-
This article was downloaded by: [arika virapongse]On: 26
December 2013, At: 13:01Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd
Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T
3JH, UK
Forests, Trees and LivelihoodsPublication details, including
instructions for authors andsubscription
information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tftl20
Value chain dynamics of an emergingpalm fiber handicraft market
inMaranhão, BrazilArika Virapongsea, Marianne Schminkb & Sherry
Larkinca School of Natural Resources and Environment, University
ofFlorida, Gainesville, FL, USAb Center for Latin American Studies,
University of Florida,Gainesville, FL, USAc Food and Resource
Economics Department, University of Florida,Gainesville, FL,
USAPublished online: 16 Dec 2013.
To cite this article: Arika Virapongse, Marianne Schmink &
Sherry Larkin , Forests, Trees andLivelihoods (2013): Value chain
dynamics of an emerging palm fiber handicraft market in
Maranhão,Brazil, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, DOI:
10.1080/14728028.2013.868707
To link to this article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2013.868707
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy
of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are
the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or
endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be
liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private
study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply,
or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
&
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tftl20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14728028.2013.868707http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2013.868707
-
Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
-
Value chain dynamics of an emerging palm fiber handicraft
marketin Maranhão, Brazil
Arika Virapongsea*, Marianne Schminkb and Sherry Larkinc
aSchool of Natural Resources and Environment, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA;bCenter for Latin American Studies,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; cFood andResource
Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL,
USA
Non-timber forest product (NTFP) markets are often used as a
development tool toimprove livelihood stability of
socio-economically vulnerable communities withaccess to natural
resources. Interventions to encourage growth of NTFP
markets,however, often succeed at reaching only subsets of target
populations. To addressimpacts of changing NTFP markets on
livelihoods and sustainable forestmanagement, value chain and
livelihood systems analyses were used to evaluateimpacts of a
buriti (Mauritia flexuosa) handicraft market on heterogeneous
buritiusers in Maranhão, Brazil. Data were obtained through
interviews with 97 individualswho operated as different types of
buriti users. Buriti value chain diagrams wereconstructed by
identifying patterns among responses. Socioeconomic
characteristicsof actors were identified using statistical means
comparisons. Logistic regressionanalysis was used to identify the
socioeconomic factors that correlated with peoples’role in the
value chain. Results showed that the new market has introduced
newindividuals who interact with pre-existing buriti users. Actors
differ by livelihoodstrategy, socioeconomic factors, and
perceptions regarding sustainability of leafcollection. Social
heterogeneity in NTFP value chains should be considered
byinitiatives that seek to influence participation in NTFP markets,
evaluate effects ofcommercialization on livelihoods, and
effectively design and implement resourcemanagement strategies.
Keywords: Mauritia flexuosa; buriti; NTFP; Maranhão; value
chain; livelihoodsystems; emerging markets
Introduction
Non-timber forest product (NTFP) markets are often used as a
development tool to
improve livelihood stability of socio-economically vulnerable
communities with access
to natural resources. Not all people are prepared for or
interested in taking advantage of
new market opportunities, however. For many rural communities,
rapidly changing forest
markets are too risky (Belcher & Schreckenberg 2007),
incompatible with traditional
institutions, ecologically unsustainable, or unrealistic when
conflicts exist between groups
(Schmink 2004). Market participants must also possess good
organization, business and
marketing capabilities, and access to capital and resources to
have successful enterprises
(Scherr et al. 2004).
Despite obstacles and risks to market participation, it is
inevitable that some people in
forest areas will use NTFPs to generate income. Increasing
commercialization of NTFPs
has led to concerns regarding uneven distribution of benefits
(Wynberg et al. 2002; Ruiz-
Perez, Belcher, Fu, & Yang 2004), socioeconomic divisions
(Kusters et al. 2006), and
This work was authored as part of the Contributor’s official
duties as an Employee of the United States Government and is
therefore a work of the United States Government. In accordance
with 17 U.S.C. 105, no copyright protection is available for
such works under U.S. Law
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2013.868707
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2013.868707
-
overharvesting. Widening social divisions due to NTFP market
participation have been
well described in Brazil, for example, among Amazonian rubber
harvesters (Schwartzman
1992) and babassu collectors in Maranhão (May 1986), where less
privileged groups were
excluded from benefits of growing global NTFP markets.
Theoretically, individuals face
markets on an equal basis, but in reality people’s relations
with markets are shaped by their
social context and circumstance. A better understanding of
heterogeneous actors involved
in NTFP markets and the dynamics between them can help
anticipate and guide livelihood
impacts of NTFP markets (Neumann & Hirsch 2000).
Although most NTFPs are used for subsistence purposes, a
household’s degree of
integration in the cash economy affects use of forest resources
(Shackleton & Shackleton
2004). In a cash-based economy, households often concentrate on
activities that offer
optimal financial opportunities and rewards. Peoples’ responses
to NTFP markets, such as
livelihood and harvesting strategies, are shaped by
socioeconomic characteristics of the
population and environmental context (Ruiz-Perez, Belcher,
Achdiawan, et al. 2004a;
Kanji et al. 2005). Livelihood strategies refer to long-range
goals (Sutton & Anderson
2004) in which resources are used as efficiently as possible and
in different combination
depending on household constraints, goals, opportunities, and
composition. Strategies are
often based on a household’s availability of assets and
opportunities, current condition,
and risk management (Belcher et al. 2005; Jensen 2006), so
livelihood strategies should be
conceived as one moment in an evolving long-term process.
As economic value and demand for NTFPs rise, commercialization
of products often
expands outside of regions with a history of traditional use
(Shackleton et al. 2009). In
comparison to traditional participants, who often have extensive
exposure and knowledge
of resources (Jensen & Meilby 2008; Schmidt & Ticktin
2012), entry of new market
participants can lead to damaging harvests and uncontrolled
competition for resources
(Belcher et al. 2005; Marshall et al. 2006). Emerging NTFP
markets, such as the buriti
palm (Mauritia flexuosa L.f.) handicraft market in Barreirinhas,
Maranhão, Brazil, provide
an opportune case study to evaluate effects of growing market
demands on peoples’
changing use of forest products and development of their market
roles.
In Barreirinhas, local people have traditionally exploited
buriti palm derivatives as
part of a subsistence-based livelihood strategy. Fruit, mature
leaves, and young leaves
were popular derivatives used for meeting household subsistence
purposes. Over the
previous 15 years, buriti markets have changed from offering
mostly fruit and mature
leaves to local consumers, toward favoring young leaf fiber for
making handicrafts to sell
to tourists or export to a national market (Virapongse 2013).
Much of this changing
consumer base has been driven by growing accessibility to and
popularity of the Lenc�óis
Maranhenses National Park, which attracts increasing numbers of
visitors to the region
(Lobato 2008).
Although young leaf fiber has been increasingly sought after to
meet demands of a
growing market, fruit and mature leaves were still needed by
local consumers for
subsistence use. Therein lay a conflict of interest, which could
be understood by
considering the buriti market as interactions among several
different user groups. The
course of buriti derivatives from the tree to consumer required
cooperation of various
actors, including resource owners, extractors, artisans, and
vendors, whose benefits from
the buriti market varied. To evaluate factors that drove
peoples’ interests and participation
in Barreirinhas’ buriti market, the following research questions
were addressed in this
study: What socioeconomic factors contributed to determining
diverse roles in the young
leaf fiber value chain? What were the implications of value
chain dynamics and
heterogeneity on sustainability of buriti resources?
2 A. Virapongse et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
Methods
Analytical framework
Value chain and livelihood systems analyses were used to
evaluate the structure of buriti
markets and dynamics between markets and livelihoods. Value
chain analysis is a
methodological tool for identifying actors and their activities,
trade routes, and attributes
of supply and demand (Kaplinsky & Morris 2001; Marshall et
al. 2006; Wilsey 2008).
Value chains are comprised of different activities required to
bring a product from
conception, through phases of production, and to final delivery
to consumers (Kaplinsky &
Morris 2001). Actors’ roles in the value chains are affected by
actors’ relationships with
each other, available livelihood assets, market proximity to
end-consumers (Jensen 2009),
and changing populations, such as new consumer groups or rapidly
urbanizing populations
(Williams et al. 2000; Cunningham 2001). Rather than focusing on
competitiveness
among actors, value chain analysis evaluates NTFP chains as a
whole (Velde et al. 2006)
by considering relationships between actors and transmission of
benefits and costs along
the chain (Kanji et al. 2005).
As a complement to value chains, livelihood systems analysis
provides a lens to assess
actors’ response to environmental changes. Livelihood systems
analysis is used to
examine strategies and decision-making by people within a common
livelihood system
(Collinson 2000). Reaching beyond assumptions that people
prioritize income, livelihood
analysis considers important alternate outcomes such as food and
income security, or
sustainable use of natural resources (Kanji et al. 2005).
Policies, institutions, and processes
are recognized for influencing opportunities and constraints
that people face while
pursuing strategies in different contexts.
Case study
Fieldwork was conducted in Barreirinhas district among 12
communities along the
Preguic�a River, ranging from the river mouth to 35 km inland
(Figure 1). Barreirinhas
district is an area of 3112 km2 with 54,930 inhabitants (IBGE
2010), who are mostly
caboclos, or mixed descendants of indigenous, European, and
African people. Buriti
palms grow naturally in Barreirinhas swamp forests as a dominant
tree species in the
region. Buriti palms are single stem, dioecious, and arborescent
palms reaching up to 25m
tall. These palms are distributed across much of South America,
and hold high importance
for subsistence-based people across all areas of its occurrence
(Lawrence et al. 2005).
In Maranhão state, young leaf fiber of buriti palms has been
recorded as one of the most
economically valuable forest products (IBGE 2012). According to
the Brazilian Institute of
Geography and Statistics (IBGE), only four districts of
Maranhão harvest buriti fiber
commercially, and Barreirinhas district was the highest producer
by producing 95–125
metric tons of fiber annually from 2004 to 2012. The value of
buriti fiber in the district
increased from R$7178 (US$3460) per ton in 2004, adjusted for
inflation to 2011 values, to
R$10,791 (US$5200) per ton in 2011 (IBGE 2012). Although
accurate values of NTFP
production are notoriously difficult to obtain, these figures
demonstrate recognition of an
increasingly important regional NTFP. In 2005, buriti fiber
handicrafts were considered the
second most important source of income in Barreirinhas
(Prefeitura Barreirinhas 2005).
Sampling strategy
The sample consisted of 97 individuals who participated in the
buriti value chain. A
purposive sampling strategy was used to select individuals based
on criteria developed
Value chain dynamics 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
during the study (Coyne 1997). Respondent-driven sampling, which
is appropriate for
making estimations about hidden populations (Salganik &
Heckathorn 2004), was applied
by asking community members to name individuals who participated
in the buriti market
in different ways. Individuals were classified as private and
communal owners of buriti
resources (n ¼ 28), extractors of buriti derivatives (n ¼ 12),
and artisans (n ¼ 52) andvendors (n ¼ 19) of buriti handicrafts.
Consumers and representatives of government-managed lands in value
chain dynamics were not included in the sample because they
were
not members of the socio-economically vulnerable communities
targeted for this study.
Figure 1. Map of the study site (by Mariano González
Roglich).
4 A. Virapongse et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
Instead, data collected through interviews with these groups
were used to build context for
the study.
Data collection and analysis
A Brazilian research visa was obtained and Institutional Review
Board process completed
(protocol #2010-U-003, University of Florida) prior to beginning
data collection. Data
were collected during 18 weeks from June 2009 to November 2011.
Unstructured
interviews were used to collect ethnographic data from community
members and
stakeholders of buriti leaf resources, such as governmental
representatives and tour guides.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the sample group
to generate data that
were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively with Microsoft
Excel and SAS 4.3
software.
Buriti value chain diagrams, which included actors and
production blocks (Kaplinsky
& Morris 2001; Velde et al. 2006), were constructed based on
results from qualitatively
grouping, cross checking, and identifying patterns among
interview responses. These
analyses were used to identify different actors, relationships
between actors, variations
among value chains of different buriti derivatives, and actors’
potential impact on buriti
forests. Prices for products as they moved through the value
chain were based on actors’
reports.
Socioeconomic variables were elicited from interview responses
to represent
individual and household demographics, wealth, personal history,
perceptions regarding
sustainable buriti harvesting, participation in livelihood
activities, and household income
sources (Table 1). The means of these variables were compared
using ANOVA and
Kruskal Wallis statistical tests ( p , 0.05), and Pearson’s
correlation analysis( p , 0.0001), to identify statistically
significant socioeconomic factors that characterizedvalue chain
actors (Table 2). These socioeconomic factors were then used to
build models
for logistic regression analysis of factors associated with
heterogeneity among actors.
Response variables were actor roles (owner, extractor, artisan,
and vendor) and
explanatory variables were socioeconomic factors. Variables that
demonstrated low
frequencies or close correlation to other explanatory variables
were not included in
models. Preliminary models were tested until models with the
lowest Akaike Information
Criterion, as a measurement for best-fit models, were attained
(Table 3). All logistic
models were determined to have good fit of data based on the
likelihood ratio ( p , 0.05)and high percent concordant value
(.86). Statistical significance of factors was measuredat a 10%
level or better.
Results
Buriti value chains
The production system, value chain actors, and estimated
distribution of benefits among
actors as derivatives move through the chains are depicted in
Figure 2. The figure shows
property regimes for buriti extraction and different roles of
landowners, buriti extractors,
intermediaries, artisans, and vendors in three value chains for
buriti fruits, mature leaves,
and young leaves. Market chains for fruit and mature leaves were
directed toward
household use and sale within the community. Fruits were
popularly consumed as a food
source. Mature leaves were used by residents when temporary
structures were needed,
federal laws prevented use of industrial construction material
(e.g., protected areas), and
ceramic roof tiles were unaffordable or inaccessible. The
emerging market for young leaf
Value chain dynamics 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
fiber handicrafts contrasted in important ways from the other
two chains. First, access to
palm resources was more difficult because most owners
discouraged harvesting of young
leaves from their property. Second, artisans and intermediaries
were two new actors
present only in the young fiber value chain. Artisans added
value to buriti fiber by making
handicrafts to sell for higher prices than raw buriti fiber.
Intermediaries played important
roles of providing artisans with access to fiber and consumers.
Third, and most
importantly, the handicraft market was oriented solely to
outside markets; consumers were
tourists and national and international intermediaries.
Table 1. Definitions of independent variables.
Variable name Description Range
DemographicsRegion Region where interviewee lived; Laranjeiras
(0)
or Atins (1)0, 1
Age Age (years) 13–88Gender Gender; male (0) or female (1)
0,1Education Education (years) 1–13Home garden Active home garden
present 0, 1Agricultural field Active agricultural field present 0,
1Household size Number of members in the household 1–10Household
labor Household labor: number family members earning
income/number of people in household (%)0–1
Household members buriti Number of household members
participating inburiti activities
0–5
Buriti household use Buriti leaf derivative used for household
subsistence 0, 1WealthConsistent income Receives consistent income
each month 0, 1Wealth index Wealth index based on presence of
material items 0–6
HistoryBorn in community Born in current community of residence
0, 1Individual .10 years buriti Individuals living .10 years close
to buriti 0, 1Parent born in community At least one parent born in
interviewee’s current
community0, 1
Parent .10 years buriti At least one parent has lived .10 years
close to buriti 0, 1Buriti learned from parent Learned current
buriti trade from a parent 0, 1Planted buriti tree Has planted a
buriti tree 0, 1
PerceptionsBuriti trees threatened Buriti trees threatened 0,
1Young leaf harmful Young leaf collection harmful 0, 1
ActivitiesHousework activity Housework is a main activity 0,
1Handicrafts activity Handicrafts production is a main activity 0,
1Private business activity Business owner or cooperative member
is
a main activity0, 1
Agriculture activity Agriculture is a main activity 0, 1Total
activities Number of livelihood activities reported 0–5
Household incomeMain income buriti Buriti provides a main income
sourceHandicrafts income Handicrafts provide household income 0,
1Bolsa famila income Bolsa famila provides household income source
0, 1Retirement income Retirement provides household income source
0, 1Selling palm leaves Selling palm leaves provides household
income 0, 1Total income sources Number of household income sources
reported 0–6
6 A. Virapongse et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
Production system
Almost all buriti forests were found in low-lying inland (.18 km
from coast) areas withabundant fresh water. Most buriti derivatives
were extracted from native populations
where regeneration was a natural process; trees were rarely
cultivated in plantations. Local
cultivation usually consisted of discarding seeds in wet areas
conducive to germination
and transplanting healthy seedlings. Buriti trees were
considered to thrive naturally, so
management was usually minimal. Landowners reported that
management strategies were
limited to removing mature leaves and clearing undergrowth
around trees to facilitate fruit
collection and tree trunk access.
Fruit and mature leaf collection was low impact and non-intense.
Community
members collected mostly fallen fruit for consumption or sale
from August to December,
Table 2. Means of socioeconomic variables for value chain actors
(n ¼ 97).Ownern ¼ 28
Extractorn ¼ 12
Artisann ¼ 52
Vendorn ¼ 19
DemographicsRegion 0.04 0 0.27 0.42Age 57.70 (17.0) 36.25 (12.5)
39.90 (10.9) 38.37 (14.4)Gender 0.36 0 0.90 0.89Education 2.60
(2.71) 3.67 (3.42) 4.71 (2.98) 5.88 (4.01)Home garden 0.86 0.58
0.75 0.44Agricultural field 0.96 0.67 0.44 0.50Household labor 0.38
(0.26) 0.42 (0.25) 0.42 (0.19) 0.57 (0.26)Household size* 4.68
(1.44) 5.67 (1.82) 4.98 (1.78) 4.32 (2.00)Household members buriti
0.46 (0.93) 1.75 (1.54) 1.50 (1.50) 1.05 (1.13)Buriti household
use* 0.86 0.91 0.77 0.60
WealthConsistent income 0.79 0.17 0.52 0.79Wealth index 3.82
(1.54) 2.42 (1.83) 2.42 (1.56) 4.42 (1.43)
HistoryBorn in community 0.61 0.75 0.45 0.56Individual .10 years
buriti 0.96 1.00 0.88 0.65Parent born in community 0.54 0.91 0.44
0.47Parent .10 years buriti 0.81 1.00 0.79 0.71Buriti learned from
parent* 0.50 0.25 0.45 0.58Planted buriti tree 0.77 0.60 0.38
0.64
PerceptionsBuriti trees threatened* 0.68 0.75 0.68 0.67Young
leaf harmful 0.57 0.20 0.05 0.00
ActivitiesHandicrafts activity 0.25 0.17 0.94 0.89Private
business activity 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.79Total activities 2.11 (1.04)
2.75 (0.75) 2.33 (0.71) 2.53 (0.77)
Household incomeMain income buriti 0.18 0.67 0.69
0.68Handicrafts income 0.29 0.83 0.92 0.84Bolsa Famila income 0.48
0.70 0.78 0.29Retirement income 0.43 0 0.15 0.21Fishing activities
income 0.15 0.33 0.37 0.16Selling palm leaves 0.04 0.50 0.02 0Total
income sources 2.96 (1.37) 3.83 (0.67) 3.67 (0.97) 3.26 (1.27)
Notes: Standard deviation listed in parentheses for continuous
variables. *Factors with no statistically significantdifference
among actors.
Value chain dynamics 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
although large quantities of fruit were produced only every
other year. Both mature and
young leaves were collected by extractors, who climbed trees to
cut leaves during
favorable weather (no rain or wind; July–October) and according
to demand. Mature
leaves were in highest demand for building temporary fishing
huts before the fishing
season began each February. Collection of mature leaves was
considered low impact
because leaves most valued for construction purposes were leaves
that were no longer
biologically productive for the tree. Overall demand for mature
leaves was decreasing due
to increased use of industrial substitutes, such as roof
tiles.
Young leaves were in demand throughout most of the year and
particularly for the
tourist season that was highest during June and July. Young
leaves most valued by artisans
were collected as leaf spikes .2m long and from mature trees
with trunk height .3m.According to interviewees, approximately one
young leaf per tree was produced each
month, and leaf harvesting was sustainable if at least two to
three leaves remained on the
tree and two subsequent young leaves were never harvested from
the same tree.
Overharvested trees along riverbanks, however, provided evidence
that extractors did not
always follow their own local harvesting rules. In comparison to
fruit and mature leaf
value chains, increasing demands, production, and value of fiber
handicrafts could have
negative impacts on buriti resources.
Table 3. Results from logistic regression models for value chain
actors reporting coefficients, oddsratio, and p-value in
parentheses.
Variables Owner Extractor Artisan Vendor
Model statistics:Observations
54 54 65 75
Model evaluation:Likelihood ratio
16.62 (0.0343) 21.93 (0.0155) 23.20 (0.0031) 43.24 (,0.0001)
Percent concordant 85.1 89.5 82.8 93.0AgeAGE
– 20.1130.893 (0.048)*
20.0480.953 (0.094)**
0.0081.01 (0.880)
GenderGENDER
21.8290.161 (0.066)**
2 2 0.6751.97 (0.583)
EducationEDUCAT
20.0081.00 (0.957)
20.6470.524 (0.033)*
2 0.4571.58 (0.065)**
Home gardenHOMEGA
– 21.6630.189 (0.186)
2 20.2540.776 (0.812)
Household members buritiMFAMBA
20.6670.513 (0.117)
0.4751.61 (0.254)
0.6281.88 (0.021)*
20.6070.545 (0.158)
Planted buriti treePLABUR
2.2229.22 (0.029)*
0.9662.63 (0.401)
– –
Buriti trees threatenedTHREAT
– – 20.2850.752 (0.681)
–
Wealth indexWEALTH
0.5031.65 (0.040)*
20.3510.704 (0.320)
20.5940.552 (0.007)*
1.6845.39 (0.001)*
Born in communityBORCOM
0.0911.10 (0.923)
3.12922.84 (0.027)*
20.9660.381 (0.164)
–
Buriti learned from parentLEAPAR
0.6201.86 (0.468)
21.0170.362 (0.406)
0.8962.45 (0.186)
2.40311.05 (0.052)**
Total activitiesATOTAL
20.1240.884 (0.798)
0.5711.77 (0.419)
20.8730.418 (0.019)*
1.7215.59 (0.031)*
Main income buritiMINCBU
– 20.6270.534 (0.604)
20.4200.657 (0.534)
2.2769.73 (0.089)**
Notes: *p , 0.05, **p , 0.10; dash signifies that the factor was
not included in the specific model.
8 A. Virapongse et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
Principal actors
Of the sample group, most individuals participated in the buriti
market (n ¼ 81).Individuals who did not participate in the buriti
market were owners (n ¼ 16) who did notsell buriti derivatives.
Individuals could fill multiple roles in the value chain (24%
of
sample group), although they usually specialized in one role.
Owning buriti resources was
often a secondary role because land was inherited or purchased
for other uses. Artisans and
vendors commonly overlapped (13% of sample group) because some
artisans transitioned
to vendors as markets became more accessible; 32% of vendors
were artisans prior to
becoming vendors. Owners and extractors lived in Laranjeiras
area communities, where
buriti forests were located because abundant freshwater was
available. About 27% of
artisans and 42% of vendors were from coastal Atins area
communities. With exception of
some handicraft artisans and vendors, most actors engaged in the
buriti market as part of a
diversified livelihood strategy.
Owners were defined in the study as the household individual who
made decisions
regarding land use. Most owners were men who valued buriti trees
for their current or
potential economic value, so they rarely cut or removed trees.
Although 59% of owners
sampled did not participate in buriti markets, they were
considered part of the value chain
because they managed buriti resources that they gave away upon
request or were taken
by extractors without permission. Most owners actively managed
their land, but others
became absent managers (18% of owners sampled) because they
inherited land or
became too elderly. Owners participating in the market often
optimized for fruit
production. As reported by owners, fruit could be dried and sold
for R$5/kg (US$3) in the
Figure 2. Schematic model of the buriti handicraft value chain
showing different options andscenarios for property regimes, value
chain actors, and the distribution of benefits earned by eachactor
as the derivatives moves through the chain.
Value chain dynamics 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
Barreirinhas market. Mature leaves were harvested once every 2–3
years for R$80/100
leaves (US$46). Hiring a leaf extractor cost R$25/100 leaves
(US$14). No owners sold
young leaves, mostly because they believed that intense young
leaf harvesting negatively
impacted trees. In fact, about half of owners reported
preferring to collect young leaves
from unmanaged buriti forests (private land with absent owners)
in order to conserve
their own trees. There were also potential use conflicts between
actors. For example,
owners often managed for buriti fruit by conserving leaves on
productive female trees. In
contrast, artisans favored young leaf fiber collected from
female trees, which could have
negative impacts on fruit production.
Extractors were often young men, who were athletically fit to
climb tall buriti trees.
Leaf collection was considered a risky activity that did not pay
well; extractors often
discouraged their sons from participating. Upon request from a
buyer, extractors
collected mature leaves from privately owned land. Extractor
reported paying owners
R$25/100 leaves (US$14) or collecting leaves from unmanaged open
access land at no
cost. Although collecting from unmanaged land ensured greater
profit, access to
resources was physically more challenging and had more potential
for land rights
conflicts. Young leaves were collected mostly from unmanaged
land. Extractors reported
earning R$95/100 mature leaves (US$54) and R$0.50–2.00/young
leaf (US$0.29–1.00).
Extractors of the sample group used two different strategies to
gain benefits from leaves:
half of extractors sold buriti leaves to other artisans for
direct income, while other
extractors collected leaves for a household-based artisan to
make and sell handicrafts.
Because handicrafts were sold for higher prices than leaves,
extractors could indirectly
earn more household income by collecting leaves for a family
artisan rather than selling
leaves.
Artisans were usually young women with good eyesight and
dexterity to make
handicrafts. Almost all handicrafts were made for sale rather
than household use. Women
prepared young leaf fiber by stripping the bottom layer of the
leaf blade into fibers, boiling,
dyeing, and sun drying the fiber, and then painstakingly
knotting fibers together into a
single fiber. Women made complex products such as hats, bags,
and tablecloths via
crochet, macramé, and weaving techniques. Most male artisans
made simple fiber
handicrafts, such as cords, or assisted their artisan wives.
Common bottlenecks in the
handicraft production process were having ability to strip
leaves into fiber and market
access. Women lacking skills (15% of artisans) or time to
process fiber depended on the
help of other women or purchased fiber for R$25–30/kg
(US$14–17). Artisans in the
Atins area depended on intermediaries to transport fiber from
the Laranjeiras area;
unprocessed young leaves could not be transported between
regions because of their
delicate nature and regional laws that prohibit exportation
(Barreirinhas municipal law no.
161/1975). These intermediaries were local men who traditionally
transported resources,
such as fish and manioc flour, between regions.
Most artisans believed that they should earn higher returns for
their handicrafts. For
example, a tablecloth that required 20 h and two young leaves
(0.5 kg of fiber) was sold to
vendors for R$25–30 (US$14–17). A very productive artisan could
make 5 tablecloths/
month, which would earn them R$125/month (US$63). Although this
value was lower
than federal minimum wage for an equivalent working week
(R$270/month, US$135),
artisans could multitask in their home as they made handicrafts.
In any case, there were
few jobs available in the region that paid minimum wage. Some
artisans managed for lack
of market access by selling to different vendors to maintain a
diversity of market outlets.
Artisans who made higher quality handicrafts could demand better
prices from vendors
who competed to purchase their wares. It was relatively easy for
a vendor to be an artisan,
10 A. Virapongse et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
while an artisan had to overcome socioeconomic limitations to
transition into a vendor.
Many vendors owned businesses or shops where they sold
handicrafts to consumers, but
few artisans owned shops. Not all artisans were willing to move
closer to the consumer end
of the chain, however. Some artisans enjoyed making handicrafts
and identified culturally
as artisans. Artisans also associated greater proximity to the
market end of the chain with
more stress and responsibility.
Vendors were considered a type of intermediary that provided
market access for
artisans by regularly buying and reselling handicrafts to other
vendors or consumers for at
least 25% premium. Although 53% of vendors were skilled
artisans, they often preferred
to purchase products from other artisans because handicraft
production was time
consuming. To make unique products or save time and money, some
vendors purchased
uncompleted handicrafts to finish the product personally.
Vendors took on risks by
investing in handicrafts that could potentially be left unsold,
and earning delayed returns
from their investments. Overall, most vendors were financially
successful; many of their
shops had year-round market access.
Socioeconomic factors affecting value chain actors
Socioeconomic characteristics of actors
Means of socioeconomic factors among actors were compared to
understand heterogeneity
among actors. All socioeconomic factors, except for four
factors, demonstrated
statistically significant differences (Table 2). Results from
pair-wise correlation analysis
are qualitatively discussed.
Actors most closely associated with buriti resources (owners and
extractors) had less
education and wealth, and fewer livelihood opportunities in
comparison to actors more
closely associated with the emergent buriti handicraft market
(artisans and vendors).
Progressively higher education was apparent from owner to vendor
in the value chain,
which suggested that education helped prepare or encourage
people to work in markets.
Age and education were negatively correlated. Older people, such
as owners, had low
education partly because widespread secondary education was
established only within the
previous decade.
Wealth was measured using an index based on presence of
household goods (e.g., tile
roof, inside bathroom, well-made floor and walls, water
plumbing, and vehicle ownership),
access to consistent income, availability of household labor,
andBolsaFamilia, whichwas a
governmental subsidy awarded to women of poor households with
school aged children.
The wealth index and having a consistent source of income were
positively correlated.
Extractors were the poorest actors, as they had a low wealth
index, few consistent sources
of income, and lacked access to credit, which was often
dependent on formal property
ownership. Among all actors, extractors also had the most
diverse livelihood strategy
because they participated in a high number of household income
sources and livelihood
activities. In contrast, vendors were the wealthiest group, as
they had consistent income and
high integration in the market economy. Owners were also
relatively wealthy because they
had consistent income, few income sources, and their households
were most likely to
receive retirement payments, which were considered a lucrative
income source within
communities. Vendors and owners both demonstrated high
livelihood stability. Bolsa
Familia was received mostly by extractor and artisan households,
and considerably less by
owner and vendor households. Household labor was calculated
based on the number of
household members earning income compared to the number of
household members.
Although the number of household members was not significantly
different among actors,
Value chain dynamics 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
household labor was highest among actors on the market end of
the value chain, such as
vendors, who had few dependents in their household.
Buriti activities provided a main income source for extractors,
artisans, and vendors. In
comparison, owners earned little household income from
handicraft production or other
buriti-related activities. Although household use of buriti was
not statistically different
between actors, household use of buriti was highest among actors
closest to the forest.
Actors closest to the forest were associated with having home
gardens and agricultural
plots, which represented subsistence level activities. In
contrast, few vendors had home
gardens and agricultural fields, and few artisans had
agricultural fields. Vendors were
particularly reliant on purchased food.
Facing similar livelihood pressures, extractors and artisans
often cooperated to meet
livelihood goals. Both extractors and artisans had high numbers
of household income
sources and earned household income from similar sources, such
as Bolsa Familia and
fishing activities. In comparison to other actors, artisans and
extractors had more
household members who worked with buriti derivatives, which
helped increase efficiency
for completing the labor-intensive handicraft process. In
comparison to artisan
households, however, extractor households depended more on
household income from
selling palm leaves. Extractors had the largest household sizes
of all actors. Palm leaf sale
formed part of their diversified livelihood strategy to meet
income demands of a large
young family with low labor availability.
To evaluate the impact of history and tradition regarding buriti
on actors’ participation
in the buriti market, actors’ personal history and parental ties
with buriti were analyzed.
Statistically, actors had similar rates of being born in their
current community and having a
parent with extensive exposure to buriti. All interviewees had
greater parental ties to buriti
resources than to their current community of residence. In
comparison to other actors,
actors closest to the forest end of the value chain were more
likely to have had extensive
exposure to buriti trees. Extractors, of all actors, had the
strongest historical ties to their
current community of residence, and exposure and history with
buriti. They were also
likely to be born in their current community; all extractors and
at least one of their parents
had spent over 10 years close to buriti. Although there was no
statistical difference among
actors in terms of reporting that they had learned buriti skills
from their parents, extractors
had the lowest rate among actors. Instead, extractors reported
being self-taught; they relied
on their extensive exposure to buriti to learn to climb
trees.
Perceptions about sustainability of buriti use were measured
based on individuals’
perceptions that buriti trees were threatened and collection of
young leaves was harmful.
There was little variability among actors with regard to their
general perception that buriti
forests were threatened (not statistically different), but
actors closer to the forest end of the
value chain were more likely to believe that young leaf
collection was harmful to buriti
trees. In contrast, few artisans and, interestingly, no vendors
believed that collecting young
leaves was harmful. Reflecting familiarity with the green market
discourse, vendors often
defended the sustainability of their craft to tourists, or
researchers, by asserting their long
tradition of buriti use and contribution to buriti
sustainability (64% of vendors reported
having planted a buriti tree).
Predicting actors
Socioeconomic factors identified in the previous section were
used to build best-fit models
for each actor, in order to identify the probability that
certain socioeconomic factors were
correlated with different roles in the value chain (Table 3).
Logistic regression models
12 A. Virapongse et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
were as follows:
Predicted logit of
ðownerÞ¼22:479þð21:829Þ*GENDERþð20:008Þ*EDUCATþð20:667Þ*MFAMBAþð2:222Þ*PLABURþð0:503Þ*WEALTHþð0:091Þ*BORCOMþð0:620Þ*LEAPARþð20:124Þ*ATOTAL;
Predicted logit of ðextractorÞ¼
3:443þð0:113Þ*AGEþð20:647Þ*EDUCATþð21:663Þ*HOMEGAþð0:475Þ*MFAMBAþð0:966Þ*PLABURþð20:351Þ*WEALTHþð3:129Þ*BORCOMþð21:017Þ*LEAPARþð0:571Þ*ATOTALþð20:627Þ*MINCBU;
Predicted logit of ðartisanÞ ¼ 6:200þ ð20:048Þ*AGEþ
ð0:628Þ*MFAMBAþ ð20:594Þ*WEALTHþ ð20:966Þ*BORCOMþ ð0:896Þ*LEAPARþ
ð20:873Þ*ATOTALþ ð20:420Þ*MINCBU;
Predicted logit of ðvendorÞ ¼ 216:509þ ð0:008Þ*AGEþ
ð0:675Þ*GENDERþ ð0:457Þ*EDUCATþ ð20:254Þ*HOMEGAþ ð20:607Þ*MFAMBAþ
ð1:684Þ*WEALTHþ ð2:403Þ*LEAPARþ ð1:721Þ*ATOTALþ ð2:276Þ*MINCBU:
Results showed that the probability of being an owner was lower
for men, and higher
for those that planted buriti trees or had a higher wealth
index. The probability of being an
extractor was lower for older respondents and for those with
high education, but there was
higher probability for individuals born in the community. The
probability of being an
artisan was, like for extractors, lower for older respondents
and for those with a higher
wealth index and who participated in more activities. If the
household had more family
members working with buriti, they were more likely to be
artisans. The probability for
being a vendor was higher if an individual was more educated and
wealthier, had learned
about their current buriti trade from a parent, reported more
activities, and earned a main
income from buriti.
In summary, older individuals were less likely to be extractors
or artisans. Although
most owners were men, some owners were female. Men often made
land use decisions, but
women often inherited land of which they maintained ownership.
Those who were more
highly educated were less likely to be extractors, and more
likely to be vendors. Handicraft
production was labor intensive, so young family members often
assisted in the process,
which led to higher probabilities of artisans. Individuals who
planted a buriti tree were
more likely to be an owner, which was expected because they were
land managers.
Wealthier households were more likely to be owners or vendors,
but less likely to be an
artisan. Individuals born in the same community in which they
currently resided in were
more likely to be extractors. Those who learned their buriti
trade from a parent were more
likely to be a vendor. Households reporting more livelihood
activities were more likely to
be vendors and less likely to be artisans. Lastly, households
whose main income was from
buriti are more likely to be vendors.
Discussion
Although NTFP markets are often based on existing knowledge and
use of forest
resources, emerging global markets for NTFPs can introduce
socioeconomic and
ecological challenges. Global export markets, of which buriti
fiber handicraft markets are
Value chain dynamics 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
classified, can be socially and geographically foreign to NTFP
users (Philip 2002). As
suggested in other studies (Shillington 2002), a value chain
perspective helped reveal the
roles of more hidden groups in the buriti market, such as
independent artisans, tree owners,
and extractors. Forest-based users are often erroneously
considered as a homogeneous
group, which has implications for the effectiveness of
conservation and development
interventions.
Privileged groups, such as actors at the market end of the value
chain, tend to dominate
over other users in global export NTFP markets (Belcher &
Schreckenberg 2007;
Shackleton et al. 2007). They are also common recipients of
external assistance
(McSweeney 2004). In Barreirinhas, long-term capacity-building
programs by SEBRAE
(Brazilian micro and small businesses support service) helped
women artisans gain new
skills and better access to existing and new markets (e.g.,
higher paying clients), and
organize handicraft cooperatives (SEBRAE 2007). Through this
assistance, many women
used their market advantage to take on roles as vendors to earn
higher income.
As markets grow to favor higher quality products, market
differentiation can
reconfigure value chains by excluding people who cannot meet
product standards (Kanji
et al. 2005; Velde et al. 2006). These dynamics, however, can
also create new roles in the
value chain. Less-skilled buriti handicraft artisans found a
market for selling products to
other artisans, who reassembled handicrafts for resale. Some
extraordinarily skilled
artisans could overcome the social and market advantage that
other artisans gained from
external assistance, and could strike out independently in their
own niche markets.
Additionally, not all artisans were interested in joining
handicraft cooperatives, which
often required women to devote all of their time to producing
handicrafts. A household
also needed the appropriate socioeconomic circumstances to
support a specialized
livelihood strategy that optimized for one activity.
Strategies used to overcome limitations in the buriti market
also had implications for
resource sustainability. Extractors that collected young leaves
for artisans in the
household, rather than selling leaves for direct income,
participated in value-added
dynamics. This practice could lead to more sustainable use of
buriti resources because a
household invested more time into fewer products (less NTFP
resources) to generate
higher financial return. Investing into more profitable, higher
quality products can reduce
destructive impacts of NTFP harvesting (Varghese & Ticktin
2008) and increase market
advantage (Belcher & Schreckenberg 2007).
Artisans overcame a limited access to buriti resources by
relying on social networks,
such as intermediaries or family relations, to ensure a supply
of young leaves. Some
independent artisans also maintained market links by selling
handicrafts to regular buyers
for low prices. Unfortunately, low prices for handicrafts often
drove artisans to optimize
for quantity, instead of quality, which led to greater
exploitation of young leaves. By
obtaining greater education, income, and skills, female artisans
found an avenue of upward
mobility through the market chain by working as handicraft
vendors. Although NTFP
trade often allows women to earn income with little interference
by men (Schreckenberg
et al. 2006), more men entering the market as vendors could
present future problems as
men often dominate lucrative forest market opportunities (Ruiz
Perez et al. 2002).
Although buriti users had found some solutions for overcoming
market challenges,
sustainability of buriti resources remained vulnerable. With
increased commercialization
of NTFPs, people often intensify extraction activities to take
advantage of market
opportunities (Godoy et al. 1993). In comparison to fruit and
mature leaves, young buriti
leaf collection had greater potential for overharvesting. Fruit
and mature leaves have
higher harvest limits than young leaves (Ticktin 2004). Secure
property rights for NTFP
14 A. Virapongse et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
users are considered to be one of the first steps for achieving
poverty reduction and
sustainable resource management through commercialization of
NTFPs (Ros-Tonen &
Kusters 2011). Indeed, private buriti tree owners resisted young
leaf collection to prevent
overharvesting of buriti resources on their property. A negative
effect, however, was that
young leaf users were driven to rely on resources collected
furtively or from unmanaged
lands. Buriti users often treated unmanaged land, such as the
large swaths of buriti forests
in the region with absentee owners, as open access land to be
overexploited.
Insecure land rights also meant that extractors were often
unwilling to discuss their
extraction activities, which could hinder collection of
harvesting information that is vital
for formulating resource management strategies. Extractors often
harvested because they
lacked other income-earning options. Extractors’ social and
economic vulnerability can
have dire consequences for sustainability of buriti leaf
resources because they are more
likely influenced by market pressure to engage in overharvesting
practices. They were also
likely to change livelihood activities as their socioeconomic
situation improved, leaving
less skilled extractors to fill their gaps in the value chain.
Experienced extractors are more
likely than inexperienced extractors to leave forest populations
intact by carefully
selecting resources for extraction (Jensen & Meilby 2008;
Schmidt & Ticktin 2012).
Buriti tree owners and extractors, who were closer to the forest
end value chain, were
generally overlooked by external efforts to improve distribution
of benefits and
sustainability of resources. Owners and extractors, however, had
extensive exposure and
contact with natural resources, and provided links between
artisans and buriti resources.
Having great influence over harvesting practices and investment
in protecting resources,
tree owners and extractors would be good candidates as subjects
for conservation and
development initiatives.
Conclusions
This study has analyzed the impacts of an emerging buriti
handicrafts market on the
heterogeneity of actors in value chains in Maranhão, Brazil.
The young buriti leaf
handicraft market has introduced new actors, such as artisans
and vendors, and resource
demands that compete with pre-existing local and subsistence
uses of buriti fruits and
mature leaves. This study demonstrates that there is much
heterogeneity among users of
the same resources, which can affect efforts to improve equal
distribution of financial
returns among actors. In addition, financial benefit from buriti
products was not always
actors’ main objective. More studies are needed to understand
how actors manage the
trade-offs and transitions between subsistence use and
commercialization of NTFPs.
Based on this study, some recommendations are made to address
socioeconomic and
ecological challenges introduced by an emerging buriti
handicraft market:
. Secure property rights for buriti users. New market demand
poses a threat tosustainability of buriti harvesting partly because
young leaf extraction takes place
primarily on unmanaged public or open access land.
. Prioritize livelihood stability in development interventions.
Local people relied onburiti resources for both subsistence and
market purposes, depending on their
livelihood strategy and socioeconomic limitations. Protecting
against over-
harvesting of young leaf buriti resources would help ensure that
all groups can
benefit from the buriti palm.
. Target owners and extractors for training programs aimed to
improve sustainableharvest of young buriti leaves.
Value chain dynamics 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
-
. Train a broader group of artisans. By including people who do
not optimize for highproduction of handicrafts, all artisans have
equal opportunity to produce higher
quality handicrafts, with more awareness of harvesting pressures
on buriti
resources.
This analysis of buriti fiber value chains contributes to our
understanding of the
complex relations between growing markets and natural resources,
which can be used to
inform and guide policy and development interventions that seek
to influence livelihoods
and sustainable resource management through participation in
NTFP markets. Managing
harvesting and use strategies that are affected by value chain
dynamics and heterogeneity
can help to alleviate the negative impacts of increasing and
changing NTFP use.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the generous cooperation of the
community members of Barreirinhasthat made this research possible.
We thank our research collaborator, Noemi Miyasaka Porro
ofUniversity Federal de Pará, for her valuable in-country
assistance. We also appreciate the helpfulsuggestions made by
anonymous reviewers.
Funding
This research was supported by a doctoral dissertation
improvement grant from the US NationalScience Foundation (award
ID1032034); a Botany in Action fellowship from Phipps
Conservatory,Pittsburg, PA; and a Brazilian Initiation Scholarship
from the Brazilian Studies Association.
References
Belcher B, Ruı́z-Pérez M, Achdiawan R. 2005. Global patterns
and trends in the use andmanagement of commercial NTFPs:
implications for livelihoods and conservation. World
Dev.33:1435–1452.
Belcher B, Schreckenberg K. 2007. Commercialisation of
non-timber forest products: a realitycheck. Dev Policy Rev.
25:355–377.
Collinson M. 2000. A history of farming systems research. Oxon
(UK): FAO/CABI.Coyne IT. 1997. Sampling in qualitative research.
Purposeful and theoretical sampling: merging or
clear boundaries? J Adv Nurs. 26:623–630.Cunningham AB. 2001.
Applied ethnobotany people, wild plant use and conservation.
London:
Earthscan.Godoy R, Lubowski R, Markandya A. 1993. A method for
the economic valuation of non-timber
tropical forest products. Econ Bot. 47:220–233.IBGE: Brazilian
Institute of Geography and Statistics. 2010. Barreirinhas-MA,
Summary of
information [Internet]. [cited 2012 Dec 9]. Available from:
http://www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat/link.php?uf¼ma
IBGE: Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. 2012.
Production of vegetal extraction andsilvaculture 2004–2011
[Internet]. IBGE; [cited 2012 Jul 12]. Available from:
http://www.ibge.gov.br/estadosat/
Jensen A. 2006. The scramble for cash: access and access
mechanisms to income from a commercialNTFP. Scand Soc Forest Econ.
41:115–120.
Jensen A. 2009. Valuation of non-timber forest products value
chains. Forest Policy Econ.11:34–41.
Jensen A, Meilby H. 2008. Does commercialization of a non-timber
forest product reduce ecologicalimpact? A case study of the
critically endangered aquilaria crassna in Lao PDR.
Oryx.42:214–221.
Kanji N, MacGregor J, Tacoli C. 2005. Understanding market-based
livelihoods in a globalisingworld: combining approaches and
methods. London: International Institute for Environment
andDevelopment (IIED).
Kaplinsky R, Morris M. 2001. A handbook for value chain
research. Sussex (UK): IDRC.
16 A. Virapongse et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
http://www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat/link.php?uf=mahttp://www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat/link.php?uf=mahttp://www.ibge.gov.br/estadosat/http://www.ibge.gov.br/estadosat/
-
Kusters K, Achdiawan R, Belcher B, Pérez M. 2006. Balancing
development and conservation? Anassessment of livelihood and
environmental outcomes of nontimber forest product trade in
Asia,Africa, and Latin America. Ecol Soc. 11:20. Available from:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/ iss2/art20/
Lawrence A, Phillips O, Ismodes A, Lopez M, Rose S, Wood D,
Fardan A. 2005. Local values forharvested forest plants in Madre de
Dios, Peru: towards a more contextualized interpretation
ofquantitative ethnobotanical data. Biodivers Conserv.
14:45–79.
Lobato FM. 2008. Diagnóstico Turı́stico do Municı́pio de
Barreirinhas – MA [Tourism diagnostic ofBarreirinhas municipality –
MA]. São Luı́s: Agência Espanhola de Cooperac�ão
Internacional(AECI), SEBRAE-LEGAL.
Marshall E, Schreckenberg K, Newton A. 2006. Commercialization
of non-timber forest products:factors influencing success: lessons
learned fromMexico and Bolivia and policy implications
fordecision-makers. Cambridge (UK): UNEP World Conservation
Monitoring Centre.
May PH. 1986. A modern tragedy of the non-commons:
agro-industrial change and equity in Brazil’sbabassu palm zone. New
York: Cornell University.
McSweeney K. 2004. Forest product sale as natural insurance: the
effects of householdcharacteristics and the nature of shock in
eastern Honduras. Soc Nat Resour. 17:39–56.
Neumann RP, Hirsch E. 2000. Commercialisation of non-timber
forest products: review and analysisof research. Bogor (Indonesia):
Center for International Forestry Research.
Philip K. 2002. The quest for rural enterprise support
strategies that work the case of mineworkers’development agency.
Small Enterprise Dev. 13:13–25.
Prefeitura Barreirinhas. 2005. Código municipal do meio
ambiente de Barreirinhas [Municipal codeof Barreirinhas
environment]. Barreirinhas, MA: Prefeitura Barrerinhas.
Ros-Tonen MAF, Kusters K. 2011. Pro-poor governance of
non-timber forest products: the need forsecure tenure, the rule of
law, market access and partnerships. In: Shackleton S, Shackleton
C,Shanley P, editors. Non-timber forest products in the global
context. Berlin: Springer.p. 189–207.
Ruiz-Perez M, Belcher B, Achdiawan R, Alexiades M, Aubertin C,
Caballero J, Campbell B,Clement C, Cunningham T, Fantini A. 2004.
Markets drive the specialization strategies of forestpeoples. Ecol
Soc. 9:4. Available from:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art4/
Ruiz Perez M, Ndoye O, Eyebe A, Ngono DL. 2002. A gender
analysis of forest product markets inCameroon. Afr. Today.
49:97–126.
Ruiz-Perez MR, Belcher B, Fu M, Yang X. 2004. Looking through
the bamboo curtain: an analysisof the changing role of forest and
farm income in rural livelihoods in China. Int Forestry
Rev.6:306–316.
Salganik MJ, Heckathorn DD. 2004. Sampling and estimation in
hidden populations usingrespondent-driven sampling. Sociol
Methodol. 34:193–240.
Scherr S, White A, Kaimowitz D, Trends F. 2004. A new agenda for
forest conservation and povertyreduction: making forest markets
work for low-income producers. Washington (DC): ForestTrends.
Schmidt IB, Ticktin T. 2012. When lessons from population models
and local ecological knowledgecoincide: effects of flower stalk
harvesting in the Brazilian savanna. Biol Conserv.152:187–195.
Schmink M. 2004. Communities, forests, markets, and
conservation. Working forests in the tropics:conservation through
sustainable management? New York: Columbia University Press.p.
119–129.
Schreckenberg K, Rushton J, Newton A, Marshall E, Velde DWt.
2006. Research methodology. In:Marshall E, Schreckenberg K, Newton
A, editors. Commercialization of non-timber forestproducts: factors
influencing success: lessons learned from Mexico and Bolivia and
policyimplications for decision-makers. Cambridge (UK): UNEP World
Conservation MonitoringCentre.
Schwartzman S. 1992. Social movements and natural resource
conservation in the BrazilianAmazon. Sustainable strategies for
saving tropical forests. London (UK): Friends of the Earth.p.
207–212.
SEBRAE. 2007. Projeto: Artesanato nos Lenc�óis [Project:
handicrafts of Lenc�óis [Internet].Maranhão: SEBRAE. Available
from:
http://sebrae-legal.com.br/arquivos/Projeto_Artesanato_Lencois.htm
(accessed 11 November 2012).
Value chain dynamics 17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/
iss2/art20/http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/
iss2/art20/http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art4/http://sebrae-legal.com.br/arquivos/Projeto_Artesanato_Lencois.htmhttp://sebrae-legal.com.br/arquivos/Projeto_Artesanato_Lencois.htm
-
Shackleton C, Shackleton S. 2004. The importance of non-timber
forest products in rural livelihoodsecurity and as safety nets: a
review of evidence from South Africa. South African J
Sci.100:658–664.
Shackleton S, Shanley P, Ndoye O. 2007. Invisible but viable:
recognising local markets for non-timber forest products. Int
Forestry Rev. 9:697–712.
Shackleton SE, Shackleton CM, Wynberg R, Sullivan CA, Leakey
RRB, Mander M, McHardy T,Den Adel S, Botelle A, Du Plesis P, et al.
2009. Livelihood trade-offs in the commercializationof multiple-use
NTFP: lessons from marula (Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra) in
SouthernAfrica. In: Shaanker RU, Hiremath A, Joseph G, Rai ND,
editors. Non-timber forest products:conservation, management and
policy in the tropics. Bangalore: Ashoka Trust for Research
inEcology and the Environment (ATREE). p. 139–173.
Shillington LJ. 2002. Non-timber forest products, gender, and
households in Nicaragua: acommodity chain analysis. Blacksburg,
Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity.
Sutton MQ, Anderson EN. 2004. Introduction to cultural ecology.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMiraPress.
Ticktin T. 2004. The ecological implications of harvesting
non-timber forest products. J Appl Ecol.41:11–21.
Varghese A, Ticktin T. 2008. Regional variation in non-timber
forest product harvest strategies,trade, and ecological impacts:
the case of black dammar (Canarium strictum Roxb.) use
andconservation in the Nilgiri biosphere reserve, India. Ecol Soc.
13:11. Available from: http://www.ecologyand
society.org/vol13/iss2/art11/
Velde DW, Rushton J, Schreckenberg K, Marshall E, Edouard F,
Newton A, Arancibia E. 2006.Entrepreneurship in value chains of
non-timber forest products. Forest Policy Econ. 8:725–741.
Virapongse A. 2013. Forest products for subsistence and markets:
livelihood systems and valuechains of buriti (Mauritia flexuosa) in
Brazil [dissertation]. Gainesville: School of NaturalResources and
Environment, University of Florida.
Williams V, Balkwill K, Witkowski E. 2000. Unraveling the
commercial market for medicinal plantsand plant parts on the
Witwatersrand, South Africa. Econ Bot. 54:310–327.
Wilsey D. 2008. Integrating conservation and development
objectives through non-timber forestproduct certification: the case
of Chamaedorea palms [dissertation]. Gainesville: School ofNatural
Resources and Environment, University of Florida.
Wynberg R, Laird S, Botha J, Den Adel S, McHardy T. 2002. The
management, use andcommercialisation of marula: policy issues.
London (UK): DFID/FRP Winners and Losers inForest Product
Commercialisation.
18 A. Virapongse et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
arik
a vi
rapo
ngse
] at
13:
01 2
6 D
ecem
ber
2013
http://www.ecologyand
society.org/vol13/iss2/art11/http://www.ecologyand
society.org/vol13/iss2/art11/
AbstractIntroductionMethodsAnalytical frameworkCase
studySampling strategyData collection and analysis
ResultsBuriti value chainsProduction systemPrincipal actors
Socioeconomic factors affecting value chain actorsSocioeconomic
characteristics of actorsPredicting actors
DiscussionConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences