prunus africana: a reality check
TRANSCRIPT
Prunus africana: a reality check
Meeting at CIFOR, Yaounde, 6 March 2014 A B (Tony) Cunningham, Terry Sunderland & Robert Nkuinkeu
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.
Introduc+on
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).
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).
Export trade: Prunus africana
= established trade
= emerging trade “frontier” = traditional medicine trade only
Why is the P. africana case globally significant in terms of policy vs. prac+ce?
• The NaDonal Management plan (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.
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…..
PROGRESS SINCE 2011
• Mt. Cameroon as a model: major investment in management & monitoring plans;
• SDmulated by the 2007 EU trade ban.
CASE STUDY: GOING DOWN MT CAMEROON
• 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.
(Ewusi, 2006 in Amougou et al., 2011)
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)
LESSON 2: IS IT WORTH IT?
WHO BENEFITTED & BY HOW MUCH? • 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).
43%
16%
Harvester
VDF*
*Village Development Fund
Park mgmt. 20%
MOCAP
Regeneration 7%
7%
TransportWarehousing
4%3%
WILD HARVEST
Exporter pays 350 CFA/kgHarvester gets 150 CFA/kg
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?
LESSON 3: LOCAL LIVELIHOODS & PRUNUS INCOME NEED CONTEXT
….both place, time & other benefits from forests
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).
MADAGASCAR
° Lakato
Marovoay
Tsaratanàna
Tampoketsan’Ankazobe
° Antsahabiraoka
= Prunus africana
= 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. Import from Cameroon
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.
LESSON 4: BARK HARVEST DOES HAVE AN IMPACT
.
BARK REMOVAL IS A SHOCK…from which some trees do not
recover
• 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).
HIGH VALUE, WEAK TENURE=OVERHARVEST
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
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.
WHAT ABOUT ADAMOUA?
• Current inventory, management & monitoring in Mt. Cameroon PAU are an inspiring model….but what about PAU’s that are more remote?
(from Ingram et al, 2009)
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;
• 5 PAU’s in Adamoua: what is the impact of current harvest? Ref: Chapman, 2004
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?
LESSON 6: CULTIVATION IS A MORE VIABLE OPTION
.
…connecting farmers Prunus Growers Associations (PAG’s) to the export market will catalyze planting & bark Production….
• 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;
• So is the forthcomingGiZ/PSMNR-‐SW project on economics & benefit sharing.
84%16%
Harvester
Traceability
*Village Development Fund
CULTIVATION
Farmer gets 294 CFA/kgExporter price = 350 CFA/kg
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.
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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
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
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; •
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).
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).
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.
THANK YOU
“if it’s not sustainable, it’s not development” (UNDP)