What kinds of species?
How many species?
Establishing the income forest
Applying the income forest idea
Conclusion: Is it a viable alternative?
Acknowledgements
Charles R. Clement
In order to conserve the Amazonian and other tropical-forest biomes, the standing forest must become more economically productive. The nondestructive harvesting of a larger number of existing species and the introduction of species with new uses into the standing forest or previously degraded fragments of it is one way of doing this. Norman Myers (1984) proposed the creation of "industrial forests" to conserve biodiversity within the tropical biome while obtaining economic returns from the forest. The term "income-generating" seems preferable to "industrial", since the latter has inescapable associations with pollution and servitude. Here, the terms "income, and "income-generating." are used to refer both to this idea and to the specific suggested strategies developed in this paper. The idea of "income-generating" forests seems viable but will require a significant research and development effort to integrate into Amazônia's rapidly evolving political and socio-economic matrix.
Amazonian deforestation is largely the result of social, political and economic pressures generated outside of the region (Anderson 1990). Large ranching projects, colonization schemes for small holders, mining of gold and other minerals, and timber high-grading initiatives were initially encouraged by Brazilian government planners to guarantee the occupation of Amazônia but have largely escaped from their control and become the domain of private initiative, especially where subsidies are involved (Anderson 1990). Consequently any initiatives to develop a sustainable use of the forest must be acceptable to individual, cooperative and private corporate initiative, although to be viable, they must be devoid of subsidies. The fact that small-holder colonists, Amerindians, caboclos (mixed blood, long-term residents), extractivists and landless peasants are currently marginalized by most development initiatives in Brazilian Amazônia, suggests that options for these groups should receive priority attention.
Currently used agricultural and forestry practices generally originated outside the region. Many-are poorly adapted to the Amazonian ecosystem (Fearnside 1983). The exception is forest management, which is technically viable but economically inviable in the current economic climate (Poore 1989). Many Amerindian practices are sustainable, especially when practiced as the Indians did, when population pressures are low and when markets are available. These practices include the shifting cultivation -swidden agroforestry sequence and forest product extraction (Hecht & Cockburn 1990). Whether swidden agroforestry and with rapidly increasing population pressures remains to be seen.
From colonization by the Portuguese until the 1970's, the Amazonian economy was based upon forest-product extraction (Hecht & Cockburn 1990). The rubber boom of the early 20th century is best known, but other products were important before that period and have been since. Recently a "new" idea for sustainable development in Amazonia originated among the rubbertappers and has attracted considerable interest in the international conservation and development communities: extractive reserves. These reserves are designed to allow extractive peoples (rubbertappers, Amerindians, babassu (Orbygnia phalerata) harvesters, etc.) to maintain their forest-based way of life and to conserve the forest biome (Allegretti 1990, Anderson et al. 1991, Fearnside 1989, Schwartzman 1989). The latter objective has been responsible for the current fad, but must be considered critically (Browder 1992).
Unfortunately the extractive reserves as they now stand are economically inviable as independent commercial entities (Browder 1992, Fearnside 1989), as they relied upon Brazilian subsidies (the rubber price subsidies were canceled in 1990) and assistance from the international conservation community to market their Brazil nuts (Bertholletia excelsa) at more favorable prices. The number of products for which they have markets is extremely limited (Allegretti 1990, Fearnside 1989) and the marketing of these is problematic without external assistance. Profits realized by the extractivists are low because of the numerous middlemen between the producer in the forest and the consumer in major urban centers (Fearnside 1989, Hecht & Cockburn 1990), because rubber, and to some extent Brazil nuts, are commodities with inherently low unit values in the forest, and because little value is added by the producers or their associations. The same situation exists for all other forest or colonist peoples in Amazônia, which partially explains the collapse of extractivism there during this century. Another major reason for the collapse is that extractivist products have been taken into plantation in other areas where they can be produced more cheaply (eg rubber); they have been synthesized (also rubber); or where substitutes have been developed (eg quinine).
One of the possible improvements necessary to attain economic viability in extractive reserves, Amerindian and colonist areas is to increase the number of products offered to the local, national and world markets (Allegretti 1990, Fearnside 1989). These can be either alternative products obtained from existing species or new species introduced into their forests.
Myers' (1984) industrial forest fits the needs of the extractivists and can be readily adapted for use by small-holder colonists, Amerindians, caboclos, and even for the restoration of degraded sites, since it is designed to conserve or enhance biodiversity, while exploiting the economically useful fraction of this diversity. In Myers' conception, an income-generating forest would contain a large number of economic species with an equal or larger number of industrial uses, as well as an even larger number of species with no known current use. Myers suggested that species producing latex, resin, gum, oil, essential oil, alkaloid, or medicinal products could form the basis for these forests. Most of these could be harvested without destroying the forest's ability to provide ecological services, although the extent to which these may be partially impaired will require research (Browder 1992). Myers points out that only those species with established markets or with markets that could be developed by entrepreneurs would be harvested or planted, but the forest could contain numerous other species with potential for use at some point in the future. What Myers does not address is how to design and create an income-generating forest.
Several questions need to be addressed in order to design an income-generating forest that could enhance the economic viability of the sustainable use and management of the forest.
(1) How many economic species should be included? Today most extractive reserves depend upon only two (rubber and the Brazil nut), which is one of the reasons for their economic fragility. Colonists and caboclos tend to depend upon one or two "export" crops and a few subsistence crops. The Amerindians rarely have "export" crops, although they may be involved in rubber and Brazil nut extraction to some extent.
(2) How are these species to be chosen? Lists of candidate species include a minimum of 100 with known uses and several thousand with potential uses. A market orientation is required when selecting species, since only those with a market will contribute to the economic: well-being of the forest producers. Another major criterion is species adaptation to the local humid tropical-forest ecosystem.
(3) Once chosen, how will the selected species be introduced into the forest ecosystem? Several silvicultural practices exist to enrich forests with timber species (Poore 1989). These practices could be used with other types of species also, but would probably require long lead times before starting to yield because of shading and intraspecific competition.
Agroforestry systems can also be used to create income forests from previously cleared lands, whether currently managed or already degraded, or from forest cleared for this reason. They offer the additional advantage of producing economic yields throughout the growth of the system. In fact, several examples of income forests created by the Amerindians probably started from their agroforestry systems (Balée 1989).
This
chapter examines each of these questions more closely and
outlines the research and development necessary to implement the
income-generating forest idea in Amazônia. Although extractive
reserves are currently at the center of discussions about
sustainable development in Amazônia the idea of
income-generating forests is equally valid for small-holder
colonists, Amerindians, caboclos, and even corporate
entities.
There is no simple or
single answer to this question, as numerous factors will effect
the choice of species for any given locality. Information
availability is the major limiting factor here, since no single
source of data exists to supply a listing of potential species.
Some databases are slowly evolving to fill this lacuna, however.
The Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, for example, is developing an
economic-plant database for the Old World tropics (G.E. Wickens,
Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, pers. com. 1987). Nothing similar
yet exists for the Neotropics but it is essential to this effort.
This does not imply that information does not exist. There is a large database on NWFPs, particularly oils, available from the first half of the 20th century that must be organized and computerized to make it easily accessible. Extensive research on phytochemical feed stocks, for example, was done in Brazil and elsewhere in the Neotropics before World War II and the subsequent multinational corporate options for petrochemicals. The results of this research are hidden away in industrial reports, research bulletins from institutes that no longer exist, and other difficult-to-find corners of Latin American government and private libraries. They probably also exist in the Northern hemisphere and in Africa and Asia. These data and other early information can suggest species or genera that are worth examining more closely.
While the selection of new options for any situation will be highly site specific, there are several criteria that these new craps will have to meet to become successful:
1) The new crop should produce high unit value products (Arkcoll & Clement 1989, Fearnside 1989). In other words, they must be valuable enough for the producer to collect them; for the middlemen to transport and commercialize them onto local, regional or international markets; and for the consumer to pay enough for them to support the earlier steps in the commercial chain. Perhaps the major disadvantage of rubber as an economic support for the extractivist reserves is its low unit value, which makes it only marginally attractive as an extractivist forest product.
An example of how a low unit value is unattractive to the extractivists was observed recently. Copaiba multijuga produces an oil resin that can be sustainably tapped from the tree. In 1989-1990 it was tested as a raw material for cosmetics by several companies, including The Body Shop, PLC, based in London. The Body Shop found several potential uses for the oil resin and offered to pay a certain price per ton to the extractivists. Unfortunately this price was not attractive to the extractivists; it would cost them nearly as much to harvest the product and transport it to the regional market center as The Body Shop offered to pay them for it to be delivered to London (J.W. Clay, Cultural Survival, pers. com. 1990). The current glut in the international vegetable oil market and the ease with which the chemical industry can fractionate and mix oils for any end use is the reason for the low price offered. In 1991, however, the situation changed dramatically, when the new Brazilian government eliminated the rubber subsidies that had kept the rubbertappers working. Copaíba oil suddenly became attractive because there were few other alternatives, even though excessive harvesting immediately caused a 50 percent drop in prices (J.W. Clay, Cultural Survival, pers. com. 1992). This type of situation will inevitably be faced with other products as well.
2) The new crop should have an easily processed or pre-processed product. A processed product has a greater unit value than the raw material from which it was made. The processing of a product will help assure a greater return to the processor, in this case an extractivist in the forest or a small holder on the fringes of the forest. A current example of this is the Brazil nut market, where the shelled nut commands a higher price than the unshelled nut (Mori & Prance 1990). Cultural Survival has financed a Brazil nut processing plant in Acre, Brazil, which allows the extractivists to receive more for their product, thus enhancing the economic viability of this activity to them (Clay 1990).
3) The new crop should have an easily stored product either before or after processing. This requirement is easily understood when the producer is several days journey from a collection point or local market. Fresh produce rots rapidly or otherwise degrades in the hot, humid environment of the rainforest. Brazil nuts in the shell, for example, accumulate aflotoxins if they become infested with certain types of fungi (Mori & Prance 1990). Processing and storage are clearly closely interrelated requirements.
Arkooll & Clement (1989) suggested that many Amazonian fruit crops may also have potential as new crops. They can only be stored, however, if they are first processed or pre-processed (cleaned and frozen, for example). Most fruit crops meet the first criterion mentioned, but can only meet the second and third after an infrastructure for processing and storage is available. In other words, they will only be suitable for most areas in Amazônia in the future, when the income-forest practitioners have become better capitalized.
When a candidate species has been identified, either by researchers, entrepreneurs, enthusiasts or the extractivists themselves, the market potential of the candidate-must be evaluated (Myers 1984, Wallis et al. 1989). Several questions must be answered to determine a species' market potential:
1) Does a market already exist for the product or a similar product? An example of this is rattan (Calamus spp), widely used for furniture construction in Southeast Asia (Dransfield 1988). Rattan could be introduced into the Neotropics, if the Southeast Asian sources of germplasm permit. In the Neotropics, however, Desmoncus spp have the same growth habit and occupy a similar ecological niche. The market for rattan is extremely strong and Desmoncus may have the characteristics necessary to substitute for some Calamus species.
2) If no market currently exists, did a market exist in the past? Can this market be reactivated? An example of this is the ivory nut palm (Phytelephas spp), which had an important market during the late 1800's and early 1900's as a source of vegetable ivory for buttons (Barfod 1989). With the advent of plastics, this market collapsed. The recent agreements to control the international market for elephant ivory and find alternatives has reinvigorated the ivory nut market, although it is still very small compared to the 1920's (R. Bernal L G. Galano, Univ. Nac. Colombia, pers. com. 1991).
3) If no market currently exists are there consumers interested in buying the product? The "green consumer" groups that originated from the human rights and environmental movements in the late 1980's are actively assisting local Third World groups in marketing sustainably produced forest products (Clay 1990). These "green marketeers" can help find and test markets for new crops.
4) Are there competitive products that might be substituted by the new product? It may happen that an industrially created product can be substituted by a natural product, especially if marketed with a rainforest mystique.
5) Does a "crop champion" exist? A crop champion is an advocate for the species, who generates awareness amongst consumers and stimulates other entrepreneurs to get involved with the crop. For a little known species, like many that will come from the rainforests, a crop champion can make the difference between success and failure in the marketing of the crop.
6) A
model of yields, costs and the expected price structure
associated with a new crop should be developed before attempting
to market it. There is frequently some knowledge available
that will allow projections to be made of a species' yield in the
forest or local agroecosystem, commercial value on local markets,
and idea of interest by extractivists, colonists and commercial
entrepreneurs.
Myers' (1984) conception of
an income-generating forest is built around the idea of
diversity, both of economic products and of tropical biodiversity
in general. An income forest differs from an agroindustrial
plantation in that biodiversity is permitted or even encouraged
in the forest, while in a plantation only the economic species
are permitted. Extractive reserves currently maintain
considerable biodiversity, as do many other human-managed
ecosystems (Pimentel et al. 1992). Extractive reserve subsistence
economies are also diverse (Hecht & Cockburn 1990) but the
number of products that penetrate the outside market are small.
While colonist subsistence economies are generally less diverse
than Amerindian and caboclo economies, most colonists realize the
importance of increasing the diversity in their economies
(Saragoussi et al. 1990).
Myers (1984) suggests that diversity is important for several reasons. Pest and disease outbreaks are reputed to be less serious in diverse systems than in simple ones (MacDicken & Vergara 1990), although a given species may suffer as much in the diverse system as in the simple one. As an example, rubber escapes from its parasites, especially leaf blight (Microcyclus ulei), by being rare in its naturally diverse forest ecosystem. In monoculture plantations in Amazônia, however, it is devastated by this parasite (Hecht & Cockburn 1990). What is perhaps most important here is that the producer is buffered by diversity from the loss of economic return. The producer may lose yield from one species, but will have several others that remain healthy.
The presence of diversity is also claimed to buffer the producer, especially in agroforestry systems, from economic fluctuations in the markets for these products (MacDicken & Vergara 1990). The argument states that if a producer has 5 species on the farm and the price of one of these falls so drastically that it is not worthwhile to harvest it, the producer will still have 4 other species to harvest and market. While income will be foregone from the species with low prices, the producer may not have invested labor in harvesting it except for subsistence use and can rely on the other products to maintain family income.
Any extractivist species that becomes an attractive economic prospect, however, will immediately be taken into cultivation and become a new crop which can be more cheaply produced in cultivation somewhere else in the world (Homma 1989). The history of modern tropical agriculture gives clear support to this observation. Rubber was an extractive product in Amazônia until its value went high enough to encourage efforts to take it into cultivation in Southeast Asia (Baker 1970, Hecht & Cockburn 1990). Quinine (Cinchona ledgeriana) followed the same route in the late 1800s (Baker 1970).
South East Asia benefitted in both of the above mentioned cases for several reasons. 1) The Amazonian species escaped from its co-evolved pests and diseases during its transference. 2) It could therefore be planted in monoculture. 3) In plantation, the trees were tended to enhance yield, with fertilizers, elimination of competition, adequate management, etc. 4) With the trees closer together, harvesting was greatly facilitated. 5) The large quantities harvested could be processed uniformly and arrive at market with uniform quality. 6) Improvement programs were immediately initiated that resulted in continual yield and quality increases. The first five factors immediately lower costs of production, which allowed the SE Asian plantations to undercut the price of the wild harvested product from Amazônia. The last factor guaranteed the dominance of the plantations.
In order to develop the income-generating forest, the possibility of an extractivist candidate species going into plantation must be taken into account. The only solution is to find and develop a large number of species and to continue this process over time. The very long-term nature of this task has probably been underestimated by those starting to work with the development of new species for extractivists.
There are also imitations to working with highly diverse systems, three of which are:
1) Limitations of knowledge about the species - Some established crops from other continents can be introduced with a solid knowledge base and even markets. About others there is little more than limited empirical knowledge and some anecdotes (Arkcoll & Clement 1989, Fearnside 1989). This knowledge will have to be collected or developed for each new species, especially with respect to the interactions among species in the income forest.
2) Limitations of the producer peoples' knowledge - The Amerindians, caboclos, small-holder colonists, and extractivist peoples are excellent students of their environment but are generally unschooled. They will learn rapidly from example but may learn less rapidly from other sources of information (Allegretti 1990). This: is another reason for involving them in all phases of a project aimed at developing income forests.
3) Limitations of the labor force - The extractive reserves' have very low population densities (1 family/200-500 ha) (Schwartzman 1989). Caboclo families are also relatively small for the area occupied. Small-holder colonists tend to be more concentrated, but generally have only limited labor available. Thus labor will be limited to plant new species, unless this is combined with existing activities. Labor may also limit the amount of management attention that can be devoted to any one species, so that species with high requirements may be viewed unfavorably unless they promise very high-returns.
4) Limitations of capital - All forest peoples and most colonists live far from urban centers and financial resources. They are also uninteresting to banks because they are small holders (with high administrative costs to loan value), widely scattered (hence difficult; to monitor), with few assets (to secure loans) and frequently without land titles (idem). Since many of the value-adding initiatives mentioned by J.W. Clay (chapter 2, this volume) will require start-up capital, this must frequently be furnished by outsiders, until such a time as local banks recognize the potential.
It is
therefore impossible to say how many species will be necessary to
ensure the economic well-being of an income-generating forest. In
general, at the producer level, only a few species can be
successfully managed by each family, given the limitations
mentioned. At; the community level, however, there should be an
effort to expand the number considerably, although there will
always be limitations in the ability of a group to market large
numbers of different forest products. Even with a large number,
however, there will be more than enough room to accommodate a
large fraction of the local biodiversity, either intentionally or
naturally.