This presentation by Tony Cunningham, Terry Sunderland and Robert Nkuinkeu shows why the Prunus africana case is globally significant in terms of policy vs. practice, offers 6 take home messages and recommendations for the future.

1. Prunus
africana:
a
reality
check
A B (Tony) Cunningham, Terry Sunderland & Robert Nkuinkeu
Meeting at CIFOR, Yaounde, 6 March 2014

2.
OVERVIEW
• Introduc+on
• Why
is
the
P.
africana
case
is
globally
significant
in
terms
of
policy
vs.
prac+ce?
• 6
“take
home
messages”;
• Recommenda+ons
for
the
future.

3. Introduc+on

4. Prunus
bark
trade
in
global
perspec+ve
• More
Prunus
africana
bark
is
wild
harvested
than
any
other
tree
species,
followed
by
quillay
(Quillaja
saponaria,
also
Rosaceae)
(Cunningham,
in
press);
• Quillay
is
exported
from
Chile
&
wild
populaDons
have
been
devastated
(872
t/bark
exported
=
60000
trees/yr
(FAO,
2001;
San
MarDn
&
Briones,
1999);
• All
other
large
scale
bark
trade
has
shiSed
to
farmed
trees
(e.g;
cinnamon,
cork,
waUle,
cassia).

5. Prunus
africana:
valued
but
vulnerable
• Considered
the
only
African
species
in
a
genus
of
c.200
species
(although
Kalkman
(1965)
suggested
that
a
separate
species,
Prunus
crassifolia
might
occur
in
the
Kivu
region,
DRC);
• Gene+cally
&
chemically
dis+nct
popula+ons
across
Africa
&
Madagascar
(Kadu
et
al.,
2012;
Martelli
et
al,
1986;
Vicen+
et
al.,
2013);
• Wild
rela+ve
of
peaches,
plums,
almonds
&
apricots,
listed
as
Vulnerable
(IUCN),
even
in
countries
where
no
export
trade
occurs
&
CITES
Appendix
2
listed;
• Habitat
loss
due
to
clearing
from
farmland
&
future
impacts
predicted
due
to
climate
change
(Mbatudde
et
al,
2012;
Vicen+
et
al.,
2013).

6. Export
trade:
Prunus
africana
= established trade
= emerging trade
“frontier”
= traditional medicine
trade only

7. Why
is
the
P.
africana
case
globally
significant
in
terms
of
policy
vs.
prac+ce?
NaDonal
Management
plan
• The
(Ingram
et
al,
2009)
is
now
being
seen
as
a
model
that
should
be
applied
on
a
global
scale;
• With
CIFOR’s
reputaDon,
the
report
was
a
key
to
liSing
the
EU
ban.
• Disconnect
between
policy
&
what
is
really
happening
in
the
forest.

8. LESSON
1:
INCREDIBLE
SUPPORT
&
EFFORTS
HAVE
GONE
INTO
SUSTAINABLE
WILD
HARVEST
….but there are widespread concerns about the accuracy of
some inventory, yield & quotas recommendations…..

9. PROGRESS
SINCE
2011
• Mt.
Cameroon
as
a
model:
major
investment
in
management
&
monitoring
plans;
• SDmulated
by
the
2007
EU
trade
ban.

10. CASE
STUDY:
GOING
DOWN
MT
CAMEROON
(Ewusi, 2006 in Amougou et al., 2011)
• Annual
“sustainable”
bark
yields
have
varied
enormously,
even
for
the
best
studied
locaDon
(Mt
Cameroon);
• 4438
t/yr
-­‐>
330
t/yr
-­‐>178
t/yr
-­‐>
130
t/yr
to
MOCAP’s
harvest
of
57
tonnes
from
Block
1
in
2012.

11. ROTATION
TIMES:
5
YRS?
7
YRS?
10YRS?
IT
ALL
DEPENDS…
• Current
management
on
Mt.
Cameroon
is
based
on
a
5
yr
rotaDon
(5
blocks)
(Eben
Ebai,
2011);
• 7
year
rotaDon
recommended
(Nkeng,
2009),
with
9-­‐10
yr
rotaDon
used
for
cork
oak.
(from Eben-Ebai, 2011)

12. LESSON
2:
IS
IT
WORTH
IT?

13. WHO
BENEFITTED
&
BY
HOW
MUCH?
WILD HARVEST
Warehousing 3%
Transport
4%
Regeneration 7%
Park mgmt. 20%
VDF*
7%
16%
Harvester
43%
MOCAP
*Village Development Fund
Exporter pays 350 CFA/kg
Harvester gets 150 CFA/kg
• 2012
harvest
(Block
1,
Mt
Cameroon
NP)
was
57
t
fresh
wt;
• 57000
kg
@150
CFA/kg
=
8550000
CFA
(approx
$17,100);
• 48
acDve
harvesters;
• Benefit
per
person
for
the
annual
harvest
=
$356
(or
ca.
$1
per
harvester
per
day).

14. COSTS
OF
MANAGED
SUSTAINABLE
HARVEST
vs.
BENEFITS
• Cost
of
inventory
about
15
million
CFA
($30
000),
more
than
two
Dmes
the
$17
100
earned
from
bark
harvest
(&
excludes
addiDonal
monitoring
costs);
• 100
000
people
live
around
Mt
Cameroon.
48
acDve
harvesters.
20%
of
whom
are
not
from
Mt.
Cameroon
area;
• Are
the
costs
worth
it
for
0.0004%
of
the
local
populaDon?

15. LESSON
3:
LOCAL
LIVELIHOODS
&
PRUNUS
INCOME
NEED
CONTEXT
….both place, time & other benefits from forests

16. HIGH
VALUE,
HIGH
VOLUME,
HIGH
IMPACT
Madagascar
&
Prunus
africana:
remote,
small
forests,
local
value-­‐adding
&
high
porDon
of
cash
•
income…..
•
Bioko
&
Cameroon
in
a
very
different
situaDon
(diverse
income
sources,
changing
economic,
global
links
&
migrant
remiUances).

17. MADAGASCAR
Tsaratanàna
° Antsahabiraoka
= Prunus africana
° Lakato
Tampoketsan’Ankazobe
Marovoay
Import from Cameroon
= bark processing
factory
Bark
exploita+on
has
been
taking
place
in
Forest
Reserves
(e.g:
Zahamena
Special
FR)
un+l
overexploita+on
wiped
out
stocks…so
they
had
to
import
from
Cameroon.

18. OTHER
LINKS
TO
LIVELIHOODS
• Diverse
products
come
from
forests,
not
just
Prunus
bark;
• Mt
Cameroon:
there
are
48
acDve
harvesters
out
of
100,000
people
around
the
park;
• PES
opportuniDes
&
lessons
from
other
countries.

19. LESSON
4:
BARK
HARVEST
DOES
HAVE
AN
IMPACT
.

20. BARK REMOVAL IS A SHOCK…
from which some trees do not
recover

21. HIGH
VALUE,
WEAK
TENURE=OVERHARVEST
• Demographic structure of natural stands shows very low
representation of mature trees with dbh > 30cm, but very
high exploitation rate reaching 80% of total individuals in
some areas (ICRAF/IRAD/ Univ of Dschang, 2008);
• Overexploitation rate is more than 90% in all studied
villages: almost all individual with dbh >20 were totally
debarked from buttresses to branches (ICRAF/IRAD/ Univ
of Dschang, 2008);
• 60% of trees overexploited (Nkeng, 2009).

22. PRUNUS
AFRICANA
IS
AN
ECOLOGICAL
KEYSTONE
SPECIES
• P.
africana
bark
is
not
just
“under-­‐exploited”
trees
for
commercial
trade;
• Keystone
species
for
colobus
monkeys
&
some
endemic
birds;
• Not
just
about
“saving
Prunus”.
Fashing, P J. 2004. Mortality trends in the African cherry (Prunus africana) and the implications for colobus monkeys (Colobus
guereza) in Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Biological Conservation 120:449-459

23. LESSON
5:
PAU’s
FACE
MANY
CHALLENGES
.
”Prunus Allocation Units (PAUs) have been participatively
defined and developed with input from stakeholders” (Ingram
et al, 2009)……yet “elite capture” & an exporter monopoly
are still major factors, so “participatory” is questionable.

24. WHAT
ABOUT
ADAMOUA?
(from Ingram et al, 2009)
• Current
inventory,
management
&
monitoring
in
Mt.
Cameroon
PAU
are
an
inspiring
model….but
what
about
PAU’s
that
are
more
remote?

25. RESOURCE RICH
FRONTIER?
• Traders from Bamenda
employed local people to
strip Prunus africana trees on
Tchabal Mbabo since c.2001;
• In Nigeria (2003), Chapman
(2004) reported extensive
debarking & camps in the forest
for bark exploitation - total
stripping of trees, compromising
transboundary conservation
plans;
Ref: Chapman, 2004
• 5 PAU’s in Adamoua: what is
the impact of current harvest?

26. COMMERCIAL
HARVEST
&
COLLATERAL
DAMAGE?
• “Collateral
damage”
(“ladder
trees”
&
lianas)….naDonally,
1000
tonne
quota=c.180
000
Prunus
trees/yr);
• Does
the
cumng
of
c.150000
small
trees
&
c.300000
lianas
per
yr
have
an
impact?

27. LESSON
6:
CULTIVATION
IS
A
MORE
VIABLE
OPTION
.
…connecting farmers Prunus Growers Associations
(PAG’s) to the export market will catalyze planting & bark
Production….

28. CULTIVATION
Traceability 16%
Harvester
84%
• Even
at
the
current
low
price,
culDvaDon
is
a
beUer
opDon
(money,
labour);
• Current
GiZ/PSMNR-­‐SW
funded
inventory
of
P.africana
on
farms
is
very
Dmely;
*Village Development Fund
Exporter price = 350 CFA/kg
Farmer gets 294 CFA/kg
• So
is
the
forthcomingGiZ/
PSMNR-­‐SW
project
on
economics
&
benefit
sharing.

29. DOES IT PAY TO PLANT?
• While not as profitable as Eucalyptus, an
alternative enterprise, farmers want to grow
P. africana;
• Reasons: it is compatible with many crops
and has multiple uses – bark sales, medicine,
tools, poles, seed sales & mulch;
• Cameroon: thousands of farmers have
planted Prunus. Market demand is high, as
herbal treatments of BPH are popular &
demand grows & emerging Asian market.
Cunningham, A.B., Ayuk, E., Franzel, S., Duguma, B. & Asanga, C. 2002. An economic evaluation of
medicinal tree cultivation: Prunus africana in Cameroon. People and Plants working paper 10. UNESCO.

30. TRANSPARENCY
ON
THE
VALUE
CHAIN
IS
CRUCIAL
• We
are
sDll
cross-­‐checking
price
data,
but
preliminary
figures
are
that
the:
• 150
CFA/kg
represents
4%
of
the
price
paid
to
Cameroonian
exporters
(3550
CFA/kg
(or
6
Euro/
kg);
• If
the
above
figures
are
correct,
then
the
FOB
value
of
the
current
1000
tonne
quota
would
represent
a
profit
of
about
Euro
6
million/yr.

31. RECOMMENDATIONS

32. NEED
TO
PHASE
OUT
COMMERCIAL
BARK
HARVEST
IN
THE
LONG
TERM
• Economic
&
ecological
sustainability
reasons;
• Licensed
harvest
of
seed
&
wildings
from
wild
populaDons
is
an
incenDve
to
maintain
mother
trees;
• Also
contributes
seed
from
a
geneDcally
diverse,
local
P.
africana
populaDon

33. CITES,
CULTIVATION
&
TRADE
• Local farmers have been cultivating P. africana since the
1970’s but are discouraged by lack of markets;
• Need CITES to recognize that “conservation through
cultivation” can & should happen (as with orchids & crocodiles);
• Current on-farm inventories (GiZ/PSMNR-­‐SW)
very
Dmely;
• Cultivation can bring higher income to more people, with less
effort, that trying to sustain wild harvest;

34. GREAT
OPPORTUNITY
FOR
BUILDING
ON
PAST
CULTIVATION
STUDIES
• Long
history
of
ICRAF
work
on
P.
africana
&
lessons
from
Allanblackia
&
links
to
industry;
• New
research
on
ICRAF’s
old
P.
africana
trials
(known
age,
chemical
content).

35. NEED
TO
UNDERSTAND
&
DEAL
WITH
BARRIERS
TO
TRADE
IN
CULTIVATED
BARK
• Diverse
vested
interests
in
maintaining
&
controlling
wild
harvest;
•
Encouraging
a
shiS
to
culDvaDon
may
need
policy
reform
(“first
generaDon
seedlings
on
farm
are
wild”);
• OpportuniDes
to
learn
from
policy
outcomes
in
other
countries
(e.g:
sandalwood).

36. NOT
ADVISABLE
TO
REPLICATE
THE
2009
MODEL
• Weaknesses
in
the
current
model
need
to
be
recognized,
whether
sampling
(AdapDve
Cluster
Sampling
(ACS)
(Morrison
et
al
(2008)
or
related
to
governance;
• ReplicaDon,
parDcularly
where
governance
is
weak
may
export
a
problem,
not
a
soluDon.
Ref: Morrison, L. W., Smith, D. R., Young, C. C., & Nichols, D. W. (2008).
Evaluating sampling designs by computer simulation: a case study with the
Missouri bladderpod. Population ecology, 50(4), 417-425.

37. THANK
YOU
“if it’s not sustainable,
it’s not development” (UNDP)