When theory meets practice: some constraints to

XIII World Forestry Congress

Buenos Aires, Argentina, 18 – 23 October 2009

When theory meets practice: some constraints to non timber forest products commercialization Cristina Herrero-Jáuregui 1 , Benno Pokorny, Miguel A. Casado, Carmen GarcíaFernández

Development and conservation organisations promoted the commercialisation of Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) as an ideal option for generating income for forest dependent people in an ecologically sustainable way, and thus as a viable alternative to conventional logging and deforestation. In particular, in the Brazilian Amazon, national and international organisations invested considerable efforts to support community forest enterprises and corporate -community partnerships for the extraction and commercialisation of NTFPs. But success so far has been quite modest, since many of the heavily supported initiatives have failed and were abandoned once the external support ceased. Against this background, this paper intends to critically reflect on the expectations and concerns regarding development projects focused on the sustain able management and commercialisation of NTFP by traditional communities in rural Amazon. We undertake an in depth case study of a project with the community of Pedreira, in the State of Pará (Brazilian Amazon) Brazil for the commercialization of andiroba (Carapa guianensis Aubl.) and copaiba (Copaifera reticulata Ducke) oils, and examine who was participating and why, in how far the project participants had to change their traditional management schemes, what were the benefits of local efforts and the consequences for the community. The study reveals that NTFP projects tend to mobilize families by provoking widely unrealistic expectations and that project’s formal requisites are useless or even detrimental for them. Projects are designed without sufficientl y considering existing experiences, routines and local knowledge, and widely ignore the differences and conflicts within and among the groups involved. Keywords: Brazilian Amazon, Conservation-Development, Forest Communities, Management plans

Introduction In the past decades development and conservation organisations promoted the commercialization of Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) by forest communities, to generate economic incomes alternative to conventional logging and deforestation (Nepstad and Schwartzman 1992; Wollenberg and Ingles 1998; Neumann and Hirsch 2000). In the Brazilian Amazon, in view of the alarming deforestation rates, lots of projects have been established to promote community forest enterprises for the extraction and commercialization of NTFPs (Padoch 1992; Clay and Clement 1993; Coppen et al. 1995). Most of these initiatives focus on international „green‟ and „fair trade‟ markets for their attractive prices, particularly compared to those paid by local markets (Clay 1992; Morsello 2004). This orientation has serious implications. To gain the support of external organisations and meet the requirements of non-local markets, local families have to abandon traditional management schemes and adopt technical and managerial approaches within existing legal frameworks , normally defined by external experts. These refer principally to collective commercialisation schemes and scientifically based

1

Corresponding author: Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de Biología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain, email: [email protected]

1



management plans for environmental sound NTFP management (Hall and Bawa 1993; Hiremath 2004; Ticktin 2004; Shanley et al. 2005). While some of these initiatives managed to generate a constant source of income to participating families, many others failed and were abandoned once external support ceased (Marshall et al. 2003a). More concerning is the lack of replications of these pilot initiatives without intensive external support (Pokorny and Johnson 2008). Thus, in spite of the significant input of time and money from all actors involved, often the situation of families does not improve through the projects. On the contrary, there is evidence that these projects may negatively affect communities ‟ social capital by generating conflicts and enhancing existing social gaps (Porro et al 2008; Medina et al. in press, Hoch et al. in press). Several authors (Ruiz-Pérez and Byron 1999; Marshall et al. 2003b, Pokorny and Phillip 2008) analyzed the reasons for failure, including market constraints, technical aspects, bureaucratic impediments and the insufficient consideration of local schemes for management and commercializing NTFPs (Leakey 1998; Lecup et al. 1998; Neu mann and Hirsch 2000). Additionally, there are some concerns about the potential of NTFP co mmercialization for local development due to the heterogeneous quality and quantity of production, possibilities for domestication and difficulties for transport (Wunder 2001, Ho mma 2005). Nevertheless, many governmental and non-governmental development organisations continue investing huge efforts in the implementation of NTFP projects still demanding the same social and ecological premises. Against this background, this article intends to critically reflect on the expectations and concerns regarding development projects focused on the sustainable management and commercialisation of NTFP by traditional communities in rural A mazon. To do so, we analyzed in-depth a case study from the Brazilian Amazon which examines the following questions: who is participating and why; to what degree project participants must change their traditional management schemes; what are the benefits of local efforts; what are the consequences for the community? The following chapters present the case study and the methodology applied. Then the findings regarding the four research questions are shown. Finally, results are discussed and some important conclusions are drawn. The NTFP development project in the community of Pedreira This study analyzed the effects of a NTFP project imp lemented in the community of Pedreira, in the municipality of Belterra, State of Pará, Brazil. This case study was selected since both the project and the community showed typical features representative of other similar situations. Also, within this particular community, NTFPs were used by a group supported by the development project and also by other families which continued managing NTFP with traditional practices. Therefore, this case study offered the possibility for comparative analysis. Pedreira is a traditional co mmunity typical in the region composed of 41 families, descendents of those who settled to work as rubber tapers at the end of the nineteenth century. It is located in the Tapajós National Forest, created in 1974 by the Brazilian government who acknowledged Pedreira‟s traditional access rights for an area of 6000 ha. However, the government imposed restrictions regarding the use of resources and an enhanced control by IBAMA2. For instance, people must ask for permission to establish crop fields within the forests and undergo yearly checks by the government. Conversely, traditional productive systems were not modified, each family owning a productive unit (roçado), and the right to use the forests as common property. Around 20 years ago, most families gave up their traditional livelihoods as rubber tapers and became farmers, inserting themselves into the market economy and depending mainly on the cultivation of manioc flour. Regular cash incomes also come from temporary jobs and national assistance for retired people and children. Fishing, hunting, growing rice and maize, cattle ranching and chicken nursing are practiced for subsistence. The gathering of NTFP is still a common activity among some families . Differently to other communities in the region, most families remained in the area, indicating relatively good living conditions. This favourable situation partly results from the support they received from several governmental and non-governmental organisations. Since 2002 the project “Improving vegetal-oil production and marketing processes in National Tapajós Forest” is trying to implement the approach „development-through NTFPs commercialisation‟ at Pedreira. This initiative is one of the several programmes supported by the forest resource management sub-program „ProManejo‟ belonging to the largest environmental programme in

2

The Brazilian governmental agency responsible for environment

2



Brazil (PPG73). The project is executed by ASMIPRUT4, and funded by FUNBIO5 with an initial budget of 68000 USD. It focuses on the sustainable management and effective commercialisation of vegetal oils, primarily copaiba (Copaifera spp.) and andiroba (Carapa guianensis). It has provided material, infrastructure, several training courses and technical assistance to conduct the inventories required by the management plan. As ProManejo expired in the year 2007, the project activities also stopped.

Methods The information to answer the research questions was gathered in two phases: Throughout 2006 and 2007, the researcher stayed several extended periods in the community and observed processes and activities. This period was used to learn about the characteristics of people and families, their institutions and livelihood activities, the mechanisms of the project and the features of forest resources. Based on these observations, a questionnaire was developed about the extraction of NTFPs, its contribution to cash incomes, the functioning of the group of commercialisation and the expectations and conflicts generated. This questionnaire was applied in semi-structured interviews of around 1,5hrs to 29 families including: i) participants of the project (10 out of 10 families), ii) people actively engaged with NTFP commercialisation but outside the project (5 out of 5); iii) people no longer involved in gathering NTFP (8 out of 8) or who had never collected them (6 out 18). Additionally, open interviews were conducted with four key informants, known for their outstanding knowledge about the history of NTFP extraction in the community.

Results and discussion Who is working with NTFP and why? Previous results indicate that development projects are usually geared toward the whole community promoting collective action (Mauro Freire, 2001). However, observations in Pedreira indicated that decisions are strongly individual, based on each person‟s specific interests and character. Regarding the participation in the project, it was impossible to identify personal features influencing individual decisions. Generally, when commercialization of rubber stopped being lucrative, only some families continued working with NTFP mostly for the generation of extra incomes in particular emergency situations. Most families were not interested in commercialising NTFP, for several reasons like the lack of knowledge, general disinterest and low abundance and prices of commercially interesting species . However, through the project, some families became more intensively involved. Thus, in terms of NTFP related activities three groups within the community were distinguished: (1) project participants, (2) NTFP dealers outside the project, (3) NTFP collectors exclusively for subsistence. At the time of the research, 10 out of 41 families participated of the project. Two of them had previous experience in collecting and commercializing NTFPs: an experienced old person who was explicitly asked to join the group to show others where the trees were, and a young man not native fro m the community, experienced in collecting Brazilian nuts. All other project participants had never collected NTFPs before. Due to their lack of knowledge, they had unrealistic expectations about the volume and consistency of annual harvest quotas and joined the group expecting regular cash incomes. A statement of the former president of the group illustrates this situation: “…we thought it [andiroba] produced every year and that we would get a good income”. Consequently, project participation was highly fluctuating. Since 2006, 12 families had withdrawn from the group discouraged for not having perceived enough benefits . Five families traditionally dealing with NTFP continued with their activities but did not participate in the project, mainly due to the following reasons: (i) Two of them received their knowledge on NTFP from their father, who also strongly influenced them with his negative opinion about the project. In view of the low level of knowledge and experience, they feared to be exploited by group participants since all of them were supposed to gain the same. In fact, these people were generally against external projects (“…projects are people’s anaesthesia…”), and also criticised the “laziness” of their neighbours (“…you will be lucky if you find 5 people who work here…”). (ii) Two lived in the forests, collecting NTFPs and hunting game for subsistence and trade. Being far away from the community, they refused to participate in the frequent

3

International Pilot Programme for the Conservation of the Brazilian Rain Forest PPG7 Association of Mini and Small Producers along Piquiatuba-Revolta Tapajós River Right-Bank 5 Brazilian Foundation for Biodiversity 4

3



meetings. Actually, they rarely participated in any other meetings or community events. (iii) Other family exclusively collected cumarú seeds (Dipteryx odorata) from trees inside their roçado, and did not perceive the potential benefits from join ing the group, as for them the generated extra income was already enough. Finally, many households collected NTFPs for subsistence, including those who commercialised them. Subsistence uses include mainly the collection of copaiba, andiroba and cumarú for medicinal use. Two of the poorest families belonged to this category. Three families even commercialized these products, but stopped when they got older and perceived state pensions. Two people collected titica vine roots (Heteropsis spp.) to make handicrafts, one of them being a „homeless‟ making broomsticks. Also 18 families reported to collect thatch for their roofs. Generally, only the elders used NTFP, seldom transferring their knowledge to their children who were not interested. In fact, NTFP medicine had been widely substituted by conventional ones. It can be expected that in time the use of NTFP for subsistence will d isappear. Processe s Traditional NTFP collectors and project participants, focused mainly on three products: andiroba seeds (93% of 15 collectors in Pedreira), copaiba oil-resin (73%) and cumarú seeds (53%). There was no evidence of copaiba or andiroba trees having been planted, though this is not clear for cumarú trees (HerreroJáuregui, unpublished data). The study revealed strong differences in the way these two groups worked. Traditionally, extractive activities concentrate on common property resources (except some trees planted to demark individual property, like traditional rubber plantations). NTFP experts learned about trees and techniques from their fathers, and gained own experiences during their walks in the forest. In the traditional scheme, men tap copaiba trees whenever extra cash is needed, and on their own or with a trustable partner, usually combine this activity with hunting. They select trees of a diameter above 50cm at breast height (dbh), and use several tips to discover before drilling if the tree is productive (although not always generating reliable results). They open 1-2 holes at breast height and sometimes one 10cm above ground using a drill, or make a cut on the trunk with a machete. Then they collect the oil until it starts dripping slowly, and close the hole with a piece of wood, to latter return to the productive trees. Gathering andiroba and cumarú seeds follows the same pattern, but is limited to their irregular one-month disseminating season (February-April for andiroba, and August-November for cumarú). Naturally, they only start collecting if sufficient harvest can be expected. Then they collect as many seeds as possible, by gathering all seeds they see within the least possible distance, and carrying them on their backs out of the forest. The same practice is applied for cumarú seeds. However, being located in the roçados nearer the village, often the whole family is involved. Oil and seeds are processed at home by the women and children, being the same family in charge of extracting, gathering, processing transporting and selling . Products are sold at local markets to those dealers paying the best price, although to save time one family exclusively delivers to one dealer for a fix price. In both cases, they receive immediate cash. In the project, traditional schemes described above significantly change, being the entire range of activities based on a profound planning process. Firstly, a management plan was developed in a proc ess guided and strongly dominated by external technicians. Then, a complete inventory of copaiba and andiroba trees was conducted in several areas of the collectively owned primary forests. The group has not collected cumarú seeds yet, although every year they intend to do so. At the beginning of the harvesting season, part of the group explores the forest. If there are sufficient seeds on the ground, the group is called to define the working schedule, and several group meetings follow. For security reasons , they only collect copaiba and andiroba in groups and equipped with helmets and boots. They also collect as many seeds as they can, but at least 5% of the seeds must remain under the mother tree. However, in the interviews it became obvious that this was perceived as useless and nobody paid attention to control the imp lementation of this guideline. They carry the seeds out on their backs, ignoring small trolleys for transport provided by the project. Back home, they weight the seeds and document relevant details about the trees and harvest in a notebook as a basis for control. However, during the research, notebooks including the data had been lost. Regarding copaiba trees, men drill only one hole at breast height on trees above 40cm dbh. Most of them do not know which trees will be productive, and they do not make use of traditional tips to discover. If the tree is productive, they extract the oil until it starts dripping. After the first extraction they did not return to the trees already harvested. Also, in the project, it is the women who process the seeds, but they have a place built for this purpose. In contrast to traditional schemes, in addition to selling raw materials, there were attempts for further processing, mainly the production of candles , soaps and fancy looking 100 ml bottles of oils. However, to date these products have been exclusively sold to the project and to a few tourists that visited the community, mainly to learn about the project. Commercialisation is made through a cooperative which 4



retains 5% of the earnings and is responsible for exploring the markets, negotiating with the dealers and handling bureaucratic requirements necessary to sell the products outside the National Park. IBAMA permits it if NTFP are collected according to the management plan. Business is made with international buyers, at much higher prices compared to local markets. The money is divided among group members according to their input. Due to this complex processes, it usually takes a long time to receive the money from sale. Benefits From those who collected NTFP for subsistence, only the two poorest families in view of their limited resources acknowledged a certain importance for their livelihoods. The other families continued collecting NTFP as a custom rather than to satisfy an existing demand. Even the titica vines collector said he could easily have an extra-income with alternative options. Generally, the most common benefit from NTFP was thatch for the roofs, which also provided income opportunities for collectors. However, regarding the contribution of NTFP commercialization to household incomes, none of the families , not even the participants of the project, mentioned this activity as relevant. Traditional collectors were hardly able to quote the annually generated cash from selling copaiba, andiroba or cumarú seeds. The generated income was too sporadic for consideration. 58% of the interviewed families mentioned that more than a half of their total income resulted from off-farm regular incomes. Traditional extractivists needed at least a day to collect sufficient quantity of NTFP. If they sell at local markets one litter of andiroba and copaiba oil at 6 USD and get 2,3 USD/Kg of cumarú seeds, they gain in average around 1 USD/hour by collecting NTFP, but only during the occasional harvest season or if they are lucky at finding productive copaiba trees. Their hour working with manioc flour is paid at around 0,5 USD 6 , but has the security of a constant stable market and that it can also be used as food. Therefore, a closer look on the cost benefit ratio, confirmed the relative limited financial attractiveness of the activities proposed by the project, compared to others. The group had sold copaiba and andiroba oils twice to international markets, at a much more profitable price (27 USD/litter). However, buyers were difficult to contact, they were not stable, and sometimes required a constant NTFP supply, or volumes which were difficult to achieve due to ecological constraints. Therefore, counting the time engaged in group meetings and collection and the percentage left to the cooperative, the hour of work on NTFP through the group was not very profitable either. Within the 10 families participating in the project, the contribution of NTFP commercialization to yearly incomes was in average less than 4%, although highly variable (Fig. 2). So me participants gained nothing, while others reported incomes of 600 USD, which could reveal mis management of the resources . In addition, payments took a long time to reach group integrants, and they were lower than initially expected. As a consequence of the limitations and difficulties to commercialize NTFP for attractive prices, 70% of current project participants stated their initial expectations had not been fulfilled. Most interviewed families (62%) would increase the production of manioc flour, if extra money was needed. Others would sell a game or livestock (20%), borrow money (17%) or get some temporary job (13%). Only 6% would sell either cumarú seeds or copaiba and andiroba oils. Conversely, when asked about the benefits brought to the community by this project, answers referred to infrastructure (53%), cash incomes (26%), training (20%) and organization (13%). Although this shows that the project brought some benefits to community, it seems that these, mostly referred to infrastructure and material (and the cash derived from selling or renting it), could have been accomplished with less investment in time and money.

6

We did not consider that there is many people (usually the whole family) involved in the process of making manioc flour, and processing andiroba and cumarú seeds.

5



16 14

500 12 400 10 300

8 6

200 4 100 2 0

Contribution of NTFPs to total yearly incomes

Total incomes from oil selling (USD)

600

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Families

Figure 2. Total yearly incomes from NTFPs trade (columns, left axis) and contribution to overall (lines, right axis) for each of the participant families.

Consequence s of the project The main goals of the analysed project were the generation of incomes from NTFP, to also valorise and thereby protect the forests. Nevertheless, as all external interventions in social systems, this project had also some indirect consequences not foreseen –and often not perceived– by the development agents (Rogers 2003). The formal management plan generated within the community a conflict about the property of the harvested products, between the project participants and the traditional collectors. Group participants adopted project‟s viewpoint that the inventoried trees could only be harvested on the basis of the management plan and that consequently, only group members had the right to harvest them. However, to traditional extractivists NTFP remained an open access resource and they kept collecting in the same areas, regardless if had been inventoried. Moreover, when some of them tried to sell the oil to the group while maintaining their autonomy to collect it, they were rejected. This situation had confronted families which used to keep friendly relationships. Another possible source of conflicts was the distribution of costs and benefits inside the project, particularly the sharing of income and material (i.e. engine to generate electricity). Group participants, especially those who had earned less, were not happy with the uneven distribution of profits among group members, or the advantages derived from travelling and training, that some had got. These were some of the reasons mentioned by several families that had abandoned the group, and generated distrust and criticism among them and within the group. Another serious consequence of the project was a decreasing motivation of the families to get actively engaged in the initiative, evidenced by the high fluctuation of group members. The small and uneven profits compared to the significant efforts dedicated to group activities and the unfulfilled expectations, strongly demobilized project participants. There was also a remarkable lack of transparency regarding group activities (90% of interviewed families claimed that coordinators did not communicate enough with th e rest of participants) and a significant absence of complaints or mobilizations inside the group to improve the current situation. More concerning, these bad experiences could also discourage their motivation to get involved in future initiatives proposed by externals. In contrast to initial expectations, the project also negatively affected the social capital of the community, due to the forced implementation of collective working approaches that ignored the heterogeneity and individual preferences of the different families of Pedreira. In this sense, the project intended to convert a familiar based activity into a collective one, although at least a half of the interviewed families, in view of 6



the elevated time input and possible level of conflict related to group work, exp licit ly preferred individual working schemes. The following statements reflect this commonly observed attitude: “… I would only participate of projects if they financed individual work … ”; “… I prefer individual work…it is better because we know what we are earning…”. As a consequence of the enforced collective approach, social relationships between project participants and the rest of the community were weakened and the level of confidence and interaction drastically reduced. Interestingly, external evaluators of the project interpreted the same observation as an indication of an already existing low level of social organisation, broadly ignoring the fact that the families in Pedreira proved their ability for collective action in course of other activities like health, education, roads, electricity parties, football matches, religious services, etc. One of the most critical consequence of the project detected, was the creation of a certain level of dependency to external support. Instead of contributing to processes of social organisation and mobilization, many families were now waiting for new projects and external initiatives, since they had adopted these externally in itiated and financially promoted initiatives as their “way of development”. Eve n in view of the modest benefits generated by the analyzed project and despite similar experiences with other projects supported at Pedreira (like marquetry and chicken nursing), most families did not see a perspective for development without continued further support. In fact, 86% of the families were interested in receiving more projects, although they did not question the “project approach” but the focus of the projects. Thus, they would prefer to receive projects for the technical and financial support of manioc processing and selling (36%) and timber extraction (28%). Only one person mentioned NTFP as a promising option.

Conclusions In the commercialisation project analyzed, only few people were participating, mainly those with little experience and unrealistic expectations. At the community there were people who explored effectively the potential of NTFP and had more realistic expectations. Those were reluctant to altruistically share their knowledge and experience with the group. Generally though, there is a tendency to disregard the use of NTFP. It is too much work for low returns, and there are many “cheaper” substitutes . Through the project, locals were forced to strongly adjust their behaviour to externally defined requirements. Although the management plan did not substantially modify traditional NTFP practices, it introduced a planning component that did not fit with the way NTFP had been traditionally managed, and took much time and work fro m people. It also meant a control by external agents, which was more important by its meaning than in practice, since control mechanisms were not very effective. Alternatively, p roject participants received material and infrastructure which were also used for other purposes. These benefits were more important than the generated cash incomes, which were fluctuant, heterogeneous among participants and late. The project also generated other not foreseen consequences. The management plan provoked a division between traditional extractivists and project participants, who identified trees inventories with their exclusive right to use them. Ironically, the attempt for a collective action resulted in the exclusion of those, who working on an individual basis , used to include others. Group integrants got discouraged when their unrealistic expectations were not fulfilled, and traditional ways of social organisation regarding NTFP management were altered without generating better ones. Apparently the effort of maintaining a group to earn some extra money was not worthwhile, moreover if it was possible to manage that activity by oneself, and involving oneself in the group was very costly in terms of social relationships (i.e. denouncing corruption or discussing important topics could not be worthwhile if it meant the loss o f social ties). Although much emphasis is made on the need of incorporating traditional knowledge in the design of this sort of projects, this is usually restricted to the techniques extractivists use to manage NTFP, and does not extend to other aspects like the access and use rights, NTFP role in household incomes , and the traditional way of self-organising to handle NTFPs. The creation of a group of commercialisation was not a need emerging from the community. Rather it was the possibility to receive funding and infrastructure that made them ask for that project to external players. This alerts to the risk of creating dependency by communities on external support, which in turn would inhibit them fro m getting organized to think about their own development model. This study faces severe methodological constraints. First, taking “the family” as the unit of analysis does not reflect the reality at the community. Although most family members were present and talked in the interviews, people was not interviewed independently. Therefore, when children and women agreed to what the head of the family (usually the man) said, it could be reflecting subordination rather than homogeneous 7



thinking. However, acknowledging the limitations of this approach, we judge th is methodology as useful, since the head of the family decides the participation in the group. Second, the study has the limitation of its representativeness, as it just analyzes a case study. However, this community being a typical one among ribeirinhos communities in the Amazon, and having its project received the best of possible economical, technical and institutional supports, makes of it a good example to test the viability of NTFP based projects. Findings suggest that NTFP oriented projects as currently promoted by development organisations in the Amazon are not fulfilling the high expectations. Instead, existing concerns were confirmed. Obviously more intelligent approaches for the promotion of forest based development are necessary, more consciously taking into account the demands and capacities of local people and the limited potential of forest products being the basis for local livelihoods.

Acknowledgements We thank the families of Pedreira, Tapajós National Forest, Brazil, for their participation in this study, and their welcome at their houses during the two years of research. This work is the result of cooperation between the Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid (contract number YOSC000121), The Un iversity of Freiburg, CIRAD and Embrapa Amazônia Oriental. It was funded by the Embassy of France in Brasilia through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the FFEM through the „Floresta em Pé‟ Project. References Clay, J. 1992. Why rain forest crunch? Cultural Survival Quarterly, 16: 31-46. Clay, J. and Clement, C. 1993. Selected species and strategies to enhance income generation from Amazonian rainforests. FAO Working Paper, FAO, Ro me. Coppen, J.J.W., Go rdon, A. and Green, C.L. 1995. The developmental potential of selected Amazonian non-wood forest products: An appraisal of opportunities and constraints. In: Memoria-consulta de expertos sobre productos forestales no madereros para América Latina y Caribe, Baker, D.M. (ed.). Natural Resources Institute. Overseas Development Administration, Santiago, Chile. Hall, P. and Bawa, K. 1993. Methods to assess the impact of extraction of non - timber t ropical forest products on plant population. Economic Botany, 47: 234-247. Hiremath, A.J. 2004. The eco logical consequences of managing forests for non -timber products. Conservation and Society, 2: 211-216. Hoch L., B. Po korny and W. de Jong. Forthcoming. Tree growing innovations in the Amazon: The challenge of adapting extension strategies to smallholders' decision -making processes. Ho mma, A.K.O. 2005. A mazônia: co mo aproveitar os benefícios da destruição. Estudos Avançados, 19(54). Leakey, R.R.B., Timu , A.B., Melnyk, M. and Vantomme, P.1998. Do mestication and commercialisation of non-timber fo rest products in agroforestry systems. Non-Wood Forest Products 9, FAO, Ro me. Lecup, I., Nicholson, K., Purwandono, H. and Karki, S. 1998. Methods for assessing the feasibility of sustainable non-timber forest product-based enterprises. P. 85-106 in : Incomes from the forest. Methods for the development and conservation of forest products for local communities, Wollenberg, E. and Ingles, A. (eds.). CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Marshall, E., Newton, A.C. and Schreckenberg, K. 2003a. Co mmercialisation of non-timber forest products: first steps in analysing the factors influencing success. International Forestry Review, 5: 128137. Marshall, E., Schreckenberg, K., Newton, A.C. and Bojanic, A., 2003b. Researching factors that influence successful commercialisation of Non timber forest products. Lyonia, 5: 61-72. Mauro Freire, R. 2001. Sistemas locais de apropiação dos recursos e suas implicações para projetos de manejo comunitário: um estudo de caso numa comunidade tradicional na Floresta Nacional do Tapajós-PA. M Sc thesis, Escuela Superior de Agricu ltura "Lu iz de Queiro z" , Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brasil. 188 p. Medina, G., Po korny, B. and Campbell, B.M. In press. Hindering local development: timber extract ion and power dynamics in the A mazon frontier. Development and Change Journal. Morsello, C. 2004. Trade deals between corporations and Amazonian forest communit ies under common property regimes: Opportunities, problems and challenges. In: The commons in an age of global

8



transition: Challenges, risks and opportunities. The International Association for the Study of Co mmon Property, Oaxaca, Mexico. Nepstad, D. and Schwart zman, S. (eds.) 1992. Non-timber products from t ropical forests: Evaluation of a conservation and development strategy. P.143-146, in: Advances in Economic Botany, 9, Nepstad, D. and Schwartzman, S. (eds.). The New York Botanical Garden, New Yo rk, USA. Neu mann, R.P. and Hirsch, E. 2000. Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: review and analysis of research. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Padoch, C. 1992. Marketing of non timber forest products in Western Amazonia: genera l observations and research priorities. P. 43-50 in : Advances in Economic Botany, 9, Nepstad, D. and Sch wart zman, S. (eds.). The New York Botanical Garden, New Yo rk, USA. Pokorny, B. and Ph illip, M. 2008. Cert ification of NTFP. Concluding comments. Forest, Trees and Livelihoods, 18(1): 91-95 Pokorny, B. and Johnson, J. 2008. Co mmunity forestry in the A mazon: The unsolved challenge of forests and the poor. ODI Natural Resource Perspectives 112: 4 Porro N., Germaná, C., López, C., Medina, G., Ramírez, Y., A maral, M. and Amaral, P. 2008. Capacidades organizativas para el manejo fo restal comunitario frente a las demandas y expectativas oficiales. P 163-201 in: Sabogal C., de Jong, W., Pokorny, B. and Louman, B. (eds.). Manejo Forestal Comunitario en América Tropical: Experiencias, lecciones aprendidas y retos para el futuro . CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Rogers, E.M. 2003. Di ffusion of innovations. Free Press, New Yo rk, NY. Ruiz-Pérez, M. and Byron, N. 1999. A methodology to analyze divergent case studies of Non -Timber Forest Products and their development potential. Forest Science 45: 1-14. Shanley, P., Pierce, A.. and Laird, S. 2005. Além da Madeira: certificação de produtos florestais não madeireiros. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Tickt in, T. 2004. The ecological imp lications of harvesting non-timber forest products. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41: 11-21. Wollenberg, E., Ingles, A. 1998. Inco mes fro m the forest. Methods for the development and conservation of forest products for local co mmunities. CIFOR/ IUCN, Bogor, In donesia. Wunder, S. 2001. Poverty Alleviat ion and Tropical Forests – What scope for synergies. World Development, 19(11): 1817-1833.

9