although specific zones may be designed within theseareas to achieve specific conservation objectives)".

References Page 97

Acero Duarte, L. E. (1979). Principales plantas utiles de la Amazona Colombiana.PRORADAM, Bogotá, Colombia.

Alarcon Gallegos, R. (1988). Etnobotanica de los Quichuas de la AmazoniaEcuatoriana. Miscelanea Antropologica Ecuatoriana, Serie Monografica 7.Museos del Banco Central del Ecuador, Guayaquil, Ecuador

Alcorn, J. B. (1984). Huastec Mayan ethnobotany. University of Texas Press,Austin, USA,

Alexander (1989), quoted in: van Rijsoort, et al. (1993). The Brazil nut tree(Bertholletia excelsa): population structures in tropical rain forest and growthresponse of seedlings to different light intensities. Internal report, UtrechtUniversity.

Allegretti, M. H. (1990). Extractive reserves: an alternative for reconcilingdevelopment and environmental conservation in Amazonia. In: Anderson, A.P. (ed). Alternatives to deforestation: Steps towards a sustainable use of the Amazonrainforest. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 252-263.

Allegretti, M. H. and S. Schwartzman (1987). Extractive Reserves: A sustainabledevelopment alternative for Amazonia. WWF-US, Washington D.C. (ProjectUS-478.)

Almeida, M. W. B. (1990). Community Involvement in Forest Management: Thecase of the Upper Jurua Reserve. WWF International, Denpasar, Indonesia(Workshop on community involvement in forest management, 15 May 1990).

Anderson, A. B. (1978). The names and uses of palms among a tribe ofYanomami indians. Principes 22 (1), 30-41.

Anderson, A. B. (1990). Extraction and forest management by rural inhabit-ants in the Amazon estuary. In: Anderson, A. P. (ed). Alternatives to Deforesta-tion: Steps towards a sustainable use of the Amazon rainforest. Columbia Univer-sity Press, New York, pp. 65-85.

Anderson, A. B. and M. A. G. Jardim (1989). Costs and benefits of floodplainforest management by rural inhabitants in the Amazon estuary: a case study ofAcai palm production. In: Browder, J. O. (ed.). Fragile Lands of Latin America:Strategies for sustainable development. Westview Press, Boulder, USA, pp. 114-129.

Antunez de Mayalo, K. K. (1989). Peruvian natural dye plants. EconomicBotany 43 (2), pp. 181-191.

Arbelaez, S. (1991). Informe de aprovechamiento del palmito. San Isidro, Colom-bia.


Ayala Flores, F. (1984). Notes on some medicinal and poisonous plants ofAmazonian Peru. Advances in Economic Botany 1, pp. 1-8.

Ayensu, E. S. (1983). The healing plants. Unasylva 35 (140), pp. 2-6.

Balée, W. (1988). Indigenous adaptation to Amazonian palm forests. Principes32 (2), pp. 47-54.

Balick, M. J. (1984). Ethnobotany of palms in the Neotropics. Advances inEconomic Botany 1, pp. 9-23.

Balick, M. J. (1985). Useful plants of Amazonia: A resource of global impor-tance. In: Prance, G. T. and T. E. Lovejoy (eds). Key Environments: Amazonia.Oxford, UK, pp. 339-368.

Balick, M. J. (1986). Systematics and economic botany of the Oenocarpus-Jessenia (Palmae) complex. Advances in Economic Botany 3, pp. 1-140.

Barfod, A. (1989). The rise and fall of vegetable ivory. Principes 33 (4), pp.181-190.

Barfod, A. and H. Balslev (1988). The use of palms by the Cayapas andCoaiqueres on the coastal plain of Ecuador. Principes 32 (1), pp. 29-42.

Barrera, A., A. Gomez-Pompa and C. Vazquez-Yanes (1977). El manejo de lasselvas por los Mayas: sus implicaciones silvicolas y agricolas. Biotica 2 (2), pp.47-61.

Beckerman, S. (1977). The use of palms by the Bari Indians of the MaracaiboBasin. Principes 21 (3), pp. 143-154.

de Beer, J. H. and J. M. McDermott (1989). The economic value of non-timberforest products in Southeast Asia. Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Amster-dam, The Netherlands.

Bennett, B. C. (1990). Useful plants of Amazonian Ecuador. Institute of Eco-nomic Botany. New York Botanical Garden, New York, USA.

van den Berg, M. E. (1984), Ver-o-Peso: The Ethnobotany of an Amazonianmarket. Advances in Economic Botany 1, pp. 140-149.

Berlin, B. (1984). Contributions of native american collectors to theethnobotany of the neotropics. Advances in Economic Botany 1, pp. 24-33.

Bird, C. (1991). Medicines from the rainforest. New Scientist 1782, pp. 34-39.

Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls. Vol. I and II. WorldWildlife Fund, Baltimore, USA.

References Page 99

Boom, B. M. (1986). The Chacobo Indians and their palms. Principes 30 (2),pp. 63-70.

Boom, B. M. (1987). Ethnobotany of the Chacobo Indians, Beni, Bolivia.Advances in Economic Botany 4, pp. 1-68.

Boster, J. S. (1984). Classification, cultivation and selection of aguarunacultivars of Manihot esculenta (Euphorbiaceae). Advances in Economic Botany 1,pp. 34-47.

Browder, J. O. (1992). The limits of extractivism, tropical forest strategiesbeyond extractive reserves. BioScience 42 (3), pp. 174-182.

Campos-Rozo, C. (1987). Aspectos etnozoologicos relacionados con la actividad dela caza de los indigenas Ticuna, San Martin de Amacayaca (Amazonas). Departa-mento de Biologia, Pontifica Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia.

Cardenas-Martin (1969). Manual de las plantas económicas de Bolivia. Ichtus,Cochabamba, Bolivia.

Castro, N. R. (1977). Lincamientos para la conservacion de primates en elPeru. In: Organización Panamericana de la salud and Organización mundial dela salud (eds). Primera conferencia interamericana sobre la conservación yutilización de primates americanos no humanos en las investigaciones biomedicas.Lima, Peru, pp. 228-247.

CDC-Bolivia et al. (1988). Diagnostico de la diversidad biologica de Bolivia.Informe preparado para AID-Bolivia. Centro de Datos para la Conservación,La Paz, Bolivia.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1992). Ecotourism, what it is and how it differs fromother kinds of tourism. Paper presented to the IV World Congress on NationalParks and Protected Areas, 10-21 February 1992, Caracas, Venezuela.

Centro de Desarrollo Forestal (ed). (1975a). Ley de vida Silvestre, parquesnacionales, caza y pesca. Ministerio de Asuntos Campesinos y Agropecuarios,La Paz, Bolivia.

Centro de Desarrollo Forestal (ed). (1975b). Ley General Forestal de la Naciónand Reglamento. Ministerio de Asuntos Campesinos Agropecuarios, La Paz,Bolivia.

Clay, J. (1992). Building and supplying markets for non-wood tropical forestproducts. In: Friends of the Earth (ed). The Rainforest Harvest. Friends of theEarth, London. pp. 250-255.


Cohn, J. P. (1989). Iguana conservation and economic development. Bio-Science 39 (6), pp. 359-363.

CONIF (ed). (1990). Perfil proyecto investigación aplicada para el aprove-chamiento y manejo del Naidi (Euterpe cuatrecasana). Bogotá, Colombia.

Coomes, O. T. (1991). Rain forest extraction, agroforestry, and biodiversityloss: an environmental history from the Northeastern Peruvian Amazon. Paperpresented to the XVI International Congress of the Latin American StudiesAssociation, Washington D.C, USA, pp. 1-28.

Cornelius, S. E., M. A. Ulloa, J. C. Castro, M. Mata del Valle and D. C.Robinson (1991). Management of Olive Ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelysolivacea) nesting at Playas Nancite and Ostional, Costa Rica. In: Robinson, J.G. and K. H. Redford (eds). Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation. Univer-sity of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA, pp. 111-135.

Davis, E. W. and J. A. Yost (1983). The Ethnomedicine of the Waorani of theAmazonian Ecuador. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 9 (2 and 3).

Delgado, A. (1990). Posibilidades comerciales de nuevos productos del bosque.Informe final. Etapa I: Plan de Acción Forestal para Colombia. DepartamentoNacional de Planeación, Bogotá, Colombia.

Denevan, W. M. (1976). The aboriginal population of Amazonia. In:Denevan, W, M. (ed). The Native Population of the Americas in 1492. Univer-sity of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. pp. 205-235.

Departemento Nacional de Planeación (ed). (1990). Plan de Acción Forestalpara Colombia: Executive summary. Bogotá, Colombia.

Dirección General Forestal y de Fauna (ed). (1990). Compendio de estadisticasde forestal y fauna 1980-1989. Ministerio de Agricultura, Lima, Peru.

Dirección General Forestal y Fauna (ed). (1982). Peru forestal. Ministerio deAgricultura, Lima, Peru.

Dominguez, C. and A. Gomez (1990). La economia extractivista en la Amazoniacolombiana 1850-1930. COA-Tropenbos, Bogotá, Colombia.

Dourojeanni, M. J. (1985). Over-exploited and under-used animals in theAmazon region. In: Prance, G. T. and T. E. Lovejoy (eds). Key Environments:Amazonia. Oxford, UK, pp. 419-433.

Dufour, D. L. (1990). Use of tropical rainforests by native Amazonians. Bio-Science 40 (9), pp. 652-659.

References Page 101

DVL/OS (1991). A World of Difference: Anew framework for developmentcooperation in the 1990s. DVL/OS, The Hague.

Eisner, R. (1991). Botanists ply trade in tropics, seeking plant-basedmedicinals. The Scientist 5 (12), pp. 4-5, 25.

Elisabetsky, E. and D. Salvio-Nunes (1990). Ethnopharmacology and its rolein third world countries. Ambio 19 (8), pp. 419-421.

Emmi, M. (1988). A Oligarquia do Tocantins e o dominio dos castanhais. Centrode filosofia e ciencias humanas/NAEA/UFPA, Belem, Brazil.

Falconer, J. (1990). The Major Significance of "Minor" Forest Products: The localuse and value of forests in the West African humid forest zone. Community forestrynote, 6. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Farnsworth, N. R. (1988). Screening plants for new medicines. In: Wilson, E.O. (ed). Biodiversity. Washington D.C, pp. 83-97.

Faust, F. X. (1988). Etnobotanica de Purace - Colombia: Busqueda de sistemasclasificatorios funcionales.

Fearnside, P. M. (1989). Extractive reserves in Brazilian Amazonia. BioScience39 (6), pp. 387-393.

FEPROTUR (ed). (1990). Primero seminario de turismo orientado a la naturaleza.Resumen de conferencias y foros. Quito, Ecuador.

Fergusson Laguna, A. (1990). Eí aprovechamiento de la fauna silvestre en Ven-ezuela. (Cuadernos Lagoven.) Caracas, Venezuela.

Figueroa S. S. (1983). Importancia y conservación de la vida silvestre ecuatoriana.Ministerio de agricultura y ganaderia. Programa nacional forestal, Quito,Ecuador.

Forget, P. (1992). Seed removal and seed fate in Gustavia superba(Lecythidaceae). Biotropica 24 (3), pp. 408-414.

Franquemont, C. et al. (1990). The Ethnobotany of Chinchero, an Andeancommunity in southern Peru. Fieldiana (Botany, new series 24) pp. 1-125.

Freiherr von Fürstenberg, P. (1987). Situación actual de la pesca deportiva en larepublica del Ecuador y recomendaciones acerca del manejo cinegetico de la faunasilvestre en la region andina. Informe tecnico. Quito, Ecuador.

Fundación Neotropica (1990). Tiendas de la naturaleza: Integrandocomunidades a la conservacion del ambiente. Boletin de la FundacionNeotropica, pp. 11-12.


Gilbert, A., O. Kuik and J. Arntzen (1990). Natural Resource Accounting.Institute for Environmental Studies, Free University, Amsterdam.

Godoy, R and R. Lubowski (1992). How Much is the Forest Worth? Guide-lines for the Economic Valuation of Non-timber Tropical Forest Products.Current Anthropology.

Gomez-Pompa, A. (1987). On Maya Silviculture. Mexican Studies 3 (1),pp. 1-17.

Gradwohl, J. and R. Greenberg (1988). Saving the Tropical Forests. Earthscan,London, UK.

Grenard, P., C. Moretti and H. Jacquemin (1987). Pharmacopees traditionellesen Guyane Creoles Palikur Wayapi. Orstom, Paris.

de Groot, R. S. (1992). Functions of Nature. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen,the Netherlands.

Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162, pp. 1243-1248.

Hartshorn, G. S. (1989). Gap-phase dynamics and tropical tree species rich-ness. In: Holm-Nielsen, L. B., I. C. Nielsen and H. Balslev (eds). TropicalForests: Botanical dynamics, speciation and diversity. Academic Press, HarcourtBrace Jovanovich Publishers, London, pp. 65-73.

Harvard Institute for International Development (1988). The case for multiple-use management of tropical hardwood forests. A study prepared for the Interna-tional Tropical Timber Organization. Cambridge, Massachussets, USA.

Hazlett, D. L. (1986). Ethnobotanical observations from Cabecar and Guaymisettlements in Central America. Economic Botany 40 (3), pp. 339-352.

Hecht, S. and A. Cockburn (1989). The Fate of the Forest. Verso, London, UK.

Heinzman, R. M. and C. C. S. Reining (1988). Sustained Rural Development:Extractive forest reserves in the northern Peten of Guatemala. USAID, Guatemala.

Heinzman, R. M. and C. C. S. Reining (1989). Non-timber forest products inBelize and their role in a biosphere reserve model. Institute of Economic Botany,New York.

Heyde, H. (1985). Geneeskrachtige planten in Suriname en hun toepassing.Paramaribo, Suriname.

Hildebrand, P. von, C. Saenz, M. C. Penuela and C. Caro (1988). Biologiareproductiva y manejo de la tortuga charapa (Podecnemis expansa) en el bajorio Caqueta. Colombia Amazonica 3 (1), pp. 89-112.

References Page 103

INDERENA (ed). (1977). Decreto ley No. 2811 de 1974 y decreto 622 de 1977del sistema de parques nacionales. INDERENA, Bogotá, Colombia.

INDERENA (ed). (1990). Estado de avance de la zoocria en Colombia: Informegeneral. Division de Fauna Terrestre, Bogotá, Colombia.

INPEX (ed). (1990). Mercado Internacional de la castaña. INPEX, La Paz,Bolivia.

Instituto de Estadisticas (ed). (1989). Estadisticas de Bolivia. La Paz, Bolivia.

Jaeger (1992). Krokodilleleer of boetekleed, de strafrechtelijke handhaving van dewetgeving betreffende de handel in bedreigde dieren en planten in Nederland.Centrale Wetenschapswinkel, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Johnson, D.V. (1982). Commercial palm products of Brazil. Principes 26 (3),pp. 141-143.

Johnson, D.V. (1987). Palms as multipurpose cash and subsistence tree crops.Multipurpose tree species for small farm use (Workshop proceedings), Thailand.

Kann, F. and K. Mejia (1987). Notes on the biology, ecology and use of a smallAmazonian palm, Lepidocaryum tessmannii. Principes 31 (1), pp. 14-19.

Kitamura and Müller (1984). Castanhais nativos de Marabá-PA: Factores dedepredaçao e bases para a sua preservaçao. EMBRAPA, Centro de PesquisasAgropecuário do Trópico Umido. Documentos 30: pp. 1-32.

Lentz, D. L. (1986). Ethnobotany of the Jicaque of Honduras. Economic Botany40 (2), pp. 210-219.

Levingston, R. and R. Zamora (1983). Medicine trees of the tropics. Unasylva35 (140), pp. 7-10.

Lewis, W. H. and M. P. F. Elvin-Lewis (1984). Plants and dental care amongthe Jivaro of the upper Amazon basin. Advances in Economic Botany 1,pp. 53-61.

Lindberg, P. (1991). Economic Policies for Maximizing Income from Ecotourism.World Resources Institute, New York.

Lopez (1991). Amazonia Boliviana. La Paz, Bolivia.

Luna, L. E. (1984a). The healing practices of a Peruvian shaman. Journal ofEthnopharmacology 11, pp. 123-133.

Luna, L. E. (1984b). The concept of plants as teachers among four mestizoshamans of Iquitos, Northeastern Peru. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 11, pp.135-156.


Maries, R. J., D. A. Neill and N. R. Farnworth (1988). A Contribution to theEthnopharmacology of the Lowland Quichua people of Amazonian Ecuador.Revista de la academia Colombiana de Ciencias exactas, fisicas y naturales 16 (63),pp. 111420.

May, P. H., A. B. Anderson, M. J. Balick and J. M. F. Frazao (1985a). Subsist-ence benefits from the Babassu palm (Orbignya martiana). Economic Botany 39(2), pp. 113429.

May, P. H., A. B. Anderson, J. M. F. Frazao and M. J. Balick (1985b). Babassupalm in the agroforestry systems in Brazil's mid-north region. Martinus Nijhoff / W.Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 275-295.

McNeely, J. (1988). Economics and Biodiversity: Developing and using economicincentives to conserve biological resources. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Mello, J. F. de (1980). Plants in traditional medicine in Brazil. Journal ofEthnopharmacology 2, pp. 49-55.

Mendoza, A. (1991). Mercado y cultivación de productos no maderables enBolivia. Unpublished manuscript. Plan de Acción Forestal, La Paz, Bolivia.

Ministerio de Agricultura (ed). (1990). Diagnostico del caucho en Colombia.Bogotá, Colombia.

Morales (1991). Etno-ecologia de los Indigenas Cuna. Unpublished manu-script, Bogotá, Colombia.

Mori, S. A. and G. T. Prance (1990). Taxonomy, ecology, and economicbotany of the Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa Humb. and Bonpl: Lecythidaceae).Advances in Economic Botany 8, pp. 130-150.

Moro, M (1977). Los primates no humanos como fuente de recursos naturales.In: Organización Panamericana de la salud and Organización mundial de lasalud (eds). Primera conferencia interamericana sobre la conservación y utilizaciónde primates americanos no humanos en las investigaciones biomedicas. Lima, Peru,pp. 217-228.

Motta Tello, M. T. (1988). Plan indicitavo industria forestal (Proyecto 9):Diagnostico general. Vol. 1: Informe final. Plan de acción Forestal para Colom-bia, Departemento Nacional de Planeación, Bogotá, Colombia.

Müller, I. A. et al. (1980). Castanha-do-Brasil; estudos agronómicos.EMBRAPA, Centro de Pesquisas Agropecuárias do Tropico Umido.Miscelánea 2: pp. 1-15.

References Page 105

Müller, C. H. (1982). Quebra de dormencia da semente e enxertóa en Castanha-do'Brasil EMBRAPA-CPATU, pp 6-21, Belém, Brasil.

Munasinghe, M. (1992). Economic and policy issues in natural habitats andprotected areas. Paper prepared for the World Parks Congress, organized byIUCN, Caracas, 10-21 February 1992.

Myers, N. (1982). Homo insectivorus. Science Digest 90 (5), pp. 14-15.

Myers, N. (1988a). Threatened biotas: "Hotspots" in tropical forests. Environ-mentalist 8 (3), pp. 1-20.

Myers, N. (1988b). Tropical forests: much more than a stock of woods. Journalof Tropical Ecology 4, pp. 209-221.

Nariño, M. R. and M. Silva Ayala (1988). Informe pasantia recepción yhabitaciones, "Parque Nacional Natural Tayrona". INDERENA, Division deParques Nacionales, Bogotá, Colombia.

Nations, J. D. and F. Coello Hinojosa (1989). Cuyabeno wildlife productionreserve. In: Browder, J. O. (ed). Fragile Lands of Latin America: Strategies forsustainable development. Westview Press, Boulder, USA, pp. 139-149.

Nelson, B. W., M. L. Absy, E. M. Barbosa and G. T. Prance (1985). Observa-tions on flower visitors to Bertholletia excelsa H. B. K. and Couratiri TenuicarpaA. C S. M. (Lecythidaceae). Acta Amazonica 15 (1-2), 225-234.

Nillson, G. (1981). The bird business. 2d ed., Animal Welfare Institute, Wash-ington, D.C.

Ormachea and J. J. Fernandez (1986). Beni, Bolivia: estudio socio-economico.CEDLA, La Paz, Bolivia.

Padoch, C. (1984). The economic importance and marketing of forests and fallowproducts. Institute of Economic Botany, New York.

Padoch, C. and W. de Jong (1989). Production and Profit in Agroforestry: AnExample from the Peruvian Amazon. In: Browder, J. O. (ed). Fragile Lands ofLatin America. Strategies for sustainable development. Westview Press, Boulder,USA, pp. 102-113.

Panayotou, T. (1991a). The role of non-timber products in sustaining natural rainforests: what we know and what we need to know. Paper presented at theTropenbos International Seminar on Research challenges to support theconservation and wise use of tropical rain forests, Utrecht University, Utrecht,The Netherlands, June 27, 1991. Foundation Tropenbos, Wageningen, TheNetherlands.


Panayotou (1991b). Multiproduct Forest Management: A key to sustainability?In: ITTO (ed). Status and potential of nori-timber forest products in the sustainabledevelopment of tropical forests. Proceedings of an international seminar, Kama-kura, Japan, 17 November 1990 (ITTO Technical Series 6). Yokahama, Japan.

Patiño, V. M. (1980). Los recursos naturales de Colombia. Aproximación yretrospectiva. Carlos Valencia Editores, Bogotá, Colombia.

Paz y Miño, C. G., H. Balslev, R. Valencia and V. Mena. (1991). Lianasutilizades por los indigenas Siona-Secoya de la Amazonia del Ecuador. Reportestecnicos, Fundación Ecuatoriana de estudios ecologicos, Quito, Ecuador.

Pearce, D. (1990). An economic approach to saving the tropical forests. LEECDiscussion paper. HED, London, UK.

Perez-Abelaez, E. (1956). Plantas utiles de Colombia. 14th ed., Bogotá,Colombia.

Peters, C. M., A. H. Gentry and R. O. Mendelsohn (1989). Valuation of anAmazon rainforest. Nature 339, pp. 655-656.

Pinedo-Vasquez, M., D. Zarin and P. Jipp (1990). Use-values of tree species ina communal forest reserve in northeast Peru. Conservation Biology 4,pp. 405-416.

Pittier, H. (1978a). Plantas usuales de Costa Rica. Editorial Costa Rica, SanJosé, Costa Rica.

Pittier, H. (1978b). Manual de las plantas usuales de Venezuela y su suplemento.3rd reprint from first edition: 1926. Fundación Eugenio Mendonza, Caracas,Venezuela.

Plotkin, M. J. (1988). The outlook for new agricultural and inductrial productsfrom the tropics. In: Wilson, E. O. (ed). Biodiversity. Washington, D.C,pp. 106-116.

Plotkin, M. J. and M. J. Balick (1984). Medicinal uses of South Americanpalms. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 10, pp. 157-179.

Posey, D. A. (1985). Indigenous management of tropical forest ecosystems:The case of the Kayapo Indians of the Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry Systems3, pp. 139-158.

Potters, J. M. C. (1989). The Use of Lianas in Guyana. Department of PlantEcology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

Prance, G. T. (1984). The use of edible fungi by Amazonian Indians. Advancesin Economic Botany 1, pp. 127-139.

References Page 107

Prance, G. T. (1989). Economic prospects from tropical rainforest ethno-botany. In: Browder, J. O. (ed). Fragile Lands of Latin America: Strategies forsustainable development. Westview Press, Boulder, USA, pp. 61-74.

Prance, G. T., W. Balee, B. M. Boom and R. L. Carneiro (1987). Quantitativeethnobotany and the case for conservation in Amazonia. Conservation Biology1 (4), pp. 296-310.

Programa Nacional Forestal (ed). (1981). Ley forestal y de conservación de areasnaturales y vida silvestre. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, Quito,Ecuador.

Putz, F. E. (1979). Biology and human use of Leopoldina piassaba. Principes 32(4), pp. 149456.

Quevedo, M. M. (1977). Algunos fundamentos para una politica de conserva-ción y utilización de primates no humanos en Colombia. In: OrganizaciónPanamericana de la salud and Organización mundial de la salud (eds). Primeraconferencia interamericana sobre la conservación y utilización de primates nohumanos en las investigaciones biomedicas. Lima, Peru, pp. 248-255.

Ramirez Perdomo, U. (1988). El bosque como alternativa de materias primas parala industria Colombiana. Borrador preliminar. CONIF, Bogotá, Colombia.

Redford (1992). The empty forest. BioScience 42 (6), pp. 412-422.

Redford, K. H. and J. G. Robinson (1991). Subsistence and commercial uses ofwildlife in Latin America. In: Robinson, J. G. and K. H. Redford (eds).Neotropical wildlife use and conservation. The University of Chicago Press,Chicago, USA, pp. 6-23.

Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. (1978). Desana animal categories, food restrictions andthe concept of colour energies. Journal of American Lore 4 (2), pp. 243-291.

Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. (1989). Biological and social aspects of the Yuruparicomplex of the Colombian Vaupes territory. Journal of American Lore 15 (1),pp. 95-135.

Repetto, R., W. Magrath, M. Wells, C. Beer and T. Rossini (1989). WastingAssets: Natural Resources in the National Income Accounts. World ResourcesInstitute, Washington, D.C.

Richards, M. (1992). A Review of the Impacts of the Commercialization of Extrac-tive Forest Products on Welfare and Resource Use in Amazonia, and Implicationsfor Sustainable Forest Management. NRI, London, UK.


van Rijsoort, J., S. Ugueto and P. Zuidema (1993). The Brazil nut tree(Bertholletia excelsa): population structures in tropical rain forest and growthresponse of seedlings to different light intensities. Internal report, UtrechtUniversity.

Rincon, O. (1991). Informe de aprovechamiento del palmito. CONIF, San Isidro,Colombia.

Robinson, J. G. and K. H. Redford (1991). The use and conservation ofwildlife. In: Robinson, J. G. and K. H. Redford (eds). Neotropical wildlife useand conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA, pp. 3-5.

Rodriguez, C. and C. van der Hammen (1991). La selva humanisada: ecologiciaalternativas en el tropico humedo Colombiano. (Amerindia 1) ICAN-FEN-CEREC, Bogota, Colombia.

Ros-Tonen, M. (1992). Tropical Hardwood from the Brazilian Amadon. VerlagBreitenbach, Saarbrücken, Germany.

Ruiz, M., J. A. Sayer and S. Cohen Jehoram (1993). El extractivismo en AmericaLatina. IUCN Forest Conservation Programme, Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK.

Saldarriaga, J. G. and C, Uhl. (1990). Recovery of forest vegetation followingslash-and-burn agriculture in the upper Rio Negro. In: Gomez-Pompa, A., T.C. Whitmore and M. Hadley (eds). Rainforest Regeneration and Management.UNESCO, Paris, pp. 303-312.

Salhuana Sanchez, J. (1973). Explotación y comercialización de la castaña enMadre de Dios. Informe 30, Ministerio de Agricultura, Lima, Peru.

Sarukhan, J. (1978). Studies on the demography of tropical trees. In:Tomlinson, P. B. and M. H. Zimmerman (eds). Tropical Trees and LivingSystems. Cambridge, UK, pp. 163-184.

Sayer, J. A. and Wegge, P. (1992). Biological conservation issues in forestconservation management. In: Blockhus, J. M., M. Dillenbeck, J. A. Sayer andP. Wegge (eds). Conserving Biological Diversity in Managed Tropical Forests.IUCN, Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, pp. 1-4.

Schultes, R. E. (1974). Palms and religion in the northwest Amazon. Principes18 (1), pp. 3-21.

Schultes, R. E. (1977). Promising structural fiber palms of the ColombianAmazon. Principes 21 (2), pp. 72-82.

References Page 109

Schultes, R. E. (1985). De plantis toxicariis e mundo novo tropicale;commentationes XXXIV: biodynamic rubiaceous plants of the northwestAmazon. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 14, pp. 105-124.

Schwartzman, S. (1989). Extractive Reserves: The rubber tappers' strategy forsustainable use of the Amazon rainforest. In: Browder, J. O. (ed). Fragile Landsof Latin America: Strategies for sustainable development. Westview Press, Boulder,USA, pp. 151-163.

Seul, H. (1988). Regenwaldnutzung ohne Zerstorung. Kautschuk-und Paranus-sextraktion im brasilianischen Amazonasgebiet (entwicklungsperspektiven, 33.)LADOK, Kassel, Germany.

Smith, N. J. H. (1976). Utilization of game along Brazil's Transamazon high-way. Acta Amazonica 6 (4), 455-466.

Smits, M. P. (1989). Non-timber products of the forest: some categories of use.Department of forest technique and forest products, Agricultural UniversityWageningen, The Netherlands.

Solorzano, R., R. de Camino, R. Woodward, J. Tosi et al. (1991). AccountsOverdue: Natural resource depreciation in Costa Rica. World Resources Institute,Washington D.C.

Terborgh, J. (1989). Wildlife in managed tropical forests: A neotropical perspective.Paper presented to the Institute of Forestry golden anniversary symposium.Puerto Rico.

Thomsen, J. B. and A. Brautigam (1991). Sustainable use of neotropical par-rots. In: Robinson, J. G. and K. H. Redford (eds). Neotropical Wildlife Use andConservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA, pp. 359-379.

Tournon, J., G. L. Serrano, U. R. Reategui and J. C. Alban (1986). Plantas yarboles medicinales de los Conibo del alto Ucayali: Concepciones nativas ybotanica. Revista forestal del Peru 13 (2), pp. 107-130.

Tweede Kamer (1990-91). Regeringsstandpunt Tropische Bossen. SDU, TheHague, The Netherlands.

Uhl, C. (1983), quoted in: Saldarriaga and Uhl (1990). Recovery of forestvegetation following slash-and-burn agriculture in the upper Rio Negro. In:Gomez-Pompa, A., T. C. Whitmore and M. Hadley (eds). Rain forest regenera-tion and management. UNESCO, Paris. pp. 303-312.

Usher, M. B. (1966). A matrix approach to the management of renewableresources with special reference to selection forests. Journal of Applied Ecology3, pp. 355-367.


Usher, M. B. (1969). A matrix model for forest management. Biometrics 25,pp. 309-315.

Vasquez, R. and A. H. Gentry (1989). Use and misuse of forest-harvested fruitsin the Iquitos area. Conservation Biology 3 (4), pp. 350-361.

Vickers (1988). Hunting yield and game composition over ten years in anAmazon Indian territory.

Vickers, W. T, and T. Plowman (1984). Useful plants of the Siona-SecoyaIndians of Eastern Ecuador. Fieldiana (Botany, new series 15), pp. 1-63.

Walschburger, T. and P. von Hildebrand (1988). Observaciones sobre lautilización estational del bosque humedo tropical por los indigenas del riomiriti. Colombia Amazonica 3 (1), pp. 51-74.

WCMC (ed), (1992). Protected Areas of the World: A review of national systems.Vol. 4. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Whitmore, T. C. and J. A. Sayer (1992). Tropical deforestation and speciesextinction. IUCN Forest Conservation Programme and Chapman and Hall,London, UK.

Whitney Jr, R. A. (1977). Necesidades internacionales de primates nohumanos para las investigaciones medicas. In: Organización Panamericana dela salud and organización mundial de la salud (eds). Primera conferenciainteramericana sobre la conservación y utilización de primates no humanos en lasinvestigaciones biomedicas. Lima, Peru, pp. 256-266.

Wilbert, J. (1976). Manicaria Saccifera (of Succifera) and its cultural signifi-cance among the Warao Indians of Venezuela. Botanical Museum Leaflets 24(10), pp. 275-325.

World Resources Institute (ed). (1990). World Resources 1990-1991. WorldResources Institute in collaboration with the United Nations EnvironmentalProgramme and the United Nations Development Programme, Oxford Uni-versity Press, Oxford and New York.

World Resources Institute (ed). (1991). World Resources 1991-1992. WorldResources Institute in collaboration with the United Nations EnvironmentalProgramme and the United Nations Development Programme, Oxford Uni-versity Press, Oxford and New York.

Ziffer (1989). Ecotourism: The uneasy alliance. Conservation InternationalWorking Paper.

Zonta, A. and O. E. Llanque (1987). Tratamientos pregerminativos parasemillas de castaña. Universidad hoy año 1, nr. 3.

Appendix


Table 24. Export of non-timber forest products, Peru

volume (tonnes)

Brazil nut

curare

barbasco

tara/dividivi

palm heart

bark of quinine

total

value (US$ 1,000)

Brazil nut

curare

barbasco

tara/dividivi

palm heart

bark of quinine

total

1978

1,169.7

13.8

807.7

3,921.0

384.4

—

6,296.5

2,040.1

159.4

526.3

837.4

435.3

—

3,998.4

1979

1,068.7

—

16.0

10.3

—

—

1,095.1

9,425.4

—

9.6

4.7

—

—

9,439.6

1980

1,431.9

—

333.4

2,823.5

—

—

4,588.8

2,342.6

—

227.4

839.6

—

—

3,409.6

1981

876.1

—

38.3

3,544.4

257.2

25.4

4,741.4

1,598.7

—

28.0

1,207.0

425.4

40.4

3,299.5

Source: Dirección General Forestal y Fauna (1982).

Appendix: Tables 24-33 Page 113

Table 25a. Non-timber forest products, Peru: 1978-1983

volume (tonnes)

moriche

locust

brave cane

Brazil nut

barbasco

natural rubber

palm heart

ratania

tara en vaina

bark for quinine

curare

ojé latex

1978

—

8,252.3

—

3,073.4

1,768.9

—

403.6

—

8,234.0

3.4

278.0

9.1

1979

—

8,814.0

—

4,143.3

—

—

161.3

—

5,609.1

0.5

41.8

13.1

1980

72.5

9,723.9

370.6

4,321.2

679.6

439.9

501.8

5.0

1,726.2

—

—

—

1981

446.4

836.3

935.0

1,211.8

—

292.9

1,906.6

21.0

2,368.2

—

—

—

1982

287.4

8,137.0

603.5

3,503.9

652.1

856.1

513.1

—

5,363.1

—

—

—

1983

102.9

340.8

104.9

4,836.1

—

422.7

—

—

2,706.7

—

—

—

Source: see Table 25b


Table 25b. Non-timber forest products, Peru: 1984-1989

volume (tonnes)

moriche

locust

"brave cane"

Brazil nut

barbasco

natural rubber

palm heart

ratania

tara en vaina

bark for quinine

curare

ojé latex

1984

301.4

1,006.8

659.1

4,193.1

90.5

579.9

54.7

5.0

4,161.9

—

—

—

1985

158.3

1,606.4

888.4

2,622.9

1,370.8

59.2

85.9

1.2

5,555.3

—

—

—

1986

213.8

5,800.9

1,777.3

3,985.9

313.8

87.5

58.8

0.8

6,435.3

—

—

—

1987

44.3

—

261.7

2,557.4

—

49.8

103.1

—

3,650.0

—

—

—

*1988

44.5

14,600.0

47.6

3,021.8

—

7.6

105.6

—

1,980.9

—

—

—

*1989

—

—

—

3,020.5

—

31.4

—

—

2,511.9

—

—

—

Sources (Tables 25a and b): Dirección General Forestal Y Fauna (1982); Dirección General Forestal Y Fauna(1990) for data after 1979. *estímate


Table 26 . Export of non-timber forest products: Brazil

sorva

balata

massaranduba

edible/drinks

Brazil nuts

palm heart, tinned

oils/aromatics

babassu residues

babassu oil

copaiba

oiticica oil, refined

oiticica oil, cooked

cumaru

palmarosa

rosewood oil

sassafras oil

fibre

piassaba

medicinal

jaborandi

tonka beans2

1975volumetonnes

—

—

6,256.0

156.0

4,441.0

10.0

—

—

0.7

0.7

0.2

—

161.0

5.6

—

colouring agents/tannins

barbatimao

waxes

carnauba

urucuri

total

—

780.0

—

n/a

valueUS$ 1,000

—

—

—

3,844.0

187.0

362.0

—

23.0

—

—

1,7

11.0

1.8

—

160.0

8.9

—

—

1,461.0

—

6,060.4

1985volumetonnes

valueUS$ 1,000

1,138.0

4.6

5.9

25,915.0

5,136.0

—

5,671.0

50.0

51.0

17.0

46.0

—

39.0

—

383.0

18.0

n/a

3,612.0

—

5.0

3,775.0

10.0

8.3

25,155.0

10,220.0

—

4,258.0

125.0

36.0

16.0

382.0

—

714.0

—

475.0

55.0

365.0

816.0

—

19.0

n/a 46,429.3

19891

volumetonnes

valueUS$ 1,000

—

—

—

13,361.0

5,448.0

—

115.0

62.0

—

—

40.0

—

76.0

*1,500.0

—

—

—

—

—

—

n/a

—

—

—

21,290.0

19,349.0

—

109.0

250.0

—

—

152.0

—

2,085.0

n/a

—

—

—

—

—

—

43,235.0

Source: Richards (1992), except for: 1. 1989 data is January to November only; 2. Tonka beans: Prance (1989);*estimate.

—

latex.


Table 27a. Volume of non-timber forest products, Brazil

volume (tonnes)

latexes

rubber

mangabeira

sorva

balata

chicle

massaranduba

caucho

waxes

carnaúba

edible/drinks

Brazil nuts

assai juice

palm heart

mangaba

oils/aromatics

babassu oil

copaiba oil

cumaru

licuri

urucuri

crabwood

murumuru

ucuúba

star-nut palm

1976

16,000

—

6,200

510

—

510

320

—

61,000

18,700

197,700

—

174,000

30

20

—

—

—

—

—

—

1977

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

19,074

—553,623

35,123

—

236,755

—

—

—

7,364

—

29

—

8,556

1979

421,560

20

5,200

360

10

440

990

19,920

43,240554,510

31,360

1,100

250,910

30

40

—

—

280

20

80

11,720

1982

26,800

—

5,500

220

—

430

910

—

36,400

80,900

95,100

—

—

70

50

—

4,200

—

—

—

—

1986

28,400

—

3,000

20

—

380

200

—

35,600

133,800

124,300

—

—

40

460

—

4,600

—

—

—

—

1987

26,400

—

1,500

20

—

300

90

—

36,200

145,900

138,900

—

147,300

110

330

3,800

—

—

—

—

—

continued on next page


(continued)

volume (tonnes)

fibre

miriti/moriche

piassaba

bastard cedar

malva

star-nut palm

barbatimao

mangrove

carnaúba

medicinal

jaborandi

locust

rotenone

1976

8,700

1,900

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1977

961

50,290

—

—

—

—

—

1,557

—

—

—

1979

390

55,190

30

70

101

2,710

410

—

—

20

30

1982

860

40

—

—

100

—

—

—

—

—

—

1986

890

300

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

1987

1,100

560

—

—

—

—

—

—

1,600

—

—


Table 27b. Value of non-timber forest products, Brazil

value (US$ 1,000)

latexes

rubber

mangabeira

sorva

balata

chicle

massaranduba

caucho

waxes

carnaúba

edible/drinks

Brazil nuts

assai juice

palm heart

mangaba

oils/aromatics

babassu oil

copaiba oil

tonka bean

licuri

urucuri

crabwood

murumuru

ucuúba

star-nut palm

11979

420,486.5

6.4

1,713.7

257.8

1.8

209.2

766.5

16,435.6

10,874.054,810.5

2,744.1

86.1

61,211.5

21.8

67.4

—

—

11.1

0.6

8.8

2,095.2

21981

—

—

1,635.2

229.9

—

212.6

1,496.4

—

10,982.9

6593.9

854.8

1.6

0.7

99.0

289.9

17.1

—

1.6

0.5

41.1

—

31987

20,736.0

—

316.0

11.0

—

239.0

42.0

—

9,070.0

42,023.0

11,823.0

—

22,631.0

123.0

224.0

185.0

—

—

—

—

—

continued on next page


(continued)

value (US$ 1,000)

fibre

miriti/moriche

piassaba

cipó-imbé

bastard cedar

malva

star-nut palm

barbatimao

mangrove

medicinal

jaborandi

locust

rotenone

total

11979

225.5

13,035.0

—

4.5

12.7

39.1

169.1

27.8

—

8 4

3,0

135,333.7

21981

34.0

277.2

12.3

2.1

0.7

0.5

0.4

1.8

—

17.4

2.8

16,806.4

31987

413.0

151.0

—

—

—

—

—

—

905.0

—

—

108,892.0

Source: Richards (1992), except for 1979: Balick (1984), based on data IBGE; 1981: Fearnside (1989), basedon data IBGENotes: 1. conversion rate: 1.0 US$ = 42.33 cruzeiros; 2. conversion rate: 1.0 US$ = 96.65 cruzeiros, being theaverage of the official exchange rates for the first and last days of 1981; 3. value to producers (exchange rate1US$ = 41.47 cruzeiros); 4. coagulated and liquid latex together; 5. seed; 6. fruit.


Table 28. Export of non-timber forest products, Brazil: 1985

volume

chicle (kilograms)1

dyewood/logwood (tonnes)

izote (units) 2

other ornamental plants (units)2


chicle

dyewood/logwood

ornamental plants2

total

1987

—

78.0

—

800.0

—

21.0

2.0

23.0

1988

50.2

—

—

800.0

189.0

—

2.0

191.0

1989

90.8

—

720,000.0

—

300.0

—

—

300.0

Source: Heinman and Reining (1989).Notes: 1. Converted from pounds: 1 lb. = 0.454 kg ; 2. Estimates from the authors from interviews and fieldinspections.

Source: Heinzman and Reining (1988).

value (US$ 1,000)

sorva latex

rosewood oil

copaiba balsam

balata latex

Source: Prance (1989)

2,875

938.1

125.0

10.2

Table 29. Export of non-timber forest products, Belize

Table 30. Export of non-timber forest products, Guatemala

allspice

mimbre

year

1986

1986

volume(tonnes)

394.0

10.5

value(US$ 1,000)

230.0

11.0


Table 31. Some non-timber forest products: ColombiaNon-timber forest products in Colombia (monetary value unknown)

scientific name

Avicenia germinans

Banisteriopsis caapi

Cassia sp.

Coumarouma odorata

Strychnes sp.

Rizophora mangle

Bertholletia excelsa

Gliricidia sepium

Elaeagia pastoganomophora

Borojoa patinoa

common name

mangrove (Palo de sal)

yagé

alcaparro

tonga (sarrapia)

curare

mangrove

Brazil nut

matarratón

mopa-mopa

borojó

part used

bark

bark

whole plant/fruits

seeds

n/a

bark

seeds

leaves

buds

fruits

product

acid for vitamin B2

ritual drink

ornament/food/medicine

perfume/soap/aromatic

poison

tanins

food

medicine

resin, timber preservation

drink/aphrodisiac

Table 32. U.S. Import of xaté from Guatemala and Mexico

Source: Delgado (1990).

volume (millions

Guatemala

Mexico

total

1979

of stems)

163.2

278.0

441.2

1980

123.6

334.3

457.9

1981

76.4

255.8

332.2

1982

73.5

246.2

319.7

1983

26.7

215.7

242.4

1984

31.8

233.0

264.8

1985

51.5

291.5

343.0

1986

38.9

315.1

354.0

1987

71.7

350.3

422.0

Source: Heinzman and Reining (1988).

Table 33. U.S. imports, non-timber forest products (average)

sorva latex

Brazil nut

rosewood oil

tonka beans

copaiba balsam

value (US$ 1,000)

3,068.0

17,679.0

980.0

139.0

45.0

Source: Prance (1989), quoting Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen (1986)


Contributors

Chris Enthoven and Wim Bergmans of the Dutch Committee for IUCN andWim Dijkman of Utrecht University coordinated the study. They gave adviceduring the entire process of the study and report writing.

Advisory Board

The Advisory Board met three times to give advice on the direction of thestudy. Members of the Advisory Board were:•

•

•

•

•

••••

•

E. Pelinck, Dr. A. P. M. van der Zon and P. van Ginneken, General Direc-torate for International Cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, TheNetherlands.K. van Dijk and S. ten Houte de Lange, IKC, Department for InternationalCooperation.Dr. N. R. de Graaf, Department of Forestry, Wageningen AgriculturalUniversity;Dr. R. J. de Hoogh, International Agricultural Centre, Department ofForestry;Dr. Fabiola Jara Gomez, Utrecht University, Department of CulturalAnthropology;Arnold van Krefeld, World Wildlife Fund;E. M. Lammerts van Bueren, Tropenbos Foundation;Dr. H. P. Nooteboom, National Herbarium.Professor Dr. G. T. Prance and Professor Dr. G. Budowski reviewed anearlier draft of the report.Prof. Dr. M. J. A. Werger, Prof. N. Myers Ph.D., Dr. Hans de Kroon and Dr.Paul Maas of Utrecht University have given valuable comments on theecological aspects of the study.

The Netherlands

Information was also supplied in The Netherlands by: Carlos A. Rodriguez F.,Bert W. Barneveld, DHV-consultants, Allison J. Gilbert, Free University, Prof.Dr. J. Hinderink, Utrecht University, Dr. Mirjam Ros-Tonen, NijmegenUniversity and Theo Olthetem, CESO.

Contributors Page 123

Latin America

In Latin America, the author received support and information from thefollowing persons, among others:

Bolivia

In Bolivia we cooperated during four months of field work in the Departmentsof Pando and Vaca Diez with: Dr. Hernan Melgar Justiniano (Rector of theUniversidad Tecnica de Beni, UTB), Oscar E. Llanque (Director of theInstituto de Investigaciones Forestales de la Amazonia, IIFA) and ArmelindaZonta, IIFA/UTB; Guido Bolati and Oscar Serrate Trigo, Foundation for thedevelopment of the Province Vaca Diez; Vincent Driest, SNV; ConsueloCasteda and Rafael Guari, Santa Maria Community; Don Nicolás Cordero,Rosario del Yata Community; and Don Julio Awe, Riberalta; and many stu-dents, scientists of IIFA/UTB, guides, cooks and other helpers in the field.

Jeannette van Rijsoort, Saida Ugueto and Pieter Zuidema, students at theDepartment of Plant Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Utrecht University,were to a large extent responsible for the execution of the field work in Boliviaand for the elaboration of the data.

Many others have given us support as well:

Jan Mulder and Dr. P. Spijkers, DHV-ADP; Jos M. M. Bult and NorbertBraakhuis, The Dutch Mission for Technical Cooperation; Jan Bartlema andChristine Verheyden, SNV; Vasces (Subdirector CDF) and Rossana Bueno,Ministry for Agriculture; Javier Fernandez J. and Telefor Duran, CEDLA;Cecin Curi, Lidema; Maria R. de Marconi, CDC; Timothy Killeen, MissouriBotanical Garden; Gerardo Lozano, National Forestry Action Plan; JaimeSarmiento, National Museum for Natural History.

Colombia

Dr. Gonzalo de las Salas F. (Director), Rafael Vargas Rios, Alberto LeguizamoBarbosa and Hugo Martinez, CONIF; Gart van Leersum, Programme"Desarrollo Forestal Participativo en los Andes" (FAO-Holanda); AramidSuaza Montenegro, Corponariño; Alfredo Lozano Notacha, Alenpac ltda; JoséOmar Guauque Valderama, Agrofopesca ltda.

Additional information was supplied in Colombia by: Pomilo Andrade, JoséRodriguez, Ernesto Jimenez, Dilver Pintos and others, INDERENA; José E.


Torres (Coordinator), Ortiz Saavedra (assistant) and Dario Vallejo (Coordina-tor, Multiple Use Programme), National Forestry Action Plan; Dr. Juan G.Saldarriaga (Coordinator), Fernando Franco and others, Tropenbos-Colombia/Corporación Araracuara; Fidel Castillo Blanco, Proexpo; Cesar Monge, Foun-dation Puerto Rastrojo; Elsa Mathilde Escobar, Maria E. Chaves S. and DollyC. Palacio T., "Fundación Natura"; Jaime Aguirre (Director), Glorea Galeano,Rodrigo Bernal, Pablo L. Franco, all from the Institute of Natural History;Alberto Murillo, Jairo Silva and William Klinger, District University; andCesar Rincón.

Ecuador

Franklin Troncoso (Director Forestry Department), Dr. Sergio Figueroa,Oswaldo Vivanco, Julio Conejo, Juan Molina, Fausto Valencio, GuillermoOrtiz, Tierra, Salazar, all of the Ministry of Agriculture; Guillermo Ortiz(Coordinator, National Forestry Action Plan); Luis Manuel Castillo, IUCN:The World Conservation Union; Marianne Vervoort, Programme "DesarrolloForestal Participativo en los Andes" (FAO-Holanda); Danilo Silva, (Director),Juan Suárez, and Debica Rivadeneira, Ecociencia; Tjitte de Vries, Ben Earlgardand Hindrik Balfson, Catholic University; Juch Haas, Dr. Salinas, GTZ; GeertGeut and Hanneke Jansen, SNV; David Neil, National Herbarium; RebecaJusticia C. (Director), Dr. Briones, Foundation Maquipucuna; Carlos Moreno,Comunidec; Jorge Trujillo, anthropologist; Carlos A. Trávez Sánchez, CentralBank and Rosio Alarcon, ethnobotanist.

Costa Rica

Dr. Gerardo Budowski and Jim Barborack, University for Peace; TamaraBudowski; G. Barbosa, MIRENEM; Jan A. Bauer, National Forestry ActionPlan; César Barrientos, Alejandro C. Imbach, Micael Junkhov, IUCN-ORCA;Tomás M. Schlichter and Rafael Ocampo, CATIE-IUCN; and EduardoHernández Zúñiga, National University.

Peru

Gustavo Suarez de Freitas, Director and Javier Arce Baca, Fundación Peruanapara la Conservacion de la Naturaleza

Contributors Page 125

Brazil

Dr. P. Fearnside, INPA; Peter H. May; Zenóbio A.G. P. da Gama e Silva,FUNTAG; Wim Groeneveld, IPHAE; Keith S. Brown, Campinas University;Cesar V. do Espirito Santo, Funatura; Carlos Castro, Federal University MattoGrosso.

United Kingdom

Michael Richards, Natural Resources Institute; Chris Cox, ETC; and JeremyHarrison and Richard Luxmoore, WCMC.

Other countries

Jeffrey A. Sayer and Jeffrey McNeely, IUCN, Switzerland; Dr. Julio CésarCenteno, IFLA, Venezuela; Len West, Richard Warner, TNC, United States;Mark R. Dillenbeck, IUCN, United States and Roderick Zagt and Dr. RenéBoot, Tropenbos Foundation, Guyana.

The IUCN Forest Conservation Programme

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Sayer, J. Rainforest Buffer Zones: Guidelines for Protected Area Management, Gland andCambridge, IUCN, 1991

Poore, D. and Sayer, J. The Management of Tropical Moist Forest Lands: EcobgicalGuidelines, 2nd edn, Gland and Cambridge, IUCN, 1991

Howard, P. C. Nature Conservation in Uganda's Tropical Forest Reserves, Gland andCambridge, IUCN, 1991

Hecketsweiler, P., and Mokoko Ikonga, J. La réserve de Conkouati, Congo: Le secteur sudest, Gland and Cambridge, IUCN, 1991

Hecketsweiler, P., Doumenge, C. and Mokoko Ikonga, J. Le parc national d'Odzala,Congo, Gland and Cambridge, IUCN, 1991

Whitmore, T.C. and Sayer, J. A. (eds.) Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction,London, Chapman & Hall, 1992

Doumenge, C. La réserve de Conkouati, Congo: Le secteur sud-ouest, Gland andCambridge, IUCN, 1992

Berkmüller, K. Environmental Education about the Rain Forest, revised edn, Gland andCambridge, IUCN, 1992

Blockhus, J., Dillenbeck, M., Sayer, J. A. and Wegge, P. (eds.) Conserang BiologicalDiversity in Managed Tropical Forests, Gland and Cambridge, IUCN, 1992

Poore, D. and Sayer, J. La gestion des régions forestières tropicales humides: Directivesécologiques, 2nd edn, Gland and Cambridge, IUCN, 1993

Sawyer, J. Plantations in the Tropics: Environmental Concerns, Gland and Cambridge,IUCN, 1993

Ruiz Perez, M., Sayer, J. A. and Jehoram, S. C. El Exiractivismo en América Latina,Gland and Cambridge, IUCN, 1993

Ruiz Murrieta, J. and Pinzón Rueda, R. (eds.) Reservas Extrativistas, Gland andCambridge, IUCN, 1995

Hawthorne, W. D. Forest Reserves of Ghana: Graphical Information Exhibitor, Glandand Cambridge, IUCN, 1995

Hawthorne, W. D. and M. Abu-Juam Forest Protection in Ghana, Gland andCambridge, IUCN, 1995

Ruiz Murrieta, J. and Pinzón Rueda, R. (eds.) Extractive Reserves, Gland andCambridge, IUCN, 1995

UICN La conservation de la diversité biologique dans les forêts tropicales aménagées, Glandand Cambridge, IUCN, 1992

UICN Conservación de la diversidad biológica en los bosques tropicales bajo régimen deordenación, Gland and Cambridge, IUCN, 1992

Wass, P. (ed.) Kenya's indigenous Forests: Status, Management and Conservation, Glandand Cambridge, IUCN, 1995

Halladay, P. and Gilmour, D. Conserwng Biodiversity Outside Protected Areas: The roleof traditional agro-ecosystems, Gland and Cambridge, IUCN, 1995

Series editors: Jeffrey Sayer, Jill Blockhus and Morag White (1991-92)

Don Gilmour and Jill Blockhus (1993-96)

non-timber forest products · instrumental in putting non-timber forest products on the...

Documents