| European
Tropical Forest Research Network |
See also:
Research priorities and working group discussions
General conclusions
Workshop follow-up
These are summaries of what was discussed at the workshop. Please look under the appropriate thread in the discussion forum to find out what has been said since then.
Complexity
of the problem of developing NTFP inventory methods
There was general agreement about the difficulties of working with NTFPs as
described in Dr Wong’s presentation. An additional complexity is that NTFPs
often occur in a patchwork of land uses and tenure systems. The importance of
accounting for this in the development of inventory methods was emphasised.
Coverage
of the literature
It was noted that the review document (Wong, 2000) had not fully reviewed mensuration
techniques (e.g. fruit abundance/size/yield etc.) from the ecology and autecology
literature. It had, however, pointed out that this is a particularly large body
of work from which appropriate methods for NTFP mensuration might be sourced.
The review specifically concentrated on products with use value but emphasised
the need for cross-disciplinary work in order to bring in alternative mensuration
experience.
It was reported that there are precise indigenous methods in use for NTFP inventory. However, the review (Wong, 2000) was unable to locate specific references to indigenous quantification of NTFPs in the literature.
Criteria
for judging biometric rigour
The reviewer had used replication as one of the criteria for judging the biometric
rigour of studies reviewed. As an alternative, it was suggested that the confidence
interval of the data could have been used as a criterion. However, this was
not possible as very few studies reported confidence limits. It was also pointed
out that the term ‘replicates’ has a very strong experimental design connotation
and that the term ‘sample size’ would have been preferable.
Clarification
of subject coverage
It was pointed out that the primary focus of the review was the consideration
of the biological basis for sustainable NTFP exploitation. The determination
of actual harvest levels would then depend upon the user of the inventory information
and might at this stage involve considerations of economic and social sustainability.
The latter were, however, considered to be outside the remit of the review.
It was made clear that the review did not attempt to quantify use or value of NTFPs but concentrated on the quantification of the biological resource itself, i.e. how much of the resource there is and how much could be sustainably harvested.
At various points during the two day workshop participants felt that there was a need to consider actual information needs at the different levels before ratifying broad research topic areas. It was felt that it would be easier to identify commonalities once information needs at each level had been established. However, the conclusion from the review (Wong, 2000) appears to be that most resource information needs can ultimately be met through an understanding of the distribution, abundance, quality and harvest potential of the resource. Certain examples came up that supported this, for example information requirements for certification at the international level encompass detailed species or product level information.
In contrast, some participants felt that information needs at different levels were very different. Furthermore, it was suggested that it was more important to think about information needs for specific purposes rather than to try and define information needs at different levels. Information needs for sustainable livelihoods, alleviation of poverty, food security, conservation etc. may be very different. However, if one considers the biological element in NTFP management even for diverse purposes, it again becomes clear that different presentations of the basic information of abundance, distribution, quality and harvest potential of a resource would meet most requirements.
It was also suggested that the development of methods needed to be prioritised according to demand. If we did not know what the most urgent needs are then it would be difficult to prioritise research. Participants who were currently involved in resource assessment were asked to contribute from their experience of resource information needs.
Patrick Mushove from FAO Mozambique said that his interest was in getting an idea of which variables to assess for certain product groups and how to measure the ‘functional part’ (i.e. the product) of the plants in question. He could see that there should be different sampling approaches for different resources. Furthermore, he felt that for the practitioner it would be useful to actually go through the research topics and discuss gaps in sampling, assessment, monitoring and analysis methods.
Phosiso Sola from Safire, Zimbabwe said one of the main problems they had was in choosing sampling strategies for a variety of NTFPs. They have difficulties in sampling where life forms, product types (roots, annuals, perennials bark) and environmental factors (climate, microclimate) vary greatly. In addition they need more assistance with encouraging participation in inventory. At the same time they need to collect information that is of value to both the community and to the scientists. They would like to know how to convert information collected in a participatory way to information that would be authentic to the scientific world and international agencies. For example local communities may not assess their resources in terms of volumes but volume data might be required at an international level. She felt that a discussion of sampling, assessment and analysis would be practical.
Deep Narayan Pandey from International Network on Ethnoforestry, India said that they work with about 2000 NWFPs. They have debated whether they can apply modern technology such as GIS and remote sensing to these NWFPs. However, they have realised this is not possible and that inventory has to be undertaken manually. Extending the catchment beyond the forest i.e. to farms and even urban environments increases the number of NTFPs that need to be considered. He said that they need a sampling design that is acceptable under these circumstances. They also require methods that can be used by local people.
David Hammond from Guyana said that he had brought three products with him.
He wanted to know if this could be re-introduced into the market. He also wanted to know what sort of level rigour is required in assessing the production potential of this resource given that there is no market at the moment.
Eric Boa of CABI Bioscience, UK mentioned the need to be able to quantify the resource in the field and to determine sustainable harvest levels. A specific practical problem he noted was that in many people’s mind the establishment of a research plot implies some kind of regulation. This becomes a problem because once one starts to lay out plots an atmosphere is created that affects utilisation patterns on that plot. He wanted to know how one deals with this kind of problem.
It became clear that what is most urgently required is to develop methods for measuring distribution and quantity. At present field practitioners copy methods reported in the literature and thus tend to repeat past mistakes. It was agreed that the crucial issue was to discuss sampling, assessment, monitoring and analysis. Linking of scientific and local knowledge was also considered to be important. These must be considered both from the perspective of quantification of population and the yield of the product.
Please contribute what your specific needs are or add to these discussion points.