snv final report - isspissp.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ntfp-issp-versionen.pdf · kolasin...
TRANSCRIPT
Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses
Crnogorskih serdara, Lamela C 1-2
81000 Podgorica, Montenegro
Phone/Fax: (00 382 20) 634 338, 634 329
E-mail: [email protected], Web site: www.isspm.org
Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) Survey SUB-SECTOR ANALYSIS (SSA)
FINAL REPORT
July 2008
2
Foreword
In cooperation with SNV, the Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses realized a
project-survey on non-timber forest products (NTFPs) in Montenegro, including all important
subjects involved in the value chain (collectors, middlemen, NTFP processors and exporters).
The NTFP sector in Montenegro is still undeveloped but considering the wealth of NTFP
natural resources, especially mushrooms, wild fruits and medicinal plants, it has great
potential. With this presumption and data gathered from field work (survey), this report
shows the main findings, which have been grouped in two separate analyses.
The first part of the report contains the results and analysis of the first survey-field work
conducted among the households in the northern municipalities. The survey was conducted
on a pre-determined representative sample and was focused on three groups of people that
may be part of the NTFP value chain. It was conducted among private forest owners, as well
as those who deal with NTFPs as collectors and middlemen. The first part of this report
contains a quantitative analysis of data derived from the survey. The second part of the
report addresses individual processing companies that process and export NTFPs. This
qualitative analysis is based on individual meetings and discussions with major NTFPs
processors in Montenegro. Another important part of this report contains the main findings
and conclusions based on a focus group organized between NTFP processors who had
previously been interviewed.
Based on the produced analyses, this report gives an overall picture of the NTFP sector in
Montenegro and addresses the most important questions about its future development. It
takes a close look at the main threats and opportunities identified through the quantitative
and qualitative research.
The annexes in the last part of this report includes all of the SPSS outputs related to
quantitative analysis of private forest owners, collectors and middlemen, as well as the two
types of the questionnaires that were used in the survey for the purposes of quantitative and
qualitative analysis.
3
ISSP TEAM
Msci Jadranka Kaludjerovic, ISSP program director
Milica Dakovic, project coordinator
Msci Ana Krsmanovic, ISSP analyst
Milika Mirkovic, ISSP researcher
Mirza Muleskovic, ISSP researcher
Vojin Golubovic, ISSP researcher
Marina Glendza, ISSP researcher
Jadranka Milacic, ISSP researcher
4
CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction and Objectives
6
Chapter 2: The Methodology 7 2.1. The sample 7 2.2. Questionnaire 9 2.3. Data collection, processing and analysis 9 2.4. Qualitative Analysis
9
Chapter 3: Main findings 11 3.1. Quantitative analysis on NTFPs survey 11
3.1.1. General information about the households 11
3.1.2. Private forest owners (PFO) 14
3.1.3. NTFP Collectors and middlemen 22
3.1.4. Household income 28
3.2. Qualitative research - NTFPs Processors and Exporters 30 3.2.1. Introduction 30
3.2.2. Summary 31
FOCUS GROUP WITH NTFP PROCESSORS
35
Chapter 4: Interpretation and analysis of the main findings 37 4.1. Private forest owners 37 4.2. NTFPs collectors 38 4.3. NTFPs middlemen 38 4.4. NTFPs processors and exporters 39 4.5. Recommendations with regards to program design
41
ANNEX 1 SPSS OUTPUTS
44
ANNEX 2 QUESTIONNAIRES 69
5
Tables
Table 1 Sample stratification
Table 2 Urban sample stratification Table 3 Rural sample stratification
Table 4 List of the NTFPs processors Table 5 Urban/rural sample structure of municipalities
Table 6 Level of satisfaction with the services that PFO received from the Forestry
Directorate Table 7 Table 8
How much did you sell in 2007? (average) Do you regard NTFP money as a sustainable source of income?/crosstab
Table 9 How much did you (middlemen) sell in 2007 (kg)? Table 10 Average price of sold NTFPs from middlemen
Table 11 Average HHS income from forest products Table 12 List of the NTFPs processors
Graphs
Graph 1 What was your primary activity in the past month?
Graph 2 Do you own forest?
Graph 3 Size of Private Forests Graph 4 Type of ownership documents
Graph 5 How did you obtain your forest? Graph 6 Main reasons of ownership
Graph 7 How often do you visit your forest?
Graph 8 What do you think about forest certification? Graph 9 Reasons why you should consider certifying of your forestland
Graph 10 Do you get permits for wood cutting? Graph 11 Main purposes of wood cutting
Graph 12 Is firewood a sustainable source of income? Graph 13 What kind of services you received from Forestry Directorate? Graph 14 Who helps you solve these problems?
Graph 15 Who should solve the problems of the forestry sector?
Graph 16 If there is an association of PFO, what services should be useful for you?
Graph 17 How much are you willing to pay annually for these services? Graph 18 Does your household collect NTFPs?
Graph 19 To what extent does your household rely on this revenue? Graph 20 Do you (head of the household) collect NTFPs?
Graph 21 Why do you collect NTFPs?
Graph 22 What NTFPs do you collect? Graph 23 Where do you sell your NTFPs?
Graph 24 Do you regard NTFP revenues to a sustainable source of income? Graph 25 If there were associations of collectors, what services would be useful to you?
Graph 26 What improvements would you suggest for the development of the NTFP sector? Graph 27 Where do you sell medicinal plants?
Graph 28 Do you think the price is fair? Graph 29 What is the main barrier for the NTFPs sector?
Graph 30 If there was an association of collectors, what services would be useful to you?
Graph 31 What is your main source of household income? Graph 32 Trends in NTFPs collecting within the last three years
Acronyms
NTFPs Non Timber Forest Products
PFO Private Forest Owner
HHS Household
6
Chapter 1: Introduction and Objectives
Gathering information and data is necessary to create a sound analysis of the development
of the non-timber forestry sector, and to subsequently design a detailed intervention
programme that has appropriate objectives, a well-targeted set of indicators, and sound
monitoring.
The objectives of this sub-sector analysis are:
To obtain relevant data on actors, factor, interactions and relationships in the
sustainable exploitation of NTFP in the study area, and with a specific social focus on
the dimensions of poverty and social inclusion;
To establish facts about the relative importance of various NTFPs in household
economies (possibly by categorising households by level of income/set of NTFPs);
To identify organisational and institutional issues affecting NTFP collection;
To make relevant recommendations for an SNV programme of interventions,
including objectives, main activities, possible results and indicators for measuring
success.
Engaging the NTPF value chain as a whole is a critical factor to the further improvement and
development of this sector. Thus, this project has involved all necessary actors: Private
Forest Owners (PFOs), collectors of NTPFs, middlemen (or suppliers) and NTPFs processors
and exporters. In order to meet the objectives of this analysis, the ISSP conducted a
quantitative survey about PFOs, collectors and middlemen in the NTFP process. The survey
was directed at 500 households from the northern municipalities, which includes 1,980
individuals (household members). The survey results provided information on PFOs and the
engagement of households in NTPFs. A qualitative analysis was conducted among NTFPs
processors and exporters in northern Montenegro. This analysis is based on set of individual
interviews with NTFPs processors and one focus group session involving all NTPF processors
who were previously interviewed. The interviews and the focus group were conducted using
a single standardized questionnaire. The NTPFs processors greatly contributed to the process
in helping understand the current problems, challenges and overall state of the sector.
7
Chapter 2: The Methodology
2.1. The sample
The sample used for the NTFPs Survey is made up of a three-stage stratified sample on the
basis of regional, municipal and urban/rural divides (30%:70%) in accordance with the total
population. The sample is based on 500 households from municipalities in the northern part
of Montenegro.
Table 1 Sample stratification
MUNICIPALITY TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS URBAN RURAL
Andrijevica 20 6 14
Berane 92 28 64
Bijelo Polje 122 36 85
Kolasin 46 14 32
Mojkovac 26 8 18
Plav 36 11 25
Pljevlja 80 24 56
Rozaje 58 17 41
Zabljak 20 6 15
TOTAL 500 150 350
The urban divide is determined by previously defined urban municipalities in which surveyors
randomly picked those households that are possibly involved in NTFPs collection or are
private forest owners.
Surveyors were followed lists of given streets in the urban parts of municipalities. In these
streets they randomly choose the first house/apartment and continued with surveying in
each fifth house/apartment in targeted street. After they choose household, surveyors asked
two ‘test’ questions - Is some household member private forest owner (PFO) or NTFPs
collector or middlemen? If the answer on each of these questions was positive, surveyors
started with surveying of that household, making an interview with the head of the
household and fulfilling the questionnaire.
In case when answer on previously defined question is negative, surveyor skip that
household and continue to search another fifth household from that street looking to find
other that are possibly involved into PFO or NFTPs. Surveyors were obliged to stick to the
street previously defined within the sample.
8
Table 2 Urban sample stratification
STREET Andrijevica Branka Deletica
Berane 29 Novembra
Njegosev trg
Miljana Tomicica
Bijelo Polje
29 Novembra
Rakonje
Kolasin Mojkovacka
Mojkovac Ljubomira Bakoca
Plav Ulica Slobode
Pljevlja
Manastirska
Trsova
Velimira Jakica
Rozaje
Rifata Burdzevica
Jaha Kurtagica
Zabljak Njegoseva
The rural divide is based on the size of the population in each rural unit in a targeted
municipalities and their share in the total population of each municipality. Based on that and
the fact that share of rural parts of municipalities will be dominant in the sample (70%) in
comparison to urban parts, rural areas of municipalities from the north were defined by the
settlements in each of municipality1. The most important issue regarding the settlement that
will be part of the sample is number of population in it and proportion of population in each
municipality. Based on that 28 settlements were defined and they were a basis for further
fieldwork. In these settlements surveyors started fieldwork on the same principle/method
previously defined for surveying in urban areas.
Table 3 Rural sample stratification RURAL Andrijevica
Tresnjevo
Slatina
Berane
Donje Luge
Dolac
Budimlja
Beran Selo
Buce
Bijelo Polje
Zaton
Godijevo
Kukulje
Gubavac
Grab
Godusa
Kolasin
Drijenak
Breza
Bare Kraljske
Mojkovac
Polja
Proscenje
Plav
Vusanje
Vojno selo
Pljevlja
Zidovici
Komine
Sula
Gradac
Rozaje
Kalace
Donja Lovnica
Zabljak Njegovudja
1 Census 2003, Monstat.
9
In regards to the methodology used in the data processing it is important to stress that the
quantitative analysis is based on the analysis of two target groups. The standard household
information gathered is based on answers that were given in all 500 households (by the
heads of the household). Other parts of the questionnaire, which collected data from NTPFs
collectors and middlemen, are based on answers from 1,980 individual respondents
(household members) from those 500 targeted households from the sample.
2.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire used in the quantitative survey contained 67 different questions grouped
into five separate sections: General household information; PFOs; NTPF collectors; NTFP
middlemen and household revenues.
2.3. Data collection, processing and analysis
The ISSP recruited 20 (twenty) surveyors to collect data. The surveyors conducted fieldwork
through direct interviews with households in the targeted northern municipalities, which are
considered as urban, or in northern settlements, which are considered as rural. An ISSP
team of experts was involved in data processing. Data analysis was based on the previously
created SPSS data base which was a basis for further quantitative analysis of the results.
2.4. Qualitative Analysis
The qualitative research was done by ISSP experts who conducted individual interviews with
13 (thirteen) NTPF processors and exporters. Firstly, there’s no standardized and unified
database of NTFP processors in Montenegro. Because of that problem, ISSP created
database of NTFP processors from different small data bases of other organizations and
instiutions and put it together. That initial database contained up to 20 NTFP processors. All
of them were firstly contacted by phone and 13 of them wanted to participate in this survey.
The rest of them were absent or there was a problem to contact and find them (not correct
phone numbers, don’t answer, etc.). These interviews were based on unified questionnaire
which was consisted of the twenty-five previously defined questions grouped into five
sections:
1. General information about NTFP processors;
2. Sourcing; 3. Processing; 4. Destination: customers and processors;
5. Threats and opportunities.
10
Table 4 List of the NTFPs processors
Municipality NTFPs processor/Company NTPFs they are processing
1. Berane Zemljoradnicka zadruga Vrbica – Adrovic Avdul
Medical plants
2. Bijelo Polje “Vrganj” – Petar Zivkovic Mushrooms
3. Bijelo Polje Ramiza Ibrizovic Medical plants
4. Bijelo Polje “Eko-Meduza” – Jelica Vujicic Mushrooms, forest fruits, medical plants
5. Bijelo Polje Interfood – Spasoje Ilic Mushrooms
6. Kolasin Predrag Puletic Mushrooms, forest fruits
7. Kolasin Radosav Puletic Mushrooms, forest fruits
8. Mojkovac Flores – Veselin Vucinic Medical plants
9. Mojkovac Pam – Miroslav Palevic Mushrooms, forest fruits
10. Pljevlja RM Commerce – Dejan Loncar Mushrooms
11. Pljevlja NVO “Proizvodnja cajeva Boljanic” – Dragica Rovcanin
Medical plants
12. Rozaje Asir Klica Mushrooms, forest fruits
13. Rozaje Agroprodukt – Sefkija Nurkovic Mushrooms, forest fruits, medical plants
To gather more information about the NTPF sector the ISSP put together a focus group
made up of NTFP processors who had been previously interviewed. Nine NTFP processors
and exporters have been participating on the focus group. The focus group session was also
based on the same questionnaire used during individual interviews with NTFPs processors.
Focus group session was another step forward in looking for questions and answers related
to development of NTFPs sector in Montenegro. Direct interaction between NTFPs processors
was very useful for completion of this analysis, especially related to existing problems and
also recommendations and further steps related to this sector.
11
Chapter 3: Main findings
3.1. Quantitative analysis on NTFPs survey
3.1.1. General information about the households
The sample is based on 500 households from municipalities in the northern part of
Montenegro. The sample used for the NTFPs Survey is made up of a three-stage stratified
sample on the basis of regional, municipal and urban/rural divides (30%:70%) in
accordance with the total population.
Table 5 Urban/rural sample structure of municipalities MUNICIPALITY URBAN % RURAL %
Kolasin 38.4 61.5
Plav 23.3 76.6
Andrijevica 26.3 73.6
Rozaje 21.6 78.3
Mojkovac 16.6 83.3
Berane 30.8 69.1
Pljevlja 26.3 73.6
Bijelo Polje 29.0 70.9
Zabljak 100
Age structure
The age structure of the respondents is given in intervals. The largest group of respondents
(27.5%) is between 46 and 55 years old; 25.7% are 35 to 46 years old, while 18.8% are 56
to 65 years old.
Gender
From the total number of heads of households, 89.1% are male and 10.9% are female.
Among the average of 89.1% male respondents, 92% are from rural areas; 92.2% are
between the ages of 26 and 35. Among the average of 10.9% female respondents, 18.2%
are between the ages of 18 and 25; 17.6% are from urban areas, while 21.3% of the female
respondents are from municipality of Berane.
12
Education
From the total number of respondents, 98% indicated what their level of education is. From
that number, 36.9% indicated they completed secondary school (four years), 25.4% had
some secondary school (three years) and 15.3% completed only primary school. Only
11.7% of respondents have a university education. Out of average of those who completed
secondary school, 42.3% of respondents are from urban areas and 31% are between the
ages of 36 and 45 years; 43.5% of those living in Mojkovac have completed secondary
school.
Occupation
From the total number of respondents, 92.7% indicated what their occupation is. From that
number, 30.9% are employed in agriculture, forestry and in the water supply industry,
20.9% work in other organizations and bodies, while 8.3% work in public administration and
social insurance. Out of the 30.9% who are employed in agriculture, forestry and the water
supply industry, 36% are from rural areas. These sectors account for the employment of
43.2% of respondents living in Pljevlja.
Graph 1 What was your primary activity in the past month?
58.9%
22.6%
11.3%
3.0%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Working/helping to earn income
Stay at home
Job searching
Other
Housekeeping
Retired
Sick/disabled
Out of average of those who are currently employed, or are helping the household earn
income, 69.5% are from urban areas; 73.7% of those living Andrijevica are employed, while
91.4% of the employed have higher education.
PRIVATE FOREST OWNERS
14
3.1.2. Private forest owners (PFO)
Note: This part of analysis is based not just on 500 households as main respondents (head of the household).
Do you own forestland?
Out of the total number of sample households (500), 98% answered this question. From
that number, in 60.1% of these households, one household member is a private forest
owner. This means that 60.1% of households from the sample own forest and 39.9% of
households do not own forest.
Graph 2 Do you own forest?
Yes60%
No40%
Out of average of those households with a private forest owner, 60.5% respondents live in a
rural area. 97.1% of those living in Plav are PFOs. On the other hand, 42% of respondents
live in an urban area and 68.8% of those living in Pljevlja are PFOs.
Size of Private Forests
Out of the 60.5% of respondents who are private forest owners, most have a forest of up to
5 ha (57.2%).
Graph 3 Size of Private Forests
57.2%
15.6%
11.6%
13.0%
2.5%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Up to 5ha
From 6 to 10ha
From 11 to 20ha
From 21 to 50ha
Over 51ha
15
Out of the PFOs with less than 5 ha, 57.3% live in rural areas. 87.5% of the respondents
from Mojkovac have forestland less than 5 ha, as do 100% of the respondents from Zabljak.
Type of the forest
From the total number of PFOs in the sample, 38.9% have mostly broadleave forests, 33.2%
have mixed forests and 27.9% have mostly coniferous forests.
Forest ownership
A large majority of the heads of households are also owners of forestland (85.1%), while in
10.5% of cases it is another family member.
Graph 4 Type of ownership documents
55.8%
42.5%
1.4%
0.3%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Full documentation
Only those from cadastre
In process of restitution
Something else
Graph 5 How did you obtain your forest?
95.2%
3.8%
1.0%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Inheritance
Purchased
Other
Graph 6 Main reasons of ownership
66.1%
31.2%
25.8%
15.8%
12.8%
10.1%
7.4%
6.0%
4.7%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pass on to children or other
Part of my family heritage
To collect firewood
Long-term investment
For timber production
For grazing livestock
To collect NTFPs
For recreation, hunting and fishing
For hunting and fishing
Graph 7 How often do you visit your forest?
27.3%
27.3%
23.2%
20.2%
2.0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Monthly
Almost four times per year
Almost twice times per year
Annually
Never
16
Do you sell forest products?
From the total number of households, 30% do not sell any forest products, 16.8% sell
firewood, while 10% sell NTFPs. If we only consider households with a PFO, 50.3% do not
sell forest products, 28.2% is sell firewood, while 16.7% sell NTFPs.
Do you have a forest management plan for your forest?
From the average number of households that have a PFO, 50.5% do not have a forest
management plan while 24.9% do; 8.4% of respondents are of the opinion that the lack of
forest management plans is a great problem; 23.2% households from rural areas have
forest management plans; 66.7% of households from Mojkovac and Pljevlja do have plans.
On the other hand, 67.1% of households from urban areas do not have forest management
plans. 78.9% households from Andrijevica do not have plans.
Graph 8 What do you think about forest certification?
47.3%
33.2%
21.1%
20.8%
18.5%
17.1%
4.0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
It will improve forest management
It will improve fores management
It will reduce need for forestry regulation
It will satisfy consumers of wood
It will improve competitiveness of the local wood producers
It will increase profit in tree farming
Other
Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.
Do you have experience with getting forest certification?
Out of the total number of households with PFOs, 71.5% do not have any experience with
acquiring forest certification, 19.3% have received important information, while 4.1% do not
believe it to be important.
17
Among of the households that do not have experience with the forest certification, 71.6%
are from rural areas; 87.5% of households from Bijelo Polje do not have such experience.
Graph 9 Reasons why you should consider certifying of your forestland
52%
50.7%
25.5%
14.8%
11.4%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
If it would make my forest more healthy
If it would help to protect the environment
If my wood products could be sold for a higher price
If it would improve wildlife
If it would give me access to wood markets that are not normally available
How often do you cut your wood?
From the total number of those that are PFOs, 36.7% do their wood cutting during the
season (spring), 35.7% have never cut their wood and 16.5% do their wood cutting during
the winter and 10.1% do their wood cutting more than five times a year. Out of the average
of those households that do wood cutting during the spring, 38.9% are from rural areas;
66.7% of the households from Pljevlja do their wood cutting in the spring.
Graph 10 Do you get permits for wood
cutting?
65.1%
20.8%
14.1%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Without any problems
Difficult, but I am allowed to cut
Permits are inadequate
Graph 11 Main purposes of wood cutting
52.9%
42.3%
4.8%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
For household needs
Selling to individuals
Selling to companies
18
Out of the 4.8% of households that sell their wood to companies, 88.9% have contract
deliveries.
How important is firewood for you?
From the total number of households that have a PFO, 63.8% answered to this question.
From that number, 90% indicated that firewood is very important, 6.8% said it is not so
important and 3.2% said it is not important at all. From the average of 92.5% households
from rural areas indicated that firewood is very important, out of which 93.5% own up to
5ha of forest. 95% of households from Pljevlja indicated that firewood is very important.
Graph 12 Is firewood a sustainable source of income?
46.8%
20.0%
16.8%
16.3%
0 10 20 30 40 50
No
No, in next ten years it would be worse
Yes, in next ten years it would be better
Yes, always
Are you aware of current forestry sector legislation?
From the total number of sample households, 58.9% provided an answer to this question.
From that number, 40.3% are not well aware and want to know more about legislation of
the forestry sector. On the other side, there are 27.5% those that think that they are
sufficiently informed and 22.8% need more information but cannot have it.
Graph 13 What kind of services you received from Forestry Directorate?
44.7%
37.9%
36.4%
35.6%
4.0%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Cutting permits
Advice
Transport documents
Seedlings
Other
Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.
19
Table 6 Level of satisfaction with the services that PFO received from the Forestry Directorate LEVEL OF SATISFACTION (1-THE BEST, 3-THE WORST) THE BEST REGULAR THE WORST Cutting permits 38% 22.6% 39.4%
Advice 45.3% 25.5% 29.2%
Transport documents 31.5% 25% 43.5%
Seedlings 61.7% 20.6% 17.8%
Households have indicated that the best ways to get better informed of the forestry sector
would be: seminars (38.7%); workshops (11.6%) and training programs (5.7%).
The forestry sector is, based on the perception of respondents, faced with many problems.
These problems include: illegal cutting and wood stealing, lack of control, lack of
information, outdated technologies, as well as lack of knowledge of regulations, which
should form the basis for the future protection of forests in Montenegro.
Graph 14 Who helps you solve these problems?
22.3%
17.0%
12.3%
8.7%
2.0%
1.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Nobody
Relatives
I don't need any help
Forest Directorate
Government
NGO
Someone else
Donor
Graph 15 Who should solve the problems of the
forestry sector?
63.8%
46.0%
8.5%
4.3%
3.4%
0.2%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Forestry Directorate
Government
I don't know
NGO
Family
Other
Are you a member of a Private Forest Owners Association?
From the total number of households from the sample 92.5% answered to this question.
From that number 78.4% are not members of any Private Forest Owners Association, 16%
has opinion that there are not present any associations in their area (municipalities), while
2.4% are members of some associations.
20
Graph 16 If there is an association of PFO, what services should be useful for you?
36.4%
32.2%
28.9%
17.6%
15.6%
13.2%
10.7%
4.5%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Making forest management plan
Getting cutting permits
Fire management
Selling forest products
Influence on national plans and policies
Training in forest management
Land registration
Other
How much are you willing to pay annually for these services (association of PFO)?
From the total number of respondents that answered to this question, 36.2% is not willing to
pay any money for these services; 20.8% is willing to pay between 2 and 5 euros while
15.6% are willing to pay between 5 and 10 euros.
Graph 17 How much are you willing to pay annually for these services?
36.2%
20.8%
15.6%
14.5%
6.6%
6.3%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Somebody else should pay this
Between 2 and 5 euro/year
Between 5 and 10 euro/year
Less than 2 euro/year
Above 20 euro/year
Between 10 and 20 euro/year
NON TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS
22
3.1.3. NTFP Collectors and middlemen Note: This part of analysis is based not just on 500 households as main respondents but contains 1,983 answers of each household member.
Does your household collect NTFPs?
From the total number of households, 38.6% do not collect NTFPs, while 29.8% do for
household purposes.
Graph 18 Does your household collect NTFPs?
38.6%
29.8%
25.7%
6.0%
0 10 20 30 40 50
No
Yes, just for household purposes
Yes, for processing
No, but have intention
To what extent does your household rely on this revenue?
Out of the total number of households that gave an answer to this question, 63.2% stated
that they do not rely on revenue from NTFPs very much while 4.97% of households rely
totally on the revenue. The average rate of this measure is 1.7 (in a range from 1 to 5,
where 1-‘Does not relly at all’ and 5-‘totally relly’).
Graph 19 To what extent does your household rely on this revenue?
63.2%
16.2%
11.5%
4.0%
4.9%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1
2
3
4
5
23
Do you collect NTFPs?
From the total number of individuals in the households, 612 collect NTFPs, which represents
30.8% out of 1,980 respondent household members. On the other side, if we analyze just
506 respondents (head of the household), 59.3% of the household heads collect NTFPs,
while 31.2% of household heads do not collect NTFPs.
Graph 20 Do you (head of the household) collect NTFPs?
59.3%
31.2%
5.2%
4.2%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Yes
No
No, but have intention
Yes, but stopped
Respondent’s role in NTFPs
From the total number of individuals who are involved in NTFPs collection, 93.9% are
collectors, 4% are middlemen and 1.6% is processors.
Why do you collect NTFPs?
For 39.4% of individuals collecting NTFPs is the way to supplement the household budget.
For 18.5% of individuals collecting of NTFPs is a part of family tradition.
Graph 21 Why do you collect NTFPs?
39.4%
18.5%
16.8%
9.6%
3.1%
1.0%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Supplement for household budget
Family tradition
Pocket money
Stabile source of income
Something else
The main activity in our family
24
During which seasons do you collect NTFPs? The largest number of collectors collects NTFPs during the summer (60.3%), then during the
fall (18%), spring (15.2%) and winter (0.2%). From the total number of collectors, 56.9%
pick mushrooms, 34.2% pick forest fruits and 18.5% pick medicinal plants.
Graph 22 What NTFPs do you collect?
51.8%
31.1%
16.8%
0.3%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Mushrooms
Forest fruits
Medical plants
Other
How long have you been collecting NTFPs?
The largest share of collectors have been collecting NTFPs between 3 and 10 years (41.8%),
27.5% of collectors have recently started to pick NTFPs, 17.4% have been collecting
between 10 and 20 years, while 13.2% of collectors have been collecting NTFPs for more
than 20 years.
Where do you sell your NTFPs?
Respondents had the opportunity to provide multiple answers. From the total number of
collectors, 45.6% sell NTFPs to suppliers, 11.9% do not sell their products, 7.8% of
collectors sell their products in improvised settings while 2.6% of collectors sell directly to
processors.
Graph 23 Where do you sell your NTFPs?
45.6%
11.9%
9.2%
8.5%
7.8%
2.6%
0.5%
0 10 20 30 40 50
To middleman
I don't sell the products
On a local market
Directly to customer
On a improvised place during the season
To processor
Other
25
Table 7 How much did you sell in 2007? (average) Note: If total amount of sold NTFPs is < 100kg per year and based on number of those HHS that are collecting NTFPs.
Number Minimum Maximum Mean
Mushrooms 41 30.0 100.0 72.8
Forest fruits 13 10.0 100.0 80.0
Medical plants 1 25.0 25.0 25.01
The average amount of sold quantity of mushrooms was 72.8kg in 2007, 80.0kg of forest
fruits and 25.0kg of medicinal plants.
How do you spend revenues from NTFPs?
Respondents had the opportunity to provide multiple answers. Out of the total number of
answers, 44.7% indicated that collectors use their revenues as supplements to their budget
while 14.8% used the funds to finance school expenditures, while 12.9% of households
consider it to be pocket money.
Do you consider NTFP revenues to be a sustainable source of income?
From the total number of collectors, 71.8% do not regard these revenues as a sustainable
source of income, while 28.2% do regard money as a sustainable source of income.
Graph 24 Do you regard NTFP revenues to a sustainable source of income?
Yes28%
No72%
Only 3.1% of the total number of collectors took part in a training program for NTFPs
collection while 96.9% of collectors never have.
Table 8 Do you regard NTFP money as a sustainable source of income?/crosstab
No Yes
Male 76,3% 23,7%
Female 60,0% 40,0%
26
Are you a member of an association of NTFP collectors?
From the total number of collectors only 1.5% are members of an association of NTFP
collectors while 71.7% are not members of such associations. For 25.3% of collectors an
association of NTFP collectors does not exist in their region.
Graph 25 If there were associations of
collectors, what services would be useful to you?
59.1%
51.6%
44.7%
32.9%
25.7%
6.7%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Selling together NTFP
Information about collecting
Quality control
Information on quality
Cooling together
Other
Graph 26 What improvements would you suggest
for the development of the NTFP sector?
41.9%
15.5%
11%
10.2%
8.8%
8.2%
4.4%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Bigger prices
Points of sale
Information and education
Environment protection
Don't know
Reduction of illegal cutting
Selling together
From the total number of HHS members, 88.7% are not suppliers of NTFPs, 2.7% are
engaged as suppliers of NTFPs, while 0.9% used to be suppliers but stopped.
Who acts as a middleman in the household?
Out of the total number of household members, only 1.2% acts as middlemen.
Graph 27 Where do you sell medicinal plants?
41.7%
25%
8.3%
8.3%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Other middlemen
Foreign processors
NTFPs processor
Other
Table 9 How much did you (middlemen) sell in 2007 (kg)? Number Minimum Maximum Mean
Wild mushrooms 15 80 3,000 805.3
Forest fruits 7 25 4,000 934.2
Medical plants 6 50 170 103.3
Other 1 500 500 500
27
The average amount of wild mushrooms sold in 2007 was 805.3kg. The average amount of
forest fruits sold was 934.2kg and average amount of medicinal plants sold was 103.3kg.
Average price of wild mushrooms per kg in 2007 was 3.9 euro/kg, 4 euro/kg of forest fruits
and 8.6 euro/kg for medical plants.
Table 10 Average price of sold NTFPs from middlemen Number Minimum Maximum Mean Mushrooms 13 1.7 6 3.9
Forest fruits 5 3 7 4
Medical plants 5 5 12 8.6
Graph 28 Do you think the price is fair?
Yes9%
No64%
Don`t know27%
From the total number of suppliers, 47.8% noticed that prices increased occasionally in the
last five years and 39.1% think that the prices have increased in the last five years.
Graph 29 What is the main barrier for the NTFPs sector?
75%
45.8%
41.7%
25%
25%
12.5%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Low prices
Lack of motivation between collectors
Lack of collectors
Lack of processors and exporters
Lack of knowledge
Lack of natural resources
28
Are you a member of an association of NTFP collectors?
From the total number of collectors only 0.8% are members of an association of NTFP
collectors, 70.1% are not members of an association of NTFP collectors. For 25.9% of
collectors, an association of NTFP collectors does not exist in their region.
Graph 30 If there was an association of collectors, what services would be useful to you?
74.3%
56.6%
51.9%
39.9%
22.1%
6.1%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Selling together NTFPs
Information about collecting
Quality control
Information on quality
Cooling together
Other
Out of the total number of collectors, 41.9% indicated that higher prices would improve the
NTFP sector, while 11% believe that more information and training would help improve this
sector.
3.1.4. Household income
Graph 31 What is your main source of household income?
69.5%
29.3%
22.4%
18.6%
13.9%
2.2%
1.6%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Wages
Pension
Revenues from agriculture
Revenues from other sources
Revenues from property
Social assistance
Agricultural pension
29
The average monthly household income for 42.5% of households is up to 300 euros, 37.5%
of households have an average monthly income is between 300 and 600 euros and 11.1%
between 600 and 800 euro.
HHS income in the last three years
Average households income has been mostly stabile for 72.5% of households. For 17% of
households average income has been constantly decreasing while for 10.5% of households
the average income in last 3 years has been constantly increasing.
Average HHS income from forest products
The average HHS income from wood is about 853.2€ and 454€ from wild mushrooms. The
average annual HHS income from forest fruits is 434.6€ while the average annual income
from medicinal plants was 248.7€.
Table 11 Average HHS income from forest products Forest Products Average HHS income in € Wood 853.2
Medicinal plants 248.7
Forest fruits 434.6
Mushrooms 454.7
Trends in NTFPs collecting within the last 3 years
From the total number of households, 48% have the opinion that NTFPs collection during
last three years has been stable, 18% believe they are increasing and 34% of households
thinks that trends in NTFPs collecting in last three years have decreased.
Graph 32 Trends in NTFPs collecting within the last three years
36.1%
20%24.1%
61.9% 60%
75.9%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Decreasing Stable Increasing
Urban Rural
In comparison to the average of 48% households which think that trends in NTFPs collecting
in last 3 years are stable, the same stands for 80% from rural area and 20% from urban
area. From the total number of households who have opinion that trends in NTFPs collecting
in last 3 years are increasing, 24.1% stands from those from rural area.
30
3.2. Qualitative research - NTFPs Processors and Exporters
3.2.1. Introduction
The Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses (ISSP) has conducted an evaluation of the
NTFPs sector in the northern region of Montenegro. The questionnaire was prepared by SNV
and the ISSP. Interviews were conducted with thirteen NTFPs processors who were involved
in the NTFP sector. Interviews were conducted with processors from different municipalities
of the northern region.
A survey among NTFPs processors was conducted in order to identify the main threats and
opportunities in the NTFP sector and to give recommendations on how to promote and
improve this sector. The qualitative analysis is based on meetings with the main processors
and exporters of wild mushrooms, medical plants and forest fruits in Montenegro.
Table 12 List of the NTFPs processors Municipality NTFPs processor/Company NTPFs they are
processing
1. Berane Zemljoradnicka zadruga Vrbica – Adrovic Avdul
Medical plants
2. Bijelo Polje “Vrganj” – Petar Zivkovic Mushrooms
3. Bijelo Polje Ramiza Ibrizovic Medical plants
4. Bijelo Polje “Eko-Meduza” – Jelica Vujicic Mushrooms, forest fruits, medical plants
5. Bijelo Polje Interfood – Spasoje Ilic Mushrooms
6. Kolasin Predrag Puletic Mushrooms, forest fruits
7. Kolasin Radosav Puletic Mushrooms, forest fruits
8. Mojkovac Flores – Veselin Vucinic Medical plants
9. Mojkovac Pam – Miroslav Palevic Mushrooms, forest fruits
10. Pljevlja RM Commerce – Dejan Loncar Mushrooms
11. Pljevlja NVO “Proizvodnja cajeva Boljanic” – Dragica Rovcanin
Medical plants
12. Rozaje Asir Klica Mushrooms, forest fruits
13. Rozaje Agroprodukt – Sefkija Nurkovic Mushrooms, forest fruits, medical plants
The ISSP summarized the results based on the conducted interviews. The final results are
presented in this report.
31
3.2.2. Summary
Sourcing
The prices of wild mushrooms vary from year to year and from season to season: in the
spring the price of wild mushrooms is 2 €/kg, while in the autumn the price is much bigger:
4-5 €/kg. Prices vary between seasons because of the quality of the mushrooms. Namely,
wild mushrooms picked during autumn are of higher quality than those picked in the spring.
In 2008 we expected an increase in prices because of high demand. Prices should be around
2.5€/kg for the mushrooms. The price of wild mushrooms is 2-3€/kg at the beginning of a
season, and later increase to 6-10€/kg.
The prices of medical plants also vary from year to year. In 2007 they were: juniper – 0.70
€/kg and hazelnut – 0.50€/kg to 0.60€/kg, dock – 2.50€/kg, marigold – 3.30€/kg, ehinacea
– 3.30 €/kg. There is always a deviation of around 15% or 20% from these prices. The main
reason for the price variation is the present of other suppliers from neighboring countries
who offer a higher quality or offer products with lower prices. However, the prices of final
products do not vary. Prices are standardized and deviation from year to year is +10%.
The supplier's price of blueberries is 1.80 – 2.00 €/kg while the consumer market price is
2.5 €/kg. The supplier's price of strawberries is 3 €/kg, while the consumer market price is
3.5 – 3.8 €/kg. An additional problem contributing to the fluctuation of prices is the
undeveloped and standardized market of this sector.
Prices depend on supply and demand. Montenegro is a small market if we compare it with
the East (China, Romania and Bulgaria) or Western Europe, so it cannot influence the prices
of NTFPs, especially wild mushrooms. China is the biggest exporter of wild mushrooms in
spite of their lower quality. Foreign companies from Italy buy wild mushrooms from
Montenegro, which are high in quality, and combine them with lower quality wild mushrooms
from China, and then sell to foreign markets.
32
Processing
There are several ways of processing wild mushrooms: cutting, cooking, drying and freezing.
In large part wild mushrooms are processed manually, which is what is demanded by the
markets. There are some machines for cutting, a cylinder and ladle for cooking and drying.
Some processors use mills. All of these operations are done before the making of the final
product, and are thus a semi-final product. For the final product, all companies in
Montenegro have to have a certified cooler with the HASAP standard.
Medical plants are all processed manually, since any mechanical processing could negatively
impact medicinal value of plants. The main phases of processing medical plants are: cutting,
drying and packing. After selecting the best medical plants, producers then wash the plants
and percolate them into compress. Forest fruits are usually are sold fresh, without
processing.
There are few companies in Montenegro that produce final NTFPs products. There is one for
medical plants in Mojkovac, one for forest fruits and mushrooms in Bijelo Polje, and one in
Rozaje for medical plants, mushrooms and forest fruits. The company in Bijelo Polje has a
large capacity for refining wild mushrooms, forest fruits and medical plants at the industrial
level. All processing in the company is done by large, modern machinery.
Wild mushroom production (champignons and shiitake) is based on the farming method.
Champignons are sold both fresh and marinated. For example, one company from Rozaje
produces essential oils as final products. These products are used in pharmacy, cosmetic and
medical industry. For these products we use medical plants. Also, they mill juniper and
forest fruits.
In general machinery is old and has a low production capacity. The machines do not comply
with appropriate standards. Some processors are planning to increase capacity, purchase
the required HASAP standard cooler for producing the final products. The main problem is
the lack of financial resources.
There are some hints of entrepreneurship. One company recently purchased an electronic
machine for cleaning and calibrating blueberries and other forest fruits.
33
Other owners, however, feel that all old machines do the same job as new machines. In
reality new machines have greater capacitates. Turnover of NTFP processors are limited by
availability of raw materials, which in turn depends on the climate.
Packaging for NTPFs is designed to preserve the quality of the products. Mushrooms are
packaged in PVC bags when dealing with larger quantities of the products. Beside bags,
products are also packed in wood boxes. Raw mushrooms are packed in wood and paper
boxes. Final products are packed in metal, glass and plastic packaging (barrels, plastic jars).
Medical plants are packed in small bottles, barrels and bags. Forest fruits are packed in
packages-foils, while frozen fruits are packaged in cardboard boxes.
Destination: Buyers of NTFPs
Most products were sold to companies abroad. It is important to note that semi-final
products are mostly exported to Serbia. The companies from Serbia that purchase semi-final
products from Montenegro include Interfood from Cacak and the PAMS Company from
Belgrade, particularly in the export of wild mushrooms. Semi-final products are also
exported to Italy and Macedonia.
Final products, largely juices and preserves, are mostly exported to EU countries, including
Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary and France. There is also registered export to Canada. The
producers of different types of salves and immune system enhancers also sell their products
to different customers abroad. Producers of teas mainly find their market in Montenegro.
Most purchasers of NTFPs produced in Montenegro are companies from abroad.
Some companies from Serbia buy semi-final products and then package and sell them as
final products. Moreover, the buyers of final products such as preserves ad juices are usually
foreign companies and hotels. The main customers of tea are found in domestic markets.
Besides foreign companies, the main purchasers of mushrooms are local pizzerias.
34
Threats
• Unmanaged market;
• Outdated technology of NTFP processing
machinery;
• Inability of producers to process final
products due to lack of certification and
standardized machinery;
• Export disincentives;
• Low nutrition in the consumption of
NTFPs;
• Export of semi-final, not to final
products;
• Costs of concessions;
• Neglectful using of medical plants;
• Problems with financial resources;
• Existence of unfair competition;
• Lack of motivation for NTFPs collectors;
• Few points of sale;
• Lack of public education about the
benefits of NTFPs;
• Small capacities.
Opportunities
• Possibility for creating a Montenegrin
brand in this sector;
• Advantages in comparison to other
countries that produce NTFPs;
• These products does not need lot of time
to be produced;
• Possibility of making profit for collectors
and producers;
• Tremendous natural forest resources
(woods, herbs, wild mushrooms, fruits,
etc.);
• Subsequent development of the Northern
region of Montenegro;
• Expansion of production to final products;
• Plant species that exist exclusively in
Montenegro.
Montenegro has immense potential to develop the NTFPs sector. Currently resources are not
being used and the market is underdeveloped. Therefore, action must be taken to foster the
development of this sector.
The government should become more involved. Also, there is a need for an Agro bank
market in Montenegro. While there is great potential, the aforementioned obstacles must
first be overcome.
35
FOCUS GROUP WITH NTFP PROCESSORS
Bijelo Polje, June 27th 2008
On June 27th 2008, the ISSP organized a focus group in Bijelo Polje with NTFPs processors
and exporters. The focus group was attended by nine representatives of NTFPs processors
that deal with three types of products: medicinal plants, mushrooms and forest fruits.
During the two hour discussion the processors provided important information about the
sector as well as useful suggestions for its development.
Photo 1 & 2 Focus group with NTFP processors in Bijelo Polje
At the very beginning the participants pointed out the importance of medicinal plants in
Montenegro. Some of the most important species include: marigold, hazelnut, thyme,
juniper, nettle. It is important to mention that a large part of reselling is done in the
southern and central parts of Montenegro, rather than in the northern part. The participants
pointed out that the important forest fruits for processing are blueberries, barberries,
strawberries and wild apples and pears. For example, Berane has the capacity to produce
wild apple and pear vinegar. Besides that, there is an ongoing preparation for the production
of blueberry wine.
Montenegro has only a few companies that have the capacity to produce final products made
from medicinal plants, forest fruits and mushrooms. Other producers process them using
very old equipment that insufficient capacities. The most important final products are tea,
essential oils, preserves, juices, pate and dried or fresh mushrooms. The basic problem is
that all of these products are sold as semi final products. Most of the NTFPs processors
36
agree that producing the final product (mushrooms) is not profitable. For example, I class
mushrooms from northern Montenegro would not be profitably used to produce pate.
Most of the processed and semi-processed products are exported to Serbia, BIH and Kosovo.
There are some exports to Western Europe, but in very small quantities. The most important
international market is in Serbia. Products exported from Montenegro are later exported
from Serbia as final products. After Montenegro's independence, Montenegro introduced
export duties that have significantly increased the cost of export. For example, to export tea
NTFP processors must pay approximately 300 euro in taxes. As a result, every export valued
less than 2,000 euro is not profitable. That results in a 50% decrease in sales.
Few NTFP processors have any kind certification. Only one mushroom processor meets the
HASAP standard for production and export. Some processors have certificates from the
Biotechnological Institute in Podgorica. This fact is important in the context of EU
integration. The EU will require NTFP processors to get appropriate certification. NTFP
processors from Montenegro, however, do not feel that exports need to meet standards or
should require certification. At the same time, Western European states have established
standards to protect their domestic producers. On the other hand, if there is sufficient
demand for mushrooms, certification should not pose a barrier to free export.
Problems for NTFP processors:
• Difficulties in reselling medicinal plants
because of high costs;
• Lack of knowledge about medicinal plant
collection, which can endanger the
sector;
• Medicinal plant processing does not have
many opportunities for future
development and profit;
• Illegal middlemen.
Recommendations:
• Seminars and training about the
importance of NTFPs;
• Organized plantation of medicinal plants;
• Bank system that would support the
sector;
• A developed network of NTFPs processors
and middlemen that can further network
with other NTFP processors abroad;
• Opening of distilleries;
• Introduction of standards for pricing.
37
Chapter 4: Interpretation and analysis of the main findings
Project ‘NTFPs Survey’ is consisted of quanititative and qualitative analysis which included all
NTFPs subjects involved into NTFPs value chain. Quantitative analysis is conducted on the
total sample of 500 households which accomplish precondition that are private forest owners
(PFO) or involved in NTFPs collecting and reselling.
On the other side, qualitative analysis is focused on 13 NTFP processors and exporters that
are separately interviewed about NTFP sector in Montenegro. These subjects were also
involved and participated in one focus group that was organized for the purposes of
qualitative analysis.
4.1. Private forest owners
Regarding total sample of 500 households 60% of respondents are private forest owners
(PFO). In comparison to the average of those that are PFO, 60.5% lives in rural parts of
municipalities from the north.
Most common PFO are respondents themselves (head of household) in 85.1% cases.
Majority of PFO (57.2%) owns forest area up to 5ha and among majority of them has
broadleave type of forest.
50.5% of PFO still does not have forest management plan.
If we consider total number of PFO from the sample 35.7% never done wood cutting.
Among those which are cutting wood, majority do that just for household purposes.
PFO are not still introduced with existing legislative in forestry which seems that 40.3%
of PFO need more information regarding to this topic.
PFO has opinion that presentation of better knowing and understanding of forest
management should be duty of Association for forests in the future.
38
4.2. NTFPs collectors
From the total number of households (500) 29.8% of them are NTFPs collectors and they
often do that job fur household purposes.
If we consider total number of household members (1,980), from that number 30.8%
are NTFPs collectors.
NTFP collecting seems not to be permanent source of household income for 63.2% of
households, while in 5% of household NTFPs collecting represents permanent source of
income.
For majority of the households that are dealing with NTFPs, for most of them (39.4%)
NTFPs collecting represents supplement for household budget.
Households from the north mostly collect mushrooms (51.8%), forest fruits (31.1%) and
medical plants (16.8%).
Majority of households that are collecting NTFPs sell them to middlemen (45.6%).
97% of collectors are not members of any Association of NTFP collectors.
The most common recommendation from NTFP collectors in order to improve NTFP
sector is based on three important suggestions:
� Open points of sale;
� More information about collecting process;
� Better quality control.
4.3. NTFPs middlemen
From the total number of individuals from the sample only 1.2% recognized themselves
as middlemen in NTFPs process. If we consider number of households from the sample
then in 4% of them head of the household is middlemen as well.
Most of middlemen sell previously collected NTFPs to other middlemen.
Middlemen are not members of any Association of NTFPs collectors. Their most common
suggestion related to future development of NTFPs sector in Montenegro is addressed to
opening of points of sale.
39
4.4. NTFPs processors and exporters
Nevertheless Montenegro has a great potential for NTFPs sector development, this sector is
still not enough developed and promoted. If we consider main threats that NTFPs processors
and exporters are facing with it could be concluded that something need to be done which
will make better situation in this field.
There are few companies in Montenegro that produce final NTFPs products. There is one for
medical plants in Mojkovac, one for forest fruits and mushrooms in Bijelo Polje, and one in
Rozaje for medical plants, mushrooms and forest fruits. The company in Bijelo Polje has a
large capacity for refining wild mushrooms, forest fruits and medical plants at the industrial
level. All processing in the company is done by large, modern machinery.
Based on information given from NTFPs processors, NTFPs sector is facing with lots of
challenges:
Unmanaged market – It seems that this sector is still not enough recognized as future
potential chance for development of the north. Market is still undeveloped.
Outdated technology of NTFP processing machinery – Producing of NTFPs needs modern
and new technology. Especially in those cases of final product production. Qualitative
surveys showed that majority of NTFPs processors are using old technologies for
production of NTFP semi-final products.
Inability of producers to process final products due to lack of certification and
standardized machinery – Certification and lack of information regarding to this is one of
the major problems for NTFP processors, as well. This is one of the preconditions for
production of final products in this sector. Most of NTFP processors and exporters from
Montenegro are producing semi-final products and exporting them to other countries in
which they become final products.
A problem with financial resources – One of the major problems that NTFPs are faced
with is lack of financial resources which will help NTFPs processors to develop better
capacities in order to increase production. Special loan arrangements from banks, for
small NTFP producers, under favourable conditions and interest rates should increase
interest for developing of this sector.
40
Lack of motivation between NTFPs collectors – Another challenge which NTFP processors
are faced with is lack of motivation between NTFPs collectors. They are or too old to
continue NTFPs collecting or underpriced for their job.
Few points of sale – Almost all subjects in value chain related to NTFPs are unified in
premiss that NTFP sector should face with positive changes if there’s exist organized
points of sale in all municipalities from the north. It should facilitate process for NTFPs
collectors, middlemen and processors.
Low nutrition in the consumption of NTFPs – Population in Montenegro does not have
tradition of using NTFPs (especially myshrooms) in everyday consumption. Lack of
information about nutrition values as well as ‘traditional’ national cuisine that does not
involve these products resulted in low consumption of NTFPs between the populations.
More information regarding that should improve existing situation and promote NTFPs as
valuable nutrition source.
Lack of public education about the benefits of NTFPs – NTFPs processors and exporters
have a common attitude that population in Montengro is not enough informed about
benefits that NTFPs can have for Montenegrin economy and its population.
41
4.5. Recommendations with regards to program design
NTFPs sector need to be recognized firstly as a profitable business among all the subjects
involved in this process (collectors, middlemen and processors)! Based on that, NTFP sector
in Montenegro need to be developed as attractive and profitable for all NTFP subjects from
the value chain. Maybe one of the most important challenge for start-up among NTFP
processors is financial resources for business starting or improvement of existing capacities.
It is evident that Montenegro has great natural resources of different high quality NTFP
products. According to that, NTFPs sector can be used for promotion and export of natural
products from Montenegro. Nevertheless NTFP sector is still undeveloped and
underestimated it represent sector that can be valuable contributor and catalyst of economic
growth of the northern region in Montenegro. NTFP sector has a great chance to be
developed and its development can bring new Montenegrin brand for variety of NTFP
products. Making efforts to produce final NTFP products and export those under brand ‘Made
in Montenegro’ can give valuable contribution for Montenegrin economy and development of
the north. Montenegro has great natural resources of high quality mushrooms, forest fruits
as well as medical plants that exists exlusively in Montenegro.
For that process NTFP processors need to be introduced and implement HASAP standards.
Another task that is directly connected to this process is education. Better knowledge about
forest management among PFO or better knowledge about NTFP collecting and processing
should positively influence all subjects in this value chain. Lack of knowledge and
information on all levels in area of PFO or NTFPs is still evident and future steps regarding
this problem need to be considered in the future. Seminars and training programs related to
forest management plans, NTFP collecting and reselling are very important for future
development of this sector. Participants in this process should develop and strengthen
network of PFO and NTFPs processors and middlemen in the future.
On the other side, Governmental bodies need to assure legal and institutional framework
which should be a basis for development of this sector. That should assure a framework for
further open market competitiveness of different subjects in this sector. Standardization in
all aspects of this sector should be a solid starting point for its further development.
ANNEX 1
SPSS OUTPUTS
44
Urban/Rural Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Urban 131 25.9 27.9
Rural 339 67.0 72.1
Total 470 92.9 100.0
Municipality/crosstabs Municipality Urban Rural
Kolasin 38.5% 61.5%
Plav 23.3% 76.7%
Andrijevica 26.3% 73.7%
Rozaje 21.6% 78.4%
Mojkovac 16.7% 83.3%
Berane 30.9% 69.1%
Pljevlja 26.3% 73.7%
Bijelo Polje 29.0% 71.0%
Zabljak 100.0%
Age of respondent Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Up to 18 1 0.2 0.2
From 19 to 25 11 2.2 2.2
From 26 to 35 64 12.6 12.7
From 36 to 45 130 25.7 25.7
From 46 to 55 139 27.5 27.5
From 56 to 65 95 18.8 18.8
More than 66 65 12.8 12.9
Total 505 99.8 100.0
Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Male 450 88.9 89.1
Female 55 10.9 10.9
Total 505 99.8 100.0
Gender/crosstabs Male Female
Urban/Rural
Urban 82.4% 17.6%
Rural 92.0% 8.0%
Municipality
Kolasin 92.3% 7.7%
Plav 97.1% 2.9%
Andrijevica 100.0%
Rozaje 88.9% 11.1%
Mojkovac 95.8% 4.2%
Berane 78.7% 21.3%
Pljevlja 88.3% 11.7%
Bijelo Polje 90.3% 9.7%
Zabljak 94.7% 5.3%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19 to 25 81.8% 18.2%
From 26 to 35 92.2% 7.8%
From 36 to 45 88.5% 11.5%
From 46 to 55 89.9% 10.1%
From 56 to 65 89.5% 10.5%
Over 66 86.2% 13.8%
Highest completed level of education Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Currently attending primary school 2 0.4 0.4
Currently attending University 11 2.2 2.2
Primary school 76 15.0 15.3
Secondary school - 3 years 126 24.9 25.4
Secondary school -4 years 183 36.2 36.9
College 38 7.5 7.7
BA 58 11.5 11.7
MSci 1 0.2 0.2
PhD 1 0.2 0.2
Total 496 98.0 100.0
45
Highest completed level of education/crosstabs
Currently attendin
g primary school
Currently attending universit
y
Primary school
Secondary school - 3 years
Secondary school -4
years
College BA MSc PhD
Urban/Rural
Urban 4.6% 6.9% 16.9% 42.3% 8.5% 20.8%
Rural 0.6% 1.5% 17.2% 29.2% 34.3% 7.8% 8.7
%
0.3
%
0.3
%
Municipality
Kolasin 2.6% 12.8% 7.7% 38.5% 15.4% 23.1
%
Plav 2.9% 14.3% 25.7% 22.9% 34.3
%
Andrijevic
a
31.6% 31.6% 36.8
%
Rozaje 2.7% 5.4% 10.8% 29.7% 27.0% 8.1% 13.5
%
2.7
%
Mojkovac 21.7% 43.5% 30.4% 4.3%
Berane 1.1% 4.3% 25.5% 48.9% 7.4% 12.8%
Pljevlja 26.7% 30.7% 41.3% 1.3%
Bijelo
Polje
5.7% 20.5% 33.6% 31.1% 3.3% 5.7
%
Zabljak 42.1% 10.5% 47.4%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19
to 25
45.5% 9.1% 27.3% 18.2%
From 26 to 35
1.6% 4.8% 17.5% 55.6% 9.5% 11.1%
From 36
to 45
4.7% 31.0% 42.6% 7.0% 14.7
%
From 46
to 55
1.5% 5.9% 25.0% 41.9% 9.6% 14.7
%
0.7
%
0.7
%
From 56
to 65
1.1% 3.2% 24.5% 29.8% 25.5% 6.4% 9.6
%
Over 66 1.6% 58.1% 19.4% 12.9% 3.2% 4.8
%
Respondent's occupation Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Agriculture, forestry and water supply
145 28.7 30.9
Fishing 1 0.2 0.2
Mining and quarrying 3 0.6 0.6
Electricity, gas and water supply
15 3.0 3.2
Construction 25 4.9 5.3
Wholesale and retail trade 22 4.3 4.7
Hotels and restaurants 12 2.4 2.6
Transport, storage and communication
19 3.8 4.1
Financial intermediation 4 0.8 0.9
Real estate activities, renting
5 1.0 1.1
Public administration and social insurance
39 7.7 8.3
Education 24 4.7 5.1
Health and social work 15 3.0 3.2
Other community, social and personal services
36 7.1 7.7
Households with employed persons
5 1.0 1.1
Extra-territorial organizations and bodes
98 19.4 20.9
Other 1 0.2 0.2
Total 469 92.7 100.0
46
Respondent's occupation/crosstabs
Agriculture, forestry and water supply
Electricity, gas and water supply
Construction
Transport, storage and communicati
on
Public administrati
on and social
insurance
Education
Extra-territorial organizations and bodes
Urban/ rural
Urban 12.6% 5.0% 8.4% 7.6% 9.2% 8.4% 25.2%
Rural 36.0% 2.9% 4.5% 2.9% 7.0% 4.1% 19.4%
Municipality
Kolasin 13.2% 15.8% 2.6% 5.3% 5.3% 21.1%
Plav 28.6% 5.7% 8.6% 5.7% 20.0% 5.7%
Andrijevi
ca
15.8% 10.5% 10.5% 5.3% 21.1% 10.5%
Rozaje 30.3% 3.0% 6.1% 12.1% 9.1% 15.2%
Mojkovac 31.8% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 45.5%
Berane 20.7% 1.1% 4.6% 3.4% 2.3% 9.2% 32.2%
Pljevlja 43.2% 2.7% 4.1% 6.8% 25.7%
Bijelo
Polje
43.0% 2.6% 8.8% 6.1% 8.8% 3.5% 8.8%
Zabljak 21.1% 5.3% 68.4%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19
to 25
9.1%
From 26
to 35
14.5% 3.2% 11.3% 4.8% 12.9% 1.6% 14.5%
From 36
to 45
21.4% 4.0% 6.3% 3.2% 7.9% 7.9% 26.2%
From 46
to 55
20.2% 5.4% 5.4% 6.2% 7.8% 6.2% 24.8%
From 56
to 65
49.4% 1.2% 3.6% 4.8% 9.6% 6.0% 14.5%
Over 66 73.7% 3.5% 19.3%
Education level
Currently
attending
primary
school
50.0%
Currently
attending
universit
y
44.4% 11.1%
Primary
school
64.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 19.2%
Secondar
y school
- 3 years
44.6% 0.9% 6.3% 3.6% .9% 22.3%
Secondar
y school
-4 years
21.6% 2.9% 5.8% 5.8% 8.8% 1.8% 28.1%
College 5.6% 5.6% 11.1% 8.3% 16.7% 11.1% 16.7%
BA 3.4% 12.1% 3.4% 1.7% 24.1% 29.3% 5.2%
MSci 100.0%
PhD
What was yours primary activity in the past month? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.
504 99.6% 100%
Working/helping to earn income
297 58.7% 58.9%
Job searching 57 11.3% 11.3%
Housekeeping 7 1.4% 1.4%
Retired 7 1.4% 1.4%
Stay at home 114 22.5% 22.6%
Sick/disabled 7 1.4% 1.4%
Other 15 3.0% 3.0%
47
What is the main source of household income?
Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 795 100% 157.4%
Agricultural pension 8 1.0% 1.6%
Social assistance 11 1.3% 2.2%
Revenues from property 70 8.8% 13.9%
Revenues from other sources 94 11.8% 18.6%
Revenues from agriculture 113 14.2% 22.4%
Pension 148 18.6% 29.3%
Wages 351 44.1% 69.5%
Average monthly household income Frequency Percent Valid Percent
More than 1,000 euro 11 0.5 2.2
From 800 to 1,000 euro 33 1.6 6.7
From 600 to 800 euro 55 2.7 11.1
From 300 to 600 euro 186 9.4 37.5
Up to 300 euro 211 10.64 42.5
Total 496 25.1 100
Household income during previous three years is… Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Constantly increasing 51 2.6 10.5
Mostly the same-stabile 353 17.8 72.5
Constantly decreasing 83 4.2 17.1
Total 487 24.6 100
Household income during previous three years is/crosstabs Constantly increasing Mostly the same-
stabile Constantly decreasing
U/R Urban 9.4% 75.0% 15.6%
Rural 9.5% 76.8% 13.7%
Municipality Kolasin 21.4% 64.3% 14.3%
Plav 66.7% 33.3%
Andrijevica 75.0% 25.0%
Rozaje 25.0% 66.7% 8.3%
Mojkovac 100.0%
Berane 4.0% 76.0% 20.0%
Pljevlja 5.6% 83.3% 11.1%
Bijelo Polje 9.4% 81.3% 9.4%
Zabljak 62.5% 37.5%
Do you own forestland?
Yes 7.4% 75.5% 17.0%
No 11.1% 80.0% 8.9%
Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting?
Yes, just for household purposes
6.3% 84.4% 9.4%
Yes, for processing 5.5% 76.4% 18.2%
No 15.2% 69.6% 15.2%
In which measure does your household rely on this money?
1.00 8.0% 72.0% 20.0%
2.00 89.5% 10.5%
3.00 6.7% 86.7% 6.7%
4.00 100.0%
5.00 100.0%
Do you regard NTFP money as a sustainable source of income?
Yes 10.0% 90.0%
No 84.2% 15.8%
Average annual household income from forest products (euro) Number Minimum Maximum Mean
Wood 134 2.0 5,000.0 853.2
Medical plants 43 0.0 1,000.0 248.7
Forest fruits 116 20.0 10,000.0 434.6
Mushrooms 201 0.0 15,000.0 454.7
Do you own forestland? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes 298 58.9 60.1
No 198 39.1 39.9
Total 496 98.0 100.0
48
Do you own forestland/crosstabs
Yes No
Urban/Rural
Urban 58.0% 42.0%
Rural 60.5% 39.5%
Municipality
Kolasin 56.8% 43.2%
Plav 97.1% 2.9%
Andrijevica 100.0%
Rozaje 73.0% 27.0%
Mojkovac 37.5% 62.5%
Berane 63.3% 36.7%
Pljevlja 31.2% 68.8%
Bijelo Polje 58.1% 41.9%
Zabljak 100.0%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19 to 25 63.6% 36.4%
From 26 to 35 66.1% 33.9%
From 36 to 45 56.7% 43.3%
From 46 to 55 57.8% 42.2%
From 56 to 65 61.1% 38.9%
Over 66 62.5% 37.5%
Education level
Currently attending primary
school
100.0%
Currently attending university 81.8% 18.2%
Primary school 60.5% 39.5%
Secondary school - 3 years 52.5% 47.5%
Secondary school -4 years 55.8% 44.2%
College 73.0% 27.0%
BA degree 75.9% 24.1%
MSc degree 100.0%
PhD 100.0%
Respondent's occupation
Agriculture, forestry and water
supply
59.7% 40.3%
Mining and quarrying 100.0%
Electricity, gas and water
supply
60.0% 40.0%
Construction 80.0% 20.0%
Wholesale and retail trade 68.2% 31.8%
Hotels and restaurants 41.7% 58.3%
Transport, storage and
communication
57.9% 42.1%
Financial intermediation 25.0% 75.0%
Real estate activities, renting 40.0% 60.0%
Public administration and
social insurance
66.7% 33.3%
Education 70.8% 29.2%
Health and social work 66.7% 33.3%
Other community, social and
personal services
63.9% 36.1%
Households with employed
persons
80.0% 20.0%
Extra-territorial organizations
and bodes
46.7% 53.3%
Other 100.0%
What was yours primary activity during the past month?
Working/helping to earn
income
62.7% 37.3%
Job searching 48.2% 51.8%
Housekeeping 71.4% 28.6%
Retired 33.3% 66.7%
Stay at home 59.6% 40.4%
Sick/disabled 42.9% 57.1%
Other 69.2% 30.8%
49
Size of forestland/crosstabs
Up to 5ha From 6 to 10ha
From 11 to 20ha
From 21 to 50ha
Over 51ha
Urban/Rural
Urban 55.2% 14.9% 14.9% 13.4% 1.5%
Rural 57.3% 16.7% 10.4% 12.5% 3.1%
Municipality
Kolasin 52.4% 38.1% 9.5%
Plav 2.9% 5.9% 41.2% 44.1% 5.9%
Andrijevica 5.3% 26.3% 57.9% 10.5%
Rozaje 76.9% 11.5% 7.7% 3.8%
Mojkovac 87.5% 12.5%
Berane 79.2% 13.2% 5.7% 1.9%
Pljevlja 50.0% 20.0% 5.0% 20.0% 5.0%
Bijelo Polje 69.4% 24.2% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6%
Zabljak 100.0%
Type of the forest Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Conifers 83 27.9 27.9
Broadleaves 116 38.9 38.9
Both types 99 33.2 33.2
Total 298 100.0 100.0
Type of the forest/crosstabs
Coniferous Broadleaves Both types
Urban/Rural
Urban 15.8% 35.5% 48.7%
Rural 26.6% 44.2% 29.1%
Municipality
Kolasin 4.8% 28.6% 66.7%
Plav 23.5% 41.2% 35.3%
Andrijevica 15.8% 15.8% 68.4%
Rozaje 63.0% 37.0%
Mojkovac 11.1% 88.9%
Berane 8.8% 54.4% 36.8%
Pljevlja 70.8% 8.3% 20.8%
Bijelo Polje 6.9% 68.1% 25.0%
Zabljak 94.7% 5.3%
Forest area
Up to 5ha 29.1% 43.7% 27.2%
From 6 to 10ha 20.9% 39.5% 39.5%
From 11 to 20ha 21.9% 34.4% 43.8%
From 21 to 50ha 33.3% 16.7% 50.0%
Over 51ha 14.3% 28.6% 57.1%
Who owns the forest?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Myself 252 84.6 85.1
Spouse 4 1.3 1.4
Family member 31 10.4 10.5
Other 9 3.0 3.0
Total 296 99.3 100.0
Type of ownership documents Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Full documents 164 55.0 55.8
Only documents from cadastre 125 41.9 42.5
In process of restitution 4 1.3 1.4
Something else 1 0.3 0.3
Total 294 98.7 100.0
50
Type of ownership documents/crosstabs
Full documents Only documents from cadastre
In process of restitution
Something else
Urban/Rural
Urban 71.1% 27.6% 1.3%
Rural 49.2% 48.7% 1.5% 0.5%
Municipality
Kolasin 90.5% 9.5%
Plav 30.3% 69.7%
Andrijevica 21.1% 73.7% 5.3%
Rozaje 66.7% 25.9% 7.4%
Mojkovac 88.9% 11.1%
Berane 41.1% 55.4% 1.8% 1.8%
Pljevlja 54.2% 45.8%
Bijelo Polje 56.9% 43.1%
Zabljak 94.1% 5.9%
Size of forest
Up to 5ha 63.2% 36.1% 0.6%
From 6 to 10ha 48.8% 48.8% 2.3%
From 11 to 20ha 56.3% 43.8%
From 21 to 50ha 37.1% 60.0% 2.9%
Over 51ha 14.3% 71.4% 14.3%
How did you obtain the forest? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Inheritance 275 92.3 95.2
Purchase 11 3.7 3.8
Other 3 1.0 1.0
Total 289 97.0 100.0
How did you obtain the forest/crosstabs
Inheritance Purchase Other
Urban/Rural
Urban 94.7% 2.6% 2.6%
Rural 94.7% 4.7% 0.5%
Municipality
Kolasin 100.0%
Plav 87.5% 12.5%
Andrijevica 94.7% 5.3%
Rozaje 81.5% 11.1% 7.4%
Mojkovac 100.0%
Berane 100.0%
Pljevlja 100.0%
Bijelo Polje 95.4% 4.6%
Zabljak 100.0%
Size of forest
Up to 5ha 98.1% 1.3% 0.6%
From 6 to 10ha 95.1% 4.9%
From 11 to 20ha 87.1% 6.5% 6.5%
From 21 to 50ha 88.6% 11.4%
Over 51ha 100.0%
Why do you own forest? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.
594 100% 199.3%
Pass on to children or other 197 33.1% 66.1%
To enjoy scenery and privacy 58 9.7% 19.4%
Long-term financial investment 47 7.9% 15.7%
For hunting and fishing 14 2.3% 4.6%
For timber production 38 6.3% 12.7%
As part of my family heritage 93 15.6% 31.2%
To collect NTFPs 22 3.7% 7.3%
Fore recreation other than hunting and fishing 18 3.0% 6.0%
For grazing livestock 30 5.0% 10.0%
To collect firewood 77 12.9% 25.8%
How often do you visit your forest? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Never 6 2.0 2.0
Monthly 81 27.2 27.3
Almost four times per year 81 27.2 27.3
Almost twice a year 69 23.2 23.2
Annually 60 20.1 20.2
Total 297 99.7 100.0
51
How often do you visit your forest/crosstabs
Never Monthly Almost four times per year
Almost twice a year
Annually
Urban/Rural
Urban 1.3% 18.4% 31.6% 21.1% 27.6%
Rural 2.5% 28.1% 25.6% 25.1% 18.6%
Municipality
Kolasin 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 42.9%
Plav 2.9% 11.8% 26.5% 44.1% 14.7%
Andrijevica 5.3% 47.4% 21.1% 26.3%
Rozaje 33.3% 37.0% 11.1% 18.5%
Mojkovac 44.4% 44.4% 11.1%
Berane 5.3% 24.6% 29.8% 22.8% 17.5%
Pljevlja 66.7% 4.2% 12.5% 16.7%
Bijelo Polje 1.4% 22.2% 25.0% 25.0% 26.4%
Zabljak 5.6% 33.3% 22.2% 38.9%
Forest area
Up to 5ha 2.5% 28.7% 28.7% 21.0% 19.1%
From 6 to 10ha 32.6% 30.2% 16.3% 20.9%
From 11 to
20ha
3.1% 28.1% 21.9% 31.3% 15.6%
From 21 to
50ha
11.1% 30.6% 30.6% 27.8%
Over 51ha 42.9% 42.9% 14.3%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19 to 25 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9%
From 26 to 35 4.9% 22.0% 26.8% 19.5% 26.8%
From 36 to 45 2.8% 25.0% 23.6% 29.2% 19.4%
From 46 to 55 1.3% 32.5% 22.1% 22.1% 22.1%
From 56 to 65 1.7% 27.6% 41.4% 15.5% 13.8%
Over 66 25.0% 27.5% 30.0% 17.5%
Education level
Currently
attending
primary school
50.0% 50.0%
Currently
attending
university
11.1% 22.2% 33.3% 33.3%
Primary school 35.6% 22.2% 15.6% 26.7%
Secondary
school - 3 years
1.6% 29.7% 32.8% 25.0% 10.9%
Secondary
school -4 years
5.0% 32.7% 16.8% 26.7% 18.8%
College 11.1% 44.4% 33.3% 11.1%
BA degree 13.6% 38.6% 15.9% 31.8%
MSc degree 100.0%
PhD 100.0%
Respondent's occupation
Agriculture,
forestry and
water supply
2.4% 35.3% 29.4% 22.4% 10.6%
Mining and
quarrying
33.3% 66.7%
Electricity, gas
and water
supply
33.3% 44.4% 22.2%
Construction 25.0% 25.0% 15.0% 35.0%
Wholesale and
retail trade
33.3% 6.7% 26.7% 33.3%
Hotels and
restaurants
20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0%
Transport,
storage and
communication
9.1% 36.4% 45.5% 9.1%
Financial
intermediation
100.0%
Real estate
activities,
renting
50.0% 50.0%
Public
administration
and social
insurance
19.2% 30.8% 26.9% 23.1%
Education 5.9% 58.8% 11.8% 23.5%
Health and 10.0% 30.0% 10.0% 50.0%
52
social work
Other
community,
social and
personal
services
4.3% 34.8% 17.4% 17.4% 26.1%
Households with
employed
persons
50.0% 50.0%
Extra-territorial
organizations
and bodes
7.0% 25.6% 23.3% 32.6% 11.6%
What was yours primary activity during the past month?
Working/helping
to earn income
2.7% 23.1% 28.0% 23.6% 22.5%
Job searching 37.0% 25.9% 25.9% 11.1%
Housekeeping 40.0% 20.0% 40.0%
Retired 100.0%
Stay at home 1.5% 29.4% 27.9% 22.1% 19.1%
Sick/disabled 33.3% 66.7%
Other 55.6% 22.2% 11.1% 11.1%
Do you sell forest products? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.
All the households Only PFO
336 100% 67.2% 112.7%
Yes, firewood 84 25% 16.8% 28.1%
Yes, timbers 48 14.2% 9.6% 16.1%
Yes, NTFPs 50 14.8% 10% 16.7%
Yes, all 4 1.1% 0.8% 1.3%
No 150 44.6% 30% 50.3%
Is there a forest management plan for your forest? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes 74 24.8 24.9
No, but it is not a problem 150 50.3 50.5
No, and this is big problem 25 8.4 8.4
I don't know 48 16.1 16.2
Total 297 99.7 100.0
Is there a forest management plan for your forest/crosstabs
Yes No, but it is not a problem
No, and this is a big problem
I don't know
Urban/Rural
Urban 14.5% 67.1% 6.6% 11.8%
Rural 23.2% 48.0% 9.6% 19.2%
Municipality
Kolasin 4.8% 42.9% 19.0% 33.3%
Plav 11.8% 70.6% 8.8% 8.8%
Andrijevica 5.3% 78.9% 15.8%
Rozaje 11.1% 59.3% 14.8% 14.8%
Mojkovac 66.7% 22.2% 11.1%
Berane 24.6% 38.6% 1.8% 35.1%
Pljevlja 66.7% 25.0% 4.2% 4.2%
Bijelo Polje 5.6% 68.1% 9.7% 16.7%
Zabljak 94.4% 5.6%
Forest area
Up to 5ha 26.8% 45.9% 9.6% 17.8%
From 6 to 10ha 25.6% 46.5% 27.9%
From 11 to 20ha 18.8% 65.6% 15.6%
From 21 to 50ha 25.0% 58.3% 11.1% 5.6%
Over 51ha 14.3% 57.1% 14.3% 14.3%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19 to 25 42.9% 42.9% 14.3%
From 26 to 35 26.8% 56.1% 9.8% 7.3%
From 36 to 45 26.8% 53.5% 11.3% 8.5%
From 46 to 55 20.5% 53.8% 7.7% 17.9%
From 56 to 65 19.0% 44.8% 10.3% 25.9%
Over 66 30.0% 45.0% 2.5% 22.5%
53
What do you think about forest certification?
Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.
483 100% 162.1%
Certification will improve forest management 141 29.1% 47.3%
Certification will increase my profit 51 10.5% 17.1%
Certification will satisfy consumers of wood 62 12.8% 20.8%
Certification will reduce need for forestry regulation 63 13.0% 21.1%
Certification will give me recognition for the good forestry 99 20.4% 33.2%
Certification will improve competitiveness of a local wood producers 55 11.3% 18.4%
Other 12 2.4% 4.0%
Do you have experience with the forest certification? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes, I have certification 15 5.0 5.1
Yes, I have proper information 57 19.1 19.3
No 211 70.8 71.5
No, I think that is not useful 12 4.0 4.1
Total 295 99.0 100.0
Do you have experience with forest certification/crosstabs
Yes, I have certification
Yes, I have proper
information
No No, I think that is not useful
Urban/Rural
Urban 6.7% 25.3% 68.0%
Rural 5.1% 17.3% 71.6% 6.1%
Municipality
Kolasin 4.8% 95.2%
Plav 6.1% 30.3% 51.5% 12.1%
Andrijevica 47.4% 47.4% 5.3%
Rozaje 3.7% 25.9% 59.3% 11.1%
Mojkovac 11.1% 22.2% 44.4% 22.2%
Berane 1.8% 12.5% 85.7%
Pljevlja 12.5% 41.7% 45.8%
Bijelo Polje 1.4% 9.7% 87.5% 1.4%
Zabljak 11.1% 5.6% 83.3%
Forest area
Up to 5ha 5.8% 11.5% 79.5% 3.2%
From 6 to 10ha 18.6% 79.1% 2.3%
From 11 to 20ha 3.1% 40.6% 50.0% 6.3%
From 21 to 50ha 8.6% 40.0% 42.9% 8.6%
Over 51ha 28.6% 42.9% 28.6%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19 to 25 100.0%
From 26 to 35 4.9% 24.4% 63.4% 7.3%
From 36 to 45 5.6% 25.4% 64.8% 4.2%
From 46 to 55 5.1% 23.1% 69.2% 2.6%
From 56 to 65 5.2% 12.1% 77.6% 5.2%
Over 66 5.3% 10.5% 81.6% 2.6%
Is there a forest management plan for your forest?
Yes 13.7% 27.4% 56.2% 2.7%
No, but it is no
problem
1.4% 18.9% 77.0% 2.7%
No and this is big problem
8.0% 36.0% 52.0% 4.0%
I don't know 89.6% 10.4%
Why would you consider certifying of your forestland? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.
460 100% 154.3%
If it would help to protect the environment 151 32.8% 50.6%
If it would improve wildlife 44 9.5% 14.7%
If it would make my forest more healthy 155 33.6% 52.0%
If my wood products could be sold for a higher price 76 16.5% 25.5%
If it would give me access to wood markets that are not normally available 34 7.3% 11.4%
How often do you cut your wood? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
All year (monthly) 3 1.0 1.0
All year (five times or less) 30 10.1 10.1
Seasonal (winter) 49 16.4 16.5
Seasonal (spring) 109 36.6 36.7
Never done that before 106 35.6 35.7
Total 297 99.7 100.0
54
How often do you cut your wood/crosstabs
All year (monthly)
All year (five times or
less)
Seasonal (winter)
Seasonal (spring)
Never done that before
Urban/Rural
Urban 9.2% 15.8% 26.3% 48.7%
Rural 1.5% 10.6% 17.2% 38.9% 31.8%
Municipality
Kolasin 4.8% 9.5% 85.7%
Plav 29.4% 5.9% 35.3% 29.4%
Andrijevica 21.1% 31.6% 47.4%
Rozaje 3.7% 11.1% 18.5% 29.6% 37.0%
Mojkovac 77.8% 22.2%
Berane 8.8% 22.8% 33.3% 35.1%
Pljevlja 4.2% 4.2% 8.3% 66.7% 16.7%
Bijelo Polje 1.4% 4.2% 18.1% 41.7% 34.7%
Zabljak 16.7% 77.8% 5.6%
Forest area
Up to 5ha 0.6% 6.4% 22.3% 40.1% 30.6%
From 6 to 10ha 2.3% 7.0% 7.0% 34.9% 48.8%
From 11 to
20ha
9.4% 12.5% 37.5% 40.6%
From 21 to
50ha
27.8% 5.6% 33.3% 33.3%
Over 51ha 57.1% 14.3% 28.6%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19 to 25 28.6% 28.6% 42.9%
From 26 to 35 9.8% 19.5% 29.3% 41.5%
From 36 to 45 2.8% 8.3% 12.5% 54.2% 22.2%
From 46 to 55 1.3% 15.4% 16.7% 28.2% 38.5%
From 56 to 65 10.3% 19.0% 19.0% 51.7%
Over 66 5.1% 12.8% 56.4% 25.6%
Is there a forest management plan for your forest?
Yes 1.4% 12.3% 17.8% 43.8% 24.7%
No, but it is no
problem
1.3% 8.7% 16.0% 38.7% 35.3%
No and this is
big problem
8.0% 44.0% 48.0%
I don't know 12.5% 22.9% 16.7% 47.9%
How do you get permits to cut the wood you want? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
For as much as I want, without much problems
125 41.9 65.1
Difficult, but I am allowed to cut
40 13.4 20.8
Terrible, permit is in adequate
27 9.1 14.1
Total 192 64.4 100.0
How do you get permits to cut the wood you want/crosstabs
For as much as I want, without much
problems
Difficult, but I am allowed to cut
Terrible, permit is inadequate
Urban/Rural
Urban 59.0% 23.1% 17.9%
Rural 65.4% 22.1% 12.5%
Municipality
Kolasin 100.0%
Plav 37.5% 20.8% 41.7%
Andrijevica 60.0% 40.0%
Rozaje 38.9% 38.9% 22.2%
Mojkovac 88.9% 11.1%
Berane 81.1% 18.9%
Pljevlja 80.0% 10.0% 10.0%
Bijelo Polje 63.8% 23.4% 12.8%
Zabljak 100.0%
Forest area
Up to 5ha 76.4% 18.2% 5.5%
From 6 to 10ha 54.5% 27.3% 18.2%
From 11 to 20ha 47.4% 26.3% 26.3%
From 21 to 50ha 37.5% 20.8% 41.7%
Over 51ha 80.0% 20.0%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19 to 25 60.0% 40.0%
55
From 26 to 35 70.8% 8.3% 20.8%
From 36 to 45 58.9% 30.4% 10.7%
From 46 to 55 62.5% 27.1% 10.4%
From 56 to 65 64.3% 17.9% 17.9%
Over 66 75.9% 10.3% 13.8%
Is there a forest management plan for your forest?
Yes 85.5% 9.1% 5.5%
No, but it is no problem 55.1% 24.5% 20.4%
No and this is big
problem
46.2% 38.5% 15.4%
I don't know 68.0% 24.0% 8.0%
How often do you cut your wood?
All year (monthly) 66.7% 33.3%
All year (five times or
less)
53.3% 30.0% 16.7%
Seasonal (winter) 75.5% 16.3% 8.2%
Seasonal (spring) 64.2% 20.2% 15.6%
Never done that before 100.0%
Main purposes for wood cutting Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Selling to companies 9 3.0 4.8
Selling to individuals 80 26.8 42.3
For household needs 100 33.6 52.9
Total 189 63.4 100.0
Main purposes for wood cutting/crosstabs
Selling to companies Selling to individuals For household needs
Urban/Rural
Urban 10.3% 35.9% 53.8%
Rural 3.7% 46.3% 50.0%
Municipality
Kolasin 66.7% 33.3%
Plav 13.6% 77.3% 9.1%
Andrijevica 20.0% 70.0% 10.0%
Rozaje 5.6% 38.9% 55.6%
Mojkovac 11.1% 11.1% 77.8%
Berane 2.7% 51.4% 45.9%
Pljevlja 50.0% 50.0%
Bijelo Polje 29.8% 70.2%
Zabljak 100.0%
Forest area
Up to 5ha 0.9% 31.2% 67.9%
From 6 to 10ha 59.1% 40.9%
From 11 to 20ha 16.7% 66.7% 16.7%
From 21 to 50ha 13.0% 78.3% 8.7%
Over 51ha 40.0% 40.0% 20.0%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19 to 25 20.0% 80.0%
From 26 to 35 8.7% 39.1% 52.2%
From 36 to 45 1.8% 45.5% 52.7%
From 46 to 55 10.4% 35.4% 54.2%
From 56 to 65 3.6% 50.0% 46.4%
Over 66 50.0% 50.0%
Do you have contracts with any companies in the area of wood processing? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes, contract deliveries 14 4.7 7.5
No, I sell when I have wood to sale
41 13.8 21.9
No, don't selling to wood companies
126 42.3 67.4
Other 6 2.0 3.2
Total 187 62.8 100.0
56
Do you have contracts with any companies in the area of wood processing/crosstabs
Yes, contract deliveries
No, I sell when I have wood to
sale
No, don't sell to wood companies
Other
Urban/Rural
Urban 13.2% 23.7% 63.2%
Rural 6.7% 22.4% 67.9% 3.0%
Municipality
Kolasin 33.3% 66.7%
Plav 21.7% 56.5% 21.7%
Andrijevica 20.0% 50.0% 30.0%
Rozaje 11.8% 29.4% 47.1% 11.8%
Mojkovac 12.5% 87.5%
Berane 2.7% 10.8% 83.8% 2.7%
Pljevlja 25.0% 65.0% 10.0%
Bijelo Polje 8.9% 88.9% 2.2%
Zabljak 6.3% 93.8%
Forest area
Up to 5ha 1.9% 15.9% 77.6% 4.7%
From 6 to 10ha 4.8% 9.5% 85.7%
From 11 to 20ha 15.8% 47.4% 36.8%
From 21 to 50ha 25.0% 41.7% 33.3%
Over 51ha 40.0% 40.0% 20.0%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19 to 25 25.0% 75.0%
From 26 to 35 16.7% 12.5% 70.8%
From 36 to 45 3.6% 30.4% 64.3% 1.8%
From 46 to 55 8.2% 22.4% 67.3% 2.0%
From 56 to 65 11.5% 15.4% 61.5% 11.5%
Over 66 3.8% 19.2% 73.1% 3.8%
Main purposes of wood cutting
Selling to
companies
88.9% 11.1%
Selling to
individuals
5.1% 39.2% 53.2% 2.5%
For household
needs
9.4% 86.5% 4.2%
Actual timber and firewood production in 2007 (average) Note: If production is < 100 m³
Number Minimum Maximum Mean
Timbers (m³) 65 1.0 100.0 28.06
Firewood (m³) 114 2.0 100.0 29.9
Actual timber and firewood production in 2007 (average) Note: If production is > 100 m³
Number Minimum Maximum Mean
Timbers (m³) 8 120.0 600.0 277.5
Firewood (m³) 5 200.0 400.0 240.0
Planned timber and firewood production in 2008 (average) Note: If total planned production is < 100 m³
Number Minimum Maximum Mean
Timbers (m³) 52 1.0 100.0 31.3
Firewood (m³) 107 2.0 100.0 28.02
Planned timber and firewood production in 2008 (average) Note: If total planned production is > 100 m³
Number Minimum Maximum Mean
Timbers (m³) 5 200.0 550.0 320.0
Firewood (m³) 4 150.0 450.0 135.4
How important is firewood for you? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Very important 171 57.4 90.0
Not so important 13 4.4 6.8
Not important 6 2.0 3.2
Total 190 63.8 100.0
57
How important is firewood for you/crosstabs
Very important Not so important Not important
Urban/Rural
Urban 84.6% 7.7% 7.7%
Rural 92.5% 6.7% 0.7%
Municipality
Kolasin 100.0%
Plav 75.0% 20.8% 4.2%
Andrijevica 70.0% 20.0% 10.0%
Rozaje 76.5% 23.5%
Mojkovac 100.0%
Berane 94.4% 2.8% 2.8%
Pljevlja 95.0% 5.0%
Bijelo Polje 100.0%
Zabljak 93.8% 6.3%
Forest area
Up to 5ha 93.5% 3.7% 2.8%
From 6 to 10ha 100.0%
From 11 to 20ha 85.0% 15.0%
From 21 to 50ha 66.7% 25.0% 8.3%
Over 51ha 80.0% 20.0%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19 to 25 75.0% 25.0%
From 26 to 35 91.7% 8.3%
From 36 to 45 92.9% 5.4% 1.8%
From 46 to 55 87.5% 6.3% 6.3%
From 56 to 65 85.2% 7.4% 7.4%
Over 66 93.1% 6.9%
Do you regard revenue from firewood to be sustainable source of income? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes, forever 31 10.4 16.3
Yes, for the next 10 years 32 10.7 16.8
No, in 10 years it will be less than today
38 12.8 20.0
No 89 29.9 46.8
Total 190 63.8 100.0
Do you regard revenue from firewood to be sustainable source of income/crosstabs
Yes, for ever Yes, for next 10 years
No, in 10 years it is less than today
No
Urban/Rural
Urban 7.7% 28.2% 30.8% 33.3%
Rural 20.1% 15.7% 17.9% 46.3%
Municipality
Kolasin 66.7% 33.3%
Plav 16.7% 45.8% 33.3% 4.2%
Andrijevica 10.0% 50.0% 40.0%
Rozaje 5.9% 5.9% 29.4% 58.8%
Mojkovac 11.1% 22.2% 66.7%
Berane 13.9% 13.9% 19.4% 52.8%
Pljevlja 40.0% 60.0%
Bijelo Polje 17.4% 17.4% 19.6% 45.7%
Zabljak 100.0%
Forest area
Up to 5ha 14.0% 11.2% 15.9% 58.9%
From 6 to 10ha 9.1% 9.1% 22.7% 59.1%
From 11 to 20ha 25.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0%
From 21 to 50ha 29.2% 37.5% 25.0% 8.3%
Over 51ha 20.0% 20.0% 60.0%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19 to 25 50.0% 50.0%
From 26 to 35 12.5% 37.5% 25.0% 25.0%
From 36 to 45 16.4% 12.7% 20.0% 50.9%
From 46 to 55 14.3% 10.2% 26.5% 49.0%
From 56 to 65 21.4% 21.4% 17.9% 39.3%
Over 66 21.4% 10.7% 10.7% 57.1%
How important is firewood for you?
Very important 18.3% 17.8% 16.6% 47.3%
A little important 15.4% 46.2% 38.5%
Not that important 50.0% 50.0%
58
Are you introduced with current legislation of the forestry sector? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes, sufficiently 82 27.5 27.7
No, I want to but there is no information
67 22.5 22.6
No, I want to know more 120 40.3 40.5
I don't want to know 27 9.1 9.1
Total 296 99.3 100.0
Are you introduced with current legislation of the forestry sector/crosstabs
Yes, sufficiently No, I want to but there is no information
No, I want to know more
i don't want to know
Urban/Rural
Urban 27.6% 34.2% 28.9% 9.2%
Rural 25.4% 18.8% 47.7% 8.1%
Municipality
Kolasin 14.3% 33.3% 42.9% 9.5%
Plav 29.4% 20.6% 32.4% 17.6%
Andrijevica 15.8% 47.4% 31.6% 5.3%
Rozaje 50.0% 15.4% 30.8% 3.8%
Mojkovac 66.7% 33.3%
Berane 7.1% 21.4% 62.5% 8.9%
Pljevlja 16.7% 33.3% 25.0% 25.0%
Bijelo Polje 19.4% 23.6% 48.6% 8.3%
Zabljak 89.5% 5.3% 5.3%
Forest area
Up to 5ha 34.4% 17.2% 40.1% 8.3%
From 6 to 10ha 14.0% 30.2% 46.5% 9.3%
From 11 to 20ha 25.0% 31.3% 34.4% 9.4%
From 21 to 50ha 25.0% 25.0% 38.9% 11.1%
Over 51ha 28.6% 42.9% 28.6%
Age of respondent
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19 to 25 28.6% 28.6% 42.9%
From 26 to 35 22.0% 24.4% 48.8% 4.9%
From 36 to 45 22.5% 19.7% 52.1% 5.6%
From 46 to 55 35.9% 28.2% 30.8% 5.1%
From 56 to 65 29.8% 14.0% 42.1% 14.0%
Over 66 20.0% 27.5% 30.0% 22.5%
What kind of services do you received from the Forestry Directorate? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.
800 100% 268.4%
Cutting permits 226 28.2% 75.8%
Transport documents 184 23.0% 61.7%
Advice 192 24.0% 64.4%
Seedlings 179 22.3% 60.0%
Other 19 2.3% 6.3%
Recommendations in order to be better informed Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.
333 100% All the households PFO
Training programs 29 8.7% 5.7% 9.7%
Seminars 196 58.8% 38.7% 65.7%
Workshops 59 17.7% 11.6% 19.7%
Other 49 14.7% 9.6% 16.4%
Main problems in forestry sector – Open question Main problems in forestry sector Frequency
Forestry Directorate need better control over the forest 1
Illegal wood cutting in state forests 1
Lack of information regarding forest management 1
Lack of information and experts in area of forestry 1
Lack of knowledge 1
Lack of forestry protection and subventions in this area 1
Illegal cutting 2
Illegal cutting 1
Problems with permissions for wood cutting 1
Lack of knowledge and effectiveness 1
Long-term concessions 1
Low life standard 1
Illegal cutting 1
Several problems 1
Infrastructure 1
59
Bad forest management and problems within Forestry Directorate 1
Low prices of forest products 1
Illegal cutting 2
Illegal cutting 2
Illegal cutting 2
Illegal cutting 3
Illegal cutting 4
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting 1
Low prices of NTFPs 1
Problems with permission for wood cutting 1
Bad relation man-forest 1
Bad policy in this sector 3
Bad policy in Forestry Directorate 1
Low production of wood 1
Lack of information 1
Lack of information, low quality of life, lack of regulation 1
Bad policy 1
Bad legislation 1
Bad legislation and lack of information between population 1
Bad regulation and illegal cutting 3
Bad regulation of Forestry Directorate 1
Lack of technology, illegal cutting 1
Lack of market 1
Bad forest roads 1
Bad forest roads 1
Lack of investment 1
Lack of information and forestry protection 1
Lack of employees 1
Lack of employees and interest for this sector 1
Lack of interest for this sector 1
There are no such problems 1
Corruption 1
Lack of forestry management 1
Problems how to get permissions for wood cutting 1
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting 1
Problems with forest management 1
Don’t know 3
Lack of legislative 1
Don’t know 4
Don’t know 1
Don’t know 1
Inefficiency of Forestry Directorate 1
Illegal cutting 1
Lack of employees that should monitor wood cutting 1
Lack of technology 1
Transportation problems 1
Insufficient number of foresters 1
Lack of interest for the forest 1
Lack of information 1
Lack of control and illegal cutting 6
Lack of legislative 1
Lack of stimulations related to better development of this sector 1
Lack of information 1
Lack of information between population 1
Lack of interest, legislative and technology 1
Insufficient forest protection 1
Lack of forest protection 1
Lack of forest protection, illegal cutting 1
Lack of forest protection, bad forest roads 1
Insufficient forestation 1
Lack of knowledge about forests 1
Illegal cutting 5
Inefficient administration, bad forest roads 1
Problems with administration, lack of motivation between employees in this sector 1
Lack of efficiency 1
Lack of information 1
Lack of information about new legislation 1
Lack of information about forestry 1
Lack of information, illegal cutting and fire 1
Insufficiently used forest potential 1
60
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting 2
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal and unplanned cutting 1
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting and usage of forest 1
Illegal cutting and forest destroying 1
Illegal cutting, long waiting for permissions to cut 2
Illegal cutting, bad legislative and technology 1
Illegal cutting and lack of technology 1
Illegal cutting and fire 1
There are no problems 1
There are no problems 1
No rules in this sector 2
No rules in this sector 1
There are no problems 1
Lack of roads 1
Lack of roads 1
Lack of forestation 1
Illegal cutting, transportation problems and problems with export 1
Undeveloped market 1
Problems with forest management and forestation 1
Lack of forest roads 1
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting 3
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting 1
Lack of planned cutting 1
Lack of planned cutting 1
Lack of respect of natural resources 1
Lack of confidence between population 1
Lack of forest management and illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting and undeveloped market 1
Irregularities in process of approving wood cutting 1
Lack of forest roads 1
Irrational usage of natural resources 1
Irrational usage of natural resources 1
Irrational usage of natural resources 1
Insufficient recuperation of forest 1
Illegal cutting and insufficient forest protection 1
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting 2
Illegal cutting and lack of knowledge in area of forestation 2
Unplanned usage of natural resources 1
Concessions 1
Illegal cutting 1
Lack of interest and lack of legislative 1
Lack of interest for this sector 1
Illegal and uncontrolled cutting 1
Lack of fire protection 1
Lack of forest protection 1
Lack of knowledge regarding quality of forest 1
Lack of knowledge regarding forest management 1
Low prices 1
Low prices of wood 2
Low prices, illegal cutting 1
There are no problems 1
Problems with product selling 1
Organizational problems 1
Inefficient procedure for cutting permission 1
Problems with selling and low prices of NTFPs 1
Problems to get cutting permissions 1
There are no problems 1
Costs of permissions to cut, low prices of timber 1
Lots of problems 1
Illegal cutting 1
Fire 1
Illegal cutting, lack of control over it 1
Illegal cutting 1
61
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting 1
Access to forest 1
Transportation problems, low income and too much work to do 1
Permanent problems 1
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting and forest devastation 1
Local roads 2
Regulation 1
Restitution 3
Management in responsible bodies 1
Management in responsible bodies 2
Management in responsible bodies 1
Management in responsible bodies 1
Illegal cutting 2
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting and transport 1
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting and lack of control 1
Bad national plan of forestry 1
Local roads 1
Low regeneration of forests 1
Lack of information 1
Lack of information and stimulation 1
Lack of control 1
Lack of control 1
Low wood selling 1
Low forest protection 1
Low protection and problems with local roads 2
Low forest protection 6
Local roads 3
Low forest protection and illegal cutting 1
Lack of investment into this sector 1
Slow restitution process 1
Lack of investment into this sector 1
Illegal cutting 1
Everything 1
Everything that was done is irregular 1
Technical problems 8
Technical problems 1
Technical problems and employees 1
Technical problems 1
Problems how to get permissions to cut 4
Lack of market 1
Lack of market 1
Slow restitution process 1
Lack of seed 1
Lack of donations for PFOs 1
Lack of market 1
Lack of job 1
Illegal cutting 1
Forestry Directorate did not managed well over forest management 1
Forest management is in very bad position 1
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting 2
Illegal cutting 1
Illegal cutting 1
Low living standard 1
Government does not have control over illegal cutting 1
Management in responsible bodies 1
Lack of information between population 1
Pollution 1
Legislation 1
Lack of technology and legislation 1
Lack of forest protection 1
Lack of forest protection 1
Total 285
62
Who helps you solve problems?
Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.
320 100% 107.3%
Relatives 86 26.8% 28.8%
Government 10 3.1% 3.3%
Forestry Directorate 43 13.4% 14.4%
NGO 6 1.8% 2.0%
Donor 0 0% 0%
Someone else 1 0.3% 0.3%
Nobody 112 35% 37.5%
I don't need any help 62 19.3% 20.8%
Who should solve the problem? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.
419 100% 140.6%
Government 149 35.5% 50
Forestry Directorate 218 52.0% 73.1%
Family 10 2.3% 3.3%
NGO 18 4.2% 6.0%
I don't know 23 5.4% 7.7%
Other 1 0.2% 0.3%
Are you a member of a Private Forest Owners Association? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes 11 3.7 3.7
No 227 76.2 76.7
No, there is no PFOA in this area
44 14.8 14.9
I don’t know 14 4.7 4.7
Total 296 99.3 100.0
If there an association of PFO, what services would be useful for you? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.
852 100% 168.3%
Getting cutting permits 163 19.1% 32.2%
Making forest management plan 184 21.5% 36.3%
Fire management 146 17.1% 28.8%
Influence on national plans and policies 79 9.2% 15.6%
Selling forest products 89 10.4% 17.5%
Restitution 47 5.5% 9.2%
Land registration 54 6.3% 10.6%
Training in forest management 67 7.8% 13.2%
Other 23 2.6% 4.5%
How much are you willing to pay annually for these services? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Less than 2 euro/year 64 12.6 14.4
Between 2 and 5 euro/year 92 18.2 20.7
Between 5 and 10 euro/year
71 14.0 16.0
Between 10 and 20 euro/year
28 5.5 6.3
Above 20 euro/year 30 5.9 6.7
Somebody else should pay for this costs
160 31.6 36.0
Total 445 87.9 100.0
How much are you willing pay annually for these services/crosstabs
Less than 2 euro/year
Between 2 and 5
euro/year
Between 5 and 10
euro/year
Between 10 and 20
euro/year
Above 20 euro/year
Somebody else should pay for this
costs
Urban/Rural
Urban 9.0% 26.1% 16.2% 8.1% 15.3% 25.2%
Rural 15.4% 17.7% 17.4% 5.7% 4.0% 39.8%
Municipality
Kolasin 3.0% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% 24.2%
Plav 3.0% 24.2% 39.4% 21.2% 12.1%
Andrijevica 11.1% 27.8% 22.2% 33.3% 5.6%
Rozaje 14.3% 34.3% 25.7% 2.9% 2.9% 20.0%
Mojkovac 16.7% 22.2% 5.6% 5.6% 50.0%
Berane 10.7% 15.5% 21.4% 3.6% 7.1% 41.7%
Pljevlja 26.7% 6.7% 6.7% 5.0% 3.3% 51.7%
Bijelo Polje 20.7% 24.0% 10.7% 44.6%
Zabljak 5.3% 52.6% 5.3% 5.3% 31.6%
63
Forest area
Up to 5ha 13.0% 24.0% 16.2% 5.2% 4.5% 37.0%
From 6 to
10ha
4.8% 21.4% 16.7% 9.5% 16.7% 31.0%
From 11 to
20ha
9.4% 25.0% 34.4% 15.6% 6.3% 9.4%
From 21 to
50ha
19.4% 30.6% 22.2% 16.7% 11.1%
Over 51ha 16.7% 33.3% 33.3% 16.7%
Do you own forestland?
Yes 11.0% 22.9% 19.2% 8.6% 8.2% 30.1%
No 20.9% 16.3% 9.8% 2.0% 3.9% 47.1%
Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting? Frequency Percent Valid percent
Yes, just for household purposes 315 15.9 29.7
Yes, for processing 272 13.7 25.7
No 408 20.6 38.6
No, but have plans 63 3.2 5.9
Total 1,058 53.4 100
Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting/crosstabs Yes, just for
household purposes Yes, for
processing No No, but have
plans
Urban/Rural Urban 35.1% 32.4% 29.7% 2.7%
Rural 19.6% 35.7% 44.6%
Municipality
Kolasin 38.1% 19.0% 42.9%
Plav 9.1% 72.7% 18.2%
Andrijevica 75.0% 25.0%
Rozaje 25.0% 25.0% 50.0%
Mojkovac 16.7% 66.7% 16.7%
Berane 17.9% 39.3% 39.3% 3.6%
Pljevlja 31.6% 42.1% 26.3%
Bijelo Polje 40.6% 25.0% 34.4%
Zabljak 53.8% 46.2%
Do you own forestland?
Yes 21.4% 39.8% 37.9% 1.0%
No 25.9% 38.9% 35.2%
Gender Male 23.1% 38.1% 38.8%
Female 18.8% 37.5% 37.5% 6.3%
To what extent does your household rely on this money? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Does not rely at all 280 14.1 63.2
Rely somehow 72 3.6 16.3
Rely 51 2.6 11.5
Pretty much rely 18 0.9 4.1
Totally rely 22 1.1 5.0
Total 443 22.3 100.0
To what extent does your household rely on this money/crosstabs 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Urban/Rural Urban 57.6% 18.2% 9.1% 15.2%
Rural 57.9% 19.5% 16.5% 2.3% 3.8%
Municipality Kolasin 55.6% 33.3% 11.1%
Plav 36.4% 63.6%
Andrijevica 60.0% 40.0%
Rozaje 41.7% 58.3%
Mojkovac 80.0% 20.0%
Berane 80.0% 6.7% 13.3%
Pljevlja 50.0% 14.0% 34.0% 2.0%
Bijelo Polje 42.3% 7.7% 25.0% 5.8% 19.2%
Zabljak 57.1% 42.9%
Do you own forestland?
Yes 47.7% 22.0% 19.3% 2.8% 8.3%
No 60.8% 16.5% 20.3% 1.3% 1.3%
Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting?
Yes, just for
household
purposes
69.7% 21.2% 9.1%
Yes, for
processing
50.8% 23.0% 21.3% 1.6% 3.3%
No 100.0%
64
Do you collect NTFPs? Note: Question was answered by head of the household.
Respondent’s role in NTFPs
You collect NTFP because it is… Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.
541 100% 88.4%
Tradition in your family 113 20.9% 18.5%
You have stabile sources of income from this activity 59 10.9% 9.6%
This is the way to supplement household budget 241 44.5% 39.4%
You earn your pocket money or money for the school 103 19.1% 16.8%
This is a main activity in your family 6 1.1% 0.9%
Something else 19 3.5% 3.1%
During which seasons do you collect NTFPs? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 573 100% 93.6%
Winter 1 0.2% 0.2%
Spring 93 16.2% 15.2%
Fall 110 19.2% 18.0%
Summer 369 64.4% 60.3
Which NTFP do you collect? 672 100% 109.8%
Mushrooms 348 51.8% 56.9%
Forest fruits 209 31.1% 34.2%
Medical plants 113 16.8% 18.5%
Other 2 0.3% 0.3%
How long have you collected NTFPs? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
More than 20 years 63 3.2 13.2
Between 10 and 20 years 83 4.2 17.4
Between 3 and 10 years 199 10.1 41.8
Recently 131 6.6 27.5
Total 476 24.0 100
How long have you collected NTFPs/crosstabs Between 3 and 10
years Between 10 and 20
years More than 20
years Recently
Up to 18 100.0%
From 19 to 25 66.7% 33.3%
From 26 to 35 41.7% 25.0% 25.0% 8.3%
From 36 to 45 44.4% 19.4% 27.8% 8.3%
From 46 to 55 43.9% 19.5% 14.6% 22.0%
From 56 to 65 40.0% 27.5% 17.5% 15.0%
Over 66 37.5% 25.0% 31.3% 6.3%
Where do you sell the NTFPs you collect? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 527 100% 86.1%
Other 3 0.6% 0.5%
To processor 16 3.1% 2.6%
On a improvised place during the season 48 9.1% 7.8%
Directly to customer 52 9.8%3 8.5%
On a local market 56 10.6% 9.2%
I don't sell the products 73 13.8% 11.9%
To middleman 279 52.9% 45.6%
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes 226 11.4 59.3
Yes, but stopped 16 0.8 4.2
No 119 6.1 31.2
No, but have intention 20 1.1 5.3
Total 381 19.2 100
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Collector 400 20.2 93.9
Middleman 17 0.9 3.9
Processor 7 0.4 1.6
Processor and exporter 2 0.1 0.5
Total 426 21.5 100
65
How much did you sell in 2007? (average)
Note: If total amount of sold NTFPs is < 100kg
Number Minimum Maximum Mean
Mushrooms 41 30.0 100.0 72.8
Forest fruits 13 10.0 100.0 80.0
Medical plants 1 25.0 25.0 25.01
How much did you sell in 2007? (in average) Note: If total amount of sold NTFPs is > 100kg
Number Minimum Maximum Mean
Mushrooms 24 100.0 500.0 123.1
Forest fruits 11 150.00 400.0 252.7
Medical plants 1 500.0 500.0 500.0
How do you spend revenues from NTFPs? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 465 100% 79.2%
It is a supplement for household budget 273 58.7% 44.7%
It is used for financing school expenditures 91 19.6% 14.9%
It is a pocket money 79 16.9% 12.9%
Other 22 4.7% 3.6%
Do you regard revenues from NTFPs to be sustainable source of income? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes 125 6.3 28.2
No 319 16.1 71.8
Total 444 22.4 100
Do you regard revenues from NTFPs to be sustainable source of income/crosstabs Yes No
Urban/Rural Urban 25.8% 74.2%
Rural 26.7% 73.3%
Municipality Kolasin 50.0% 50.0%
Plav 6.3% 93.8%
Andrijevica 40.0% 60.0%
Rozaje 38.5% 61.5%
Mojkovac 16.7% 83.3%
Berane 6.7% 93.3%
Pljevlja 75.0% 25.0%
Bijelo Polje 10.3% 89.7%
Zabljak 100.0%
Do you own forestland? Yes 22.3% 77.7%
No 30.5% 69.5%
Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting?
Yes. just for household
purposes
8.7% 91.3%
Yes. for processing 16.0% 84.0%
In which measure does your household rely on this money?
1.00 4.9% 95.1%
2.00 45.2% 54.8%
3.00 36.7% 63.3%
4.00 100.0%
Have you ever taken part in a training program related to NTFPs collection? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes 14 0.7 3.1
No 441 22. 3 96.9
Total 455 22.9 100
Have you ever taken part in a training program related to NTFPs collection/crosstabs Yes No
Urban/Rural Urban 2.9% 97.1%
Rural 1.0% 99.0%
Municipality Kolasin 100.0%
Plav 100.0%
Andrijevica 100.0%
Rozaje 100.0%
Mojkovac 100.0%
Berane 6.3% 93.8%
Pljevlja 5.6% 94.4%
Bijelo Polje 100.0%
Zabljak 100.0%
Do you own forestland? Yes 1.0% 99.0%
66
No 1.8% 98.2%
Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting?
Yes. just for household
purposes
7.7% 92.3%
Yes. for processing 100.0%
In which measure does your household rely on this money?
1.00 2.3% 97.7%
2.00 100.0%
3.00 3.7% 96.3%
4.00 100.0%
Are you a member of an association of NTFP collectors? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes 13 0.7 1.5
No 627 31.6 71.7
No, there is none in this area 221 11.1 25.3
I don't know 14 0.7 1.6
Total 875 44.1 100.0
If there were an association of collectors what services would be useful to you? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 1.348 100% 229.6%
NTFPs points of sale 361 26.8% 59.1%
Cooling together 157 11.6% 25.7%
Quality control 273 20.3% 44.7%
Information about collecting 315 23.4% 51.6%
Information on quality 201 14.9% 32.9%
Other 41 3.1% 6.7%
Is any household member engaged as a middleman in NTFPs? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes 29 1.5 2.7
Yes, but stopped 10 0.5 0.9
No 949 47.9 88.7
No, but planning 82 4.2 7.6
Total 1,070 53.9 100
Who do you resell medical plants to? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 20 100% 83.3%
Domestic NTFPs processor 2 10% 8.3%
Foreign NTFPs processor 6 30% 25.0%
Other middleman 10 50% 41.7%
Other 2 10% 8.3%
How much did you sell in 2007 in average? (kg) Number Minimum Maximum Mean
Mushrooms 15 80 3.000 805.3
Forest fruits 7 25 4.000 934.3
Medical plants 6 50 170 103.3
Other 1 500 500 500
What was the average price per kg? Number Minimum Maximum Mean
Mushrooms 13 1.7 6 3.9
Forest fruits 5 3 7 4
Medical plants 5 5 12 8.6
Do you think the price is fair? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes 2 0.1 9.1
No 14 0.7 63.6
Don`t know 6 0.3 27.3
Total 22 1.1 100
Do this prices increase over time? Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Yes 9 0.5 39.11
No 2 0.1 8.7
Sometimes 11 0.6 47.8
Never 1 0.1 4.3
Total 23 1.2 100
67
What is the main barrier for NTFPs collection?
Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 56 100% 233.3%
Lack of knowledge 6 10.7% 25
Lack of collectors 10 17.8% 41.6%
Lack of training programs relating to collecting procedure 2 3.5% 8.3%
Low prices 18 32.1% 75
Lack of motivation between collectors 11 19.6% 45.8%
Lack of natural resources 3 5.3% 12.5
Lack of processors and exporters 6 10.7% 25
Trends in wood cutting and sales in last 3 years Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Increasing 96 4.8 23.9
Stable 256 12.9 63.7
Decreasing 50 2.5 12.4
Total 402 20.3 100
Trends in wood cutting and sales in last 3 year/crosstabs Increasing Stable Decreasing
Urban/Rural Urban 28.0% 68.0% 4.0%
Rural 21.7% 56.7% 21.7%
Municipality Kolasin 23.1% 76.9%
Plav 50.0% 50.0%
Andrijevica 50.0% 50.0%
Rozaje 40.0% 50.0% 10.0%
Mojkovac 100.0%
Berane 25.0% 62.5% 12.5%
Pljevlja 38.9% 50.0% 11.1%
Bijelo Polje 11.5% 65.4% 23.1%
Zabljak 100.0%
Do you own forestland?
Yes 24.1% 62.1% 13.8%
No 25.0% 59.4% 15.6%
Trends in NTFPs collection in the last 3 years Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Increasing 79 4.0 18.2
Stable 208 10.5 47.9
Decreasing 147 7.4 33.9
Total 434 21.9 100.0
Trends in NTFPs collection in the last 3 years/crosstabs Increasing Stable Decreasing
Urban/Rural Urban 18.2% 51.5% 30.3%
Rural 13.1% 46.4% 40.5%
Municipality Kolasin 7.7% 53.8% 38.5%
Plav 58.3% 41.7%
Andrijevica 25.0% 75.0%
Rozaje 8.3% 33.3% 58.3%
Mojkovac 75.0% 25.0%
Berane 19.0% 52.4% 28.6%
Pljevlja 26.3% 47.4% 26.3%
Bijelo Polje 18.8% 37.5% 43.8%
Zabljak 66.7% 33.3%
Do you own forestland?
Yes 13.6% 47.7% 38.6%
No 11.6% 53.5% 34.9%
Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting?
Yes. just for household
purposes
16.1% 29.0% 54.8%
Yes. for processing 14.8% 64.8% 20.4%
No 10.5% 44.7% 44.7%
No. but have plans 100.0%
In which measure does your household rely on this money?
1.00 15.7% 54.9% 29.4%
2.00 5.3% 47.4% 47.4%
3.00 14.3% 57.1% 28.6%
4.00 100.0%
5.00 100.0%
Do you regard NTFP money as a sustainable source of income?
Yes 30.0% 50.0% 20.0%
No 61.1% 38.9%
68
ANNEX 2
QUESTIONNAIRES
69
QUESTIONNAIRE NO 1 – QUALITATIVE SURVEY
I General information about NTFPs processor
Name and surname:
Function of interviewed person
Name of the company
Year of establishing
Contact details:
telephone contact:
internet address:
e-mail:
II Sourcing 1. What product exactly do you collect/buy?
• Mushrooms
• Forest fruits
• Medical plants
• Other
2. Exact origin/village/municipality where NTFPs are collected (if known)
3. Amounts that are processed
• Last season:
• Maximum in recent years: • Minimum in recent years:
4. Price. price fluctuations (within year. between years)
5. Who determines prices?
6. Usual mode of payment
7. Contracts. [is the trade based on contracts. and what type. verbal. written…?]
70
III Processing 8. What type of processing/value adding are you doing?
9. Is the processing done by hand or by machines?
10. Recent innovations
11. N° of staff (permanent/seasonal)
12. Storage facilities
13. Packaging
14. Quality losses. Causes and impacts?
IV Destination: Customers and purchasers 15. Which exact product are you selling ((trade) name and specification of the product)?
16. Destination: to where are you selling it (client. region/country)?
17. What type of customers do you have (company. exporters. end users…)?
18. Different qualities for different customers?
19. Who are the ultimate consumers of your products?
20. Amounts sold: a) last year. b) the maximum ever sold in a year and c) the minimum
21. Units (in which the product is being traded)
22. Price. price fluctuation (within year. between years)
23. How is the price being determined?
24. Mode of payment
25. Contracts (type of contracts. done ahead of the harvest or upon delivery)?
26. Are you a member of any type of cooperation/association/cooperative? Which?
27. What type of benefit do you get from being part of this cooperation / association?
28. Certification and relevance for the respective player? Reasons for being certified (or: not being
certified)?
V Threats/opportunities
• Threats:
• Opportunities:
QUESTIONNAIRE NO 2 – QUANTITATIVE SURVEY
NTFPs SURVEY
Name and Surname of surveyor ___________________________
U/R _____________________________
Date __________________________
Municipality _________________________
Settlement ______________________________
Address _________________________________
Phone number ____________________________
Household head (respondent’s name and surname) ________________________ Number of household members’ _____________________________
72
Part 1 Demographic characteristics No 1 2 3 4 5
Household members
Age Gender Highest completed level of education
Respondent’s occupation What was yours primary activity in the past month?
Name and
surname
1. Male
2.
Female
1. Currently attending
primary school
2. Currently attending
secondary school
3. Currently attending
university
4. Primary school
5. Secondary school - 3
years
6. Secondary school –4 years
7. College
8. BA degree
9. MSc degree
10. PhD
1. Agriculture. forestry and
water supply
2. Fishing
3. Mining and quarrying
4. Electricity. gas and water
supply
5. Construction
6. Wholesale and retail trade
7. Hotels and restaurants
8. Transport. storage and communication
9. Financial intermediation
10. Real estate activities.
renting
11. Public administration and
social insurance
12. Education
13. Health and social work
14. Other community. social and personal services
15. Households with employed
persons
16. Extra-territorial
organizations and bodes
1. Working/helping to earn income
2. Job searching
3. Attending school
4. Housekeeping
5. Retired
6. Stay at home
7. Sick/disabled
8. Other, specify
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
73
Part 2 Private forest owners
No 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Do you own
forestland?
Area
Type of the forest
Who owns the forest?
Type of ownership documents
How did you obtain the forest?
Why do you own forest?
How often do you visit your
forest?
1. Yes 2. No
ha 1. Conifers 2.Broadleave
3. Both types
1. Myself 2. Spouse
3. Family
member
4. Other
1. Full documents
2. Only
descriptive
cadastre
3. In process of
restitution
4. Something
else. specify
1. Inheritance 2. Purchase
3. Other. specify
1. Pass on to children or other
2. To enjoy scenery and
privacy
3. Long-term financial
investment
4. For hunting and fishing
5. For timber production
6. As part of my family
heritage 7. To collect NTFPs
8. Fore recreation other
than hunting and fishing
9. For grazing livestock
10. To collect firewood
11. Other, specify
1. Never 2. Monthly
3. Almost
four times
per year
4. Almost
twice
times per
year
5.Annually
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
74
No 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Do you sell
forest products?
Is there a forest
management plan for your
forest?
What do you think about
forest certification?
Do you have experience with the forest
certification?
What do you think about
forest certification?
How often do you cut your wood?
How do you get permits to cut the wood you want?
Main purposes for wood cutting
Do you have contracts with any companies in the area of
wood processing?
1. Yes.
firewood 2. Yes.
timbers
3. Yes.
NTFPs
4. Yes. all
5. No
1. Yes
2. No. but it is no problem
3. No and this
is big problem
4. I don’t
know
1.
Certification will improve
forest
management
2.
Certification
will increase
my profits in
tree farming
3. Certification
will satisfy
consumers
that their
woos
purchases are
supporting
good forestry
4.
Certification will lessen the
need for
forestry
regulation
5.
Certification
will give me
recognition for
the good forestry that I
am already
practicing
6.
Certification
will be
necessary for
timber
growers to
compete in the
international
market
1. Yes. I have
certification 2. Yes. have
proper
information
3.No. Go to question 4. No. I think
that is not
useful Go to question
1. If it helped
protect the environment
2. If it
improved
wildlife habitat
3. If it made
my forest
more healthy
4. If my wood
products could be sold for a
higher price
5. If it gained
me access to
additional
wood markets
not normally
available
6. If it saved
me money by reducing the
likelihood of
future
regulation
1. All
year (monthly)
2. All
year (five
times or
less)
3.
Seasonal
(winter)
4. Seasonal
(spring)
5. Never
done that
before
1. For as
much as I want.
without
much
problems
2.
Difficult.
but I am
allowed
to cut 3.
Terrible.
permit is
in
adequate
1. Selling to
companies 2. Selling to
individuals
3. For
household
needs
4. Other.
specify
___________
1. Yes. contract
deliveries 2. No. I sell when
I have wood to
sale
3. No. don’t selling
to wood
companies
4. Other. specify
_______________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
75
No 23 24 25 26 27 28
Annual production in 2007
Annual production in 2008
How important
is firewood for you?
Do you regard revenue from firewood to be sustainable source of income?
Are you introduced with current legislation of the
forestry sector?
What kind of services do you received from the Forestry Directorate? Evaluate services 1-3
Timbers________m3
Firewoods______m3
Timbers________m3
Firewoods______m3
1. Very
important
2. A little
important
3. Not that
important
4. Not in all
important
1. Yes. for ever
2. Yes. for next 10
years
3. No. in 10 years
it is less than
today
1. Yes. sufficiently
2. No. I want to but there is
no information
3. No. I want to know more
4.i don’t want to know
1. Cutting permits
2. Transport documents
3. Advice
4. Seedlings
5. Other, specify
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
76
No 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Recommendation in order to be better informed
Main problems
in forestry sector Specify
Who helps you in solving the problems?
Who should solve the problem?
Are you a member of a Private Forest Owners
Association
If there is association of PFO. What services would be useful for
you?
How much are you
willing pay annually for this services
1. Training
programs
2. Seminars
3. Workshops
4. Other
1. Relatives and
friends
2. Government
3. Forest Directorate
4. NGO
5. Donor
6. Nobody
7. I don’t need any
help
8. Other. specify
1.Government
2. Forest
Directorate
3. Family
4. NGO
5. I don’t know
6. Other. specify
1.Yes
2.No
3.No. there is
none in this
area
4.I don’t
know
1. Getting
cutting permits
2.Making forest
management
plan
3 Fire
management
4. Influence
national plans
and policies 5. Selling forest
products
6. Restitution
7. Land
registration
8.Training in
forest
management
Other. specify
1.Less than 2
euro/year
2. Between 2
and 5
euro/year
3. Between 5
and 10
euro/year
4. Between
10 and 20 euro/year
5. Above 20
euro/year
6. Somebody
else should
pay for this
costs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
77
Part 3 NTPFs (Collecting of mushrooms. forest fruits and medical plants) 3.1. NTFPs Collectors No 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Is your household aware of NTFPs
collecting
In which measure does your household rely on this money?
1- Not so
much
5-Totally
Who is collecting NTFPs from the household Mark with the 1
members
who
collecting
NTFP
Are you collecting NTFPs Question
addressed to
respondent
Respondent’s role in NTFPs?
You collect NTFP
because it is…
During which
seasons you collect NTFPs
Which NTFP you collect
1. Yes. just
for
household
purposes
2. Yes. for
processing
3. No. go to question 50 4. No, but
have plans. go to question 50
1. Yes. go to
question 40
2. Yes. but
stopped
3. No
4. No. but have
intention
2.3.4 go to
question 52
1. Collector
2.Middleman
3. Processor
4. Processor
and exporter
1. Tradition
in your
family
2. You have
stabile
sources of
income from
this activity
3. This is
the way to
supplement
household
budget
4. You earn
your pocket
money or
money for
the school
5. This is a
main
activity in
your family
6.Something
else
(specify)
1. Summer
2. Spring
3. Fall
4. Winter
1.Mushroom
2. Forest fruits
3. Medical plants
4. Other, specify
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
78
No 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52.
Since when you are involved in NTFP collectio
n?
NTFP that you collect you sell
How much you sold in 2007 In kg
How do you spend the NTFPs money
Do you regard NTFP
money as a
sustainable source of income?
Were you
involved in some training program related to NTFPs collectin
g
Are you a member of
an association of NTFP collectors
If there is association of collectors.
What services would be useful
for you?
What improvements
could you suggest about develop of NTFP sector
1. More
than 20
years
2.Betwee
n 10 and
20 years
3.Between 3 and
10 years
4.Recentl
y
1.Directly
to
customer
2. On a
local
market
3. On a improvise
d place
during the
season
4. To
middlema
n
5. To
processor 6. I don’t
sell the
products
7. Other
1.Mushroom________
2.Forest
fruits__________
3. Medical
plants________
4. Other, specify
1. It is a
supplement
for
household
budget
2. It is used
for financing school
expenditure
s
3. It is a
money
4. Other
1. Yes
2. No
1. Yes
2. No
1.Yes
2.No
3.No. there
is none in
this area
4.I don’t
know
1. Selling
together NTFP
2. Cooling
together
3.Quality control
4. Information
about collecting 5. Information on
quality
6. Other,specify
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
79
3.1. NTFPs Middleman No 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
Is any HHS
member
engaged as
middleman in NTFPs
Who is engaged as middleman?
To whom you resell medical
plant
How much
you sold in 2007 In kg
What was the price per
kg
Do you think the
price is fair
Do this prices increase over time? Last five
years
What is the main barrier
regarding NTFPs
Are you a member of an
association of NTFP
collectors
If there is association of collectors.
What services would be
useful for you?
What improvements could you suggest
about develop of NTFP sector
1. Yes
2. Yes.
but
stopped
3. No.
go to question54 4. No.
but
planning
. 2.3.4 go to question 61
1. NTFPs
processor, which?
2. Foreign
processors
which country
3. Other middleman
4. Other, specify
1.Mushroo
m
2.Forest
fruits
3. Medical
plants 4. Other,
specify
1.Mushroo
m
2.Forest
fruits
3. Medical
plants 4. Other,
specify
1.Yes
2.No
3.Don’t
know
1. Yes
2. No
3.Somet
imes
4. Never
1. Lack of
knowledge
2. Lack of
collectors
3. Lack of
training programs
relating to
collecting
procedure
4. Low
prices
5. Lack of
motivation
between collectors
6. Lack of
natural
resources
7. Lack of
processors
and
exporters
8.Something else
1.Yes
2.No
3.No.
there is
none in
this area 4.I don’t
know
1. Selling
together NTFP
2. Cooling
together
3.Quality control
4. Information about collecting
5. Information on
quality
6. Other, specify
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
80
Part 4 Household income No 62 63 64 65 66 67
What is the main source of
household income? Max 3 answers
Average monthly
HHS income
HHS income during previous three
years is…
Average HHS income from forest products Annual. in €
Trends in wood cutting and
selling in last 3 year
Trends in NTFPs collecting in last 3
year
1. Wage
2. Pension
3.Agricultural
pension
4. Social assistance
5. Revenues from
property
6. Revenues from
agriculture 7. Revenues from
other sources
1. Up to 300
euro
2. From 300
to 600 euro
3. From 600
to 800 euro
5. From 800
to 1.000
euro 6. More than
1.000 euro
1.
Constantly
increasing
2. Mostly
the same-
stabile
3.
Constantly
decreasing
Wood
Mushrooms
Medical plants
Forest fruits
1. Increasing
2. Stable
3. Decreasing
1. Increasing
2. Stable
3. Decreasing