This article was downloaded by: [Wageningen UR Library] On: 28 April 2014, At: 02:42 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Forests, Trees and Livelihoods Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tftl20
Forest and tree product value chains ab
c
d
Verina Ingram , Patrice Levang , Peter Cronkleton , Ann e
fg
hi
Degrande , Roger Leakey & Patrick van Damme a
Agricultural Economics Institute (LEI), Wageningen UR, Den Haag, The Netherlands b
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Yaoundé, Cameroon, Email: c
Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Yaoundé, Cameroon, Email: d
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Lima, Peru, Email: e
World Agroforestry Centre, Yaoundé, Cameroon, Email:
f
International Tree Foundation, Crawley, UK
g
James Cook University, Cairns, Australia, Email:
h
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
i
Prague University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic, Email: Published online: 14 Mar 2014.
To cite this article: Verina Ingram, Patrice Levang, Peter Cronkleton, Ann Degrande, Roger Leakey & Patrick van Damme (2014) Forest and tree product value chains, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 23:1-2, 1-5, DOI: 10.1080/14728028.2014.892756 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2014.892756
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 02:42 28 April 2014
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 2014 Vol. 23, Nos. 1–2, 1–5, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2014.892756
EDITORIAL
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 02:42 28 April 2014
Forest and tree product value chains
This special issue is dedicated to forest and tree product value chains. Forest and tree products enter people’s lives as goods and services, fulfilling basic subsistence needs for food, shelter, energy and health, amongst others. They may be traded near and far from their place of origin. They may be used for everyday activities, as exotic luxury items, or hold great cultural or symbolic value for worship. The activities and processes arising when such products enter new environments can have local as well as far-reaching ecological, social and economic consequences. Money is made and lost. Livelihoods and ecosystems are impacted, both positively and negatively. Landscapes change. Organisations and institutions arise and fall around products, and cultures are both influenced and shaped by the value chains that arise from the movement of products harvested from forests and farms, transported – processed and transformed into other products – marketed, sold, consumed and discarded. The term value chain (also known as market, supply or commodity chain, productionto-consumption system and filie`re) uses the interlinking connections between actors to symbolise the series of activities involved in bringing a product from its source as raw material via processing, conditioning and transport to final consumers and ultimately disposal (Kaplinsky & Morris 2000). Chains can operate at a local, regional to global level. The range of activities shown above may be implemented by individuals and/or organisations. The relationships between these actors and the mechanisms used to control the chains have been termed chain governance (Gereffi & Humphrey 2005; Bavinck et al. 2005). Chains and products embody multiple relations of value – often explicitly economic but also social, cultural and environmental. A forest product value chain can concern both timber and non-timber forest products (NTFPs), and refers to the full series of value-generating activities in a value chain. The articles in this special issue address a number of aspects of value chains based on tree and NTFPs, differentiating them from agricultural value chains. As Wiersum et al. (this issue) point out it remains a core issue to know whether production of a certain commodity is sustainable as the latter often uses wild resources. Sustainability depends on factors such as (1) the abundance of the species from which a product originates, (2) anthropogenic (such as forest degradation and deforestation) and natural (such as climate change threats and vulnerabilities to species populations) factors, (3) inherent species vulnerability which depends on the part(s) harvested and (4) a species’ tolerance to harvesting. The second aspect is how a given chain is governed: the arrangements regulating access to species and the forest from which they originate, and decisions about their use and relationships between actors in the market. In contrast to subsistence use, commercial harvests are generally associated with over-exploitation unless governance institutions (whether formal, international, customary or market based) effectively regulate and control their use to mitigate degradation. These two aspects of sustainability and governance of forest product chains have received little attention in the literature to date. A third aspect is the link between commercialisation and poverty alleviation. The latter is an important element q 2014 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 02:42 28 April 2014
2
Editorial
in the discussion as a lot of rural poor depend on natural resources for their livelihoods. This results from the high levels of spatial coincidence between tropical forests and most of the world’s rural poor (FAO 2007). In addition, with agroforestry – the purposeful integration of trees in the farming landscape for generating social, economic and environmental benefits – now being recognised as a significant contributor in alleviating poverty (Garrity 2004), commercialisation of agroforestry tree products (AFTPs) is rapidly gaining grounds. The term AFTPs refers to timber and NTFPs that are sourced from trees cultivated outside of forests, to distinguish them from NTFPs extracted from the wild. In fact, the two are often indistinguishable in the market, as the same farmer may be harvesting a product from his or her farm and collecting that same product from the forest. However, in some countries producer-collectors are expected to ascertain the provenance of the tree products they are offering on the market; this creates legal problems, and also limits AFTP development. As a result of all these characteristics, forest and tree value chains have been seen as a tool to leverage pro-poor development (Bolwig et al. 2008; IFAD 2008; Riisgaard et al. 2010; Coles & Mitchell 2011). Ingram and colleagues (this issue), using examples of food, medicinal, energy and cultural NTFPs, show the gendered nature in which men and women value, access and use NTFPs in the Congo Basin. This is due to different rights to resources, markets and use, and unequal power relationships between men and women, influencing their livelihood outcomes. This paper shows how these highly gendered activities and roles vary with product characteristics, its value chain, as well as formal and customary regulations. Ingram et al.’s paper discusses how disadvantaged and marginalised people can be empowered by interventions to positively influence the benefits gained in the chains. Purnomo et al. (this issue) further provide insights into how development and research can be combined with positive environmental and livelihood outcomes, shown by the results of participatory action research with small-scale teak furniture enterprises in Indonesia. The role of collective action and strong institutional design is central (Ostrom 1990; Scott 2001; Agrawal & Chhatre 2006; Cox et al. 2010) in aiding processors to add value and increase benefits, by vertically integrating and developing more sustainable sourcing approaches. Strategic partnerships with private sector, state and civil society organisations play a key role in changing the position and activities of actors, replicating findings from other studies about upgrading (Helmsing & Vellema 2011). Viraponga and colleagues (this issue) further emphasise how forest product chains can be used as a development tool to improve the livelihood stability of socio-economically vulnerable communities. They point out, however, that interventions to encourage market growth often reach only sub-sets of target populations. Using the example of NTFP-based handicraft products in Brazil, the socio-economic factors framing roles within the chain demonstrate how the social heterogeneity of traditional and new sellers and users affects their participation in NTFP markets, their livelihood outcomes and resource management strategies. Wiersum et al. highlight that NTFP governance is a recent concept denoting the process of rule-making and decision-making in relation to production and marketing. This paper reviews the multiple dimensions of NTFP governance, distinguishing between the system-to-be-governed, the governing system and recent trends in the interactions between the two. It emphasises that NTFP governance is more than rule-making and includes a broader societal process based on social practices, values and principles. This process is characterised by the co-existence of formal and informal institutions based on plural statutory, customary and market norms; the combination of forestry and agrarian regimes; multi-level and multi-actor involvement in many – but not all – of these
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 02:42 28 April 2014
Editorial
3
institutions; with often separate institutions governing access to resources and to markets. NTFP governance is a complex and dynamic hybrid of institutional arrangements, norms and collective social practices and by dynamics in space and over time. Understanding governance arrangements allows the social, economic and environmental outcomes for different actors to be better understood. The paper by Wynberg and Niekerk illustrates the outcomes of two internationally traded, commercially valuable medicinal NTFP chains from southern Africa. It reveals the realities of how equity and sustainable use, as envisioned by international agreements embodied by the millenium development goals (MDG) and conventions such as the convention on biological diversity (CBD), play out on the ground. Interventions initiated by the state, private sector transformations and NGO mediations offer promises of benefit distribution, sustainable resource use and poverty alleviation, but are prone to self-serving policy snares that are ultimately detrimental for local actors in the chains. Gebru and colleagues, using examples of gums and resin chains in Ethiopia, highlight how benefits from commercialisation depend on governance and how they can be enhanced. They confirm the importance of factors identified as important by other studies: secure access rights to resources, adequate market information on product quality and price levels, extension and support services, and access to credit and transportation (Donovan et al. 2006; Macqueen et al. 2009; Ros-Tonen & Kusters 2011; Awono et al. 2013). Development-orientated solutions include improving market access, better concession arrangements, promoting smallholder –company partnerships and building capacity to add value to provide economic incentives to responsibly manage forests to ensure the sustainable supply of gums and resins. In as much as value chain development for NTFPs is challenging, integrating smallholders practising agroforestry into markets has proven even more difficult, because, so far, little consideration has been given to the markets for trees and tree products aside from potential productivity gains to food crops (Russel & Franzel 2004). The paper by Degrande et al. documents key experiences and lessons learned from the use of a value chain approach for AFTPs, as applied by World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and partners in the Congo Basin. The case studies from Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of Congo clearly demonstrate the need for multifaceted and holistic approaches in order to improve the chain and increase smallholders’ participation and benefits. Such an approach must involve a wide range of activities including production, harvest and post-harvest, collective action, market information system development, impact assessment, and analysis of the institutional and policy environment. The authors found that the constraints differed from product to product and to a certain extent were influenced by country-specific factors. They therefore suggest the need for development practitioners and other stakeholders who are interested in developing AFTP value chains to undertake proper value chain diagnosis before interventions are introduced. Leakey and Van Damme highlight the importance of tree domestication for the enhancement of economic returns from tree products, as value chains from local to global level become more sophisticated and demand higher quality, greater uniformity, and a regular and continuous supply. On the other hand, agroforestry, through the indirect environmental and ecological services it provides, can greatly enhance food security by closing the yield gap of modern crop varieties. The authors also demonstrate that agroforestry offers the potential to add benefits from payments for environmental services, such as carbon markets and environmental and social product certification schemes (‘green’ businesses), to product marketing. The latter aspect would seem to have remained largely untapped, and would therefore need to be addressed more by policy-level institutions and private enterprise: AFTPs are mostly sourced in low-input environments,
4
Editorial
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 02:42 28 April 2014
and therefore almost ‘by rule’ organic, giving them a competitive advantage over many other products. Finally, Mpanda et al. provide an example of how value chain development and tree domestication in agroforestry landscapes can generate win – win outcomes for biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction. They compared three commodities from the forests – agroforestry interface of the East Usambara Mountains in Tanzania at different stages of domestication: (a) Allanblackia stuhlmannii, a local tree with valuable edible kernel oil; (b) butterflies, with an international market chain for pupae sold to butterfly gardens and (c) cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum), an introduced shade-tolerant spice from India with established global markets. They concluded that the transition of these three commodities along the domestication continuum illustrates lessons of efficiency, sustainability of the ecosystem and sustainability1 of their use over time.
Note 1.
Sustainagility refers to the properties of a system that allow actors to sustain agility. Operational criteria and indicators of sustainability tend to focus on ‘persistence’, while change and agility may over a longer time frame contribute more to high-level sustainability goals.
References Agrawal A, Chhatre A. 2006. Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Dev. 34:149 – 166. Awono A, Ingram V, Schure J, Levang P. 2013. Guide for small and medium enterprises in the sustainable non-timber forest product trade in Central Africa. Bogor: CIFOR; p. 34. Bavinck M, Cheunpagdee R, Diallo M, Heijen Pvd, Kooiman J, Mahon R, Williams S. 2005. Interactive fisheries governance: a guide to better practice. Delft: Eburon Publishers. Bolwig S, Ponte S, Toit Ad, Riisgaard L, Halberg N. 2008. Integrating poverty, gender and environmental concerns into value chain analysis. A conceptual framework and lessons for action research. DIIS Working Paper No. 16 Copenhagen: DIIS; p. 70. Coles C, Mitchell J. 2011. Gender and agricultural value chains. A review of current knowledge and practice and their policy implications. ESA Working Paper No. 11-05 Rome: FAO; p. 32. Cox M, Arnold G, Toma´s SV. 2010. A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecol Soc. 15(4):38. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art38/ Donovan J, Stoian D, Macqueen D, Grouwels S. 2006. The business side of sustainable forest management: small and medium forest enterprise development for poverty reduction. ODI Nat Resour Perspect. 104:1 – 6. FAO. 2007. State of the world’s forests 2007. Nations. Rome: FAO. Garrity DP. 2004. Agroforestry and achievement of the millennium development goals. Agroforestry Syst. 61(1):5 – 17. Gereffi G, Humphrey J, Sturgeon T. 2005. The governance of global value chains. Rev Int Polit Econ. 12(1): 78 – 104. Helmsing AHJ, Vellema S, editors. 2011. Value chains, inclusion and endogenous development contrasting theories and realities. Abingdon: Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group). IFAD. 2008. Gender and non-timber forest products; Promoting food security and economic empowerment. Rome: IFAD. Kaplinsky R, Morris M. 2000. A handbook for value chain research. Canada: IDRC. Macqueen DJE, Baral S, Chakrabarti L, Dangal S, du Plessis P, Griffiths A, Grouwels S, Gyawali S, Heney J, Hewitt D, et al. 2009. Supporting small forest enterprises. A cross sectoral review of best practice. Edinburgh: IIED. Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Riisgaard L, Escobar Fibla AM, Ponte S. 2010. Gender and value chain development series: evaluation study; 2010/2. Copenhagen: Ministry of Foreign affairs of Denmark, Evaluation Department; p. 71.
Editorial
5
Ros-Tonen MAF, Kusters K. 2011. Pro-poor governance of non-timber forest products: the need for secure tenure, the rule of law, market access and partnerships. In: Shackleton S, Campbell B, Shanley P, Mitchell D, Shackleton C, editors. Non-timber forest products in the global context. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; p. 189– 207. Russel D, Franzel S. 2004. Trees of prosperity: agroforestry, markets and the African smallholder. Agroforestry Syst. 61:345 – 355. Scott WR. 2001. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 02:42 28 April 2014
Verina Ingram Agricultural Economics Institute (LEI) Wageningen UR, Den Haag, The Netherlands Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Yaounde´, Cameroon Email:
[email protected] Patrice Levang Institut de Recherche pour le De´veloppement (IRD), Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Yaounde´, Cameroon Email:
[email protected] Peter Cronkleton Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Lima, Peru Email:
[email protected] Ann Degrande World Agroforestry Centre Yaounde´, Cameroon Email:
[email protected] Roger Leakey International Tree Foundation, Crawley, UK James Cook University, Cairns, Australia Email:
[email protected] Patrick van Damme Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Prague University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech Republic Email:
[email protected]
