Prunus africana “No chop um, no kill um, but keep um”: From an endangered species to an everyday tree?
1. THINKING beyond the canopy
THINKING beyond the canopy
IUFRO
Session 101a
Transitions to sustainable
forest management:
Economic, social and
cultural parameters
10 October 2014
Prunus africana “No chop um, no kill um, but keep um”: From
an endangered species to an everyday tree?
Verina Ingram
2. THINKING beyond the canopy
Prunus africana • Afromontane, evergreen tree
• Key species in Cameroon montane
forests
• Fruit eaten and dispersed by >20
species, 50% endangered &/or
endemic
• High degradation & deforestation rates
in main harvest areas
• Local use and trade in timber and bark
• Estimated 60,000 people dependent
on the international trade in 2007
• Principal ingredient in prostatic
hyperplasia pharmaceuticals and
health supplements
Introduction
3. THINKING beyond the canopy
Prunus
africana
range and
trade
= exporters & % world exports
1995-2013
= border trade
= traditional medicinal use &
trade
= main importers & % world
imports 1995-2013
= national management plan
Source: Cunningham 2008, Hall et al .2000,
CITES WCMC Trade database 2014
22%
52%
50%
4%
8%
28%
>1%
12%
1%
>1%
2%
1%
5%
1%
0.1%
13%
2%
5%
>1%
Main harvest zones
4. THINKING beyond the canopy
Background
International trade, apparent over-exploitation, respite & action
Photo: K Stewart
• Regulated since 1974 : arbitrary, poor enforcement and monitoring,
counterproductive to sustainable trade.
• Cameroon worlds’ largest exporter origin of 51% of all exports since
1995, with increasing volumes harvested.
• Sources unknown. In 2007 wild P. africana un-quantified , inventories
only in SW.
• This raised concerns about overexploitation of wild stocks, leading to :
• IUCN Red List (Vulnerable) in 1998 – but “needs updating”
• Trade restrictions (CITES Appendix II listed ) in 2005
• ‘Special Forestry Product’ in Cameroon in 2006
• EU suspension international trade from Cameroon November 2007
• Cameroon self-imposed moratorium 2007-2010.
• Lobbies: African exporters, European importers, governments and
conservation organisations. Conflicting conservation vs. livelihood and
business interests
• Participatory developed national management plan in response to
concerns by organisations in Cameroonian value chain
• Exports resumed 2010 with new statutory rules i.e. inventories and
management plans. Inventories now near completion: approx. 60%
wild in forest, 40% cultivated.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ExportsPrunusafricanabarkfromCameroonintons
Year
Bark (COMCAM & MINFOF)
Bark (CITES UNEP WCMC)
Powder (CITES UNEP WCMC)
Bark (Cunningham 2006, Bellewang 2005)
5. THINKING beyond the canopyValue Chain
Harvester WholesalerProcessor Exporter Retailer Consumer
Access to resources for
production
Access to
markets
6. THINKING beyond the canopy
Research questions
1. What arrangements are used to
govern Prunus africana chains in
Cameroon?
2. How do these governance
arrangements impact the livelihoods
of actors along the chain?
3. How do these governance
arrangements impact chain and
product sustainability?
Kongo CF,
Illegal harvesting, Kilum Community forest,
December 2008
7. THINKING beyond the canopy
MethodologyseeIngram2014
Background
• Selection harvest zones stakeholder interviews (2007)
Field work
• Inventory 3 zones (2007-2008)
• Bark regeneration post-harvest study 4 zones (2009)
VCA
2007-2009
• 250 interviews actors in chains (193) 2007-2010 and 57 (2014) governance, economics,
livelihoods, sustainability, 5 market surveys (2007-2008)
Action data
collection
• Participatory action research SWOT, stakeholder analysis, 6 working sessions
stakeholder groups & 1 stakeholder workshop, participatorily developed management
plan
• Capacity building : supporting collective action (2007-2010)
Analysis
• Data analysis; Existence and intensity governance arrangements, qualitative and
quantitative impacts
• Preliminary findings verified in meetings & peer cross-checked
Outputs
• Reports: Problem analysis workshop report, Inventory in NW & SW Cameroon,
Guidelines for a National Management Plan for Prunus africana in Cameroon,
Assessment sustainable harvest methods, Baseline study of Prunus africana chain,
Domestication Guide (ICRAF), Harvest and inventory norms (GIZ + CIFOR), Cost benefit
analysis of value chain (GIZ & PSFE)
• Policy briefs: Prunus africana in Cameroon
Lit. review
• Literature reviews (2007 and 2014)
8. THINKING beyond the canopy
Methodology: Assessing governance arrangements
Indicators Score
Strong
10
Clear
8
Moderate
5
Weak
2
Non-existent
0
Existence of an institution and
rules/norms known and named
Well known by all
actors; clearly stated
Stated by majority of
actors
Named, some rules
known
Not clear, few rules
discernible
Not stated or known
Boundaries of rights known by
chain actors
Well known &
stated by all actors
Known by most Known to some Little known Not known
Monitoring and compliance with
rules
Frequent Occasional Infrequent Low None
Frequency of use of sanctions and
enforcement
Frequent Occasional Infrequent Low None
Use of conflict resolution
mechanisms
Well used Occasional Infrequent Little used Not used
Use of individual & collective
action to develop and modify
rules
Well used Occasional Infrequent Little used Not used
Nesting horizontally (within
particular scale) and vertically
(value chain)
Well-nested,
both horizontally &
vertically
Partially
horizontal & vertical
Some horizontal/
and/or vertical
Low
horizontal or vertical
None
Level of accountability and
dependence on actors
High level Moderate Low Minimal None
Moral grounding & (democratic)
legitimacy of power High level Moderate Weak Very weak No
Location of decision making clear
to actors
High level, clear to
actors
Known Uncertain Vague/unclear No
Longevity of institution Long lived Long to medium term Medium to short term Temporal None
Participation of actors Frequent Occasional Infrequent Low None
Literature review of governance indicators (Graham, Amos, and Plumptre 2003; Hyden et al. 2008; Ibrahim Foundation 2013; Kaufmann, Kraay,
and Mastruzzi 2007; Ribot, Chhatreb, and Lankinad 2008; World Bank 2010) and institutional design principles (Agrawal and Chhatre 2006; Cox,
Arnold, and Tomás 2010; Ostrom 1990; Scott 2001) yielded eleven indicators.
9. THINKING beyond the canopy
Q1. Arrangements governing Prunus
africana chains in Cameroon
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Statutory
regualtion
Voluntary/
market
standards
Corruption
Customary
Projects
Involuntary
standards
Score
10 = strong governance
0 = no governance
“Super regulated” chain and products
2007 EU CITES trade suspension → crisis and review of arrangements
Statutory regulation
• Grown in coverage
• internationally influenced by
‘’involuntary’’ international
standards
• Enforcement arbitrary and
ineffective , varies by region
• Regulates wild harvest only
Voluntary, market based
harvester collective action
• community-based
companies and community
forests
• used, adapted, collaborated
with, occasionally subjugated
and often challenged
traditional and regulatory
authority
• Alienated and disabled
customary institutions as
commodification increased.
• community based action
resulted in both forest
management and
unsustainable exploitation
Customary regulations
• Differ by region,
• preceded regulatory
framework,
• frequently overrun by
projects and new forest
management models- CFs
• block and contradict
statutory rights.
• Focus on ownership and
access to resource, in some
areas on sustainable
harvesting.
Projects
• 5 long term projects
• Introduced CBOs and CFs,
protected areas
• Introduced harvesting rules,
monitoring , controls
Corruption
• Permitting process
• Transport
• Illegal harvesting
• Access in CFs
10. THINKING beyond the canopy
Traditional &
customary laws Statutory law
‘bricolage’
Regulatory authorities
national and provincial
ministries, local councils,
implementing agencies
Traditional authorities
Chiefs, customary councils,
courts
Community forests
‘Project’ rules
NGOs & donors
Collective
‘Voluntary’ and ‘supplier’
rules
AFRIMED
Prunus Platform
International organizations
Conventions
Stakeholders
Companies
Corruption
Private owners
11. THINKING beyond the canopy
• Harvesters & tree owners: silent
chain “actors”, little voice & power
in regulatory arrangements, act to
create their own ‘’messy’’
arrangements
• Actors become bricoleurs – make
best of arrangements they are in
• Creatively using and making new
arrangements & remoulding
existing ones to reduce
vulnerabilities, cope with risks,
take control, reduce hassle and
make money.
Laurel & Hardy
Silver screen stars
c.1920-1940
Moses & Pa
Pygeum hoe handle
traders, c.1990-2009
12. THINKING beyond the canopy
Q2. How do these arrangements impact
livelihoods?
• Trade suspension negative economic impact on harvester incomes
• Harvester incomes decreased with regulation and influence of projects
• Few exporters & importers profited for decades, two dominate
• Liberalisation increased prices and competition, decreased information.
• PAUs decrease competition, increased prices & scope for corruption
• Competitive PAUs form entry barrier for small operators and CBOs
• State officials and customary elites access revenues from corruption.
• Collective action aided CF & CBOs to increase revenue, secure rights
• Projects and CBOs explored possibilities for adding value
• Private owners no statutory provision to access markets or arrangements
13. THINKING beyond the canopy
Q3 How do these governance arrangements
impact chain & product sustainability
Negative
• Pre-2007 government ignored own rules, now
introduced but methods questionable
• Statutory arrangements continue to be ineffective
• Regeneration tax barely invested in regeneration
• Projects promoting CFs & CBO facilitated ‘mining’
• Regulations, and project-based based upon a
presumption of wild sourcing and threatened status,
conventions created dominant, but mistaken
perception
• Farmed trees unquantified, “invisible”, source
undistinguished, inventories only now occurring.
• Community collective action, promoted by statutory
and project-based arrangements, failed to control
access or over-extraction
• Customary rules negated even by some traditional
chiefs
• Corruption increased illegal harvesting
Positive
• Research indicates techniques for sustainable
harvest,
• Projects stimulated collective and individual
planting
• Projects brought customary harvest rules into
formal sphere
• Trade suspension provided respite and led to
quantification.
• Concessions easier to control and monitor,
increased rates sustainable harvesting when
combined with project support.
• Collaborations between research, development
and conservation led to policies and institutions
focus on product and livelihood sustainability.
Multiple, incongruent arrangements had mixed, but overall negative impacts
14. THINKING beyond the canopy
Conclusions
Overlapping and often incongruent governance arrangements
• Conventions ripe for rationalisation, statutory needs tweaking, implementation and
customary arrangements and projects to be incorporated
Impact of arrangements on livelihoods, mixed but generally negative
• Access, employment and profitability decreased by increased regulations
• Importance of business, infrastructure & technical support
• Power critical in determining access to resource, markets and revenues
• Processing & storage offer local value adding
• Harvest techniques & domestication technologies potential to increase profits – but
needs dissemination and enforcement
Impact of arrangements on the sustainability of Prunus africana also mixed but
generally negative
• Recognising tree and land tenure critical for sustainable exploitation
• Selective cultivation with appropriate market access key to sustainable supply and
livelihoods
Recognize often clashing livelihood and sustainability impacts for different
actors due to overlaps of traditional, regulatory, CBOs, projects with regulatory
arrangements
15. THINKING beyond the canopy
Role of research
To address a range of issues simultaneously1
√
To link to development & government institutions for impact1
√
• Bearing in mind different/conflicts of interest
To inform policymakers & practionnners via evidence based science1
√
• When evidence is incomplete?
• When “they’’ don’t listen ?
• Are scientists independent ?
To evaluate impacts of policy and governance actions
√
• Who pays?
• How to access data for all actors, particularly in competitive chains?
1 CGIAR Consortium Research Program 6 Forests, Trees and Agroforestry 2010
16. THINKING beyond the canopy
THINKING beyond the canopy
The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
is one of the 15 centres supported by the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
Thank you!
www.cifor.cgiar.org
v.ingram@cgiar.org