3. OVERVIEW OF THE TRADE IN NWFP AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF THIS TRADE TO LIVELIHOODS

3.1 The Trade in NWFP

The sale and exchange by people of wild plant and animal resources is an issue that lies at the very heart of the relationship between biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. The increase in demand for, and consumption of, natural resources is causing their depletion at an alarming rate and while not all of this is due to the trade in wild plants and animals, it remains one of the underlying causes of biodiversity loss (Broad et al., 2003).

The lack of information on trade in wild plants and animals, and their use in general, makes it very difficult to estimate total and relative levels of wild plant and animal use for domestic and commercial purposes (Burgess, 1992) and the dividing line between purely subsistence use and trade for commercial purposes is often blurred (Freese, 1998). The trade is certainly significant and the value of the international trade in NWFP has, in 2001, been estimated at US$11 billion per annum (Broad, 2001).

While the majority of wild animal and plant trade is legal, much of it is illegal and traders operating in both sectors adapt to market trends, regulatory changes – including the introduction of trade-related measures – and supply-side changes and challenges. The trade is complex, dynamic and continuously evolving and frequently poses a major challenge to the conservation of NWFP, either directly through over-exploitation or indirectly through impacts caused, for instance, by the introduction of invasive species (Broad et al, 2003).

Uses of internationally traded NWFP

Wild species are traded internationally in many forms – raw, semi-processed and processed – to produce a wide variety of products. An overview of a number of these uses is provided below while more detail is provided in Table 1.

• Medicines – many medicines, both traditional and ‘western’ are based on wild plants or the compounds extracted from them. Approximately 1 000 plant species have been identified in international trade in East Asia alone (Lee. in prep. In: Roe et al., 2002) and 700 imported for use within Europe. The global international trade in medicinal and aromatic plants exceeded 440 000 t in 1996 with a projected value of US$1.3 billion (Lange, 1998).

• Food - While the majority of wild pants and animals collected or hunted is used for subsistence purposes, there is a substantial international trade in a variety of non-timber forest products. NWFP examples include brazil nuts, palm hearts, pine nuts, spices and various mushroom species.

• Ornaments and furnishings – A wide variety of wild plant and animal products are used for decorative and ornamental purposes and are frequently traded as tourist items. For NWFP, these include elephant ivory, reptile and other skins, curios and feathers.

• Clothing – Skins, furs, feathers and fibres from numerous reptiles, birds and small mammals are traded internationally to make clothing and related products. Some are ultimately sold in their processed form as high value fashion items.

• Pets or hobbies – The increased availability of air transport around the world has broadened the variety and numbers of wild species that are traded for use as pets or hobbies. The international trade in related NWFP is dominated by reptiles and birds but also includes invertebrate species such as scorpions and spiders.

Table 1: List of Internationally Traded Non-Wood Forest Products.

• Ornamental Plants – A significant percentage of what are now considered common garden and indoor plants are the product of international trade that has been taking place for hundreds of years. This includes many bulbous species, orchids, tree ferns, bromeliads, cycads, palms and cacti. While much of the trade is now in artificially propagated plants, there are still millions of wild collected plants traded internationally each year.

• Manufacturing and Construction – NWFP including rattan and bamboo, plant oils and gums, dyes, resins, latex and many other products are traded internationally in huge volumes.

Above adapted from Roe et al., (2002).

Key Countries Involved in the International Trade in Wild Plants and Animals

As a result of research undertaken by the FAO, China was identified as the exporter of the largest quantities of wild plants and animals. Other major suppliers are India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Brazil. In general, trade flows are from developing to developed countries with approximately 60 per cent of all NWFP in trade being imported by the US, EU and Japan (Iqbal, 1995). Amongst those countries for whom the trade in wild plants and animals is commercially significant, are included some of the poorest countries and some of the countries richest in biodiversity resources. The trade presents both threats (e.g. to species and habitats in countries rich in biodiversity such as Madagascar, Indonesia and Malaysia) and opportunities (in that the trade makes a significant contribution to household economies) to many countries.

The trade in medicinal and aromatic plants

It is difficult to assess how many medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs) are commercially traded, either on a national or even an international level. The bulk of the plant material is exported from developing countries while major markets are in the developed countries. An analysis of UNCTAD trade figures for 1981–1998 (see Table 2) reflects this almost universal feature of MAP trade, and demonstrates that Europe is the dominant import region (Schipmann et al, 2002).

Table 2 The 12 leading countries of import and export of medicinal and aromatic plant material from 1991-1998

3.2 The Contribution of Wildlife Trade to Livelihoods

Numerous studies have noted the importance of wild plant and animal products, in particular for the poor, who frequently depend on such resources for sustaining their livelihoods. According to the World Bank, approximately 240 million people in the developing world depend partly or fully on forests for their livelihoods. For many of these people, forests provide a range of subsistence and commercial livelihood opportunities, which includes the use of and trade in NWFP (Anon., 2004a).

Understanding the role and potential of NWFP in livelihood strategies has been hindered by a lack of a clear theoretical framework and a functional typology of cases and conditions that characterize each of the groups. Belcher et al (2003) accordingly undertook a large comparative analysis of 61 cases of NWFP commercialization to help find patterns among divergent cases. The ways that forests are valued and managed and their role in alleviating rural poverty are being revisited and the case studies demonstrate the importance of NWFP as supplementary sources of income. The study shows that NWFP activities follow the same economic principles as other income-generating activities and also demonstrates that some of the best income earning opportunities lie in diversified systems that mark a transition from gathering to cultivating and that work to overcome the problem of resource depletion (Ruiz-Perez et al, 2004).

The study found that in poor remote areas, with open access resources, there is a tendency for resource overexploitation of marketed NWFP and a dissipation of rents. This trend is exacerbated where more households are getting involved in harvesting and trade in response to new opportunities (for instance, where a new market emerges or prices of existing NWFP increase), or need (e.g. where economies or communities are affected by contracting economies, drought or other factors that limit income-generating alternatives). Where households make some part of their living from these NWFP, harvesters and producers are at a disadvantage due to unstable markets, generally poor infrastructure, limited market access, and low bargaining power. In such situations, forestry (including NWFP use and trade) is often the default option.

Ruiz-Perez et al (2004) describe this research in a separate paper and report a number of regional processes and trends that affect the use and management of forest products. The research notes that in Asia, forest products are generally more intensively managed than in Africa and that there are accordingly more examples of cases with a stable resource base. Formal producers organizations are more common in Africa, and producers generally appear to have a better understanding of their legal rights. Both government interventions and private investment tend to be more common in the Asian cases than in those in Africa. The Latin American cases tend to have intermediate economic conditions and population trends, with more variability within the case set than in other regions and NWFP market trends in Latin America are more variable, with a higher frequency of unstable boom and bust situations. Producers have a medium level of organization, and they are generally knowledgeable about their rights and some support from government and NGOs exists, but little private sector investment.

It is important to note that the study does state that the various authors for this research could be more likely to stress different aspects of NWFP development. This is an important consideration in determining whether trade-related instruments have a role to play in regulating NWFP trade in these regions. For instance, in Africa, researchers often emphasize the safety net and subsistence functions of NWFP. In Asia, which has better-developed and more stable markets, research has focused more on market functioning and appropriation by elites. This is very different to Latin America, where markets tend to be more innovative and dynamic, and for this region researchers tend to stress the importance of the ‘green market’ and the use of certification and eco-labeling in NWFP conservation and development.

In a separate study, the Biodiversity Conservation Network assessed the hypothesis that ‘if people can benefit financially from enterprises that depend on nearby forests and other natural habitats, then they will take action to conserve and sustainably use them’. The study found that community-based enterprise strategies can lead to conservation, but only under limited conditions and never on their own (Salafsky, 2001). Lawrence (2003) notes that NWFP do not necessarily play a role in the livelihoods of the poor, that there still seem to be many doubts about the sustainability of use of NWFP and that it is the priorities of the poor which will determine whether NWFP use results in conservation.

Wild resources are often overlooked by policy-makers, whose focus is typically on key commodities such as timber and cash crops or else on products that are important for food security. As Tomich (1999) suggests, where there is policy intervention in wild markets, it is more likely to be driven by rent-seeking than by efforts to address market imperfections. The implication is that sustainable use initiatives are often introduced in policy contexts that work against their success.

Dependence on NWFP has also been described as a poverty trap (Dove, 1993). Rural people rely on NWFP because they are poor, but it is also possible that they are poor because they rely on NWFP and economic activities for which remuneration is low. Some characteristics of the forest environment and the NWFP economy make it difficult or impossible for those who depend on them to rise out of poverty. Natural forests are often inferior production environments with little infrastructure, high transport costs because of remoteness, few buyers and exploitive marketing chains. The net benefits of NWFP are often too low to justify articulating property rights, and as a result there is limited incentive to invest and increase yields. In the few cases where NWFP have high value, the poor are often excluded from access (Dove, 1993). Furthermore, a sustained increase in the demand for NWFP can lead to the collapse of the resource base, intensive production on plantations outside forests or the production of synthetics that are more competitive than NWFP (Homma, 1992).

The safety net and poverty-trap aspects of NWFP are linked, inasmuch as the features that make them attractive to the poor also limit their potential for generating increased income. The key issue is how to preserve the role of forests as safety nets in locations where they are more than dead-end poverty traps and where other forms of social insurance cannot take their place.

Ros-Tonen and Wiersum (2003) note that in remote areas, where forest extraction still prevails, NWFP provide subsistence goods like food, medicines and building materials and form a safety cushion in times of economic hardship. The increasing incorporation of rural areas into external commercial networks means there is some scope for improving livelihoods on the basis of NWFP production through the gradual domestication of NWFP species in anthropogenic forest types as well as through the creation of NWFP-related jobs. Such options appear to be promising, in particular in areas where forests perform essential environmental functions and farmers can develop multifunctional production systems and in areas near urban markets where more specialized forest-related activities are feasible.

Belcher et al (2003) conclude that commercial NWFP production is an important source of employment and income in a broad range of situations but that in most cases, NWFP production is not the main source of income. People use NWFP as a part of systems, and it is important to consider whole systems in development efforts. Further, they note that the potential for NWFP commercialization to be effective as a tool for biodiversity conservation is limited, partly because the main responses to increased market demand for NWFP are harmful to biodiversity conservation in many situations. There are, however, a number of promising management options. Ultimately, if NWFP are to play a role in poverty reduction, it will have to be through increased and/or more efficient commercial production and trade.