Advertisement

Ecosystems

, Volume 9, Issue 8, pp 1328–1341 | Cite as

Implications of Livelihood Dependence on Non-Timber Products in Peruvian Amazonia

  • Aili Pyhälä
  • Katrina Brown
  • W. Neil Adger
Article

Abstract

The present and future well-being of the world’s forest dwelling populations depends on their ability to gain livelihood resources from their immediate environment. Sustainable extraction of non-timber forest products has been promoted by conservationists and development agencies as a feasible strategy for forest dwellers that does not compromise the resource base. Yet surveys of actual resource use suggest that for poorer resource-dependent communities without access to markets, non-timber forest products can only ever represent a safety-net activity and a supplementary income source. Others argue that resource availability, in terms of the diversity and productivity of the forest, is the key parameter in realizing a contribution of forest products to well-being. This paper examines the scope and heterogeneity of forest product use to reveal whether resource availability necessarily provides the context for significant contributions to well-being of forest dwellers. We present data from an area of tropical rainforest, close to Iquitos in Peru, which was previously shown to have high potential value. We find, through a census survey of households within a forest reserve area, that non-timber forest products provide only a relatively small portion of income and that only a small proportion of available products are actually commercialized, despite apparent market availability. We show that the low rates of commercialization can be explained by unequal access capital assets used for extraction, to natural resources themselves, and to product markets. They are also explained by the concentration of capital-poor households on subsistence gathering activities. The value of destructive uses of forests, both logging and agriculture, remain higher than returns from non-timber products. This research demonstrates that although non-timber forest products are an important livelihood source, market integration and commercialization is not everywhere an appropriate or realistic strategy.

Keywords

Latin America Peru forests protected areas non-timber forest products incomes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support from the Biodiversity Centre of the University of Turku, Finland for the fieldwork upon which this paper is based is gratefully acknowledged. We also wish to thank the Peruvian Amazonian Research Institute (IIAP) for their support, and particularly to Lizardo Fachin for providing us with a map of the reserve. Further acknowledgments go to the School of Development Studies and the Centre for Social and Environmental Research for the Global Environment at the University of East Anglia, Norwich. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions that supported this research effort.

References

  1. Alonso JA, Whitney BM. 2003. New distributional records of birds from white-sand forests of the northern Peruvian Amazon, with implications for biogeography of northern South America. Condor 105(3):552–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Álvarez J, Whitney BM. 2001. A new Zimmerius Tyrannulet (Aves: Tyrannidae) from white sand forests of northern Amazonian Peru. Wilson Bulletin 113:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez NL, Naughton-Treves L. 2003. Linking national agrarian policy to deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon: a case study of Tambopata, 1986–1997. Ambio 32(4):269–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson AB. 1981. White sand vegetation of Brazilian Amazonia. Biotropica 13(3):199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson AB. 1992. Land-Use Strategies for Successful Extractive Economies in Amazonia. Adv in Economic Botany 9:67–77Google Scholar
  6. Arnold MJE, Ruiz Pérez M. 2001. Can Non-timber Forest Products Match Tropical Forest Conservation and Development Objectives? Ecol Economics 39:437–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barham BL, Coomes OT, Takasaki Y. 1999. Rain Forest Livelihoods: Income Generation, Household Wealth and Forest Use. Unasylva 198:34–42Google Scholar
  8. Butler JR. 1992. Non-Timber Forest Products Extraction in Amazonia: Lessons from Development Organizations. Adv in Economic Botany 9:87–99Google Scholar
  9. Cavendish W. 2000. Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development 28:1979–2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clay J. 1992. Buying in the Forests: A New Program to Market Sustainably Collected Tropical Forest Products Protects Forests and Forest Residents. In: Redford KH, Padoch C. editors Conservation of Neotropical Forests. Working from Traditional Resource Use. New York: Columbia University Press. pp 400–15Google Scholar
  11. Chibnik M. 1994. Risky Rivers: The Economics and Politics of Floodplain Farming in Amazonia. Tucson: University of Arizona PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Clinebell RR II, Phillips OL, Gentry AH, Stark N, Zuuring H. 1995. Prediction of neotropical tree and liana richness from soil and climatic data. Biodiversity and Conserv 4:56–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coomes OT. 1992. Blackwater Rivers, Adaptation, and Environmental Heterogeneity in Amazonia. American Anthropologist 94:698–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coomes OT. 1996. Income Formation Among Amazonian Peasant Households in North-Eastern Peru: Empirical Observations and Implications for Market-oriented Conservation. Yearbook, Conference of Latin American Geographers 22:51–64Google Scholar
  15. Coomes O, Burt GJ. 1997. Indigenous Market-oriented Agroforestry: Dissecting Local Diversity in Western Amazonia. Agroforestry Systems 37:27–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coomes OT, Barham BL, Takasaki Y. 2004 Targeting conservation–development initiatives in tropical forests: insights from analyses of rain forest use and economic reliance among Amazonian peasants. Ecol Economics 51:47–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dixon JR, Soini P. 1975. The reptiles of the upper Amazon basin, Iquitos region, Peru. I. Lizards and amphisbaenians. Contributions in Biology and Geology, Milwaukee Public Museum. 41–58Google Scholar
  18. Dixon JR, Soini P. 1977. The reptiles of the upper Amazon basin, Iquitos region, Peru. II. Crocodilians, turtles and snakes. Contributions in Biol and Geol, Milwaukee Public Museum. 1–71Google Scholar
  19. Escobal J, Aldana U. 2003. Are Non-Timber Forest Products the Antidote Rainforest Degradation? Brazil Nut Extraction in Madre de Dios, Peru. World Development 31:1873–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fine PVA, Daly DC, Munoz GV, Mesones I, Cameron KM. 2005. The contribution of edaphic heterogeneity to the evolution and diversity of Burseraceae trees in the western Amazon. Evolution 59(7):1464–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gentry A. 1981. Distributional Patterns and an Additional Species of the Passiflora vitifolia complex: Amazonian Species Diversity Due to Edaphically Differentiated Communities. Plant Systematics and Evolution 137:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gentry AH. 1988. Tree species richness of upper Amazonian forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 85:156–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Godoy R, Lubowski R, Markandya A. 1993. A Method for the Economic Valuation of Non-timber Forest Products. Economic Botany 47:220–33Google Scholar
  24. Godoy R, Overman H, Demmer J, Apaza L, Byron E, Huanca T, Leonard W, Perez E, Reyes-Garcia V, Vadez V, Wilkie D, Cubas A, McSweeney K, Brokaw N. 2002. Local Financial Benefits of Rain Forests: Comparative Evidence from Amerindian Societies in Bolivia and Honduras. Ecol Economics 40:397–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Godoy R, Wilkie D, Overman H, Cubas A, Cubas G, Demmer J, McSweeney K, Brokaw N. 2000. Valuation of Consumption and Sale of Forest Goods from a Central American Rain Forest. Nature 406:62–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grimes A, Loomis S, Jahnige P, Burnham M, Onthank K, Alarcon R, Palacios Cuenca W, Ceron Martinez C, Neill D, Balick M, Bennett B, Mendelsohn R. 1994. Valuing the Rain Forest: The Economic Value of Non-timber Forest Products in Ecuador. Ambio 23:405–10Google Scholar
  27. Gunatilake HM, Senaratne DMAH, Abeygunawardens P. 1993. Role of Non-Timber Forest Products in the Economy of Peripheral Communities of Knuckles National Wilderness Area of Sri Lanka: A Farming Systems Approach. Economic Botany 47:275–81Google Scholar
  28. Hall A. 1997. Sustaining Amazonia: Grassroots Action for Productive Conservation. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  29. Hammond DS, Dolman PM, Watkinson AR. 1995. Modern Ticuna Swidden-fallow Management in the Colombian Amazon: Ecologically Integrating Market Strategies and Subsistence Driven Economies. Human Ecology 23:335–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hecht S, Anderson AB, May P. 1988. The Subsidy from Nature: Shifting Cultivation, Successional Palm Forests, and Rural Development. Human Organization 47:25–35Google Scholar
  31. Isler ML, Álvarez Alonso J, Isler PR, Valqui T, Begazo A, Whitney BM. 2001. A new species of Percnostola antbird (Passeriformes: Thamnophilidae) from Amazonian Peru, and an analysis of species limits within Percnostola rufifrons. Wilson Bulletin 113:164–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kalliola R, Salo J. 1999. Protección de la Zona Allpahuayo-Mishana-Nanay (AMN): Lineamientos Acerca de su Factibilidad. Turku: University of TurkuGoogle Scholar
  33. Linna A, Irion G, Kauffman S, Wesserlingh F, Kalliola R. 1998. Heterogeneidad edáfica de la zona de Iquitos: origen y comprensión de sus propiedades. In: Kalliola R, Flores Paitán S, editors. Geoecología y desarrollo amazónico, Estudio integrado en la zona de Iquitos, Perú. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis Series A II 114. University of Turku, Turku. pp 461–480Google Scholar
  34. Lybbert TJ, Barrett CB, Narjisse H. 2002. Market-based Conservation and Local Benefits: The Case of Argan Oil in Morocco. Ecological Economics 41:125–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marengo J. 1998. Climatología de la zona de Iquitos, Perú. In: Kalliola R, Flores Paitán S, editors. Geoecología y Desarrollo Amazónico, Estudio integrado en la zona de Iquitos, Perú. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis Series A II 114. University of Turku, Turku. pp 35–57Google Scholar
  36. Murphy L, Bilsborrow R, Pichon F. 1997. Poverty and Prosperity Among Migrant Settlers in the Amazon Rainforest Frontier of Ecuador. Journal of Development Studies 34:35–65Google Scholar
  37. Myers N. 1988. Tropical Forests: Much More than Stocks of Wood. Journal of Tropical Ecology 4:209–21Google Scholar
  38. Nepstad DC, Schwartzman S, editors. 1992. Non-Timber Products from Tropical Forests: Evaluation of a Conservation and Development Strategy. Advances in Economic Botany. The New York Botanical Garden, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Neumann RP, Hirsch E, editors. 2000. Commercialisation of Non-Timber Forest Products: Review and Analysis of Research. CIFOR, Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  40. Ogle B. 1996. People’s Dependency on Forests for Food Security: Some Lessons Learnt from a Programme of Case Studies. In: Ruiz Pérez M, Arnold JEM, editors. Current Issues in Non-Timber Forest Products Research, CIFOR-ODA, Bogor, Indonesia. pp 219–241Google Scholar
  41. Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Padoch C. 1988. Aguaje (Mauritia flexuosa, L.f) in the Economy of Iquitos, Peru. Adv in Economic Botany 6:214–24Google Scholar
  43. Padoch C. 1992. Marketing of Non-Timber Forest Products in Western Amazonia: General Observations and Research Priorities. Adv in Economic Botany 9:43–50Google Scholar
  44. Padoch C, Ayres JM, Pinedo-Vasquez M, Henderson A, editors. 1999. Varzea: Diversity, Development and Conservation of Amazonia’s Whitewater Floodplains. Bronx, N.Y.: The New York Botanical Garden PressGoogle Scholar
  45. Padoch C, Chota Inuma J, de Jong W, Unruh J. 1985. Amazonian Agroforestry: A Market-oriented System in Peru. Agroforestry Systems 3:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Padoch C, de Jong W. 1992. Diversity, Variation, and Change in Ribereño Agriculture. In Redford H, Padoch C, editors. Conservation of Neotropical Forests: working from traditional resource use New York: Columbia University Press pp 158–74Google Scholar
  47. Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G. 2005. Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development 32:237–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pearce D, Moran D. 1994. The Economic Value of Biodiversity. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Peters CM, Gentry AH, Mendelsohn RO. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian Rain Forest. Nature 339:656–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Phillips OL, Raven PH. 1997. A strategy for sampling neotropical forests. In: Gibson A. editors, Neotropical biodiversity and conservation. University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  51. Pinedo-Vasquez M, Zarin D, Jipp P. 1992. Economic Returns from Forest Conversion in the Peruvian Amazon. Ecological Economics 6:163–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Prance GT. 1980. A terminologia dos tipos de florestas amazónicas sujeitas a inundação. Acta Amazónica 10:495–504Google Scholar
  53. Pyhälä A. 2003. Productive Conservation in Amazonia: Institutions, Participation and Markets. Ph.D. thesis, The School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia, U.KGoogle Scholar
  54. Räsänen M, Linna A, Santos J, Negri F. 1995. Late Miocene Tidal Deposits in the Amazonian Foreland Basin. Science 269:386–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Reardon T, Vosti S. 1995. Links Between Rural Poverty and the Environment in Developing Countries: Asset Categories and Investment Poverty. World Development 23:1495–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ribot JC, Peluso NL. 2003. A theory of access. Rural Sociology 68:153–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ruiz-Pérez M, Belcher B, Achdiawan R, Alexiades M, Aubertin C, Caballero J, Campbell B, Clement C, Cunningham T, Fantini A, de Foresta H, García Fernández C, Gautam KH, Hersch Martínez P, de Jong W, Kusters K, Kutty MG, López C, Fu M, Martínez Alfaro MA, Nair TR, Ndoye O, Ocampo R, Rai N, Ricker M, Schreckenberg K, Shackleton S, Shanley P, Sunderland T, Youn Y. 2004. Markets drive the specialization strategies of forest peoples. Ecology and Society 9(2): 4. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art4
  58. Romanoff S. 1992. Food and Debt Among Rubber Tappers in the Bolivian Amazon. Human Organisation 51:122–35Google Scholar
  59. Ruokolainen K, Linna A, Tuomisto H. 1997. Use of Melastomatacceae and Pteridophytes for Revealing Phytogeographic Patterns in Amazonian Rain Forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 13:243–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Räsänen ME, Salo JS, Jungnert H, Romero Pittman L. 1990. Evolution of the Western Amazon Lowland Relief: impact of Andean foreland dynamics. Terra Nova 2:320–32Google Scholar
  61. Räsänen ME, Salo JS, Kalliola RJ. 1987. Fluvial Perturbance in the Western Amazon Basin: Regulation by Long-Term Sub-Andean Tectonics. Science 238:1398–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Salafsky N, Wollenberg E. 2000. Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs and Biodiversity. World Development 28:1421–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Salo J, Kalliola R, Häkkinen I, Mäkinen Y, Niemelä P, Puhakka M, Coley P. 1986. River dynamics and the diversity of Amazon lowland forest. Nature 322: 254–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sheil D, Wunder S. 2002. The Value of Tropical Forest to Local Communities: Complications, Caveats and Cautions. Conservation Ecology 6(2):9. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art9
  65. Siebert S, Belsky JM. 1985. Forest Product Trade in a Lowland Filipino Village. Economic Botany 39:522–33Google Scholar
  66. Southgate D, Elgegren J. 1995. “Development of Tropical Timber Resources by Local Communities: A Case Study from the Peruvian Amazon” Commonwealth Forestry Review 74:142–6Google Scholar
  67. Southgate D, Coles-Ritchie M, Salazar-Canelos P. 1996. “Can Tropical Forests Be Saved by Harvesting Non-Timber Products?” In: Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Luckert M, Phillips W, White W editors, Forestry, Economics and the Environment. Wallingford: CAB InternationalGoogle Scholar
  68. Sääksjärvi IE, Haataja S, Neuvonen S, Gauld ID, Jussila R, Salo J, Marmol Burgos A. 2004. High local species richness of parasitic wasps (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae; Pimplinae and Rhyssinae) from the lowland rainforests of Peruvian Amazonia. Ecological Entomology 29:735–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Takasaki Y, Barham BL, Coomes OT. 2001. Amazonian Peasants, Rain Forest Use, and Income Generation: The Role of Wealth and Geographical Factors. Society and Natural Resources 14:291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tuomisto H, Ruokolainen K. 1994. Distribution of Pteridophyta and Melastomatacceae along an Edaphic Gradient in an Amazonian Rain Forest. Journal of Vegetation Science 5:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Villarejo A. 1979. Así es la Selva. CETA, Iquitos, PeruGoogle Scholar
  72. Vosti SA, Munoz Braz E, Carpentier CL, M.V.N. DO, Witcover J. 2003. Rights to Forest Products, Deforestation and Smallholder Income: Evidence from the Western Brazilian Amazon. World Development 31:1889–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Whitney BM, Alonso JA. 2005. A new species of gnatcatcher from white-sand forests of northern Amazonian Peru with revision of the Polioptila guianensis complex. Wilson Bulletin 117(2):113–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Whitney BM, Álvarez J. 1998. A new Herpsilochmus antwren (Aves: Thamnophilidae) from northern Amazonian Peru and adjacent Ecuador: The role of edaphic heterogeneity of terra firme forest. The Auk 115:559–76Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finnish Environment InstituteResearch Programme for Environmental PolicyHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.School of Development StudiesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  3. 3.School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations