the capabilities and opportunities of non-timber forest...
TRANSCRIPT
The Capabilities and Opportunities of Non-Timber Forest Products
at Malcolm Knapp Research Forest
by
Katja Eisbrenner
Master Thesis
submitted to the Faculty of Forest Sciences & Forest Ecology Georg-August University Göttingen
Institute of Silviculture
Supervising Professors:
Dr. Burghard von Lüpke, Institute of Silviculture, Georg-August University Göttingen
Dr. Cindy Prescott, Department of Forest Science, University of British Columbia
Göttingen, February 2003
i
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................ iii
1 Abstract................................................................................................... 0
2 Introduction............................................................................................ 0
2.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 0
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 1
2.3 RATIONALE .................................................................................................. 2
2.4 DEFINITION OF NTFPS ................................................................................. 2
2.5 OVERVIEW OF THE NTFP INDUSTRY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA ........................ 3
2.6 OBJECTIVES & APPROACH ........................................................................... 4
3 Study Site ................................................................................................ 5
3.2 CLIMATE ...................................................................................................... 6
3.3 ECOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 7
4 Methods................................................................................................... 7
4.2 SCREENING .................................................................................................. 8
4.3 EVALUATION ............................................................................................... 9
4.4 RANKING ................................................................................................... 12
5 Results ................................................................................................... 15
5.1 SCREENING ................................................................................................ 15
5.2 EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 16
5.2.1 Floral Greens........................................................................................ 16
5.2.1.2 Christmas Trees and Greens ........................................................... 24
5.2.2 Landscaping Products .......................................................................... 27
5.2.3 Food Products....................................................................................... 32
5.2.3.1 Berries............................................................................................. 32
5.2.3.2 Syrup............................................................................................... 36
5.2.3.3 Cultivated Edible Mushrooms ........................................................ 38
ii
5.2.3.4 Wild Edible Mushrooms................................................................. 43
5.2.3.5 Trout ............................................................................................... 44
5.2.3.6 Wasabi ............................................................................................ 46
5.2.4 Craft Products....................................................................................... 47
5.2.5 Medicinals and Pharmaceuticals.......................................................... 50
5.2.5.1 Medicinal Plants ............................................................................. 50
5.2.5.2 Medicinal Mushrooms .................................................................... 56
5.2.6 Miscellaneous NTFPs ........................................................................... 57
5.2.6.1 Cedar Leaf Oil ................................................................................ 57
5.2.6.2 Firewood ......................................................................................... 62
5.2.6.3 Mushroom Logs.............................................................................. 63
5.2.7 Ecotourism ............................................................................................ 65
5.2.8 Summary of The NTFP evaluation........................................................ 66
5.3 RANKING ................................................................................................... 67
6 Final Discussion.................................................................................... 69
7 Recommendations for MKRF............................................................. 71
8 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 72
9 References............................................................................................. 73
10 Appendices
iii
Acknowledgments
This thesis could not have been written without the help of many people. I am deeply
thankful to Ionut Aron and Paul Lawson for giving me the chance to write this thesis at
Malcolm Knapp Research Forest and for their advice and support. I am grateful to my
supervisor Cindy Prescott at UBC for the encouragement and feedback that I received
through meetings and correspondence. I am thankful to Burghard von Lüpke, my
supervisor at Georg-August University in Göttingen, for making it possible to write the
thesis in co-operation with UBC. I am exceedingly grateful to Yona Sipos Randor for her
help with editing the thesis, and Robert Nuske for the many conversations which kept me
focused. I would like to thank Malcolm Knapp Research Forest staff for their assistance.
Thanks to all who provided information for this report.
0
1 Abstract
Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) such as floral greens and wild mushrooms have
been harvested for over 80 years in British Columbia (BC), Canada. However, only
recently they have received much attention from scientists. Many questions involved with
NTFP management, such as sustainable harvesting or business development, have not
been answered yet. Therefore the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest (MKRF) started a
program to identify its capabilities and opportunities for NTFPs. The MKRF is part of the
University of British Columbia. It is located in the lower Mainland of British Columbia,
and covers over 5000 ha of private land in the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH)
biogeoclimatic zone. This research was the first step in the process of developing a
strategic plan for implementing NTFPs at MKRF.
It was the objective of this study to identify the economic potential of NTFPs at
MKRF considering education, demonstration and research values. More than 50 NTFPs
with market potential were identified at MKRF through a screening process. For these
NTFPs, exploratory research was carried out to analyze their current market and forest
situation. This was followed by an evaluation to identify NTFPs the “best bets” for
MKRF. Seven NTFPs with market potential were identified and ranked using the
following criteria: Capital Investment, Production and Growing, Harvesting, Ecology,
Education and Research, and Market. After this second evaluation three NTFPs were
classified as “good” for MKRF. Those three are Christmas garlands and wreaths,
Christmas greens and Ecotourism.
2 Introduction
2.1 Overview
The UBC Malcolm Knapp Research Forest was established by a Crown Grant to the
University of British Columbia in 1949. It is located in Maple Ridge, BC and covers over
5000 ha of private land in the CWH Zone. The forest is managed with consideration of
economic aspects, as well as the integration of research, demonstration to the general
public and education. Over the past 10 years Non-Timber Forest Products have gained
more recognition in BC as important sources of foods, medicines, floral greens and
1
cultural histories. They provide job and income opportunities. For this reason, MKRF
became interested in identifying the capabilities and opportunities of NTFPs on site.
2.2 Literature Review
The majority of available literature on NTFPs in the Pacific Northwest1 has been
published in the last 10 years. The first papers were published by Schlosser and Blatner in
the early 1990s, and describe the economic and marketing possibilities of NTFPs with a
focus on floral greens (Schlosser et al., 1991; Schlosser et al., 1992; Blatner, 1995). With
increasing awareness of the economic potential of NTFPs in the Pacific Northwest, the
number of publications has consistently increased since the late 1990s. The publications
cover all NTFP related areas, including economic, social and ecological issues (Hansis,
1998; Pilz et al., 2001; Alexander et al., 2002a; Tedder et al., 2002). Currently, most of
the literature describes and evaluates the existing situation, and identifies further research
needs and unanswered questions. These include establishing guidelines for NTFP
business implementation, achieving economic potentials, and questions about sustainable
harvesting practices.
In 1995 de Geus published one of the first publications on NTFPs in BC. The
findings were that wild mushrooms, and floral greens are of high importance in the
industry (De Geus, 1995). In 1999, Wills and Lipsey analyzed economically valuable
NTFPs in BC and their related industries and designed a strategy for economic
development. One of the few case studies on NTFPs was done on the social and
economic potential in Haida Gwaii (Tedder et al., 2000). Since NTFPs in British
Columbia have just recently gained more attention, specific research into the field is
limited The available publications, however, do indicate economic potential of NTFPs.
A detailed literature review was conducted for each NTFP and is presented in the
results section.
1Oregon (US), Washington (US), British Columbia (Canada)
2
Definitions
2.3 Rationale
MKRF is a self sustained, managed forest interested in diversifying its income sources.
As well, since MKRF is part of UBC, part of its mandate is to provide a facility for
research, demonstration and education in the field of forestry. The combination of applied
research and the high economic potential of NTFPs fits well with MKRFs main
objectives and therefore, the management decided to develop a management and business
strategy for implementing NTFPs. This research project was initiated as the first step in
developing such a strategy at MKRF.
Benefits of NTFP at MKRF
• New income source
• Education and demonstration
• Applied research
2.4 Definition of NTFPs
In the existing literature, various terms are used to describe forest products other than
timber. The terms include: Non-Timber Forest Products, Non-Wood Forest Products,
Specialty Forest Products and Botanical Forest Products. To bring consistency to the
terminology, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has defined the term Non-
Timber Forest Products as “products from the forest other than timber and pulp including
small things made from wood and fuelwood” (FAO, 1999). This definition is in contrast
to the term Non-Wood Forest Products that excludes all woody material (FAO, 1999).
Regarding the origin of the product the FAO defines: “NTFPs should be derived from
forests and similar land uses”(FAO, 1999).
According to the FAO definition all products harvested from the forest or grown in
Agroforestry systems are considered NTFPs. However it remains unclear if the term
Economically viable means a self-sustainable NTFP business, which does not need any
additional money to operate
A NTFP has economic potential if it has a high chance to be economically viable
3
NTFP used in the Pacific Northwest is interpreted this way. This problem has been
addressed in the literature and several conferences but no agreement has been reached so
far (Davidson-Hunt et al., 1999; Teel and Buck, 2002).
In this thesis the following definition will be used.
Definition
Non-Timber Forest Products include a broad variety of different products types and a
classification within NTFPs by categories is inevitable. Currently, there is no
standardized system for classifying NTFPs and a variety of different systems are used in
the existing literature. For details on the classification system see Chapter 2.6..
2.5 Overview of the NTFP industry in British Columbia
Non-Timber Forest Products have a long history in British Columbia. First Nations
people have used them traditionally for centuries as e.g. food, clothing, medicine (Turner,
2001a). In the early 1900s, the first commercial use of NTFPs was in the floral green
industry (Blatner and Alexander, 1998). This industry, as well as the wild mushrooms
industry, are currently the most economically important NTFP industries in BC (De
Geus, 1995). “In 1997 the NTFP industry employed almost 32,000 people in BC on a
seasonal and full-time basis and produced direct corporate revenues of $280m and
provincial revenues in excess of $630m Cdn” (Wills and Lipsey, 1999). Concurrently, the
timber industry in BC has been declining and the unemployment rate in the forestry
sector increasing (Mitchell, 1998). Recently, the economic potential of NTFPs has
attracted the attention of unemployed forest workers and interested communities to
explore NTFPs as new business opportunities. Some recent NTFP activities in BC
include:
• North Vancouver Island NTFP Demonstration Project, developing a NTFP
strategy for the local community in cooperation with Royal Roads University.
• Centre for NTFPs, Royal Roads University (in development)
NTFPs include all non-timber plant products and associated industries from the forest.
Products harvested from different management systems such as wild-crafting and
Agroforestry are included under this definition.
4
• NTFP profiles for some BC forest districts (BC Ministry of Forests)
• Integration of NTFPs in forest management projects (Berch et al., 2000)
• Agroforestry strategic plan for BC (Agri-Food Canada and Future Funds)
The management of NTFPs involves several complicated issues. The majority (95%) of
the forestland in BC is Crown Land; a licensing system for timber harvesting and a forest
practice code assure good management practices. In contrast to timber harvesting, no
such licensing system exist for NTFPs. This lack of legislation results in problems
regarding the management of these resources and as such, overharvesting has been a
common problem e.g. cascara bark (Rhamnus purshiana) and yew bark (Taxus
brevifolia) (Turner, 2000). Harvesting regulations must address both the ecological
issues, as well as harvesting rights on public lands. First Nations traditionally use NTFPs
and commercial harvesting should not interfere with their rights.
2.6 Objectives & Approach
The process of developing a strategy for implementing NTFPs at MKRF consists of three
phases.
Phase I: Planning:
• Identify NTFPs with market potential in MKRF
Phase II: Implementation
• Develop detailed business plans for the selected NTFPs
Phase III: Evaluation
• Evaluate the operating business – economically, ecologically
Phase I, planning, is used to identify the economic potential of the NTFPs at MKRF. If
the planning phase provides promising results, detailed business plans will be written in
phase II and will be used to verify the results from phase I. If the business plans deliver
positive results, they will be implemented and evaluated in phase III.
This study covers the first phase in the three-step process of a NTFP strategy at
MKRF It is hoped that this report will provide a basis for further decision-making.
5
The objective of this study was to identify the economic potential of NTFPs at
MKRF, including educational, demonstration and research values, as these values are part
of MKRFs main objective. As part of the study, existing and potential NTFPs were
identified and different management systems, including Agroforestry, were considered.
The ideal NTFP for MKRF should have the following characteristics:
• Economically viable
• Ecologically sustainable
• Educational and research value
To fulfill the objectives, an approach was developed with the following steps:
SCREENING
Identify NTFPs with market potential in MKRF
EVALUATION
Verify the potential of screened NTFPs and identify possible NTFPs for MKRF
RANKING
Identify the most promising NTFPs.
3 Study Site
MKRF is located in Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada, 60 km east of downtown
Vancouver. MKRF is bordered on the northwest by Pitt Lake at sea level, on the north
and east by Golden Ears Provincial Park with elevations up to 1000m and on the south, it
meets with the urban areas of Maple Ridge. The forest itself is 5,157 hectares, with an
average width (from west to east) of 4 km and an average length (from north to south ) of
13 km, see maps Appendix XI-XIV. The forest is situated on private land, meaning that
the exclusive rights for harvesting and managing the forest belongs to MKRF. This
ownership eliminates the problem of access rights and licensing of NTFP harvests, a
concern that exists elsewhere in the province.
FIRST NATIONS
MKRF is part of the Traditional Territory of the Katzie First Nation Band. The
relationship between MKRF and the Katzie First Nation is very good. NTFPs as part of
their tradition might offer the opportunity for joint projects with MKRF. The Katzie band
6
traditionally uses NTFP for medicines and craft products, and they also have spiritual
significance. The use of NTFPs is also part of a traditional use study the Katzie band is
currently conducting. If this study identifies opportunities for new business development
based on NTFPs the Katzie band have mentioned their interest in developing a joint
venture project. Depending on the NTFP a joint venture could have different forms. This
could include the management of a cedar leaf oil still or the marketing of traditional
medicines.
BC HYDRO RIGHT OF WAY
There are 20 ha of BC Hydro Right of Ways (RoW) within MKRF. The RoW is the area
under the powerlines. This area cannot be forested due to safety regulations and is
brushed manually regularly by BC Hydro. It is owned by MKRF but BC Hydro
ultimately determines the land use of the area. Some areas are of particular interest
because the soils are good and they are easily accessible by roads (see map Appendix
XIV). The areas of interest are currently covered with small trees (alder, willow, birch,
cedar) that do not exceed 3 m in height. The different possibilities for the management of
RoWs for possible NTFPs are discussed in detail in Chapter 5.2.1..
LOON LAKE CAMP
Loon Lake Camp (LLC) is located on the shores of Loon Lake in MKRF. This campsite
has the capacity for 100 guests and is fully catered. The camp has a long tradition of
providing an area for forestry and environmental education as well as outdoor recreation
and is also available for conferences. LLC has a partnership with an outdoor adventure
company Pinnacle Pursuits, which specializes in outdoor education.
3.1 Climate
The CWH climate which characterizes MKRF is defined as “a maritime climate
characterized by mild temperatures with common cloudiness and a small range of
temperatures, wet and mild winters, cool and relatively dry summers, long frost-free
periods and a heavy precipitation most of which occurs during the winter season”
(Klinka, 1976). Annual precipitation ranges from 2200 mm per year at the southern end
of the forest to about 3000 mm per year at the north end. The higher elevation in the
7
north is covered by snow for about four month of the year where the lower elevation in
the south rarely receives snow.
In this climate the forests are dominated by coniferous ("evergreen") trees which are
typically large and fast growing. The common species in MKRF are Douglas-fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla).
3.2 Ecology
MKRF is entirely within the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) biogeoclimatic zone, with
the lower half of the forest in the dry maritime (dm) subzone, and the upper half in the
very wet maritime (vm) subzone. The different zones can be seen in map Appendix XIV.
The Forest currently consists of a few separate age classes. On the older end of the
range, some small patches of 400-year+ old-growth forest remain intact. About half of
the western side of the forest represents 120-year-old stands made up of a mixture of
Douglas-fir, western red cedar and western hemlock. This is due to a large fire in 1868,
which swept through that area of the forest. The eastern half of the forest is covered
mostly by 70-year-old stands. These areas contain mostly western hemlock and western
red cedar and were established through a fire 1931. The major of understory species
found in MKRF include salal (Gaultheria shallon), red huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum),
Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), vine maple (Acer circinatum), bracken fern
(Blechnum spicant), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), Alaskan blueberry, step moss
(Hylocomium splendens), beaked moss (Kindbergia oregana), lanky moss
(Rhytidiadelphus loreus), and Plagiothecium undulatum (Green and Klinka, 1994).
4 Methods
This chapter describes the approach and methods used to fulfill the objective: Identify the
economic potential of NTFPs at MKRF, including educational, demonstration and
research values. The steps explained in detail in the following subchapters were
undertaken in this study.
SCREENING
Identify NTFPs with market potential in MKRF
8
1. Identify NTFPs with market potential in BC (literature review, Internet research)
2. Verify if NTFPs identified in step 1 currently or potentially could exist in MKRF
3. Develop a classification system with NTFP categories
4. Assign relevant NTFPs to categories
EVALUATION
Identify possible NTFPs for MKRF and verify their potential
1) Review literature
2) Explore markets
3) Assess forest for production possibilities
4) Evaluate the results for each NTFP
5) Identify the limitations at MKRF for each NTFP
6) Make recommendations
RANKING
Identify most promising NTFP
1. Ranking of the recognized NTFPs with market potential
In the following section, the methods used for screening, evaluating and ranking are
explained. The results are presented and justified.
4.1 Screening
NTFPs may be valued culturally, ecologically and economically. Currently, only a small
number of NTFPs have recognized economic value. Therefore, the first step was to
identify those NTFPs with economic value produced in the Pacific Northwest. This part
of the screening process was accomplished using data from a literature review and
information from the Internet.
To get a better overview of the NTFPs they were put into categories. NTFP
categories can be based on their product source (e.g. mushrooms including medicinal and
edible mushrooms), or on their end product use (e.g. food products including berries,
edible mushrooms). Currently there is no standardized categorization system for NTFPs
and as such, it is difficult to compare existing NTFP studies (Chamberlain et al., 1998;
von Hagen and Fight, 1999; Wills and Lipsey, 1999; Berch et al., 2000; Petten, 2001). To
9
maintain consistency it was considered to use a system, which has been used in several
recent BC publications (Berch et al., 2000; The North Island NTFP Demonstration
Project, 2001) and was developed in the Report on Botanical Forest Products in BC de
Geus (1995). Unfortunately, de Geus’ system did not meet the needs of this study
because the categories are based on end products and sources. This study, however is
focused on the economic potential of NTFPs, which means the final marketable product
is important. Therefore a system only including end products was developed.
According to this categorization system, each previously recognized NTFPs with
market potential was assigned to one or multiple categories.
After this list was completed, it was compared with the database on existing plants
species in MKRF. In addition MKRF staff was interviewed to find out about the fungi.
For species that do not currently exist in MKRF, a literature review was conducted to
ascertain their growth potential under managed conditions (e.g. Agroforestry).
4.2 Evaluation
The pre-requisite for the production of a certain NTFP is market demand. In case the
production capabilities of MKRF match the market demand the NTFP has economic
potential. To verify the economic potential of the NTFPs identified through the screening
process, further research was carried out. This research included an assessment of the
current market and forest conditions. No previous research on NTFPs had been
conducted at MKRF. Therefore exploratory2 research was used for the primary data
collection.
MARKET
The market situation for each NTFP is unique and depends on numerous conditions
within the NTFP categories. Although each category pertains to a different industry, the
2 The characteristics of exploratory research are that the data is gathered using less structured
instruments and interviews questions can be open ended. The sample size can be small and the results are
qualitative. Exploratory research can provide significantly insight into given situations. The advantage is
that the research can be adapted to the findings and is more flexible. A disadvantage is that the research is
subjective and qualitative (Zikmund, 2000).
10
keywords describing the market conditions are the same for the different NTFP industries
and were described by the following:
• Demand
• Amount demanded
• Quality
• Price
• Form (Processed/Unprocessed)
• Future expectations
• Legislative regulations
Based on these keywords, the primary data was collected for each NTFP category with a
focus on the individual NTFPs as well other important information with influence on the
economic potential of the NTFPs was assessed.
The information was collected through in-depth interviews, in person, by phone or
via e-mail, with market players (wholesalers, retailers), researchers, producers and
consumers. Sampling methods were based on non-probability sampling such as
judgment, including snowball design and quota, as well as a focus meeting (Churchill,
1992). The characteristics of non-probability sampling are that personal judgment is
involved in the selection process of the data source and the accuracy of the results cannot
be gauged. Judgment sampling involved the selection of participants according to their
specific expertise on the subject. This is called the snowball method when other members
of the target group are identified through recommendations by other respondents (Dillon
et al., 1994). Quota sampling involved selecting a specific number of respondents who
possess certain characteristics important for the research.
The form of the interviews and e-mail communication was kept flexible in order to
adjust to each situation and gain as much information as possible for the specific NTFP
and associated categories. The interviews with the market players were designed to elicit
information regarding the current marketing situation of the NTFP according to the
keywords described above. Researchers were interviewed on different topics depending
on their specialization with NTFPs for example NTFP management, inventory, and
11
ethnobotany. Buyers were contacted using the phonebook, literature, Internet and
personal communication.
Secondary research included information gathered from a variety of sources
including: the Internet, journal articles, existing databases of MKRF, library sources,
Ministry of Forests Canada and USDA Forest Service.
FOREST
The main determinants for the question of whether or not the forest condition for a NTFP
is good are: abundance, sustainability and quality. Although the market and forest
situation were was analyzed separately, the forest data collection depended on the results
of the market research for certain questions, such as quality.
No direct information on the abundance of non-tree species at MKRF was available.
Therefore the abundance of such NTFPs was predicted using alternate sources, such as
biogeoclimatic zone maps. Some of the NTFP species are indicator species for the
biogeoclimatic zones and estimates were possible. In addition, the inventory results from
the North Vancouver Island Project were used. Since the research sites are in the same
zone, it was possible to estimate the quantities based on this information. Personal
communication in the form of interviews with MKRF staff was also used to collect
information on abundance levels. Some of the staff have been working at MKRF for over
25 years and know the forest very well, so they were an important source of information.
Although these methods do not give quantitative information, they are detailed
enough to identify the business potential of the NTFPs. The details are discussed
independently for each NTFP, which are differentiated into 6 categories:
1 Species that are abundant in MKRF volume and location are known
2 Species that exist in MKRF in lower quantities than in category 1 whose
volume and location are known
3 Species that appear to be abundant in the RF, but no detailed information
on volume and location is available
4 Species that lack any volume and location information
5 Species that cannot grow in the RF
6 Species that could grow in MKRF under certain conditions (e.g. planting)
12
To identify whether or not there are sustainability concerns with harvesting of individual
NTFPs information from the literature and Internet, as well as personal communication
was used. In addition to the market and forest condition the educational; research and
demonstration values of the NTFPs were identified. Once the pertinent information was
collected, it was possible to evaluate the NTFPs according to their economic potential,
research, education and demonstration values. In the evaluation the following questions
were addressed:
• Is the market information from the literature review in accord with current
research findings?
• Are there any limitations for the NTFP at MKRF?
• Do production possibilities of MKRF meet market demand?
• Was it possible to answer all the questions posed in the interviews, which are
necessary to identify the economic potential?
• Were problems identified? If yes, what were they?
• What other relevant information was uncovered?
From the results of the evaluation, a list of the limitations and possibilities for each NTFP
was developed. From this list the NTFPs with greatest potential for MKRF were
identified. The NTFPs were then ranked in order to identify the NTFP that best met the
objectives of MKRF.
4.3 Ranking
To identify the best NTFPs from the previously selected NTFPs they were compared and
ranked according to six criteria important for a NTFP business. The criteria included:
Capital Investment, Production and Growing, Harvesting, Ecology, Education and
Research, and Market Situation. To describe the criteria 25 indicators were used. A
detailed description of the indicators can be seen in Appendix IX. The NTFPs were
evaluated according to a system of points ranging from 1 (indicator fulfilled) to 5
(indicator not fulfilled) for each indicator. The more points assigned to a NTFP, the better
its potential at MKRF. The points were summed and the NTFPs ranked for each criterion
individually and for the criteria as a whole.
13
To evaluate the NTFPs according to different objectives the criteria were weighted in
different scenarios. The Equation 1 was used to weight the criteria.
ii
ii w
nm
p *= (Equation 1)
Where:
ip : weighed proportion
im : points gained
in : points possible
iw : weighing factor ( 11
=�=
k
iiw where k is # of categories)
According to the points gained the results were classified as follow:
Diagnosis Percentage of points gained
Very Poor 0 – 25%
Poor 25% - 50%
Satisfactory 50% - 75%
Good 75% - 100%
Table 1: Classification of NTFPs according to percentage
The first scenario was based on the objective to rank the previously-selected NTFPs
according to their economic potential at MKRF.
14
The following weight was given to each criterion:
Criterion Weight
Capital Investment 10
Growing and Production Situation 20
Ecological Concerns 20
Education and Research Value 0
Market Situation 50
Table 2: Weight distribution for scenario 1
In this scenario 50% weight was given to the criteria describing the Market Situation
because this is a very important factor for identifying the economic potential. Capital
Investment was given 10%, it is used to give a NTFP with low capital investment an
advantage but does not influence the viability. Growing and Production and Ecological
concerns were each given 20%, with 40% of the total, they describe the supply situation
at MKRF and are equally important.
The results of the first scenario were classified according to Table 1 and
interpreted according to Table 3.
Diagnosis Interpretation
Very Poor Major restrictions that most likely can not be overcome
Poor Many restrictions exist, much effort necessary to overcome
Satisfactory Restrictions exist, but could be overcome
Good No major restrictions exist, high potential possible without major problems
Table 3: Interpretation of classification of diagnosis for scenario 1
After the NTFPs were ranked according to their economic potential, the second scenario
was created to rank the NTFPs including all objectives of MKRF.
The following restrictions based on MKRF objectives are reflected in the weighing used
in the second scenario.
15
• Economically viable
• Ecologically sustainable
• Educational and research value
This amount weight was given to each of the criteria:
Criterion Weight
Capital Investment 10
Growing and Production Situation 20
Ecological Concerns 20
Education and Research Value 20
Market Situation 30
Table 4: Weight distribution for scenario 2
Capital Investment, Growing and Production and the Market Situation were assigned a
total of 60% of the weight. Education and Research, and Ecological Concerns were each
allocated 20% of the weight. In this way the objectives are represented.
The result presents information on how well the criteria were fulfilled. Since the
weight is based on the objectives it also describes how well the objectives were fulfilled.
Given that economic viability is the main objective, the first scenario has more
importance than the second scenario. The final decision will therefore be based on the
first scenario. The second scenario is important in the case where the first scenario
showed all NTFPs have similar economic potentials. In this case, the second scenario will
provide additional information to decide which NTFP is best for MKRF.
5 Results
The results are presented according to the stages described before Screening, Evaluation
and Ranking.
5.1 Screening
Through the literature review seventy-four NTFP species with economic value were
identified. Out of these seventy-four NTFPs species sixty-six exist or have growth
16
potential in MKRF. The NTFPs were assigned to seven categories, Floral Greens,
Landscaping Products, Food Products, Craft Products, Medicinals, Miscellaneous Forest
Products, and Ecotourism. For a description of how the NTFPs were assigned to the
categories see Appendix I–VI.
5.2 Evaluation
The results of the literature, market and forest research are presented for each NTFP
category with a focus on the specific NTFPs in the following subchapters. The
assessments of species abundance is included in Apendix I - VI, as well as in the
individual NTFP chapter.
5.2.1 Floral Greens
Wild-crafted floral greens are one of the products with an established market in the NTFP
sector in BC since the early 1900’s (Blatner and Alexander, 1998). The major species in
the 1920s remain today salal, evergreen huckleberry, western red cedar, Oregon grape,
and sword fern (Weigand, 2002). Although commercial harvesting of floral greens was
established in the early 1900s (Blatner and Alexander, 1998), the first evaluation of its
economic role was done by Schlosser et al. in (1991). As of 1991 the floral greens
industry employed over 10,000 people in Washington, Oregon and southern British
Columbia and generated an estimated $128.5 US million in sales (Schlosser et al., 1991).
For a detailed list of plants used as floral greens see Appendix I.
An estimated $47.7 million US was paid for plant materials used as floral greens
from NTFPs in 1989, with beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)� and salal being the most
important species in producer expenditures (Schlosser et al., 1991). At that time,
beargrass was a new product on the market and like salal was exported to Europe. Of the
floral greens in the industry 17% were marketed locally (in the coastal Pacific
Northwest), 52% in the United States, and 31% were exported mostly to Europe. The
industry for floral greens has been rising over the past several decades primarily due to
the development of new products in the floral greens industry. Schlosser et al. (1991) also
indicate that markets in Europe and Pacific Rim have a high potential for future
development. In a more recent study Blatner and Alexander (1998) did not conclude on
the trends for the NTFP industry due to insufficient available data. The difficulty in
17
obtaining data lays part in the entrepreneurial character of the industry, with companies
entering and leaving frequently (Alexander et al., 2002b). Due to this problem other ways
were used to estimate the economic potential of the NTFP part of the industry.
Chamberlain et al. (1998) used the floriculture industry; which had 5 percent annual
growth between 1989 and 1996. Mater (1997) sees an indication for increase in demand
for NTFP floral greens in the numbers presented by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) in Washington: “Bough sales increased 143 percent from about 0.51 million
pounds in 1993 to more than 1.24 million pounds in 1995. Moss sales increased almost
660 percent from 27,000 pounds in 1993 to 205,000 pounds in 1995. For evergreens, like
salal and Oregon grape sales increased from 16,000 pounds in 1993 to 89,000 pounds in
1995” (Mater, 1997).
The scarcity of available data also makes it difficult to identify which forces are
responsible for changes in price and market demand (Blatner and Alexander, 1998). The
results of Blatner and Alexander (1998) show that prices for floral greens were variable
over the observed years 1989 to 1996. The prices paid for NTFPs in the Pacific
Northwest are influenced by a number of factors: domestic supply influenced by weather
and management objectives; competing product development elsewhere in the world and
rapid change in tastes and preferences in the floral design industry. In comparison with
the floral greens industry the Christmas greens market is more stable. This is because
Christmas greens are used based on a tradition and do not change as quickly as the floral
greens which are based on consumer taste. De Geus (1995) developed a summary of the
floral greens products harvested in British Columbia. The most important species are in
accordance with Schlosser et al. findings (1991). Although the report is specific to BC,
Schlosser et al. (1991) is referenced for industry data, even though their numbers are for
the entire Pacific Northwest.
The most recent overview of the industry that is most specific to BC was compiled
by Wills and Lipsey (1999). They identified 22 BC businesses in the floral greens
industry with collective gross revenues in 1997 between $55 and $60 million Cdn. The
total number of commercial pickers in BC in 1997 was estimated at 12,000 to 15,000.
salal was by far the number one in floral greens products, accounting for 75-80% of the
sales (Wills and Lipsey, 1999).
18
Although the literature indicates a market potential for floral greens harvested from
the forest it is difficult to draw conclusions on the current situation for new business
development.
In an attempt to estimate the current market situation 14 local wholesalers and
retailers were interviewed by phone and in person to get up-to-date market information
on wild-crafted floral greens. Since ferns, salal and mosses are the major species growing
in MKRF that are used for floral greens, these species were prioritized.
The following information was collected:
• Other than salal there is low market demand for the classic wild-crafted floral
greens
• Most salal is harvested from Vancouver Island and counts for 75%-80% of the
wild-crafted floral greens
• Other wild-crafted plants such as those included in Appendix I account for a very
small demand that is covered by current suppliers
• Sword fern is considered an out-dated item
• Supply from current pickers is more than sufficient
• No change in the market demand is predicted in the near future
• Positive prospects exist for the development of a new product that is nice looking
and not bulky
• An oversupply exists on the market for wild-crafted floral greens
• Market demand for products changes rapidly, depending on consumer taste
• Pickers indicated a demand for moss, but no buyer indicated interest.
One of the major floral brokers in the lower mainland is the United Flower Growers
Auction in Burnaby. In an interview, Cheu Oui Lam from their quality control
department said that the demand is quite low at the moment and the supply is more than
sufficient, bordering on oversupply. She does not see the demand increasing in the near
future and as such there is very little chance that MKRF would be accepted as a casual
shipper to the Auction (C. Lam personal communication). Richard Ross from Western
Evergreen on Vancouver Island sees the situation similarly. He also said that the quality
of salal in MKRF could not compete with the salal from Vancouver Island. Sword fern is
19
not in high demand; out of 100 cases of floral green shipped to Europe, only 5 are sword
fern. This is due to the short shelf life of sword fern and because it is an out-dated
product. Beargrass, which was one of the best sellers in the Schlosser et al. (1991) report,
has decreased in demand and can be purchased from the United States for $0,20 US per
bunch. It would be very difficult for MKRF to compete with this price according to R.
Ross. He also mentioned that the floral greens market is very much dependant on the
tastes and demands of the consumers.
A positive aspect of this consumer drive is that the market can be very open for new
items that can be used in floral arrangements such as curly willow (Salix matsudana var.
tortuosa), and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globolus). “As long as something looks ‘neat’ is
not bulky and can be added to a bouquet without filling it, anything could be sold to the
floral greenery market. The key to this market is finding something interesting and
marketing” (R. Ross, personal communication). Ernie Meyer from Meyer Floral, another
wholesaler in Vancouver, mentioned in an interview that the market for cut flowers has a
high demand, which local producers cannot currently meet. The future development is
prognosed as very promising. Examples of flowers which could be grown in the forest
are Rhododendron spp. and Hydrangea paniculata, which are sold for $2 - $4 Cdn per
flower wholesale. E. Meyer indicated interest in buying those products.
Although the demand on the market for the forest floral greens is currently quite low,
information was collected on species being marketed. The situation of the forest could
thus be assessed in case the market changes, which is typical for this industry. The forest
species sold at the Burnaby Flower Auction include: Scotch-broom, deer fern, sword
fern, moss, salal, huckleberry, and Oregon grape. The prices achieved for these products
can be seen in Table 5. Salal was top product followed by mosses and Christmas greens.
The lowest sales were for deer fern and Oregon grape. Mosses achieves the highest price
with $3.20 Cdn per bag followed by salal and huckleberry. The greens with the lowest
prices were ferns and Oregon grape. There is a low demand for each of these products at
the Flower Auction. The current suppliers cover the demand for the floral greens and
chances that MKRF would be accepted as a supplier are low. However, when pickers
were interviewed they indicated a high demand for moss and Salal.
20
The major quality requirement for all floral greens is that the plant part has to be free
of imperfections. In addition to this, there are specific quality requirements for each
species.
• Sword fern and deer fern: Each frond must be deep green with few or no
spores, with each frond being between 25 and 40 cm long for sword fern;
being between 15 and 25 cm long for deer fern (see Picture 2) (C. Lam,
personal communication).
• Salal: The quality of plants grown in partial shade provides the best quality
with longer, cleaner branches and fewer blemishes. The branches must have a
minimum of 4 current-year leaves with all older leaves removed. The leaves
must be perfect and free from blemishes, fungus or insect bites. salal is
picked at two different lengths: regular, 28-30 inches and a tip, 20-24 inches
long (see Picture 1) (Cocksedge, 2002).
• Moss: Species in highest demand is lanky moss (Rhytidiadelphus loreus) but
other species can be used as well if they fulfill the requirements. Moss should
be in form of a uniform blanket with good green colouring and is kept and
sold wet for the use in the floral industry. The moss species include: step
moss (Hylocomium splendens), beaked moss (Kindbergia spp), running club
moss (Lycopodium clavatum), and peat moss (Sphagnum spp) (Cocksedge,
2002).
21
Picture 1: Salal, good quality Picture 2: Sword fern, good quality
Source: (Katja Eisbrenner, United Flower Growers Auction)
Species Quantity sold Unit Price per unit $ Cdn
Christmas greens 3069 bunch 1.70
Deer Fern 1650 bunch 0.57
Door Swag 25 unit 5.78
Moss 9314 bag 3.95
Oregon grape 314 stem 0.58
Salal 32817 bunch 2.16
Scotch broom 8974 bunch 1.13
Sphagnum 1400 bag 3.2
Sphagnum dried 40 bag 3.2
Sword Fern 5120 bunch 0.88
Vaccinium spp. 5526 bunch 2.50
Western red cedar 3300 bunch 1.14
Table 5: Average quantities in units, and prices for floral greens sold at the United Flower Growers
Auction between January and December 2001
Source: (United Flower Growers Auction, 2001)
22
FLORAL GREENS AT MKRF
Of the plants used in the floral green industry sword fern, deer fern, maidenhair fern
(Adiantum pedatum), moss spp., Oregon grape, salal, Scotch broom, huckleberry, lanky
moss, step moss and beaked moss are abundant in MKRF. Most of these species are
major understory species in the CWH biogeoclimatic zone.
Current knowledge of the abundance of floral greens can be found in Appendix I.
Sword fern is by far the most abundant species and meets the quality standards of the
industry. The other ferns meet the quality criteria but are not as abundant as sword fern in
MKRF. Although salal is most abundant understory plant in MKRF the quality does not
meet the industry requirements. The majority of the leaves have brown spots, the stems
are too short and the color is not consistent. This problem exists almost everywhere in
MKRF and is probably due to the distance from the coast and the situation of MKRF at
the edge of salal’s ecological range. Mosses are widely abundant and in good quality at
MKRF. One of the interviewed pickers said that MKRF is in one of the best moss
growing areas in BC.
Little information on the sustainability of harvesting floral greens is available. The
definition of sustainable depends on: amount harvested, harvest area, abundance, and
plant species.
From what is known ecologically there are no harvesting concerns at MKRF for fern
fronds. At MKRF they are widely abundant and only the fronds are harvested, which are
annual. For shrub species there are also no ecological concerns, because only part of the
branches are harvested. With the exception for red huckleberry, the plant species do not
have very many branches and grow slow; thus frequent harvesting might cause damage to
the plant. Scotch broom is an exotic and not wanted in MKRF anyway, therefore no
concerns exist. The only major existing concern pertains to harvesting mosses. Mosses
are habitat specific, slow growing and strongly affect the micro-sites and the soil-
moisture content. Moss communities contain a high number of infrequent species; by
large-scale harvesting these rare species could get lost (Atwood, 1998). Since very little
information on the sustainable harvesting of moss is availabe it should only be done in
small patches (Cocksedge, 2002).
23
EVALUATION
The findings from the interviews and the prices of the United Flower Growers Auction
indicate that the current conditions for floral greens vary depending on the product. The
current conditions of the market and MKRF do not provide a good starting point for
development of floral greens at MKRF. This is due the low demand for classical greens
including sword fern, the major floral greens species at MKRF. In addition the current
suppliers cover the demand for the other floral greens. The major sales item in the floral
green industry is salal, but although salal is the most abundant understory species it does
not meet the quality requirements. Of the existing floral green NTFPs, mosses are the
only product of interest for MKRF, because it has high market demand, it meets the
quality requirements and it is abundant in MKRF. However, there are uncertainties as to
ecological effects of wild-crafting moss in the forest. In the literature, moss harvesting is
recommended without concerns in areas prior to further development such as road
building. However, under consideration of the following criteria, moss harvesting might
be an option: harvesting in small patches or strips over large areas and monitored trials
prior to intensive harvesting, management of certain areas instead of wild-crafting.
Although the education and demonstration value are not outstanding, the research value
for moss harvesting is high.
Other than harvesting floral greens from already existing sources in MKRF, there is
the possibility for new product development. The market for floral greens is open to new
products and there are some flowers that grow in a forest setting. For example,
Rhododendron could be raised from cuttings and planted the following year in the forest
or under RoW. After two or three years the plants would start to flower. From the market
research, local demand has been identified and because of the relatively low capital input
and management this would be an option for MKRF. The price they can be sold for are
high and there are no sustainability concerns.
RECOMMENDATION
Of the existing floral greens only, moss harvesting is an option under consideration of the
ecological concerns. New product development of forest-grown flowers should be further
investigated.
24
5.2.1.1 Christmas Trees and Greens
The Christmas tree industry yielded $60 Cdn million in 1998 (Chamberlain et al., 1998).
However, the market for Christmas trees has been fluctuating over the years in part due to
the low prices of trees grown in US plantations (R. Hallman, personal communication).
US imports flood the market and the demand for BC-grown trees slows. The major
species used as Christmas trees in the Pacific Northwest are Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii 50%, followed by noble fir (Abies procera) (40%), grand fir (Abies grandis)
(7%), pine & others (3%) (Rinehold, 1999). The quality requirements are: uniformly
dark, green coloured, evenly layered branches, and a cone shaped form (R. Hallman,
personal communication). However, the requirements vary, depending on the traditional
use of the tree. For example, people with German background, prefer trees with wide
gaps between the branch layers because real candles are traditionally used to decorate the
trees.
Besides Christmas trees, there is a seasonal market for boughs, Christmas garlands
and wreaths from various conifers. Noble fir and western red cedar are the most
important, and subalpine fir, western white pine and Douglas-fir amongst those of lesser
importance (for details see Appendix I) (E. Meyer personal communication). The market
for Christmas greens is more stable than the floral greens market due to traditional use
(Schlosser et al., 1991), with the main harvesting time between October and November.
There is interest on the Vancouver market especially for cedar boughs, wreaths and
garlands. In addition to cedar, noble fir is a highly demanded item that is not yet covered
by suppliers (E. Meyer, personal communication). Because of the traditional market for
Christmas greens and a demand for good quality products the future prognosis is positive.
Depending on the quality the wholesalers Meyers Floral, Abbotsford Cold Storage,
Betty's Best and West Coast Floral buy Christmas greens from different conifers with
cedar as the main item.
The quality requirements for Christmas greens are similar to the floral greens. The
boughs have to be free of imperfections, evenly branched and uniformly coloured without
any brown spots from e.g. rust. They are sold in 3 lb bunches with each bough 22”- 28”
long. Prices paid per bundle are around $1.30 Cdn wholesale per bunch (E. Meyer
personal communication). There is a large opportunity for a value-added product.
25
Christmas wreath and garlands achieve retail prices of $30 Cdn for cedar 18” garlands
and wreaths (Holiday Season Farms, 2002). Basic machines to produce garlands and
boughs can be bought for $90 US; the price for an industrial machine is around $1600 US
(Kelco Industries, 2002). The other advantage is that to produce boughs smaller branches
of only 5” are used. It is therefore easier to meet the quality requirements and even if the
quality for boughs cannot be met the material can be used for garlands and wreathss. The
skills necessary to produce garlands are not very sophisticated and can be easily learned.
CHRISTMAS TREES AND GREENS AT MKRF
In previous years the Forestry Undergraduate Society had grown Christmas trees in
MKRF. However this attempt at marketing was not competitive, due to a higher price and
lower quality, and the plantation was abandoned. A Christmas tree plantation has to be
well maintained in order to meet market requirements. This upkeep includes regular
trimming and spacing of the trees as well as disease control. Different rusts and Swiss
needle cast (Phaeocryptopus gäumanniii) are pests, presenting a high risk for Christmas
tree plantations (Worrall, 2003). Because of the high industry standards, which trees from
forest stands hardly meet, an unmanaged Christmas tree plantation is not an option.
Currently there are no Christmas tree plantations in MKRF.
Of the species used for Christmas greens, western red cedar is the only one abundant
enough at MKRF for Christmas green production. As one of the three most abundant
species in MKRF the supply is guaranteed. In order to meet the quality requirements it is
important to select the stand carefully so the material harvested meets the standard and
the waste is small. There are old railway tracks going through MKRF with free-growing
cedars at the sides. The trees are logged to keep the track clear. This situation presents an
ideal opportunity to gather boughs for Christmas greens because the quality of the boughs
is high because they are grown in the open. Christmas greens can be harvested in
different ways, in larger operations where the trees are grown in a plantation sheering
machines are used to cut the branches, which are congruently collected in a pick-up truck.
In smaller operations pruning tools are used to manually harvest the branches from
standing trees (Landgren and Freed, 1998). The branches are collected and transported to
the processing site. This latter type of harvesting would be a possible practice for MKRF.
Another possibility is to harvest the branches from trees in a logging or thinning
26
operation. In the latter case two concerns must be addressed. The harvesting for the
Christmas greens is seasonal from October to November, so exact planning is necessary
in order to pick the branches fresh. It is doubtful that logged tree branches can meet the
quality requirements because October and November part of the rainy season and the
branches are wet and muddy. However this would have to be verified in a trial.
The seasonality of the product makes Christmas greens a feasible product for a small
business. It could be run by a third party in MKRF who would pay a share of their sales
to MKRF. The MKRF is an excellent site due to: the easy access to the sites; the short
distance to the market in Vancouver; and the facilities, which include a cooler, that could
be used to store the harvested Christmas greens. The raw material, boughs bring in a
lower price than Christmas wreaths and garlands but according to the people in the
business it is a viable operation with experienced pickers do the job (W. Kimber personal
communication; E. Meyer personal communication). It would also be interesting for
MKRF to start its own operation because of the availability of facilities and equipment.
The main problem would be in finding experienced pickers or people who are interested
to learn. Although the job may not seem difficult, people who are working in this
business must be skilled and trained for the operation to meet the high quality
requirements for the greens.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MKRF
Growing Christmas trees concurrently in MKRF could only become a viable option if a
niche market is developed (e.g. through the UBC Faculty of Forestry). However even
with a large marketing campaign it would be difficult to gain acceptable profits because
of the strong competition on the market and the high cost of production.
The situation for Christmas greens is different, as there is enough material in MKRF
to produce quality Christmas greens. The capital input in Christmas green harvesting is
low and there are no ecological concerns because the product comes from a tree. The
option of adding value to the Christmas greens by making garlands and wreaths presents
a highly marketable product, with higher revenue margin than the raw material.
27
5.2.2 Landscaping Products
NATIVE PLANTS FOR LANDSCAPING
In contrast to wild-crafting floral greens, the idea of commercially wild-crafting whole
plants for landscaping purposes is relatively new. Native plants from the forest have an
advantage over these plants grown in nurseries because they are fully grown (a desired
characteristic of landscaping plants). NTFP species in that are grown and harvested in
nurseries for landscaping include sword fern and vine maple, both of which are abundant
in MKRF. No literature was available on this topic, so research included interviewing
users (landscape architects) and the current producers of native plants (nurseries). The
BC Landscape Association suggested contacting the architects directly. A short e-mail
questionnaire was sent to the architects and covered the aspects of market research
explained in Chapter 4. The questions posed included: whether they use native plants, if
yes, who were their producers, and whether or not they think it would be possible for a
small-scale production to get access to the market. Out of twelve architects contacted four
replied and answered that they do use native plants although they sometimes have
difficulty finding a supplier. Using native plants has become more popular recently. For
example the City of Richmond required the use of native plants for a large landscape
project (L. Nielsen, personal communication). Native plants are also widely used in the
restoration of stream banks. Scott McLean from BC Hydro reported that they are using
thousands of native plants each year for Riparian area restoration under the RoWs.
Although this information was collected in exploratory research it indicates that there is a
demand by the landscape architects for native plants. The use of native plants was
identified for two main areas: for the restoration of Riparian areas and for use in
landscape architecture. Most of the plants used for these purposes, are currently grown in
nurseries. The nurseries growing native plants mentioned that the demand and sales have
been stable. Their customers include: local governments, landscape contractors, mine
reclamation, and many local restoration projects (P. Vrijmoed, personal communication).
They expect some of the smaller nurseries to drop out or extend their business into other
areas because it appears to be difficult to exist on native plants alone (P. Vrijmoed,
personal communication). It was also mentioned that there was a growing demand for
bigger native plants by landscape architects (P. Woodward, personal communication).
28
However Bruce Peel from Peels Nursery mentioned that they feel there is currently an
oversupply of native plant products. In addition, he does not see how the quality from-
forest grown plants can hold out against nursery-grown plants. It remains therefore
unclear what the current market potential for native plants is.
There are two different forces that are important for the development of the native
plants industry. Firstly, if government legislations created regulations that only native
plants could be used for in for example Riparian area restorations, the market for native
plants would immediately grow. Secondly, the consumer plays a key role in deciding
whether or not use native plants for landscaping. Demand for organic grown products is
high at the moment and there might be the potential for an organic native plants market,
which would secure a market for native plant species. Wild-crafted forest products are
produced without pesticides and are therefore suitable for obtaining organic certification.
However no one has required this type of certification yet (A. Brynne, personal
communication).
The quality requirements for plants in the landscaping industry are high and their
characteristics include: nice appearance, interesting colours, fast growing not too tall.
The quality requirements for plants used in Riparian management include: good rooting
abilities and fast growth rate. The prices paid for a fern in a 1 Gallon pot vary between
$3.50 and 7.50 (Cocksedge, 2002).
FOREST
From the forestry perspective the management and sustainable harvesting of native plants
is of high importance. The removal of native plants from Crown Land is not allowed
without a permit. Therefore a lot of harvesting of plants has been done illegally, which
has a negative impact on the population of wild native plants. For example in
Washington, the overharvesting of wild plants has severely degraded many ecosystems
(J. Whitacre, personal communication). Examples of unsustainable practices can also be
found in BC. There was a case on the Gulf Islands where 1000 Orchid bulbs were stolen
from their native habitat, resulting in a large decrease in the population. Many of these
plants are now probably sold at the nurseries as nursery-grown plants (P. Arcese,
personal communication). The first official harvesting trial on Crown Land was carried
out as part of the North Vancouver Island Demonstration Project (NVIDP). In this case
29
plants were harvested prior to further development (road building). The sustainability of
harvesting native plants for landscaping is a bigger concern than with floral greens
because the whole plant is removed from the forest. Therefore to show that ecologically
sound harvesting techniques are used the terms “salvage harvesting” or "pre-development
harvested plants" have been used to describe plants which would have been destroyed if
not harvested (W. Cocksedge, personal communication). The question arises whether the
definition of salvage harvesting includes sites prior to clearcuts. To date, there is little
information available on the effects of harvesting understory plants in a clearcut on future
plant populations. Since the management of native forest plants for landscaping purposes
has hardly been practiced, very little research has been conducted on these issues. In
addition to salvage harvesting of native plants, co-management, in which the understory
plants of interest are integrated into the management plan for silvicultural system could
be an option.
Another big issue with the harvest of native plants is the transplanting and survival
of the plants. According to several nurseries (including Paige Woodward from the Pacific
Rim Nursery) transplanting must be followed by a resting time, when the plant must be
maintain at the forest-nursery to ensure the survival from the transplanting shock and to
maintain quality. This procedure is time-consuming (1 year or longer depending on the
plant) and costly. However the transplanting viability differs for each plant and as such
the possibility exists to find plants which could be harvested and sold in the same year. In
addition to the transplanting viability of the plants, the quality requirements of the
industry must be considered. Nurseries tend to have better root: shoot ratios than forest
grown plants because they are grown in a controlled environment (B. Peel, personal
communication). However if the ultimate survival rates of the plant are the same, this
indicator might not be important.
NATIVE PLANTS FOR LANDSCAPING AT MKRF
There are several plants growing in abundance in MKRF, which would be suitable for
wild harvest or co-management. The different species of fern with are of interest because
they fulfill the landscaping requirements and are easy to transplant (see Picture 3 and 4)
(Vance et al., 2001).
30
Picture 3: Sword fern, MKRF Picture 4: Sword fern, MKRF
Source: (Katja Eisbrenner)
To verify the viability of transplanting ferns a news group on the internet for native pants
was contacted. Twelve members of this native plant news group, (including gardeners,
teachers, and ecologists) all agree that transplanting sword fern is very easy. They
recommended harvesting in the wet time of the year from November to January although
it is also possible to harvest in the summer. With respect to transplanting technique, they
suggested cutting off the old fronds and keeping the current ones. Younger plants are
easier to transplant because the root balls of older plants are fairly large and become more
difficult to transplant. Therefore it is suggested that only plants which fit in a one gallon
pot are used. Everyone from the news group and MKRF staff who has transplanted sword
fern reported a success rate near 100%.
Thinning is a common silvicultural practice carried out in MKRF each year. The
manager of MKRF has observed that in several sites where Douglas-fir, hemlock and
western red cedar have been thinned, the forest floor is heavily covered by sword fern
within two years. This situation offers the possibility for a co-management strategy, that
integrates the management for the NTFP into the silviculture system. Instead of randomly
harvesting sword fern throughout the forest, the harvesting could be concentrated in
31
certain areas, thereby reducing the scale of disturbance in the forest. As there is no
information available on the response of sword fern to harvesting after thinnings, trials
should be conducted prior to large-scale management. The light increase as a result of the
thinning is assumed to be the trigger for the increase in sword fern growth; this
hypothesis should be tested as well to determine how long sword fern can be managed on
a thinned site.
Vine maple is another plant of interest for landscaping due to its small size and its
colorful foliage in the fall (Vance et al., 2001). The seedlings have a high transplanting
viability (Vance et al., 2001) and MKRF staff have had some good experience with
transplanting it .
Besides the two plants discussed above, there may be other plants at MKRF which
fulfill the characteristics for landscaping plants (for details see Appendix II).
RECOMMENDATION
Further research on sustainable harvesting levels for forest landscaping plants is needed
before large-scale harvesting is carried out. Sword fern and vine maple should be
investigated first because of their known high transplanting viability. The high abundance
of sword fern in MKRF offers a good option to experimentally investigate sword fern
regeneration after harvesting. Before further research is invested the market situation
needs to further investigated and buyers need to be identified.
If further experimental research on the ecological side is conducted the following is
suggested. In a stand with high sword fern abundance after thinning different levels of
harvesting could be carried out and the regeneration observed over time. The light
requirements could be tested in different greenhouse trials. This could be done at UBC
Botanical Garden facilities or a small greenhouse could be built at MKRF. Another set of
trials could determine how well the plants transplant. The success rate could be tested by
taking a number of plants from the site, potting them and observing them over a certain
time. For this trial it would be important to measure the amount of root mass which may
be an important factor in transplanting. One concern with this type of research is that it
takes at least a couple of years before there are results. This process could be started with
trials set up on a small scale as an integrated project with concurrent marketing. If there is
the potential for expansion, the results from these trials could be implemented into the
32
operation. Because of the difficulty for MKRF to establish its own market and the limited
time availability of the staff, it would be beneficial to work with a nursery or another
interested partner. The Pacific Rim Nursery has indicated that they might be interested in
working with MKRF on a project like this (P. Woodward, personal communication). This
option would be very interesting for a Masters Student with particular interest in co-
management of native plants who could get support from the nursery (e.g. in
transplanting techniques). The other option is to offer this project to a nursery interested
in using the forest as their production site. MKRF would maintain the right to design the
trial projects with the nursery access all the information and would ultimately receive a
share from the product sales. The latter option seems to be the most practicable because it
would promote the research in this field with low input from MKRF.
5.2.3 Food Products
Forest-grown food products from non-domesticated species is a specialized niche market,
mainly because of the higher prices for products such as wild berries, syrup and wild-
harvested mushrooms. Although each of the products has their own market they have the
following characteristics in common: higher prices than for cultivated products, sold only
in specialty stores, and smaller demand than farmed products.
5.2.3.1 Berries
Most of the berries on the market are commercially produced. In the Lower Mainland,
berry farming is very popular and blueberries, raspberries and cranberries dominate the
market. Besides farmed berries, wild huckleberries, blueberries blackberries and berries
from salal, Oregon grape have a niche market and can be purchased in specialty stores or
on the Internet. Berries are also sold as fresh or frozen products or used for making
preserves such as jams and jellies. Fresh wild berries are known for their taste and
consumers acknowledge that they are significantly better than farm berries. However
wild berries are not widely available and are in specialty stores due to the high retail price
(P. Woodward, personal communication). Wild berries are more expensive than
commercially grown berries because of higher harvesting and transportation costs. In the
commercial berry industry the harvesting is done with machines and as a result the costs
are very low. Wild berries are handpicked and the costs are much higher because of the
33
labour involved. Depending on the species abundance and amount of berries available the
amount harvested per hour ranges from 2.2 kg salmonberry to 6 kg Oregon grape (see
Table 6) (H. Macy, personal communication). However these numbers change drastically
depending on the amount of harvestable berries available.
Species Oregon grape Huckleberry Salmonberry Salal
Kg/hours 6.0 2.8 2.3 3.0
Table 6: Berries picked at UBC Oyster River Research Farm 2001
Source: (H. Macy, personal communication)
Prices for wild harvested berries vary according to the location where they are picked and
sold, and their quality. The quality criterion for berries varies depending on whether they
are sold as a fresh product or as preserves (Granville Island vendors, personal
communication). Given that they are sold as fresh product and preserves the quality
criteria for berries varies. The appearance of the berries is of high importance when they
are sold as a fresh product while the sweetness of the berries is most essential when they
are used for preserves. The prices for commercially farmed berries range from $2-$4/lb
Cdn retail on the local markets and are as low as $1/lb Cdn wholesale price (K. de Wolfe,
personal communication). Wild harvested berries are sold on the Internet for as much as
$14/lb US Huckleberry and Blueberry (Rocky Mountain, 2002). The estimated price paid
to picker for 1 L of wild Huckleberry is $5 Cdn (Cocksedge, 2002). Depending on the
species, this is about $2/lb Cdn. The large difference between what is paid to the pickers
and what the consumer pay exists because the best areas for wild harvesting are remote,
and the refrigeration and transportation costs are added to the price in retail markets.
Therefore wild berries are found on the market mostly in preserved form, either dried or
as jelly or jam. The advantage with preserved food is that it is easier to transport the items
over long distances and they last longer. The jam and jelly prices are a critical factor once
it comes to sales. Even for specialty products the consumer is not willing to pay a high
price. Depending on the species prices asked for wild berry jam are $4.50 Cdn to $7.00
Cdn for 250 ml (Cocksedge, 2002). However, the higher the price the more difficult it is
to sell the jam, and the viability of the operation becomes questionable. The price to
34
achieve sufficient sales for a viable business is around $5.00 Cdn for 250 ml (R. Hallman,
personal communication). The amount of berries needed to produce 250 ml depends on
the recipe and species and can be seen in Table 7.
Species Strawberries Raspberries Elderberries Wild Blueberries
lb of berries per 250 ml jam 0.36 2.8 0.14 0.14
Table 7: Amount of berries needed to produce jams
Source: (H. Macy, personal communication)
A small-scale jam producer in Granville Island Market said that wild blueberries,
blackberries and raspberries are regularly used for jelly and jam (K. De Wolfe, personal
communication). Salmonberry is seldom used because of its high acidity and the amount
of sugar needed to sweeten it, as well it is similar in taste but more expensive to produce
than raspberry. Salal, Oregon grape, and elderberries are not widely used yet, although
they make a good jam (K. De Wolfe, personal communication).
The Wilp Sa Maa’y Harvesting Co-operative is an example of a small-scale,
sustainably harvested, wild berry jam business. The community-based initiative centered
in the Skeena-Bulkkley area of northwestern BC began three years ago. The operation
started to market wild black huckleberry jam sold in glass jars with a distinctive
northwestern art motif on the label (Burton, 2000). The jam is sold in 250 ml jars sold for
$7 per jar (Burton, 1999). The goal was to reach national and international markets with
the product. In a phone interview, Carla Burton said that sales have not increased over
time so the future prospective for the co-operative are uncertain (C. Burton, personal
communication).
BERRIES AT MKRF
The berry species found at MKRF are blackberry, blueberry, huckleberry, salmonberry
thimbleberry and berries from red elderberry, salal and Oregon grape (see Appendix III).
Although the species are abundant in MKRF, over the years, the staff has observed
that the amount and quality of harvestable berries is low. This is because most of the
berry species are growing in the shaded understory in MKRF. In clearcuts salmonberry is
the most abundant species, however the amount of harvestable berries is low and access
35
is difficult. In addition to this there is little demand for this type of jam. Thimbleberry is
also abundant but has the same taste characteristics as salmonberry and is thus not of
interest. Even the blueberries and huckleberries patches, which produce berries in
harvestable amounts are small and widely scattered throughout the forest. There are
several different varieties of blackberries in MKRF, some of which are of excellent
quality although the harvestable amount is very small. Of the other specialty berries salal
and Oregon grape are abundant in the understory but neither is producing berries of
harvestable quality because they are grown in shade. red elderberry is the only species
which is producing berries in large quantities, but the demand for red elderberry is very
small due to its distinctive taste.
There are different possibilities to enhance the berry production. Most berry species
respond to light with higher berry production. Berries can therefore be grown best in an
open environment such as clear-cuts or roadsides or in open fields (USDA, 2001). Berries
can also be grown in Agroforestry settings where berries are planted as a crop.
“Because most wild berry species do well in full or partial sun, a sustainable supply
of wild berries depends on generating a continuous and sustainable supply of young
stands, maintaining wide spacing in old (partially cut) stands or in young (heavily
thinned) stands, or reintroducing prescribed burns to maintain traditional berry patches
off the timber harvesting land base (Burton, 2000).
EVALUATION
The key factors for profitable berry production are high abundance of good quality
berries species with market interest, and good market access. At MKRF the accessible
markets are LLC and potentially niche markets in nearby Vancouver. The kitchen and
equipment at LLC are already established and if health regulations are approved jelly and
jam could be produced on site and sold to the LLC guests. Currently though even with
this possibility of creating its own market, the amount of harvestable berries in MKRF is
to small to start a business in berry picking or jam/jelly production.
The Wilp Sa Maa’y berry cooperative example shows that it is very difficult to have
a viable business based on jam and jelly production even though they are located in an
area with high harvestable amounts of quality berries. A berry production for MKRF is
therefore only potentially possible if the amount of harvestable berries from selected
36
species is increased. From the forest, salal, Oregon grape and red elderberry are not in as
high demand as jam from other berries. A more common practice to produce berries is in
the open. Huckleberry and blueberry take a few years until they reach full production
(Oregon State University, 2000). Blackberries may be a viable option if planted in a
commercial setting (e.g. on RoW). They grow quickly, produce a large amount of berries
which are easy to pick and transport, they make an excellent jam and are widely liked by
the public (Small-Woodlands-Program-BC, 2001). Because the market for blackberries is
competitive, finding a tasty wild species is essential. As previously mentioned, LLC
would provide a good entrance into the market. Although blackberry jam is an option it
has to be evaluated first how much the establishment of a blackberry production area
would cost and how high the cost for the jam production would be. Because of the high
market competition with commercial berry farms in the Lower Mainland it is doubtful
that blackberry jam from MKRF could compete.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to the low abundance of berries at MKRF berry harvesting and jam/jelly production
is not an option for MKRF. The educational value as well as the research needs are low.
5.2.3.2 Syrup
Maple syrup is one of Canada’s most famous food products. It is produced on a
commercial scale from sugar maple (Acer saccharum) in Eastern Canada. This tree
species does not exist on the west coast but there have been examples where the native
big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) has been tapped successfully for syrup production. It
was mentioned that vine maple (Acer circinatum), might also be suitable for syrup
production but no information on success was found. Maple syrup can be tapped from
trees in early spring when there are cool nights and clear sunny days. That temperature
range is a critical factor and necessary for the syrup to have the right sugar content and
flow so that tapping is possible. The temperature of the bark is more important than the
air temperature, so direct sunshine on the bark can compensate for insufficient air
temperature difference. This has to be sampled in the area of interest prior to production
set up.
37
The maple trees have to be at least 30 cm in diameter to be suitable for tapping. The
sap consists of up to 90% water and is reduced to syrup through boiling (H. Macy,
personal communication). Approximately 40 L of maple sap yield 1 L of maple syrup.
Syrup can also be produced from birch sap but the yield is less than from maple sap
approximately 100 L of birch sap yields 1 L of birch syrup. The temperature gap
requirements are the same for birch as for maple.
After the sap has been tapped it has to be boiled to reduce the water content of the
syrup. This production can be accomplished quite easily even over an open fire with a
metal barrel used to hold the sap.
SYRUP AT MKRF
The number of trees suitable for maple syrup production is limited to a few big leaf
maple trees in MKRF. The trees fulfill the diameter requirements and there is a good
chance that the temperature requirements can be met. In order to verify this the
temperature of the bark has to be measured at sap flow time in February or March. The
current number and size of birch trees are not suitable for production. The production
equipment for tree tapping is inexpensive ($58 Cdn for a starter kit) and a pilot project for
production could easily be established (A. Meier, personal communication). The major
part of the cost is labour, which could be reduced if international interns would supervise
the project3. If all the requirements are met maple syrup is easily marketable and could
even be used as a unique gift item from MKRF.
RECOMMENDATION
Because of the small number of trees suitable for the production of maple syrup, the
economic potential of this production is very low. However the educational and
demonstration values are high and it is interesting from a research perspective. This is
because there is little experience in producing syrup from big leaf maple. Currently only
a small demonstration should be considered.
3 MKRF offers internships to international forestry students
38
5.2.3.3 Cultivated Edible Mushrooms
There are a wide variety of mushrooms which are cultivated on a commercial basis and
can also be grown in an Agroforestry setting. The most common species are oyster
(Pleurotus ostreatus) and shiitake (Lentinus edodes) mushrooms.
These species can be cultivated on logs, sawdust or woodchips. The last two are
formed into bales, which are held together using plastic and are usually used in
greenhouse production. Shiitake and oyster mushrooms are sold in Vancouver in farm
markets and grocery stores. The prices for shiitake and oyster mushrooms vary according
to the location and whether or not they are organic ($8 - $15/lb Cdn). Most mushrooms
are produced in greenhouses and the supply is therefore guaranteed throughout the year.
However, consumer demand for mushrooms fluctuates over the year. Most of the
greenhouse producers are marketing their product directly and there is not a large market
for wholesaling shiitake and oyster mushrooms. Of four buyers contacted only one buyer
would be interested in buying mushrooms for $2.75/lb Cdn for oyster and $5.50/lb for
shiitake (J. Nadeau, personal communication).
The process to produce shiitake and oyster mushroom is the same. If logs are used,
oak is preferred, but birch, alder and cottonwood are appropriate as well. The logs are
inoculated with the spores of the mushrooms; this is done by drilling holes in the logs,
filling them with spores and sealing them with wax or cork. The logs then have to rest for
6 to 8 months during which time the fungal mycelium grows and spreads through the log.
During this time the moisture content cannot drop below 35-40% or the fungi will die
(Davis, 1995; Mycosource, 2000; Bratkovich, 2002). The moisture content is thus
monitored measuring the weight of the logs. The oven dry and the fresh weights for
several sample logs are measured and the moisture content is calculated (Davis, 1995).
The logs can either be stacked in a lean-to system where they are leaned against a
structure (see Picture 5) or they can be stacked in a crib system in four rows on top of
each other.
39
Picture 5: Lean to stag system
Source: (Katja Eisbrenner)
The choice of which system to use depends on the space available and the moisture
conditions. The mushroom fruiting is initiated by a water shock treatment in which the
mushrooms are irrigated or soaked in water for 24 to 48 hours. Within a week or two the
mushrooms should start to fruit and can be hand picked over a three-week period. The
mushrooms should be picked every day and sorted according to different grade and size
classes. After harvest the mushroom logs need to rest for about 3 months before the
process can be repeated. The average yearly production from 3 harvests per log is 1-2/lb
mushrooms per log (Mycosource, 2000). Mushroom logs can produce fruit every 3
months for up to 3 years (Davis, 1995).
CULTIVATED MUSHROOMS AT MKRF
In February 2002 a shiitake and oyster mushroom pilot project was initiated at MKRF.
For the project 234 logs of 1.20 m in length were inoculated with the fungal spores. The
following tree species were used: Paper birch (Betula papyrifera), red alder (Alnus rubra)
and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa). In each log 4 rows with 15
holes of 1 cm in diameter and 2.5 cm in height were drilled and filled with 2 cm3 of
shiitake and oyster spores and sealed with wax. For each hole 1.96 cm3 spores were used
and sums up to 117.75 cm3 spores per log. One bag of mushroom spores cost $6 Cdn for
oyster and $10 Cdn for shiitake and is sufficient for approximately 10 logs. To prepare
the mushroom log production yard 219 hours of work were needed to: fell and buck the
40
logs, inoculate the logs, wax, tag, and move the logs, and set up of support trails. The
amount of time spent per log averaged 0.9 hours. At the beginning of the production, the
best methods of drilling, inoculating and waxing the logs was tested and therefore the
time needed for future production might be less. The set-up costs for the complete
mushroom log production yard including spores, wax and labour was $4347, which
averages $18.58 per log.
The mushroom log yard was set up in a 60-year-old western hemlock stand, which
provides enough shade to keep the moisture content of the logs high. Additionally, the
lean-to stack system was used as it is the best way to keep the moisture content at the
same level through the logs.
The oven dry and the fresh weights of 20 sample logs were measured to calculate the
moisture content so as to monitor the logs over the summer. Although the summer of
2002 was very dry, the moisture content never fell below 50% and no additional watering
was necessary. In September, seven month after inoculation, the mushroom logs showed
significant amounts of mycelia at the cut edges, which indicated that they were ready for
the shocking treatment. The logs were watered with sprinklers because of the large size
of the mushroom log yard and access to tap water supply. As recommended in the
literature, the logs were sprinkled for three days to induce fruiting. A week after the
mushroom logs were watered, the first mushrooms started to appear. They were few in
number and grew only on a few logs.
Meanwhile several problems were encountered, which influenced the success. Slugs
began eating the mushrooms (see Picture 7). In order to control the slug problem, beer
traps were set up at ground level and filled with one can of beer each. The success was
limited because although some slugs fell into the traps, there were still numerous slugs
found on the logs. To get information on alternative methods without using pesticides a
newsgroup for organic production was contacted over the Internet. They suggested
putting a ring of coarse lime around the production area because slugs do not like to
crawl over it. This method was not tried because the weather became colder and the slugs
disappeared. It was also observed that some of the logs started to grow mushrooms, other
than shiitake or oyster. Dr. van der Kamp, a professor for Forest Pathology at UBC,
identified the fungi as a form of wood rot. The logs used for the current mushroom log
41
yard were stored for two weeks after logging and before inoculation. According to Prof.
van der Kamp this is enough time for other fungi to colonize the logs and inhibit the
growth of the desired species. He suggested cutting the logs directly before use in order
to prevent invasion of the logs by wood rot (see Picture 6).
Picture 6: Wood rot Picture 7: Oyster mushroom with slug
Source: (Katja Eisbrenner)
Six weeks after the watering, only one fourth of the logs had started to produce
mushrooms. It was unclear why the other logs had not started producing. To find out if
the water shocking with the sprinkler system was insufficient some of the logs were
additionally soaked for 24 hours in barrels filled with water. Three days after soaking the
logs did not show any signs of new mushroom production.
EVALUATION
The competition on the mushroom market is high, especially because of the
commercially grown greenhouse mushrooms. There might be a market for specialty
mushrooms but as mentioned before only one wholesaler was interested in buying the
mushrooms. Many of the shiitake and oyster mushrooms are sold directly to the
42
consumers in Farmers Markets, which would be an option for selling the mushrooms
from MKRF. The best option for MKRF might be to sell to LLC as they have expressed
interest in buying large amounts of mushrooms.
Several regulatory problems must be addressed before selling mushrooms to LLC.
The LLC kitchen is only allowed to buy foods from a certified source. Therefore
according to the Maple Ridge Health Office (MRHO) an independent party must, certify
mushrooms grown in the forest (T. Little, personal communication). This certification
assures that the mushrooms are definitely oyster and shiitake. The Canadian Food and
Health Agency and MRHO were both unaware of anyone who is currently certifying
forest-grown mushrooms. This is a serious problem and until this is accomplished the
mushrooms can only be sold directly to the consumer. This could be done on farm
markets such as the UBC Farm Market, which is held once a week during the summer.
The UBC Farm is interested in producing mushrooms as well so if that takes place this
marketing opportunity would not be a long-term option.
Mushrooms are often sold dried because in this form they are long lasting and easier
to transport. In the dried form they could be sold at LLC because they do not need to be
certified, are easier to store and do not have to be refrigerated. Mushrooms can be dried
in the sun on racks or in a dryer. In both cases the applicability and costs have to be
evaluated. However, based on the current situation, this does not seem to be a viable
option because of the small amount of mushrooms produced.
Through the pilot project the viability of mushroom production can be calculated
with the collected data. Up to date only ½ of the logs produced mushrooms and so far
only approximately 5 lb of mushrooms with commercial quality have been harvested.
The mushroom pilot project has a high value for demonstration and research purposes.
The size of the mushroom log yard is fairly large and offers the opportunity to develop a
market while the production is taking place. The project also highlighted that unexpected
problems occur such as the slug problem or the administrative certification issue, and that
it is important to gather as much information as possible beforehand to prevent a failure
of the operation.
43
RECOMMENDATION
With the current situation, it is not recommended to extend the production until it is
learned why some of the logs did not produce and until the market question is solved.
The existing project should be managed and the results documented. The research and
demonstration value of the site are high. Moving some logs closer to one of the trails and
putting up signs explaining the project would increase the demonstration value.
5.2.3.4 Wild Edible Mushrooms
Wild mushroom harvesting is one of BC’s major NTFP sectors. The most important wild
harvested mushroom species are: Pine mushroom (Tricholoma spp.) chanterelles
(Cantharellus spp.), morels (Morchella spp.) and king boletes (Boletus edulis). Wills and
Lipsey (1999) gave some indication of the price ranges in their report and suggested that
pine mushrooms are the most valuable with retail prices between $35/kg Cdn and $95/kg
Cdn. An average harvest for pine mushroom yields 392,000 kg per year which can drop
to 250,000 in a bad mushroom year in BC (Wills and Lipsey, 1999). The majority of the
Pine mushrooms are exported to Japan where B.C. and the Pacific Northwest account for
approximately 16% of the annual pine mushroom market. In an average year 750,000 kg
of chanterelles are harvested in BC, for which the pickers receive between $2.00-$4.00/lb
and are sold for $10.00-$15.00/lb Cdn at the export level. In a good fruiting year, around
100,000 kg of fresh boletes are harvested in BC. The pickers are paid $2.50/lb and
exporters receive $8.00-$10.00/lb US. The morel harvest is estimated at 225,000 kg/year
in BC and the Yukon, but the numbers can vary drastically between the years. The
average price the picker receives is around $3.00/lb Cdn where the exporters are paid
between $18.00-$22.00/lb Cdn. Of sixteen companies identified that export wild
mushrooms, seven are covering 90% of the pine export to Japan. The collective before
tax revenues of these seven companies from pine and other mushrooms are estimated
between $ 40-$45 million (Wills and Lipsey, 1999).
Three of the major wild-harvested mushrooms species (pine mushrooms, boletes and
chanterelles), are ectomycorrhizal fungi, which grow in a mutualistic symbiosis with a
plant partner (Draeseke, 1998). The mycelia create an underground network linked to
plant roots where water, nutrients and C are exchanged between fungi and trees. This
symbiosis with forest trees makes it very difficult, time consuming and expensive to
44
cultivate the mushrooms in commercial settings (Amaranthus et al., 1998). The wild
mushroom yield changes annually and is very hard to predict. The yield depends mainly
on the weather conditions especially when and how much it rains. The mushrooms are
very different in their requirements so for example a bad year for chanterelle does not
indicate a bad year for morels.
WILD EDIBLE MUSHROOMS AT MKRF
Currently there is no knowledge on the existing mushroom species in the forest and their
abundance. However according to mushroom pickers, there are a large variety of edible
mushrooms growing in MKRF including boletes and chanterelles. Pine mushrooms are
usually found in higher elevations of 1500m to 1800m above sea level and have not been
seen at MKRF in the past. Since the amount of mushrooms varies annually, a detailed
inventory would be necessary to identify the potential for wild harvesting in MKRF.
Based on current knowledge, the most desirable species are of low abundance in MKRF
and wild mushrooms harvesting would be very cost intensive and not viable. Currently no
harvesting of mushrooms is allowed at MKRF. Although it might be possible to issue
permits, this option would involve administrative work and monitoring of the permits.
Mushroom harvesting can have a negative impact on the ecosystem if wrong harvesting
techniques are used (Atwood, 1998). Additionally the issue of liability would have to be
clarified so that MKRF would not be held accountable if people pick the wrong
mushrooms and get sick.
If inoculation and cultivation of wild mushroom species becomes possible, wild
mushroom production could be considered. On the other hand the prices for wild
mushrooms are fairly high because of their scarcity and the difficulty in cultivating them.
As soon as commercial growing is possible the prices, will most likely decrease.
RECOMMENDATION
The management of wild edible mushrooms is not recommended because of regulatory
and ecological issues.
5.2.3.5 Trout
Aquaculture generates $63 million a year in GDP and is an important part of BC's
industry (Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, 2002). Trout farming is done
45
commercially in trout farms and in lakes. An aquaculture license has to be obtained from
the government before starting trout production. The market for trout is competitive in
the lower mainland and saturated on the wholesale side (S. Shut, personal
communication). However there is the possibility for establishing niche markets such as
high quality trout for local restaurants (S. Shut, personal communication). Trout are easy
to breed if under the right conditions, which include cold water and a good water flow in
the lake for oxygen supply. Trout farming is usually done in cages in a particular area of
the lake to keep the influence on the lake as low as possible. It is also possible to release
the trout into the lake but that option is more strictly regulated because of ecological
concerns.
TROUT AT MKRF
There are 18 lakes in MKRF of which at least 3 would be suitable for trout production.
The lakes are fed from the water in the mountains with low temperatures and are
therefore suitable for trout. The water flow is also sufficient.
The MKRF is on private land but that does not include the bottom of the lakes. The
bottom of the lakes is Crown land and it is more difficult to obtain a license. If trout
farming was to be established at MKRF, they would have to obtain a tenure license for
the lakes by the Ministry of Land and Water BC and an aquaculture license by the
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fish. The easiest way to get the tenure license would
be to apply for lake improvement where the improvement would be net cages for trout
farming. The Ministry of Land and Water BC would then require an assessment and
analysis of the lakes including an aquaculture management plan (including water quality,
maps, resource users, cage form and size). Since the land surrounding the lake is private
land owned by MKRF, the granting of the license should not be a problem. The Ministry
of Land and Water BC would verify the plan and consult with other agencies including
the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fish. If every consulted agency accepts the plan the
lake tenure license and the aquaculture license would be issued. The cost for the tenure
would be around $2000 Cdn and around $1000 Cdn for the aquaculture license per year.
In all the lakes which would be suitable for trout production, long-term research
projects are being conducted and trout farming would interfere with these projects (J.
Richardson, personal communication). The only lake where no research project is
46
established is Goose Lake which is on the border of MKRF private land and the Woodlot
License 037 which is Crown Land operated by MKRF.
Trout farming would be an interesting long-term project for MKRF. The marketing
possibilities with LLC and the proximity to Vancouver are excellent. Niche markets for
trout could be found in restaurants that prefer locally-grown over mass-produced trout.
However because of the long term research projects in the lakes trout farming is not an
option for MKRF (J. Richardson, personal communication).
Under the current conditions Goose Lake would be the only option for trout farming.
Because it is not entirely on MKRF private land, more restrictions apply, making it more
difficult to obtain a license.
The assessment plan, which is required to obtain the tenure and aquaculture license,
requires a lot of detailed information. For the most part these data are available from
current sources such as maps. However it would still take some time and money to gather
and compile the information. The aquaculture management plan would require a detailed
layout of the management. Such a plan would be necessary regardless in order to
determine the viability of a production. According to Steve Shut, the process of getting a
license would take between one and two years, which makes the trout farming option a
long-term project, requiring a lot of time before the actual returns are seen. The
advantage of trout farming over other NTFPs is the stability of the market. Trout as a
food product has an established market, which once accessed provides a continuous
demand for the product. Trout could also be sold to LLC and to local markets.
RECOMMENDATION
Trout farming should be considered as a NTFP option because of the potential to provide
MKRF with long-term economic benefits. However the priority of the pre-existing
research projects excludes this project from further consideration. If research objectives
change over time, trout farming could be considered.
5.2.3.6 Wasabi
Wasabi (Wasabi japonica) (see Picture 8) is also called Japanese horseradish and plays
an important role in the Japanese diet where it is eaten with raw fish. Japanese food is
very popular in Vancouver and there is a specialty market for fresh Wasabi since it only
47
lasts a few days. Wasabi is native to Japan where it grows on the wet banks of mountain
streams (Chadwick et al., 1993). There are a few producers of Wasabi in the Lower
Mainland and on Vancouver Island where Wasabi is free grown in a forest setting or in
an controlled environment under shade cover. Wasabi is very susceptible to fungal and
bacterial pathogens which damage the plants and the leaves. Pesticides are one way to
control this problem.
Picture 8:Wasabi plant
Source: (Ball, 2002)
WASABI AT MKRF
MKRF has many suitable streams for Wasabi production. Nevertheless Wasabi is not an
option for MKRF because of the intensive management required to grow a good quality
crop. This includes the pest management and frequent supervision of the production. As
well, in order to establish a production, new plants would have to be imported from Japan
to reduce the risk of pest infection. However the risk of the pathogens spreading from
other productions would still remain high (R. Hallman, personal communication).
RECOMMENDATION
The production of Wasabi at MKRF is not an option because of the intensive
management and the high risk of pathogens.
5.2.4 Craft Products
Craft products are part of the handicraft market which was approximated at $600 US
million in 1996 in the US (Chamberlain et al., 1998). The NTFPs in this market are
diverse and used in decoration and basketry, among other crafts. This diversity makes it
difficult to identify the amount and types of NTFPs in the craft industry, and little
information is available. Basket making is one of the craft sectors for which NTFPs are
48
used. Cedar bark is of high importance traditionally for First Nations in the Pacific
Northwest including the local band Katzie and is abundant in the region. It was therefore
of interest to identify the market for cedar bark. Through the Internet basket makers were
contacted and about the source of bark, how much they pay and if they see a market for
this material. The response was that the majority of basket makers are gathering the bark
and other materials they use for baskets themselves, as the harvesting is seen as part of
the process of basket making (L. Vaun Scobie, personal communication). As well,
producing cedar bark is very time consuming and therefore very expensive to buy.
Basketry is usually done on a small scale and the producers do not need a lot of material.
It is therefore possible for them to produce it themselves or buy it from small-scale
operations of which some exist in Alaska (C. Kaeding, personal communication). For the
hobbyist, basket-making kits are available which can be bought for $59.95 including the
instructions and the bark.
Picture 9: Cedar basket
Source: (Katja Eisbrenner)
CRAFT PRODUCTS AT MKRF
Cedar is one of the main tree species in MKRF and is logged on a regular basis, thus a
supply of cedar bark is guaranteed. The process to produce cedar bark is very time
consuming. The bark is traditionally stripped from a standing tree one or two hands wide.
49
For large-scale production it could be harvested from logged trees if it was timed
accordingly. After the stripping, the outer bark has to be separated from the inner bark
this is done by hand because adjustments are necessary during the process to produce
even and long strips. After the bark has been separated it has to be stored for one year
until it can be used for further processing (M. Leon, personal communication). As
described by the basket makers, bark harvesting is part of the experience of basket
making.
The experience of creating the final product also plays an important role in crafting.
Therefore there is a possibility of NTFPs, creating a value-added product in which the
experience is the main product. This could be accomplished through different craft such
as ‘how to make a cedar basket’ or ‘how to make a Christmas wreath’. Depending on the
topic the workshops could be offered in conjunction with the Katzie First Nation band,
who have expressed interest in such ventures.
The Katzie band is applying for the management of Golden Ears Provincial Park
(GEPP), which boarders the Northeast side of MKRF. Part of their management strategy
for the GEPP is to offer workshops for the camp visitors on First Nations arts and crafts.
For these workshops material is needed which cannot be harvested from GEPP. The
Katzie would be interested in getting a harvesting license at MKRF for cedar bark and
other material. Because of the proximity of GEEP to MKRF it would be possible to set
up a demonstration site at MKRF showing how cedar bark is traditionally harvested. The
demonstration site should include some stripped trees, as well as signs explaining the
harvesting process. A demonstration site would fulfill different aspects of MKRFs
education objective, such as making people aware of NTFPs, their use and history and an
explanation of First Nations traditions. The Katzie would also be interested in offering
workshops on First Nations traditions including basketry to guests at LLC (see also
Chapter 5.2.7).
RECOMMENDATION
Because of the large labour inputs required and the low demand for cedar bark
harvesting, is not an option for MKRF. Workshops however may be an opportunity to
generate profit and partnerships with the Katzie. If the Katzie do manage GEPP,
harvesting licenses for cedar bark at MKRF should be negotiated. A demonstration site
50
for cedar bark harvesting would be of benefit for MKRF and should be established as
soon as possible.
5.2.5 Medicinals and Pharmaceuticals
5.2.5.1 Medicinal Plants
There are a variety of NTFPs with medicinal qualities. The structure of the international
market plays an important role for medicinal plants in BC and a short overview is
therefore provided.
The world market for herbal medicines has grown 9 percent over the past five years,
after slower growth in previous years (Nystedt, 2001). In 1999, Europe had the largest
market, with 38% of the total, or $6.69 billion US. The United States came in second
with purchases of $4.07 billion US, while Asia outside of Japan took third with $3.2
billion US (Nystedt, 2001). It is remarkable that Germany’s per capita consumption of
herbal medicines is about ten times higher than of any other European country. Germany
comprises half of the European phytomedicines market and some of the main
phytomedicine companies in Germany are 120 years old (Wills and Lipsey, 1999).
Although the market for herbal medicines in BC is smaller, it is continuously
growing. Herbal product sales in BC amount to $270 - $358 million Cdn in 1997 (Vitins,
1998). The yearly market growth in BC is between 2-10% for medicinal and aromatic
crops (Gunner, 1998).
Many different terms are used to describe medicines containing medicinal plant
extracts, including Herbal medicines, Phytomedicines, Pharmaceuticals and
Nutraceuticals. Medicinal plants are used in different forms and the industry consists of
different sectors. This report distinguishes between two market sectors.
One section of the industry sells the crude product directly to the customer and can
be seen as a niche market. This part of the industry is characterized by small firms
dealing with a large variety of medicinal plants, but in small quantities.
The other larger section of the industry uses different plants and extracts to produce
products on a commercial basis. This industry is characterized by the use of the most
popular and well-researched plants, and sells in large quantities. For example, BC Herbal
product manufacturers have product lines based on the most popular products on the
51
European market (Wills and Lipsey, 1999). These products are based on traditional
medicines in Europe and therefore do not include many native BC plants. The native
plants used are St. John’s Wort (Hypericum perforatum), Devil’s club (Oplopanax
horridum) and Oregon grape. Between 1994 and 1997 the harvest increased from 10,000
lbs to 100,000-150,000 lbs of St. John’s wort and from 4,000 lbs to 20,000 lbs of Oregon
Grape (Wills and Lipsey, 1999). The prices paid by brokers in July 1998 for St. John’s
Wort were around $ 4.00-$5.00/lb US and dried Oregon grape $1.40-$1.80/lb US (Wills
and Lipsey, 1999).
Medicinal plants can be wild-crafted or commercially grown. Due to the high
demand especially from China, they have been grown in commercial settings since early
this century (Teel and Buck, 2002). The most common form is growing under shade
cover but Agroforestry settings, where the plants grow free under trees, are used as well.
Among the most common species are goldenseal and the Eastern Canada native North
American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) (E Natural Health Center, 2002). Ginseng in
particular has been cultivated in the forest and farmed in commercial settings in BC due
to the possibility of very high prices. However, North American ginseng is very
susceptible to fungi, which propagate easily under wet conditions. It was therefore not
suitable for growing on the coast. Prices paid for wild-harvested plants are higher than for
commercially shade-grown plants, duet to the differences in the concentration of the
active ingredient. This is especially valid for traditional Asian medicines in which the
plant has a spiritual component and wild plants are said to have more ‘power’ than
commercially grown (Taylor, 2002). It is also more expensive to harvest wild plants and
this is also reflected in the price. For example North American ginseng grown under
shade cover achieves prices of around $20.00/lb Cdn whereas wild grown North
American ginseng achieves prices around $150.00 to $200.00/lb Cdn (R. Hallman,
personal communication).
OVERHARVESTING AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
There are currently no harvesting regulations for wild plants in BC. Therefore the
pressure on the wild plant population can be intense and often populations are severely
damaged. For example, in BC, Cascara (Rhamnus purshiana) and Yew (Taxus
brevifolia), were both harvested earlier this century for the medicinal ingredients in their
52
barks (Turner, 2001b). Sometimes this problem can be overcome by commercially
growing plants, but this not always possible for several reasons. Firstly, it takes a long
time to grow tress with sufficient bark to produce sufficient quantities of the chemical
ingredients. Secondly, the beliefs associated with the effects of wild-grown plants are
integral to Chinese Medicines. Ecologically the most effective way to reduce the pressure
on the wild plants is to chemically synthesize the active ingredient. This option depends
on technical and commercial feasibility, but does not address the aforementioned
concerns for the Asian medicinal demand.
In First Nations and Indigenous cultures all over the world the knowledge of wild
plants used as medicinals is very high. Only a few plants have been recognized by the
medicinal industry and are commercially used. Many native BC forest plants have been
used by First Nations as medicine since time immemorial are of high medicinal value and
have the potential for commercialization. However the issue of intellectual property
rights remains unresolved (Turner, 2001a; Turner, 2001b). Traditional medicines are seen
as sacred gifts and many First Nations do not like the idea of selling them (Turner,
2001a). These problems have to be considered when new medicinal plants are developed
in BC. One way to overcome the issue of property rights could be through encouraging
First Nations enterprises and marketing First Nations medicines with First Nations labels
as a marketing tool. This option could also be interesting option for joint venture projects,
and offers the possibility for First Nations to maintain control over the resources and their
knowledge (J. Free, personal communication).
MARKET
In the literature the most valuable plants for phytomedicines grown commercially in BC
in 1998 were identified as: Echinacea, (Echinacea angustifolium), goldenseal, St. John’s
wort, North American ginseng and valerian (Valeriana alliariifolia) (Vitins, 1998). These
plants are also given the best future prognosis. For wildcrafting the “best economic bets”
were said to be: St. John’s wort, Oregon grape and Devil’s club (Wills and Lipsey, 1999).
Wild-harvested Oregon grape in particular has a good prognosis because of its berberin
content and the scarcity of wild harvestable goldenseal (A. McCutchen, personal
communication). The main ingredient for which goldenseal is harvested is berberin,
53
which can also be found in Oregon Grape root, stems and rhizomes although in 1/5 the
concentration of goldenseal (A. McCutchen, personal communication).
The market research was focused on the plants with growth potential in MKRF and
identified market potential through the literature review and researchers’ opinion: Devil’s
club and Oregon grape (Vitins, 1998; Wills and Lipsey, 1999) (A. McCutchen, personal
communication, R. Hallman, personal communication). Twenty-two companies using
medicinal plants in their products were contacted by phone to determine their current
demand for Oregon grape and Devil’s club. Of the 22 companies 18 were interviewed.
They were asked for their opinion on the current market situation for wild-harvested
medicinals and which other forest grown products they use.
The interest in Oregon grape and Devil’s club was very low. Only three of the
companies interviewed are buying theses plants (one company between 50 and 100/lb per
year the other two between 5 and 10 lb per year). The crude product cut and dried is sold
for $6.50/lb Cdn to $25/lb Cdn for Oregon grape and $30/lb for Devil’s club. Of the BC-
grown plants, North American ginseng, goldenseal and St. John’s wort were mentioned
most often. This was consistent with the plants listed in the literature as the most
commonly used. The low interest in Devil’s club and Oregon grape was explained by
insufficient knowledge of the active ingredients of the plants and low demand from
consumers. Identifying the medicinal active ingredients and their effects is a long and
expensive process due to the very restrictive regulatory climate including the difficulty in
patent protection (Gunner, 1998). Therefore companies only invested money in plants
with extremely high market potential, which has not yet been identified for Oregon grape
and Devil’s club. However the market for wild harvested medicinal plants was
characterized as changing monthly and hard to predict.
Two of the three companies who currently buy Oregon grape and Devil’s club are
specialized in dried herbs. They are part of the market section selling directly to the
consumer and part of the niche market. These companies were also interested in buying
other wild-grown plants but only by a couple of pounds per year (Gaia Garden, personal
communication) They also expressed interest in locally-grown organic herbs because of
increasing demand for organically-grown products by the consumers.
54
In terms of quality requirements, medicinal plants are generally sold dried and
ground in all market sectors. Many companies require that the grower test the herbs prior
to purchase for levels of active ingredient, presence of heavy metals and chemical
residues (Gunner, 1998). These test are expensive and represent a barrier to enter the
market for small producers. Other barriers exist such as the restrictive regulatory climate.
For example the Canadian Food and Drugs Act and Regulations prevents advertising
health claims on foods4 (Gunner, 1998). The health claim regulations are currently under
revision but probably will ultimately be even more restrictive than they are currently (S.
Ayer, personal communication). These regulatory issues make new product development
unattractive.
The three main barriers to marketing medicinals in BC are therefore: a restrictive
regulatory climate, expensive clinical trials and the difficulty in obtaining patent
protection (Gunner, 1998).
MEDICINALS AT MKRF
None of the top sellers on the current market such as North American ginseng, goldenseal
and St. John’s Wort are growing naturally in MKRF because they are out of their
ecological range. Only Oregon grape and Devil’s club, which were part of Wills and
Lipsey’s (1999) three “best bets”, are growing in MKRF. Both plants are common in
MKRF. However Oregon grape is concentrated in pockets throughout the forest and it is
not verified that it is abundant enough for harvesting (MKRF staff, personal
communication). The abundance of Devil’s club is higher and the amounts seem to be
sufficient for harvesting. As well, because of its good response to propagation, it would
be possible to increase the abundance of Devil’s club (Lantz, 2001).
4 “ Under the Food and Drug Act, administered by the health Protection Branch of Health Canada, a
health product is classified and regulated as either a “food” or a “drug”. Products, such as pharmaceuticals,
which are marketed for the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease are classified as drugs and are
regulated as such. Natural health products that carry health claims are classified as “drugs” and must carry
either a Drug Identification Number (DIN) or a General Product Number (GP). Some natural health
products used for self medication currently receive DIN or GP numbers based on evidence from traditional
references, published literature or controlled clinical trials” (Health Canada, 1998).
55
The ecological viability of harvesting medicinal plants is important. Oregon grape
and Devil’s club are both harvested for their roots. It is possible to harvest Oregon grape
root with little damage to the plant if only part of the rhizome is harvested and Devil’s
club is as mentioned before easy to propagate (A. McCutchen, personal communication).
In addition to these two plants, there are a numerous other plants with medicinal
characteristics in MKRF of which none are marketed commercially (for examples see
Appendix V). Due to the time required for an inventory and the barriers to entering the
market, no further data was collected from the forest.
AGROFORESTRY OPTION
Besides wild-crafting medicinals, the possibility exists to farm such plants under forest
cover in an Agroforestry setting. However, of the species with high economic value
(Echinacea, goldenseal, St. John’s worth, North American ginseng and valerian) only
goldenseal would grow with high chances of success in MKRF. Allison McCutchen
suggested that a trial with wild-grown goldenseal under forest cover might be interesting,
because of its high value.
PROCESSING
As mentioned previously, the producer of medicinal plants is responsible for drying and
testing the medicinal plants. According to Tim Durance from the UBC Department of
Food, Nutrition and Health, drying plants is not a difficult process. The easiest method of
drying is sun drying. However, due to the unpredictable weather on the coast, this would
not be appropriate for MKRF. The other option is to use a dryer. For trials the dryers at
the Department of Food, Nutrition and Health at UBC could be used. Depending on the
chemical content and sensitivity of the plant the drying time varies among plants (T.
Durance, personal communication). For example North American ginseng needs to be
dried over a couple of weeks at 40° C whereas other plants only need to be dried for
several hours. The lower the drying time the easier it would be to dry the plants at
MKRF.
EVALUATION
Currently only Devil’s club is abundant enough in MKRF for harvesting. Although the
literature review and experts suggested that Devil’s club is one of the best options, the
56
market research indicated very low demand at the moment and future prognoses are hard
to make. Including the other factors such as quality and regulatory requirements, the
production of Devil’s club does not seems to be economically viable at the moment. In
general, sustainable harvesting issues are a big concern for all wild-crafted medicinal
plants and very little research has been done on individual plants. If Devil’s club does
become a “best seller”, the pressure on the wild population will increase accordingly.
Sustainable harvesting research trials with Devil’s club are therefore recommended. This
project requires funding because it is not economically viable.
As previously discussed with cedar bark, medicinal plants also offer the possibilities
for workshops. Since First Nations bands traditionally use many of the forest plants,
workshop on the traditional use of medicinal plants could be offered in co-operation with
the Katzie band. Workshops have a high education value and could also be offered at
LLC.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to the high barriers and regulations to enter the market, the low market demand and
the low availability of medicinal plants at MKRF, marketing of medicinal plants is not
recommended for MKRF. However the option for workshops on medicinal plants should
be further investigated.
5.2.5.2 Medicinal Mushrooms
The world market for medicinal and nutraceutical mushrooms may be as high as $1.3
billion US/year with most of the use and production in Asia (Wills and Lipsey, 1999).
Some of the species used as medicinal mushrooms are native to BC such as Trametes
versicolor, Fomitopsis pinicola, Shizophyllum commune. The prices for these mushrooms
are high, for example Trametes versicolor used in Japan to suppress the spread of tumour
sells dry in Osaka for $1,500 - $2000 US/kg (Wills and Lipsey, 1999). Since the markets
for medicinal mushrooms are in Asia they are not easy accessible and little information is
available at the moment. Most medicinal mushrooms are exported as dried unprocessed
material and therefore BC Health Regulations are not applicable. Wills and Lipsey
(1999) identified more than 20 economically valuable medicinal mushroom species
57
native to BC. Therefore the options of wild-crafting or cultivation exist, but not much
information on medicinal mushroom cultivation is available.
MEDICINAL MUSHROOMS AT MKRF
There is no information available on the existence and abundance of medicinal
mushrooms in MKRF. Because of their high value medicinal mushrooms are an
interesting production option. However the markets in Asia are difficult to access and
before any inventory or other production methods are taken into consideration more
information on how to access the market is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to the lack of information, medicinal mushroom production is currently not an option
for MKRF. Further investigation of this NTFP should be considered because of the high
market value.
5.2.6 Miscellaneous NTFPs
5.2.6.1 Cedar Leaf Oil
Cedar leaf oil is a volatile oil derived from cedar foliage. The other oil derived from
cedar is wood oil. Cedar leaf oil is significantly different in its chemical components and
properties from cedar wood oil. Cedar leaf oil can be extracted from eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) and western red cedar
(Thuja plicata).
The cedar leaf oil industry has a long history dating back over 100 years and was
very popular in Canada in the 1950s (Ciesla, 1998). On the East coast mainly eastern
white cedar is used to produce cedar leaf oil, while western red cedar is used on the West
coast. Most available papers on the western red cedar leaf oil industry in BC were written
in the 1950s (Dominion Forest Services, 1949; Ottawa Laboratory, 1949). Because little
has changed in the extraction process, these papers are still valid today, although the
industry and market information are not up-to-date.
The primary markets for essential oils are the flavor and fragrance industries as well
as cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries. These commercial markets require reliable
supplies of consistently high quality, competitively priced products (Dey, 1996). The
58
most common use of cedar leaf oil is in room sprays, insecticides and in medicines such
as cold remedy salves (Forintek and Halvorson Consultants, 1982; Ciesla, 1998).
Forintek and Halvorson Consultants, for the Science Council of B.C conducted the
only marketing study on western red cedar oil in 1982. There was very low demand at
that time for western red cedar oil and eastern white cedar oil had an existing market on
the east cost and so was a competitor. Besides the low demand, the authors questioned
whether the achievable prices could cover the production costs (Forintek and Halvorson
Consultants, 1982).
Prior to the market research, Dr. D. Jones from Xylon Biotechnologies Ltd., an
expert on cedar extracts was interviewed to find out about his opinion on cedar leaf oil
production at MKRF. Dr. Jones said that the production of cedar leaf oil is not very
difficult and the production at MKRF was easily possible. He raised concerns in regard to
the market situation. According to his information, the demand for western red cedar leaf
oil is very low and a buyer needs to be identified prior to production. However, he said
that there are possible markets, for example he heard from a cedar leaf oil producer on
Vancouver Island that they discovered a market in Asia for western red cedar leaf oil.
The market research following the interview did not provide satisfying results. One
producer in the Lower Mainland and one on Vancouver Island were identified, but it was
not possible to get any information on these businesses. For the market information four
essential oil buyers were contacted but nobody responded. Daris La Pointe and Kari
Doyle, who are evaluating the opportunity for western red cedar leaf oil in a university
project mentioned in an interview that they experienced similar problems (K. Doyle and
D. La Pointe, personal communication). In addition to no interest of the companies using
essential oils, cedar leaf oil was not found as a product on the market. One of the main
uses for essential oils is aromatherapy but cedar leaf oil is not used for this purpose. Dr.
Stephen Ayer, a Wood Chemist with Forintek, explained that the main chemical
component of cedar leaf oil is leaf thujone. This chemical substance has hallucinogenic
properties. The thujone in cedar leaf oil has a similar chemical composition as the thujone
in wormwood oil from which absinth is made. Dr. Ayer mentioned that the thujone could
cause allergic and epileptic reactions. Therefore the use of cedar leaf oil in aromatherapy
59
is questionable. To market the western red cedar leaf oil other markets besides
aromatherapy have to be found.
THE PRODUCTION PROCESS
Essential oils can be extracted in different ways depending on the desired quality. For
cedar leaf oil, steam distillation is still used and is a simple yet effective process. “Steam
distillation, as its is commonly used, involves passing steam upward through plant
material to volatilise the essential oils present. Mixed steam and oil vapors pass together
through a cooling apparatus where the vapors are condensed to liquids. As the
condensates collect in the receiving vessel, the lighter oil forms a layer over the water and
can be removed easily” (Bailey, 1948).
The collection of cedar foliage is very labour intensive, and along with transportation
accounts for up to 75% of the total production cost (Bailey, 1948). Cedar foliage is bulky
material, and hence takes up a lot of volume and is difficult to transport. Therefore stills
that can be moved to the production site have been developed, cutting down on the
transportation costs
Similar to the harvesting of cedar boughs the foliage can either be collected from a
logging operation or from standing trees. In a logging operation the cedar foliage can
either be gathered from logged trees on the logging site, or the treetops can be pulled out
by the loggers and stored on the log yard. The other option is to prune standing trees.
Bailey (1948) conducted some tests on cedar leaf foliage collection, from 35 cm dbh
Eastern red cedar in Tennessee. They collected 216 lb per man-hour when hand pruning
the easily accessible material after logging (Bailey, 1948). When all tree top material was
harvested, 176 lb could be gathered per man-hour peripheral trimming of full tree crowns
gave 150 lb where pruning of lower branches gave only 45 lb - 105 lb per man-hour (see
Table 8). Although the collection was done for a different species, the foliage collection
should not differ much.
60
Method lb of foliage per man-hour
Hand pruning easy accessible material after logging 176
Harvesting all tree top material 150
Pruning of lower branches 45-105
Table 8:Foliage harvesting of Eastern red cedar with 35 cm dbh in Tennessee
Source: (Bailey, 1948)
Because cedar leaf oil is volatile, the timing of the operation is very important to attain
good yields. If the foliage from a logging operation is used, it should be collected within
a week of logging (D. Jones, personal communication). The time frame can be extended
up to six weeks with cold and wet weather conditions (Dominion Forest Services, 1949).
After the foliage has been collected it needs to be cut in order to efficiently charge
the still most. This can be done with a wood chipper.
In Figure 1 one possible model of a still can be seen. The still consists of a tank (A),
condenser (B), and receiver (C). The tank is built so the foliage can be loaded easily and
has a water tank at the bottom where the steam is produced. The steam goes from the
bottom of the tank through the foliage the oil vaporizes with the water and is led through
a pipe into the condenser. This pipe is cooled with water the steam condensates and
separates into oil and water, collected in the receiver.
Figure 1: Model of cedar leaf distill
Source: (Rizer, 2002)
61
For detailed information on how to build a still see (Dominion Forest Services, 1949;
Harris, 2002; Rizer, 2002). The cost of building a distiller such as described above is
around $5000 Cdn, but and can go up to 20,000 for a commercial size still (Yesenofski,
1996).
Steam production and water supply are two issues to be considered when running a
still. To produce the steam the water can be heated with wood or with propane. Although
wood is available in the forest, it has a few disadvantages: It takes a lot of time to collect
and cut it, continuous charging is necessary to keep the steam flow constant, and the
smoke produces a lot of pollution. Propane is therefore mostly used because it is cleaner
and easier to manage. The water supply for the cooling and the steam production come
from a creek or river. Because of the oil involved, environmental issues might be of
concern. Most of the water is used for the cooling and does not come in contact with the
oil. The only contamination of the water could happen in the steam process. No literature
was found on the contamination problems with cedar leaf oil production. To assure the
water quality is not affected water testing could be done. In case of contamination a
carbon filter would probably be sufficient for cleaning (D. Jones, personal
communication).
The yield for cedar leaf oil is given in percent per weight. The average yield for
western red cedar foliage ranges between 0.8% and 1.4% through basic steam distillation
(Bailey, 1948; Dominion Forest Services, 1949). There are different opinions as to the
most efficient harvesting time of the year and what type of tree (age, growth pattern)
yields the most oil. Climate zones may have an influence on the harvest time and trials
need to be done in order to find the optimal timing.
CEDAR LEAF OIL AT MKRF
Western red cedar is the tree species of interest for oil production at MKRF. The species
is one of the major tree species in the forest and is very abundant. Because western red
cedar is a valuable wood, logging and thinning operations are carried out frequently in
stands with cedar components.
As discussed before for Christmas greens, besides trees from stands there are also a
large number of cedars along the roadways with a high amount of foliage. It would be
very easy to access these trees and the foliage could be collected much faster than from a
62
forest stand because no transportation would be necessary. If the foliage from a logging
or thinning operation is used it is necessary to develop a harvesting plan in accordance
with the cedar leaf oil operation. The time of year when the yield for the oil is the highest
must be considered along with the order of the logging so the foliage can be harvested
before it dries out.
Although no trials have been carried out, cedar leaf oil from the production
standpoint seems to be an option. An operating business in the area with similar forest
types and the information from Dr. Jones support this assumption. The supply of cedar
foliage is sufficient for production and the trees along the railway grade seem to be an
excellent source of foliage. A capital investment with around $5000 Cdn for a small still
could probably be covered through funding for research projects. The operational side of
the business is more of a concern. Cedar leaf oil production is very labor intensive and
the current MKRF staff cannot run the still. The detailed business plan would have to
prove that the still is self-sustainable and will cover for the labor cost. The other option
would be to find somebody interested in running a still at MKRF under contract. Based
on the current knowledge of the market it is not possible to say whether or not western
red cedar leaf oil has market potential. No demand from buyers for western red cedar
could be identified, but existing operations show that there is some demand for the
product and it was discovered that possible markets exist in Asia.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the excellent production situation and access to material in MKRF the unclear
market situation should be further investigated prior to any production trials. If the
market results are positive sample yields and trials of the different harvesting methods
described previously and sample yields should be conducted.
5.2.6.2 Firewood
Firewood is a typical product produced by people with a small woodlot or a large back
yard, and sold from their homes. Firewood is marketed at campsites and to home owners
with fireplaces. In rural areas houses with fireplaces are more common and the owners
usually have their own supply of firewood. The regulations for fireplaces in new houses
are high and therefore fireplaces are often replaced with gas. The market for firewood is
63
probably not going to increase and the current demand can be covered by the current
supply.
FIREWOOD AT MKRF
The supply for firewood material in MKRF is large, but the process of gathering,
splitting, transporting and storing it is time intensive. Before the wood can be sold it has
to be stored in a dry location. To reduce transportation and associated cost this area
should be close to where it will be sold. This would be near to the office, it would be easy
to access it, but the risk of it being stolen would increase at the same time. Besides the
high production cost, the marketing is time consuming as well and MKRF staff does not
have time to do this.
Another option is to sell licenses for firewood harvesting. However this solution
raises other concerns especially that of control. Harvesting firewood requires machinery
and driving on forest roads, which creates a security problem. Licenses would therefore
only be an option if issued to one or two people thus making it easier to control. If the
Katzie band managed the GEPP for example they might be interested in supplying their
campsite with firewood. In this case it might be an interesting option to issue a license to
the Katzie.
RECOMMENDATION
The high production cost for MKRF to produce firewood, and the regulatory and security
concerns for licenses, make firewood an non viable option for MKRF.
5.2.6.3 Mushroom Logs
Besides the production of the mushrooms on logs, there is also the possibility to sell
ready-to-fruit mushroom logs. There are two types of logs that could be sold, one for
indoor use and one for the out door use. The mushroom logs for indoor use come with
attractive soaking trays between 35 and 50 cm in length which are sold for $37 - $42 US
(Mimi Mart, 2002). They are also available in larger sizes up to 1.20 m for use in yards.
MUSHROOM LOGS AT MKRF
Mushroom logs are a value-added product and have a bigger revenue margin than the raw
product of selling mushrooms. The experience and data from the mushroom cultivation at
MKRF provides valuable information regarding the production of mushroom logs for
64
retail. The cost of production for a log about 120 cm long was approximately 18$ Cdn.
The estimated price one could get for a log this size would be around 50$ Cdn if sold
directly from MKRF. Economically this option seems feasible if there is demand for the
product. An attractive item would be small logs that could be sold, for example as a
specialty gift item. There are several locations in Vancouver where it could be sold, for
example on Granville Island. There is also the potential to sell large mushroom logs
directly from MKRF or in cooperation with a large wholesaler.
Some problems are associated with the production of mushroom logs. One of the
major risks is whether the logs would actually produce mushrooms. This risk is quite
high as can be seen in MKRF cultivation, where a large number of logs have not yet
produced any mushrooms. Of the two cultivated mushrooms species (shiitake and
oyster), only the oyster logs have produced mushrooms so far. The reason for this has not
been identified yet. If mushroom logs are sold on the market, their fruiting has to be
guaranteed, and so more trials would have to bee conducted. Another issue is the
moisture content of the logs. The production process from the inoculation of the spores to
the first fruiting includes a 6-month rest period of the logs (for details see Chapter
5.2.3.3). During that period of time the moisture content of the logs cannot fall below a
certain percentage or the spores will dry out. It is not in the interest of the customer to
wait 6-months until one can harvest the mushrooms nor can it be expected from the
customer to control the moisture content because this requires several calculations. The
logs would therefore have to be sold “ready to fruit” after being stored for the 6-month
period at MKRF. They would have to be monitored at MKRF and could be sold as soon
as they are ready for the water shocking. The moisture content of the logs must be
consistently maintained above the critical level. If the logs were sold through a store, they
would have to be wrapped in plastic or other material to ensure that the logs do not lose
water. This would not be necessary if the logs were sold directly from MKRF or at LLC.
RECOMMENDATION
Applied experience about the production of mushrooms on logs is currently being gained
through the trial projects. For the production of mushroom logs more knowledge is
necessary to ensure a high quality log with guaranteed fruiting. If the logs were produced
and stored in the forest some regulatory issues would have to be addressed, because in the
65
current production fungi other than the inoculated mushrooms colonized the logs. Until
these problems are solved and more knowledge is gained, the production of mushroom
logs is not a business option for MKRF. The educational and research value of such
production has been covered in Chapter 5.2.3.3..
5.2.7 Ecotourism
The tourism sector is a growing force in British Columbia's economy. A total of 111,890
people were directly employed by tourism in 2000 and the industry posted an increase of
7.2% (Ministry of Management Services, 2001). One growing sector of the tourism
industry is Ecotourism, which is geared to the traveler who is interested in experiencing
nature and culture. Ecotourism in BC directly employed approx. 13,000 people in 1997
(Wills and Lipsey, 1999). With 605,600 thousands km2 forestland5, Ecotourism in BC is
closely related to forest services (Statistics Canada, 1991) and is therefore considered a
NTFP.
The main idea behind Ecotourism is to sell an experience that is different from
traditional entertainment. In addition to adventure type activities, experiences of the
cultures are of high importance in BC. Different First Nations communities have
developed programs where tourists can learn about their tradition and take part in various
traditional activities. For example Ned's Native Adventure Tours based in the Lillooet
Area, offers traditional dinners, local arts and crafts (Ned's Native Adventure Tours).
The situation at MKRF for Ecotourism is excellent. MKRF is a one-hour drive from
downtown Vancouver and is easily accessible. As described in previous chapters, there
are several NTFPs with high experience value, including: bark stripping, basket making,
Christmas garland and wreaths making as well as mushroom log production. Because of
tourists’ high interest in First Nations’ traditions, the possibility exist to run courses in
cooperation with the Katzie the local First Nations band. The courses could include story
telling, basket making and guided tours on the traditional uses of forest plants. There are
three main target groups for Ecotourism activities at MKRF: local visitors, Vancouver
visitors and LLC visitors. Local people utilize the forest on a regular basis for recreation.
5 Land primarily intended for growing, or currently supporting, forest. Includes productive forest land and reserved forest
land not available by law for production.
66
Interest in the aforementioned courses would have to be assessed. Due to the proximity of
MKRF to Vancouver a one-day course could be offered on weekends and advertised in
Vancouver. The final target group is LLC visitors. Currently the outdoor adventure
company Pinnacle Pursuit offer courses for LLC visitors. A similar partnership with the
courses discussed before could be established with a different partner. Out of the different
possibilities, courses offered at LLC are probably the easiest to establish because the
target group is already on site. The large numbers of school classes visiting LLC may be
particularly interested in these activities during their stay.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ecotourism has high economic potential as well as high educational value. The different
options for Ecotourism at MKRF should therefore be further investigated.
5.2.8 Summary of The NTFP evaluation
Table 9 provides an overview of the assessed NTFPs at MKRF along with their identified
barriers and limitations. Through this assessment 7 NTFPs were discovered with
economic potential at MKRF. In order to identify the “ best bet” for MKRF these NTFPs
were ranked. The results of the ranking are presented in the next chapter.
67
NTFP Concern Limitation Floral Greens
Salal low quality YesFerns no market YesOther Floral Greens no market YesChristmas Trees no market & high risk YesChristmas Greens no educational value NoChristmas Garlands and Wreaths no educational value NoNew Product Development market uncertainty & captial investement No
Landscaping Products Native Plants low transplantablility & not sustainable No
Food ProductsBerries low abundancy YesSyrup (Maple) low abundancy & climate YesCultivated Edible Mushrooms no fruiting YesWild Edible Mushrooms low abundancy YesTrout research conflicts YesWasabi diseases Yes
Craft Products no market Yes
MedicinalsOregon grape no market & low abundancy YesDevil's club no market YesOther Medicinal Plants no market YesMedicinal Mushrooms low abundancy Yes
Miscellaneous Forest ProductsCedar Leaf Oil market uncertainty NoFirewood no market YesMushroom Logs quality constraints Yes
Ecotourism market uncertainty No
Table 9: Summary of limitations
5.3 Ranking
The previously identified NTFPs were now evaluated in two scenarios. In the first
scenario the NTFPs were rated according to their economic potential and in the second
scenario they were rated according to all MKRF objectives.
The final results for the first and second scenario can be seen in Table 10 and in Table 11,
respectively (for details see Appendix VII and VIII).
68
NTFP Rank Total Percentage
Christmas Garlands & Wreaths 1 90.0
Christmas Greens 2 83.5
Ecotourism 3 78.0
New product development (Rhododendron) 4 74.5
Moss 5 67.0
Native Plants (Sword fern) 6 63.0
Cedar Leaf Oil 7 55.5
Table 10: Scenario 1 without education
NTFP Rank Total Percentage
Christmas Garlands & Wreaths 1 76.8
Ecotourism 2 76.4
Christmas Greens 3 75.1
New product development (Rhododendron) 4 65.7
Moss 5 65.4
Native Plants (Sword fern) 6 63.4
Cedar Leaf Oil 7 61.1
Table 11: Scenario 2 including all MKRF objectives
As seen in Table 10 and Table 11 the ranking of the two scenarios is almost the same. In
the first scenario Christmas greens is ranked second and ecotourism third. This is
reversed in the second scenario. The changes in the scores however, are larger. Whereas
in the first scenario the scores range between 55.5% and 90.0% a difference of 35% the
scores in the second scenario vary about 15% between 61.1% and 76.8%. According to
the classification in the first scenario Christmas garlands and wreaths, Ecotourism and
Christmas greens have scores over 75% and are classified as “good”. The other NTFPs
are classified as “satisfactory” (see Table 1 Chapter 4). The classification remains the
same for the second scenario.
69
EVALUATION
The scores in the first scenario clearly show that there are large differences between the
NTFPs according to their economic potential at MKRF. Large differences exist within
the “satisfactory group”. The potential for cedar leaf oil ranked at 55% borders with
poor, while new product development for floral greens is almost good with a ranking of
74.5%.
The second scenario was meant to identify the best NTFP according to all of MKRF
objectives. The ranking has changed minimally; only Ecotourism and Christmas greens
changed places, with a difference of only 1%. Christmas greens have low educational
value but a very good market situation and they therefore lost points. Cedar leaf oil, on
the other hand gained points due to its research value. The results also show that the
value-added Christmas products garlands and wreaths have a higher economic potential
than the raw product in the form of Christmas greens (boughs).
The results of the first scenario show clear differences between the economic
potential of the evaluated NTFPs. The differences in the scores are smaller in the second
scenario and the ranking did not change significantly. Due to the minimal changes and
the high importance of the economic potential the identification of the best NTFPs is
based on the first scenario. However the second scenario is informative and shows how
well the NTFPs meet all the objectives.
The conclusion that can be drawn from these results are that Christmas garlands
and wreaths, Christmas greens and Ecotourism are the “best bets” for MKRF. The other
NTFPs have satisfactory potential but more uncertainties.
6 Final Discussion
There are only three NTFPs with ‘good’ potential at MKRF (Christmas garlands and
wreaths, Christmas greens and Ecotourism). This outcome differs from the expectations
at the beginning of the study when through the literature review floral greens, medicinals
and cedar leaf oil were expected to have highest potential. The findings from the research
can explain this difference. The market for NTFPs is changing rapidly and is defined by
consumer taste and location. The literature was therefore not up to date with the current
market situation and does not accurately describe the opportunities for business
70
development. The expectations were also based on assumptions that could not be verified
through the research such as salal quality. For MKRF the biggest barriers for most
NTFPs are no or low demand on the market, low quality in the forest, regulatory issues,
and sustainability concerns.
The research shows that it is difficult to develop a long-term business in NTFPs that
is based on more than wild-crafting. This is due to the changes in the consumer taste,
which result in unstable and changing markets for NTFPs. The risks of investing in a
business based on an unstable market are high. In addition to this, several regulatory
issues were discovered which also make it more difficult to start. The example of the
mushroom pilot project shows, that it is very important to assess the potential prior to
implementation, in order to reduce the risk of failure. However, even that does not
guarantee a success, because some problems such as the slugs cannot be predicted.
The small number of NTFPs classified as “good” for MKRF is due to the previously
described problems. Based on the ranking system which incorporated all areas of
potential concerns, it was possible to identify the NTFPs with the highest potential and
further development can now be focused on those products.
LIMITATIONS
This study was based on exploratory research and was carried out under a time constraint.
This type of research was chosen because it is less structured and thus leaves room for
intense and flexible interviews and research that provided detailed insights into the
situations of the different NTFPs. However there are some disadvantages with this
method. The sample size of the interviewed people is small and the information collected
is subjective and qualitative. It is therefore possible that important information might
have been missed and this would have an influence on the results. The selection of
possible NTFPs was based on excluding those with major restrictions. However a
successful NTFP business is based on many conditions and it is possible that not all
restrictions were identified in the research. This might result in the suggestions of a
NTFP with potential, which after further evaluation may be identified with an excluding
restriction. The situation for NTFPs on the market changes quickly. It is therefore also
possible that a NTFP which is currently not identified with potential, will achieve
potential with, a changing market situation.
71
The rating method also has some limitations. The information gathered through the
research is only qualitative, the ranking method was an attempt to evaluate the
information quantitatively. As previously mentioned the economic potential depends on
numerous conditions and although the criteria and indicators were chosen to reflect this,
it is possible that some important factors were not included. This same problem exists
with the weighting of the criteria. The weighting was based on the objectives, but
misjudgement of the weighting must be considered. Since the final results are sound with
the individual findings of the NTFPs the chances of misjudgement in weighing appear to
be small. Although these limitations exist, the methods are valid to fulfill the objective of
the research. The results offer a preliminary indication of which NTFPs have the highest
economic potential at MKRF.
The ranking does not substitute a businessplan and does not guarantee the viability.
This has to be carried out individually for each NTFP. As well no detailed inventory
mapping was carried out, which should be conducted prior to any commercial activity to
assess ecological sustainability.
7 Recommendations for MKRF
According to the results the following recommendations are given:
• Christmas garlands and wreaths and Christmas greens are the best NTFP options
with no major limitations identified and should be implemented.
• Ecotourism is a great opportunity for MKRF and this option should be further
evaluated.
• New product development for floral greens has high potential especially at the
RoWs; a detailed businessplan should be developed.
Further action should be taken to promote MKRF as an area to do NTFP research and
demonstration projects as it is located in an area with excellent market access as well as
an ideal area for visitors to benefit from educational endeavors.
72
8 Conclusion
Through researching the market and forest situation with the previously described
methods it was possible to fulfill the objective of identifying NTFPs with economic
potential at MKRF. The ranking under different criteria was useful in discovering viable
NTFP with consideration of the research, education and ecological sustainability
objectives.
73
9 References
Alexander, S., D. Pilz, N. Weber, E. Brown and V. Rockwell (2002a). Mushrooms, Trees, and Money: Value Estimates of Commercial Mushrooms and Timber in the Pacific Northwest. Environmental Management 30: 129 -141. Alexander, S., J. Weigand and K. Blatner (2002b). Nontimber Forest Product Commerce. In Nontimber Forest Products in the United States. Edited by J. Weigand. Kansas, University Press Kansas. Amaranthus, M., W. James and A. Rick (1998). Managing High-Elevation Forests to Produce American Matsutake (Tricholoma magnivelare) High-Quality Timber, and Nontimber Forest Products. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 13: 120-128. Atwood, L. (1998). Botanical Forest Products, Effects upon operational planning. British Columbia, Ministry of Forests, unpublished. Bailey, L. (1948). Leaf Oils From Tennessee Valley Conifers. Journal of Forestry 46: 882-889. Ball, J. (2002). Wasabi Picture [online] Available from http://fourier.haystack.edu/Wasabi.pdf [cited 5 January 2003]. Berch, S. M., A. MacKinnon, T. Ehlers and S. Fredrickson (2000). Non-timber forest product plant and fungal species in the Robson Valley Forest District, In Robson Valley Enhanced Management Pilot Project. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/pgeorge/district/robson/efmpp/research/2001%202002%20Final%20report%20RV%20EFMPP%20NTFP%20revised%202.doc Blatner, K. (1995). Special forest product markets in the Pacific Northwest with global implications. In Special forest products—biodiversity meets the marketplace., Corvallis, Oregon. Edited by J. Thomas, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr63/gtrwo63c.pdf Blatner, K. and S. Alexander (1998). Recent price trends for non-timber forest products in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Products Journal 48: 28-34. Bratkovich, S. (2002). Shiitake Mushroom Production [online] The Ohio State University, Extension. Available from http://ohioline.osu.edu/for-fact/0039.html [cited 15 September 2002]. Burton, C. (1999). The Wilp Sa Maa'y Harvesting Co-operative. Ecoforestry Winter Burton, P. (2000). The Wilp Sa Maa'y Harvesting Co-operative and Wild Berry Research in Gitxan Traditional Territory. In Non-Timber Forest Product Workshop, Creston BC. Edited by D. Gayton, Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership.
74
Chadwick, C., T. Lumpkin and L. Elberson (1993). The botany, uses and production of Wasabia Japonica. Economic Botany 47: 113-135. Chamberlain, J., R. Bush and A. Hammett (1998). Non-Timber Forest Products the OTHER forest products. Forest Products Journal 48: 10-19. Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1992). Basic Marketing Research. Orlando, Dryden Press. Ciesla, W. (1998). Non timber forest products from conifers [online] Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations. Available from http://www.fao.org/docrep/X0453e/X0453e00.htm [cited 10 October 2002]. Cocksedge, W. (2002). A Year Beneath the Trees, Commercial non-timber forest product potentials for Northern Vancouver Island. unpublished. Davidson-Hunt, I., L. Duchesne and J. Zasada (1999). Non-timber Forest Products: Local Livelihoods and Integrated Forest Management. In Forest Communities in the Third Millennium, Ontario. Edited by J. C. Zasada, North Central Research Station. Davis, J. (1995). Producing Shiitake Mushrooms: A Guide for Small-Scale Outdoor Cultivation on Logs [online] North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Available from http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/forest/woodland/won-20.html [cited 18 September 2002]. De Geus, P. (1995). Botanical Forest Products in British Columbia. Victoria, British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. Dey, D. (1996). Essential Oils Industry. AG-Ventures, Agriculture Business Profiles 10 Dillon, W., T. Madden and N. Frirtle (1994). Marketing Research In a Marketing Environment. Columbus, OH, Mcgraw Hill. Dominion Forest Services (1949). Cedar Leaf Oils, A review of the available information. Ottawa, Department of Mines and Resources, unpublished. Draeseke, R. (1998). Overview of existing economic information regarding Non-Timber Forest Products in British Columbia. Victoria, BC Ministry of Forests, Economic and Trade Branch, unpublished. E Natural Health Center (2002). American Ginseng [online] Available from http://www.e2121.com/herb_db/viewherb.php3?viewid=520 [cited 15 January 2003]. FAO (1999). Towards a harmonized definition of non-wood forest products, Unasylva [online] Food and Agricultural Organisation,. Available from http://www.fao.org/docrep/x2450e/x2450e0d.htm [cited 15 September 2002].
75
Forintek and Halvorson Consultants (1982). Market Study for B.C. Cedar Foliage Oil. The Science Council Of British Columbia, unpublished. Green, R. N. and K. Klinka (1994). A Field Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Vancouver Forest Region. Victoria, Province of BC Research Branch Ministry of Forests. Gunner, A. (1998). Technical Feasibility Study For Medicinal And Aromatic Plants Which Can Be Grown In The Interior Of BC. Armstrong BC, AG Consulting. Hansis, R. (1998). A political Ecology of Picking: Non-Timber forest products in the Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology 26: 67-86. Harris, V. M. (2002). Volatile oils [online] Available from http://countryadvertiser.com/distilling.html [cited 5 November 2002]. Health Canada (1998). Draft Regulatory Framework for Natural Health Products: Interim Report of the Advisory Panel on Natural Health Products. February Holiday Season Farms (2002). Price list for christmas greens [online] Available from http://www.holidayseasonfarms.com/contact.html [cited 15 January 2003]. Kelco Industries (2002). Christmas Tree and Wreath Supply [online] Available from http://www.kelcomaine.com/default.htm [cited 10 January 2003]. Klinka, K. (1976). Ecosystem Units, Their Classification, Interpretation and Mapping in the University of British Columbia Research Forest. Forestry. Vancouver, University of British Columbia. Landgren, C. and J. Freed (1998). Harvesting and Marketing Noble Fir Boughs from Christmas Tree Plantations [online] Oregon State University Extension Service. Available from http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/ec/ec1500/ec1500.html [cited 15 January 2003]. Lantz, T. (2001). Examining the Potential Role of Co-operatives in the Ethical Commercialisation of Medicinal Plants: Plant Conservation, Intellectual Property Rights, Ethics, and Devil's Club (Oplopanax horridus). Victoria, British Columbia Institute for Co-operative Studies. http://web.uvic.ca/bcics/research/occasional/paper3-medicinal-plants.html Mater, C. (1997). Consumer trends, market opportunities and new approaches to sustainable development of special forest products. In Special forest products—biodiversity meets the marketplace. Edited by J. Thomas. Oregon, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtrwo63.htm
76
Mimi Mart (2002). Shiitake Mushroom Logs [online] Available from www.minimart.com/mushroomlogs.html [cited 15 January 2003]. Ministry of Management Services (2001). Tourism Sector Monitor [online] Available from http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/tourism/tim2000.pdf [cited 5 January 2003]. Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection (2002). Fish Farming Industry Stats [online] Available from http://www.bcfisheries.gov.bc.ca/rec/statistics.html [cited 28 September 2002]. Mitchell, D. (1998). Non-timber forest products in British Columbia: The past meets the future on the forest floor. The Forestry Chronicle 74: 359-362. Mycosource (2000). Natural Log Shiitake Mushroom Production, Processing and Marketing [online] Mycosource Inc. Available from http://www.mycosource.com/shiilogs.htm [cited September 2002]. Ned's Native Adventure Tours (2003). [online] Available from http://www.99north.com/directory/recreation/neds_native_adventure_tours.html [cited 10 January 2003]. Nystedt, D. (2001). US market an opportunity for biotech firms [online] Available from http://taipeitimes.com/news/2001/10/25/story/0000108713 [cited 15 November 2002]. Oregon State University (2000). The Highbush Blueberry Plant [online] Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University, USDA-ARS. Available from http://berrygrape.oregonstate.edu/fruitgrowing/berrycrops/blueberry/blueplnt.htm [cited 16 January 2003]. Ottawa Laboratory (1949). Cedar Leaf Oils, A review of the available information. Department of Mines and Resources, Mines Forests and Scientific Service Branch, Dominion Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratories, unpublished. Petten, C. (2001). More than timber being harvested in Saskatchewan forests. Saskatchewan Sage 5: 12. Pilz, D., R. Molina and M. Amaranthus (2001). Productivity and Sustainable Harvest of Edible Forest Mushrooms: Current Biological Research and New Directions in Federal Monitoring. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 13: 83-94. Rinehold, J. W. (1999). Crop Profile for Christmas Trees in Washington. Washington State University. http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~cdaniels/profiles/chritree.pdf
77
Rizer, A. C. (2002). Equipment for distilling oils [online] Available from http://countryadvertiser.com/distilling.html [cited 15 November 2002]. Rocky Mountain, G. M. (2002). Wild Berries [online] Available from www.game-meats.com/shopping/wild_berries.htm [cited 18 August 2002]. Schlosser, W., K. Blatner and R. Chapman (1991). Economic and marketing implications of special forest products harvest in the Coastal Pacific Northwest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 6: 67-72. Schlosser, W., K. Blatner and B. Zamora (1992). Pacific Northwest Forest Lands Potential for Floral Greenery Production. Northwest Science 66: 44-55. Small-Woodlands-Program-BC (2001). A guide to Agroforestry in BC. Smithers, Forest Renewal BC. http://www.swp.bc.ca/html/agro/agro_guide.htm Statistics Canada (1991). Statistics Canada, CANSIM, Matrix 6076 [online] Available from http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/phys02.htm [cited 15 January 2003]. Taylor, D. (2002). Getting to the Root of Ginseng. Smithsonian, July http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues02/jul02/ginseng.html Tedder, S., D. Mitchell and A. Hillyer (2002). Property rights and the sustainable management of non-timber forest products. Forest Renewal BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/Branches/Economics_&_Trade/external/!publish/Web/non_timber_forest_products/NTFP%20Property%20Rights%20FRBC%20PAR_02001-30.pdf Tedder, S., D. , D. Mitchell and F. Ramsay (2000). Seeing the Forest Beneath the Trees: The Social and economic potential of Non-Timber Forest Products and Services in the Queen Charlotte Islands/Haida Gwaii. South Moresby Forest Replacement Account. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HET/Index.htm Teel, W. S. and L. E. Buck (2002). Between Wildcrafting and Monocultures: Agroforestry Options. In Non Timber Forest Products. Edited by W. James. Kansas, University Press Kansas. The North Island NTFP Demonstration Project (2001). Integrated Demonstration Project for Non-Timber Forest Products-Northern Vancouver Island. Royal Roads University. PAR0211-03. http://www.island.net/~ntfp/pages/ntfp%20plants.html Turner, N. (2000). "Doing it Right" Issues and Practices of Sustainable Harvesting of Non-Timber Forest Products. In Non-Timber Forest Products Workshop, Creston BC. Edited by D. Gayton, Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership.
78
Turner, N. (2001a). "Doing it right" Issues and practices of sustainable harvesting of non-timber forest products relating to First Peoples in British Columbia. B.C. Journal of Ecosystems and Management 1: 11. Turner, N. (2001b). "Keeping it Living": Applications Relevance of Traditional Plant Management in British Columbia to Sustainable Harvesting of Non-timber Forest Products. In Forest Communities in the Third Millennium: Linking Research, Business and Policy Toward a Sustainable Non-Timber Forest Product Sector. Edited by J. C. Zasada. St. Paul, Minnesota, North Central Research Station. USDA, F. S. (2001). Huckleberry picking [online] Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Cispus Adaptive Management Area. Available from http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/ama/ [cited 28 January 2003]. Vance, N. C., M. Borsting, D. Pilz and J. Freed (2001). Special forest products: species information guide for the Pacific Northwest. Portland, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr513/ Vitins, G. S. (1998). Overview of the health food supplement and medicinal herb processing and brokerage industries of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food, unpublished. von Hagen, B. and R. D. Fight (1999). Opportunities for Conservation-Based Development of Nontimber Forest Products in the Pacific Northwest. Portland, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-GTR-473. Weigand, J. (2002). Overview of Cultural Traditions, Economic Trends, and Key Species in Nontimber Forest Products of the Pacific Northwest. In Nontimber Forest Products in the United States. Edited by J. Weigand. Kansas, University Press Kansas. Wills, R. M. and R. G. Lipsey (1999). An economic strategy to develop non-timber forest products and services in British Columbia . Project No. PA97538-ORE. http://www.sfp.forprod.vt.edu/pubs/pubs.htm Worrall, J. (2003). Online Textbook Forest & Shade Tree Pathology [online] Available from http://www.forestpathology.org/dis_swiss.html [cited 30 January 2003]. Yesenofski, J. (1996). Juniper Oil Distillation and Marketing Project. Oregon, The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Business and Economic Development Branch. http://juniper.oregonstate.edu/wjoils.htm Zikmund, W. (2000). Exploring Marketing Research. Orlando, Dryden Press.
79
Personal communication August 2002 – February 2003
Name Affiliation E-mail Phone
Ayer Stephen Forintek Canada Corporation [email protected] 604 222 5747
Brynne Abra Certified Organic British Columbia [email protected]
Burton Carla Symbios Research [email protected] Cocksedge Wendy Royal Roads University [email protected] Daris LaPointe BCIT Student [email protected]
Durance Tim Food, Nutrition and Health, UBC [email protected]
Elena Gaia Garden 604 734 4372
Freed Jim Washington State University [email protected]
Hallman Richard Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management [email protected] 604 556 3001
Jones David Xylon Biotechnologies Ltd. [email protected]
Kaeding Carole [email protected] Kari Doyle BCIT Student [email protected] Kimber Winston [email protected] 604 867 9094 Kimberley de Wolfe Breads and Spreads [email protected]
Lam Cheu Oui United Flowers Growers Auction [email protected] 604 430 2211
Leon Michael Katzie First Nations [email protected] 604 465 8961 Little Tim Maple Ridge Health Unit 604 476 7000 Maclean Scott BC Hydro 604 240 2088 Macy Harold UBC, Oyster River Farm [email protected] McCutchen Allison Ethnobotanist [email protected] 604 222 3488
Meier Alden Alberta Sugarmakers' Association [email protected]
Meyer Ernie Meyers Floral 604 255 1333 Nadeau Joe Ponderosa Trading [email protected] 604 273 8308 Nielsen Linda Perry + Associates [email protected] Peel Bruce Peels Nurseries 604 820 7381 Richardson John Faculty of Forestry, UBC [email protected] Ross Richard Western Evergreens [email protected]
Shut Steve Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries 250 741 5667
Vaun Scobie Lynda [email protected]
80
Name Affiliation E-mail Phone
Vrijmoed Paulus Linnaea Nurseries [email protected] 604 533 8281 Whitacre Julie 4th Corner Nurseries [email protected] Woodward Paige Pacific Rim Nurseries [email protected] 604 792 0880
10 Appendices
Table of Contents
Appendix I Floral Greens
Appendix II Landscaping Products
Appendix III Food Products
Appendix IV Craft Products
Appendix V Medicinals and Pharmaceuticals
Appendix VI Miscellaneous Forest Products
Appendix VII Scenario 1 without Education and Research Criteria
Appendix VIII Scenario 2 with Education and Research Criteria
Appendix IX Criteria and Indicators
Appendix X People contacted and interviewed, 08. 2002 – 02. 2003
Appendix XI Map British Columbia
Appendix XII Map Lower Mainland, BC
Appendix XIII Map Malcolm Knapp Research Forest 1:100,000
Appendix XIV Map Malcolm Knapp Research Forest
Appendix XV References
Appendix I Floral Greens
Common name Scientific name Abundancy Floral Greens
Christmas Trees
Christmas Greens
Christmas Garlands
& Wreaths
Baby's breath Gypsophila paniculata 5 Yes Beaked moss Kindbergia spp 3 Yes Beargrass Xerophyllum tenax 6 Yes Blueberry Vaccinium spp. 3 Yes Boxwood Pachistima myrsinites 4 Yes Brackenfern Pteridium aquilinum 3 Yes Chinquapin Castanopsis chrysophylla 5 Yes Deer fern Blechnum spicant 3 Yes Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Dwarf Oregon grape Mahonia nervosa 3 Yes Huckleberry sprays Vaccinium ovatum 3 Yes Huckleberry tips Vaccinium ovatum 3 Yes Grand fir Abies grandis 6 Yes Hawthorn Crataegus spp. 5 Yes Lanky moss Rhytidiadelphus loreus 3 Yes Lichens different species 3 Yes Maidenhair fern Adiantum pedatum 4 Yes Yes Manzanita Arctostaphylos columbiana 5 Yes Moss different species 3 Yes Mountain Hemlock Tsuga mertensiana 2 Yes Noble fir Abies procera 2 Yes Yes Yes Pacific silver fir Abies amabillis 2 Yes Yes Peat moss Sphagnum spp 4 Yes Running club moss Lycopodium clavatum, 4 Yes Salal sprays Glautheria shallon 3 Yes Salal tips Glautheria shallon 3 Yes Scotch-broom Cytisus scoparius 3 Yes Step moss Hylocomium splendens 3 Yes Subalpine fir Abies lasiocarpa 2 Yes Yes Sword fern Polystichum munitum 3 Yes Vine maple Acer circinatum 1 Yes Western red cedar Thuja plicata 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Western white pine Pinus monticola 2 Yes Yes Yes Willow spp. Salix spp. 1 Yes
Abundancy:
1 Species that are abundant in MKRF volume and location are known 2 Species that exist in MKRF in lower quantities than in category 1 whose volume and
location are known 3 Species that appear to be abundant in MKRF, but no detailed information on volume and
location is available 4 Species that lack any volume and location information 5 Species that cannot grow in MKRF 6 Species that could grow in MKRF under certain conditions (e.g. planting)
(cited from (Schlosser et al., 1991; Schlosser et al., 1992; Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994; Atwood, 1998; Blatner and Alexander, 1998; Vitins, 1998; von Hagen and Fight, 1999; Wills and Lipsey, 1999; Tedder, 2000; The North Island NTFP Demonstration Project, 2001)
Appendix II Landscaping Products
Common name Scientific name Abundancy Native Plants
Deerfern Blechnum spicant 3 Yes Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 Yes Dwarf Oregon grape Mahonia nervosa 3 Yes Elderberry black Sambucus nigra 5 Yes Elderberry red Sambucus racemosa 3 Yes Lady fern Athyrium felix femina 3 Yes Maidenhair Adiantum pedatum 4 Yes Manzanita Arctostaphylos columbiana 5 Yes Noble fir Abies procera 2 Yes Sword fern Polystichum munitum 3 Yes Vine maple Acer circinatum 1 Yes Western red cedar Thuja plicata 1 Yes Willow spp. Salix spp. 1 Yes
Abundancy:
1 Species that are abundant in MKRF volume and location are known 2 Species that exist in MKRF in lower quantities than in category 1 whose volume and location are
known 3 Species that appear to be abundant in MKRF, but no detailed information on volume and location is
available 4 Species that lack any volume and location information 5 Species that cannot grow in MKRF 6 Species that could grow in MKRF under certain conditions (e.g. planting)
(cited from (Schlosser et al., 1991; Schlosser et al., 1992; Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994; Atwood, 1998; Blatner and Alexander, 1998; Vitins, 1998; von Hagen and Fight, 1999; Wills and Lipsey, 1999; Tedder, 2000; The North Island NTFP Demonstration Project, 2001)
Appendix III Food Products
Common name Scientific name Abundancy Berries Syrup Edible Mushrooms
Other Food
Products American matsutake Tricholoma magnivelare 4 Yes Big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum 2 Yes Birch Betula spp. 2 Yes Blackberries Rubus spp. 3 Yes Blueberry Vaccinium spp. 3 Yes Boletes Boletus spp. 4 Yes Brackenfern Pteridium aquilinum 3 Yes Chanterelle Cantharellus spp. 4 Yes Dog rose Rosa canina 4 Yes Elderberry black Sambucus nigra 5 Yes Yes Elderberry red Sambucus racemosa 3 Yes Yes Hazelnuts Corylus cornuta 4 Yes Huckleberry spec. Vaccinium spp. 3 Yes Morels Morchella spp. 4 Yes Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 Yes Red evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum 3 Yes Salal Glautheria shallon 3 Yes Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 3 Yes Sword fern Polystichum munitum 3 Yes Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 3 Yes
Abundancy:
1 Species that are abundant in MKRF volume and location are known 2 Species that exist in MKRF in lower quantities than in category 1 whose volume and location are
known 3 Species that appear to be abundant in MKRF, but no detailed information on volume and location is
available 4 Species that lack any volume and location information 5 Species that cannot grow in MKRF 6 Species that could grow in MKRF under certain conditions (e.g. planting)
(cited from (Schlosser et al., 1991; Schlosser et al., 1992; Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994; Atwood, 1998; Blatner and Alexander, 1998; Vitins, 1998; von Hagen and Fight, 1999; Wills and Lipsey, 1999; Tedder, 2000; The North Island NTFP Demonstration Project, 2001)
Appendix IV Craft Products
Common name Scientific name Abundancy Bark Craft Products
Beaked moss Kindbergia spp 3 Yes Birch Betula spp. 2 Yes Lanky moss Rhytidiadelphus loreus 3 Yes Lichens different species 3 Yes Peat moss Sphagnum spp 4 Yes Running club moss Lycopodium clavatum, 4 Yes Step moss Hylocomium splendens 3 Yes Western red cedar Thuja plicata 1 Yes Willow spp. Salix spp. 1 Yes
Abundancy:
1 Species that are abundant in MKRF volume and location are known 2 Species that exist in MKRF in lower quantities than in category 1 whose volume and location are
known 3 Species that appear to be abundant in MKRF, but no detailed information on volume and location is
available 4 Species that lack any volume and location information 5 Species that cannot grow in MKRF 6 Species that could grow in MKRF under certain conditions (e.g. planting)
(cited from (Schlosser et al., 1991; Schlosser et al., 1992; Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994; Atwood, 1998; Blatner and Alexander, 1998; Vitins, 1998; von Hagen and Fight, 1999; Wills and Lipsey, 1999; Tedder, 2000; The North Island NTFP Demonstration Project, 2001)
Appendix V Medicinals and Pharmaceuticals
Common name Scientific name Abundancy Medicinal Plants
Medicinal Mushrooms
Blackberries Rubus spp. 3 Yes Cascara sagrade Rhamnus purshiana 4 Yes Devils Club Oplopanax horridus 3 Yes Dull Oregon grape Mahonia nervosa 3 Yes Ginseng Panax quinquefolius 5 Yes Goldenseal Hydrastis canadensis 6 Yes Hawthorn Crataegus spp. 5 Yes Horsetail Equisetum spp. 3 Yes Salal Gaultheria shallon 3 Yes St. John's wort Hypericum perforatum 5 Yes Tall Oregon grape Mahonia aquifolium 4 Yes Valerian Valeriana alliariifolia 5 Yes Trametes versicolor 4 Yes Shizophyllum commune 4 Yes Ganoderma applanatum 4 Yes Ganoderma tsugae 4 Yes Fomitopsis officinalis 4 Yes
Abundancy:
1 Species that are abundant in MKRF volume and location are known 2 Species that exist in MKRF in lower quantities than in category 1 whose volume and location are
known 3 Species that appear to be abundant in MKRF, but no detailed information on volume and location is
available 4 Species that lack any volume and location information 5 Species that cannot grow in MKRF 6 Species that could grow in MKRF under certain conditions (e.g. planting)
(cited from (Schlosser et al., 1991; Schlosser et al., 1992; Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994; Atwood, 1998; Blatner and Alexander, 1998; Vitins, 1998; von Hagen and Fight, 1999; Wills and Lipsey, 1999; Tedder, 2000; The North Island NTFP Demonstration Project, 2001)
Appendix VI Miscellaneous Forest Products
Common name Scientific name Abundancy Firewood Mushroom Logs
Oil
Birch Betula spp. 2 Yes Yes Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 Yes Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 1 Yes Pacific silver fir Abies amabilis 2 Yes Red alder Alnus 1 Yes Yes Subalpine fir Abies lasiocarpa 2 Western red cedar Thuja plicata 1 Yes Yes Cotton wood Populus spp. 2 Yes
Abundancy:
1 Species that are abundant in MKRF volume and location are known 2 Species that exist in MKRF in lower quantities than in category 1 whose volume and location are
known 3 Species that appear to be abundant in MKRF, but no detailed information on volume and location is
available 4 Species that lack any volume and location information 5 Species that cannot grow in MKRF 6 Species that could grow in MKRF under certain conditions (e.g. planting)
(cited from (Schlosser et al., 1991; Schlosser et al., 1992; Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994; Atwood, 1998; Blatner and Alexander, 1998; Vitins, 1998; von Hagen and Fight, 1999; Wills and Lipsey, 1999; Tedder, 2000; The North Island NTFP Demonstration Project, 2001)
Appendix VII Scenario 1 without Education and Research Criteria
Criteria / Indicator
Weight of
Criteria
Possible Points
Christmas Greens
Christmas Garlands
and Wreaths
Native Plants
(Sword fern)
Moss
New Product Development
(Rhododendron)
Cedar Leaf Oil
Ecotourism
Capital Investment 0.10 Capital investment to set up production 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 Capital investment for harvesting equipment 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Capital investment of post-harvesting equipment 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 Overall capital investment 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 5
Percentage 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 100.0 Sub-Rank 1 1 1 1 6 7 1 Growing and Production Situation 0.20
Abundance 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 Availability with commercial quality 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 Time of production (from planting to harvest) 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 3 Time intensity of monitoring and work 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 1 Access 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 Labour intensity to select and harvest one unit final product 5 4 4 3 5 5 1 3 Labour intensity of processing before it can be sold 5 4 2 3 4 4 1 3 Production cost to produce one unit final product 5 4 3 3 5 4 1 3
Percentage 87.5 85.0 80.0 95.0 67.5 67.5 70.0 Sub-Rank 2 3 4 1 6 6 5
Criteria / Indicator
Weight of Criteria
Possible Points
Christmas Greens
Christmas Garlands
and Wreaths
Native Plants (Sword fern)
Moss New Product Development
(Rhododendron)
Cedar Leaf Oil
Ecotourism
Ecological Concerns 0.20 Sustainability 5 5 5 2 1 4 5 5
Percentage 100.0 100.0 40.0 20.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 Sub-Rank 1 1 6 7 5 1 1 Market Situation 0.50
Established market 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 5 Market stable in terms of demand 5 4 5 3 3 3 1 5 Market stable in terms of price 5 4 5 4 4 3 2 3 Demand on the market 5 4 5 3 4 4 1 3 Competition of other growers 5 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 Possibility to sell it on the market 5 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 Possibility to get a fair price 5 3 4 4 4 4 2 3 Knowledge of the market situation 5 4 4 3 4 4 1 3 Future prognosis of the market 5 4 4 3 3 5 2 4 Profit margin of the product per unit 5 1 4 1 1 2 2 3
Percentage 72.0 86.0 58.0 68.0 74.0 32.0 68.0 Sub-Rank 3 1 6 4 2 7 4 Total 1.0 115.0 83.5 90.0 63.0 67.0 74.5 55.5 78.0 Rank 2 1 6 5 4 7 3
Appendix VIII Scenario 2 with Education and Research Criteria
Criteria / Indicator Weight of Criteria
Possible Points
Christmas Greens
Christmas Garlands
and Wreaths
Native Plants (Sword fern)
Moss New Product Development
(Rhododendron)
Cedar Leaf Oil
Ecotourism
Capital Investment 0.10 Capital investment to set up production 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 Capital investment for harvesting equipment 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Capital investment of post-harvesting equipment 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 Overall capital investment 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 5
Percentage 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 100.0 Sub-Rank 1 1 1 1 6 7 1 Growing and Production Situation 0.20
Abundance 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 Availability with commercial quality 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 Time of production (from planting to harvest) 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 3 Time intensity of monitoring and work 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 1 Access 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 Labour intensity to select and harvest one unit final product 5 4 4 3 5 5 1 3 Labour intensity of processing before it can be sold 5 4 2 3 4 4 1 3 Production cost to produce one unit final product 5 4 3 3 5 4 1 3
Percentage 87.5 85.0 80.0 95.0 67.5 67.5 70.0 Sub-Rank 2 3 4 1 6 6 5
Criteria / Indicator Weight of Criteria
Possible Points
Christmas Greens
Christmas Garlands and
Wreaths
Native Plants (Sword fern)
Moss New Product Development
(Rhododendron)
Cedar Leaf Oil
Ecotourism
Ecological Concerns 0.20 Sustainability 5 5 5 2 1 4 5 5
Percentage 100.0 100.0 40.0 20.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 Sub-Rank 1 1 6 7 5 1 1 Education & Research Value 0.20
Education value 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 Research 5 2 1 5 5 2 3 1
Percentage 30.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 30.0 60.0 60.0 Sub-Rank 5 7 1 1 5 1 1 Market Situation 0.30
Established market 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 5 Market stable in terms of demand 5 4 5 3 3 3 1 5 Market stable in terms of price 5 4 5 4 4 3 2 3 Demand on the market 5 4 5 3 4 4 1 3 Competition of other growers 5 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 Possibility to sell it on the market 5 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 Possibility to get a fair price 5 3 4 4 4 4 2 3 Knowledge of the market situation 5 4 4 3 4 4 1 3 Future prognosis of the market 5 4 4 3 3 5 2 4 Profit margin of the product per unit 5 1 4 1 1 2 2 3
Percentage 72.0 86.0 58.0 68.0 74.0 32.0 68.0 Sub-Rank 3 1 6 4 2 7 4 Total 1.0 125.0 75.1 76.8 63.4 65.4 65.7 61.1 76.4 Rank 3 1 6 5 4 7 2
Appendix IX Criteria and Indicator CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Capital investment to set up production
The amount of money necessary to set up the production including, equipment,
planting cost, labor.
1 2 3 4 5 >$3000 $2000 - $3000 $1000 - $2000 $200 - $1000 none or <$200
Capital investment for harvesting equipment
The amount of money necessary to buy harvesting equipment that does not already
existing at MKRF.
1 2 3 4 5 >$2000 $1000 -$2000 $500 - $1000 $100 - 500 none or <$100
Capital investment of post-harvesting equipment
The amount of money necessary to by Equipment for further processing if required.
1 2 3 4 5 >$5000 $2500 - $5000 $1000 - $2500 $ 100 - $1000 none or <$100
Overall capital investment
Investment necessary including the previous three criteria and other.
1 2 3 4 5 >$5000 $ 3000 - $5000 $1500 - $3000 $500 - $1500 none or <$500
GROWING AND PRODUCTION SITUATION
Abundance
Abundance of the NTFP in MKRF.
1 2 3 4 5 low, only in some
areas, scarce medium, in some
areas frequent high, in large areas,
frequent
Availability with commercial quality
Amount available with commercial quality or potential of growth potential if not already
in the forest.
1 2 3 4 5 low, extreme effort necessary to find
good quality medium requires
selection high most of the
NTFP in good quality
Time of production (from planting to harvest)
Time needed to grow the product if managed necessary for production.
1 2 3 4 5
> 2 years 1year 6 month 3 month wild crafted no time
required
Time intensity of monitoring and work
Time needed for monitoring and management during production, after set up from
product planting to product harvesting without processing.
1 2 3 4 5
1 day per week 1 day per month 1 day per 3 month 1 day per 6 month no time required
Access
How close is the product to the road.
1 2 3 4 5
>1 hour walking 40 min. walking 20 min. walking 10 min. walking close to road
Labor intensity to select and harvest one unit final product
How high is the labor intensity to select and harvest the amount to produce one unit final
product .
1 2 3 4 5 several hours 1 hour 10 min 5 min less than 1 minute
Labor intensity of processing before it can be sold
Amount of labor necessary in processing.
1 2 3 4 5
several hours 15 min. - 1 hour 5 min. -15 min. 5 min. no processing
necessary
Production cost to produce one unit final product
The cost of labor, equipment, processing, and material.
1 2 3 4 5 > $10 $5 - $10 $3 to $5. $1 to $3 < $1
ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS
Sustainability
The influence of the harvesting on the plant
1 2 3 4 5 high medium, bearable low, no effect
EDUCATION & RESEARCH VALUE
Education value
Value for demonstration and education of the public.
1 2 3 4 5 low medium of special interest
Research
Contribution to current research needs of NTFPs.
1 2 3 4 5 low medium high
MARKET SITUATION
Established market
Abundance of the product on the market in terms of availability.
1 2 3 4 5
low, difficult to find medium, in special
locations High widely available
Market stable in terms of demand
Stability of the demand over the past 5 years.
1 2 3 4 5
high fluctuation
medium fluctuating around a certain
level low fluctuation
Market stable in terms of price
Stability of the price over the past 5 years.
1 2 3 4 5
high fluctuation
medium fluctuating around a certain
level low fluctuation
Demand on the market
Current demand for the product on the market.
1 2 3 4 5 low, supply higher
than demand medium, supply meets demand high, demand bigger
than supply
Competition of other growers
Number and strength of competitors.
1 2 3 4 5 high medium low
Possibility to sell it on the market
What are the chances to sell the product on the market includes: quality requirements, and
competition.
1 2 3 4 5 low/difficult medium/ possible high
Possibility to get a fair price
What are the chances to sell the product to a price that can cover the production cost and
provides profit.
1 2 3 4 5 low medium high
Knowledge of the market situation
What is the current state of knowledge on the market situation.
1 2 3 4 5 poor medium high
Future prognosis of the market
Is the development of the market positive or negative for the production.
1 2 3 4 5 low, degradation medium no changes positive, improvement
Profit margin of the product per unit
The profit margin of each product unit.
1 2 3 4 5 low just above the
production cost 1 time the
production cost medium 2 - 3 times the production cost
3 - 4 times the production cost
high >5 times the production cost
Appendix X People contacted and interviewed, August 2002 – February 2003
Name Affiliation E-mail Phone NTFP
Alexander Susan USDA Forest Service, PNW
Forest Science Lab [email protected]
Arcese Peter Faculty of Forestry, UBC [email protected]
Ayer Stephen Forintek Canada Corporation [email protected] 604 222 5747 cedar leaf oil
Bannick Paul L. [email protected]
native
plants/transplanting
Barnes Anne Betty's Best 604 896 0075 mushrooms
Barnes Anne Betty's Best 604 896 0075 floral greens
Baughman
Kathleen
Gretchen Vadnais Landscape
Architects, L.L.C. [email protected] native plants/architects
Berris Catherine Catherine Berris Association [email protected] 604736 6336 native plants/architects
Biglow Rosanna Money's Mushrooms Ltd. [email protected] 604 607 7559 mushrooms
Brenda Christmas Natural Foods 604 591 8881 medicinals
Brown Adrienne [email protected] native plants/architects
Browne JH Jr. [email protected]
native
plants/transplanting
Name Affiliation E-mail Phone NTFP
Brynne Abra
Certified Organic British
Columbia [email protected]
Burton Carla Symbios Research [email protected] berries
Carlson Barry NRX Botanicals [email protected] 604 422 8777 medicinals
Chun Ma Yuan Canadian Phytochemicals 604 303 7782 medicinals
Cocksedge Wendy Royal Roads University [email protected]
Cripps Roz
Pacific Agricultural
Certification Society [email protected] mushrooms
Crompton Kenny Kirby Floral Inc. 604 438 3535 floral greens
Culham Tara
BC Society of Landscape
Architects [email protected] 604 682 5610 native plants/architects
Curtis Jennifer
Ministry of Sustainable
Resource Management [email protected]
Daris LaPointe BCIT Student [email protected]
Dawood
Muhammad
Canadian Health Food
Association www.chfa.ca medicinals
Dixen Caroll Chai Na TA medicinals
Name Affiliation E-mail Phone NTFP
Dreihaar Arnold Forest Gold 604 462 8772 floral greens
Durance Tim
Food, Nutrition and Health,
UBC [email protected] medicinals
Elena Gaia Garden 604 734 4372 medicinals
Erickson Steve [email protected]
native
plants/transplanting
Freed Jim Washington State University [email protected]
Gardner Swann
Cultivated Forest Cooperative
of Denman Island [email protected] medicinals/mushrooms
Gear Robin
Fraser Health Authority, Ridge
Meadows [email protected] 604 949 7718
George Cintrabotanicals [email protected] medicinals
Gilliam Wayne Bramble Barn 604 820 0669 native plants/nurseries
Gray Bonnie Canada Floral 604 888 8305 floral greens
Gunner Andrea [email protected] medicinals
Hallman Richard
Ministry of Sustainable
Resource Management [email protected] 604 556 3001
Name Affiliation E-mail Phone NTFP
Hayer Harb Abbotsford Cold Storage 604 864 8006 floral greens
Hermary Heide
heide.hermary@organic-land-
care.com native plants
Hilgeman Jonathan Natures Flavors [email protected] medicinals
Johnson Brett Green Man Gardens [email protected]
native
plants/transplanting
Jones David Xylon Biotechnologies Ltd. [email protected] cedar leaf oil
Kaeding Carole [email protected] bark
Karen [email protected]
native
plants/transplanting
Kari Doyle BCIT Student [email protected]
Kimber Winston [email protected] 604 867 9094 floral greens/mushrooms
Kimberley
DeWolfe Breads and Spreads [email protected] berries
Kruckeberg Art University of Washington (206) 543-1976
native
plants/transplanting
Kuramoto Connie
Horticulture Department,
Malaspina Universtiy College [email protected] mushrooms
Name Affiliation E-mail Phone NTFP
Lam Cheu Oui
United Flowers Growers
Association [email protected] 604 430 2211 floral greens
Lee Kwen David Misty Mountain Industries [email protected] 604 273 8299 mushrooms
Leon Michael Katzie First Nations [email protected] 604 465 8961
Leona Dyck [email protected] native plants/nurseries
Letchworth Barb Frontier [email protected] medicinals
Lipsey Dick
Simon Fraser University [email protected]
Little Tim Maple Ridge Health Unit 604 476 7000
Maclean Scott BC Hydro 604 240 2088
Macy Harold UBC, Oyster River Farm [email protected]
Matsumora Kay Matsumora Enterprises 604 325 1751 mushrooms
McCutchen Allison Ethnobotanist [email protected] 604-222-3488 medicinals
Meier Alden
Alberta Sugarmakers'
Association [email protected] syrup
Meyer Ernie Meyers Floral 604 255 1333 floral greens
Mitchell Darcy Royal Roads University [email protected]
Name Affiliation E-mail Phone NTFP
Morford Jennifer
Vancouver Food and Health,
Richmond Health Unit 604 736 2866
Morford Shawn FORREX [email protected]
Morse Rachel
Alaska Soil and Water
Conservation District [email protected]
Nadeau Joe Ponderosa Trading [email protected] 604 273 8308 mushrooms
Neuendorf Pat Bioforce Canada [email protected] 1 800 264 5588 medicinals
Nielsen Linda Perry + Associates [email protected] native plants/architects
Peel Bruce Peels Nurseries 604 820 7381 native plants/nurseries
Pinkme Allan Rhema Insutries 604 430 5211 medicinals
Platt Awyssa [email protected] medicinals
Porter Richard &
Barbara
Underwood Natural
Plants Underwood Natural Plants [email protected] 250 338 4348 native plants
Richardson John Faculty of Forestry, UBC [email protected]
Roddick Rene BC Hydro 604 590 7653
Name Affiliation E-mail Phone NTFP
Rodger David L Jones 604 663 7200
Rodney [email protected] mushrooms
Roseanne
Canadian Food Inspection
Agency 604 666 3350
Ross Richard Western Evergreens [email protected] floral greens
Roze Gloria Tree of Live [email protected] cedar leaf oil
Sandelin Rob Naturalist, writer, teacher [email protected]
native
plants/transplanting
Schulmann Bernard [email protected]
Shut Steve
Ministry of Agriculture Food
and Fisheries 250 741 5667 trout
Tumbach Thomas UBC, Farm [email protected] mushrooms
Turrie David Bio Genesis Distributors 604 596 3655 medicinals
van der Kamp Bart
J. Faculty of Forestry, UBC [email protected] mushrooms
Vance Nan C. USDA Forest Service, Oregon [email protected] 541 750 7302 native plants
Vaun Scobie Lynda [email protected] bark
Name Affiliation E-mail Phone NTFP
Vidler Anne Wildside Nursery [email protected] 250 335 1379 native plants
Vrijmoed Paulus Linnaea Nurseries [email protected] 604 533 8281 native plants/nurseries
Watt Christine
British Columbia Functional
Food & Nutraceutical Network [email protected] 604 822 6920 medicinals
Whitacre Julie 4th Corner Nurseries [email protected] native plants
Wills Russel [email protected] medicinals
Woodward Paige Pacific Rim Nurseries [email protected] 604 792 0880 native plants/nurseries
Xiao Guoping [email protected] mushrooms
York Bonnie [email protected]
native
plants/transplanting
Zabek Lisa Sylvis [email protected] agroforestry
Alta Natural Herbs and
Supplements 604 303 1131 medicinals
BC Bundles Forla Wholesale [email protected] 250 758 7490 floral greens
Brookside Greenhouses 604 533 0498 floral greens
Brookside Greenhouses LTD. 604 533 1543
David Jones Floral 604 451 7200 floral greens
Name Affiliation E-mail Phone NTFP
East Earth Herb Inc. [email protected] medicinals
Eclectic Insitute
customerservice@eclectic-
herb.com 800 332 4372 medicinals
Flora Manufacturing and
Distributing 604 436 6000 medicinals
Frosty Hollow Ecological
Restoration [email protected] 360 579 2332
native
plants/transplanting
Golden Bough Herb Co 604 322-0455 medicinals
Health First 604 941 8772 medicinals
Mainland Floral Distributors
LTD. 604 856 1264
Mc Zand Herbal [email protected] 800 232 4005 medicinals
Northwest Floral 604 430 1575 floral greens
Parkland Botanicals [email protected] medicinals
Pharmanutrients Botanical
Corporation 604 990 1499 medicinals
Sisu Enterprises [email protected] medicinals
Name Affiliation E-mail Phone NTFP
Swiss Herbal Remedies 604 298 4114 medicinals
Wilcox Natural Products closed medicinals
Appendix XI Map British Columbia
British Columbia, Canada 1:10,894,108 1,327x928 mi
Source: (Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2003)
Malcolm Knapp Research Forest
Appendix XII Map Lower Mainland
Lower Mainland, BC 1:1,207,029 147x103 mi
Source: (Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2003)
Malcolm Knapp Research
Appendix XIII Map Malcolm Knapp Research Forest (not to scale)
Appendix XIV Map Malcolm Knapp Research Forest (not to scale)
Appendix XV References
Atwood, L. (1998). Botanical Forest Products, Effects upon operational planning. British Columbia, Ministry of Forests, unpublished. Blatner, K. and S. Alexander (1998). Recent price trends for non-timber forest products in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Products Journal 48: 28-34. Ministry of Energy and Mines (2003). The MapPlace [online] Geological Survey Branch Home Page. Available from http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geolsurv/MapPlace/default.htm [cited 30 January 2003]. Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon (1994). Plants of Coastal British Columbia. Vancouver, Lone Pine Publishing. Schlosser, W., K. Blatner and R. Chapman (1991). Economic and marketing implications of special forest products harvest in the Coastal Pacific Northwest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 6: 67-72. Schlosser, W., K. Blatner and B. Zamora (1992). Pacific Northwest Forest Lands Potential for Floral Greenery Production. Northwest Science 66: 44-55. Tedder, S., D. (2000). Management of Non-Timber Forest Resources: Perspectives on Current and Future Management Directions. In Non-Timber Forest Products Workshop, Creston BC. Edited by D. Gayton, Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership. The North Island NTFP Demonstration Project (2001). Integrated Demonstration Project for Non-Timber Forest Products-Northern Vancouver Island. Royal Roads University. PAR0211-03. http://www.island.net/~ntfp/pages/ntfp%20plants.html Vitins, G. S. (1998). Overview of the health food supplement and medicinal herb processing and brokerage industries of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food, unpublished. von Hagen, B. and R. D. Fight (1999). Opportunities for Conservation-Based Development of Nontimber Forest Products in the Pacific Northwest. Portland, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-GTR-473. Wills, R. M. and R. G. Lipsey (1999). An economic strategy to develop non-timber forest products and services in British Columbia . Project No. PA97538-ORE. http://www.sfp.forprod.vt.edu/pubs/pubs.htm