EXPERIENCE WITH NTFP CERTIFICATION IN BRAZIL

Page 1

AbstrAct

Certification of forest management through the Forest Stewardship Council started in the 1990s, and focused on timber. Considerable work on the part of NGOs, communities, the private sector, researchers and governments has resulted in incipient certification of NTFPs, both by industries and communities. In the tropics, Brazil has had an important leadership role in this process, both in the development and adaptation of the Forest Stewardship Council system to this purpose and to increase the accessibility of FSC certification for small holders. In this paper we review the history of this process, present cases of certification in Brazil, and discuss their links with the private sector and public policies. Finally, we analyse the factors that have contributed to the successes and constraints of these efforts in the Brazilian context.

Key words: non-timber forest products, communities, forest management, FSC, markets and marketing, private sector, public policies

INtrODUctION

As conceived within the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), certification was designed as a tool to improve governance and to catalyze changes in the forest sector towards sustainable development. An additional objective of certification was to enhance the livelihoods of forest-dependent people in the tropics (Viana et al., 1996). Most forest certification systems began with an exclusive focus on timber; in the past decade attempts have been made to include non-timber forest products within various certification schemes (Shanley et al. In press).

Brazil is the current global leader in the certification of NTFPs within forest management certification systems. Here the largest number of NTFP species certified under the FSC system can be found, and Brazil has the world’s largest area certified exclusively for NTFP extraction. SmartWood’s, (a forest certification programme of the Rainforest Alliance) national affiliate, the Brazilian NGO IMAFLORA (Institute for Agricultural and Forestry Management and

*Corresponding author: [email protected]. Fax: 55 19 34144015

Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 2008, Vol. 18, pp. 37–541472-8028 $10© 2008 A B Academic Publishers—Printed in Great Britain

EXPErIENcE WItH NtFP cErtIFIcAtION IN brAZIL

LUíS FERNANDO GUEDES PINTO1*, PATRICIA STANLEY2, ANA PATRICIA COTA GOMES1 AND DAWN ROBINSON3

1IMAFLORA – Instituto de Manejo e Certificação Florestal e Agrícola. Estrada Chico Mendes, 185. Piracicaba – Brazil. 13.420–850. 2CIFOR – Center for International Forestry Research, P.O. Box 0113 BOCBD. Bogor 16000. Indonesia. 3ProForest. South Suite, Frewin Chambers, Frewin Court, Oxford OX1 3HZ, United Kingdom

Page 2

38 PINTO ET AL.

Certification) has broken new ground with its work on community certification, including NTFP certification, and was the first national certifying body to take the Smartwood NTFP generic guidelines developed by international experts and revise them to meet local geographical and ecological realities, (Donovan, 2000).

We begin by providing an overview of the history of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) NTFP Certification, as Brazil played a leading role in the early discussions about whether and how to place NTFP certification within the FSC framework. We then analyze the key factors that have contributed to Brazil’s success in certifying NTFPs, detailing the roles of NGOs, the private sector and the state.

HIstOrY OF NtFP cErtIFIcAtION IN Fsc

Given the promise of timber certification under the FSC system in the early 1990s, many different actors, including forest conservationists and those promoting sustainable forest-based livelihoods, sought to incorporate non-timber forest products into the FSC system. In 1997 an NTFP Working Group was formed to recommend how to address this category of products. In part, the formation of this working group was due to pressure from Brazil and southern countries with high biodiversity and large forest-dwelling populations where NTFPs play an important role in rural livelihoods. The incorporation of NTFPs into the certification agenda followed the widespread attention given to them by the conservation and development communities in the late 1980s and 1990s. NTFPs were seen as significant contributors to potentially sustainable local livelihoods and, in some cases, were promoted internationally to the ‘green’ consumer (e.g. Clay 1996; Plotkin and Famolare 1992). Most of these early efforts to market NTFPs to international consumers involved brokering and partnerships between northern NGOs and companies and local producers (Azevedo and Freitas 2003). Certification was viewed as another way to harness the buying power of informed consumers to promote sustainable livelihoods in forest areas.

After a series of meetings, including a ground-breaking one in Brazil in 1997, the FSC NTFP working group came up with a proposal to introduce an additional ‘11th’ Principle to the FSC Principles and Criteria (Brown et al, 2002). However, it was decided that since FSC certification aims to address and evaluate ‘forest management’ – not only timber management – that NTFPs could and should be addressed within the existing 10 Principles. The FSC board of directors therefore authorized the certification of NTFPs on a ‘case by case basis’ in 1998. They specifically declared that any standards for NTFP management developed by certification bodies did not require approval from the FSC Secretariat and that chain of custody (CoC) certificates for NTFPs could be issued using the guidelines for timber based products. (Brown et al, 2002). The

Page 3

EXPERIENCE WITH NTFP CERTIFICATION IN BRAZIL 39

intention was that a review of the NTFP policies would take place a year later, however, to date such a review is still pending1.

The certification of NTFPs within the FSC system is, therefore, essentially conducted using guidelines for general forest management, and certification bodies have a considerable degree of freedom to develop standards to address NTFP management, or whether to develop them at all (Freitas 2003c). Of the twelve certification bodies accredited by the FSC for worldwide forest management assessments, four indicated that they have awarded certificates which include NTFPs in their scope:

•  SmartWood, •  Soil Association, •  Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS) and •  Control Union Certifications.

NTFPs that have been certified under the FSC system are listed in Table 1 that is based on information provided by the certifiers.

The first certificate to cover a number of NTFPs was awarded in 2001 to a forest management company in Brazil – Klabin Pulp and Paper Inc. – that had first sought certification for its plantations that produce materials for the pulp and timber industries. The majority of the 30 NTFP species covered by this certificate are cultivated or weedy herbaceous species growing in the sub-canopy of the plantations and, thus, relatively easily incorporated into a sustainable management strategy. The plants are processed in a local cosmetic and pharmaceutical business into phytotherapeutical products used in the company’s health programme and sold to employees and citizens of the local town. Other early certificates for NTFP harvesting were for chicle resin tapping in Mexico (1999), maple syrup tapping in USA (1999) and acai palm production in the Brazilian Amazon (2000) (Shanley et al. 2002).

The range of certified NTFPs has increased over time, as have the number of harvesters involved (Freitas 2003b). A certificate awarded in 2005 to a Nepali community forestry organization FECOFUN, for example, covered more than 16 species, managed by 11 community forest user groups (CFUG) – a number that rose to 21 groups in the second year. The early certificates were either for single products (albeit usually managed by multiple collectors) or for multiple species managed by a single company (such as Klabin).

Another of the reasons that Brazil has been successful in certifying NTFPs is due to the characteristics of some of the species that are being certified. The characteristics that facilitate the certification process include products that have well developed markets, with interested buyers and suppliers, or herbaceous species that are common, widespread, quick to mature and reproduce. The harvesting of plant parts which are quickly replaced, such as leaves, reproductive

1A motion was approved by the FSC General Assembly in 2005 to request that FSC carry out a review of its policies with respect to NTFP (FSC 2006).

Page 4

40 PINTO ET AL.

TAB

LE

1

Cur

rent

FSC

Cer

tifica

tes

whi

ch c

over

NT

FPs

in B

razi

l

Nam

e of

Ope

ratio

n Ty

pe o

f fo

rest

Ty

pe o

f N

TFP

pro

duct

s Y

ear

of

Cer

tified

(p

lant

atio

n/na

tura

l)

cert

ifica

te

cove

red

by t

he

cert

ifica

tion

Are

a

And

typ

e of

ope

ratio

n

cert

ifica

te

(h

ecta

res)

Kla

bin

S/A

. Pl

anta

tion/

Bus

ines

s T

imbe

r an

d M

edic

inal

pla

nts

1998

23

6,87

3(K

labi

n Fl

ores

tal

PR)

N

TFP

s Pi

ne s

eeds

Ass

ocia

ção

dos

Seri

ngue

iros

N

atur

al/C

omm

unity

T

imbe

r an

d C

opaí

ba o

il.

2002

2,

855

de P

OR

TO

DIA

S

NT

FPs

( Cop

aife

ra s

p).

E

rvat

eira

Put

ingu

ense

Ltd

a.

Nat

ural

/bus

ines

s N

TFP

onl

y M

até

tea

herb

fre

sh

2003

69

( I

llex

par

agua

rien

sis)

.

C

oop.

Mis

ta E

xtra

tivis

tas

do

Nat

ural

/Com

mun

ity

NT

FPs

only

B

razi

l nu

ts (

Ber

thol

leti

aR

io I

rata

puru

– C

OM

AR

U

exce

lsa)

, C

opaí

ba

2004

21

,380

oi

l, B

reu

resi

n

( P

roti

um s

pp)

Ass

ocia

ção

dos

Seri

ngue

iros

N

atur

al/C

omm

unity

T

imbe

r an

d C

opaí

ba o

il, j

arin

a 20

04

5,50

0da

Res

erva

Ext

rativ

ista

São

NT

FPs

seed

s (P

hyte

leph

as

L

uiz

do R

eman

so –

ASS

ER

m

acro

carp

a).

Coo

pera

tiva

dos

Prod

utor

es

Nat

ural

/Com

mun

ity

NT

FP o

nly

‘Wild

har

vest

’ ac

aí

2005

99

0A

groe

xtra

tivis

tas

da R

eser

va

palm

hea

rt

E

xtra

tivis

ta d

o R

io C

ajar

i

( E

uter

pe o

lera

cea)

''CO

OPE

R-C

A''

AT

INA

- I

ndús

tria

e

Nat

ural

/bus

ines

s N

TFP

onl

y C

ande

ia e

ssen

tial

oil

2005

69

Com

érci

o de

Pro

duto

s

( E

rem

anth

us e

ryth

ropa

ppus

)

Flor

esta

is N

ão M

adei

reir

osC

omun

idad

e K

ayap

ó na

Ter

ra

Nat

ural

/Com

mun

ity

NT

FP o

nly

Wild

harv

est

braz

il 20

06

1,54

3,46

0In

díge

na d

o B

aú –

(T

I-B

aú)

nuts

, an

d br

azil

nut

oil

Ass

ocia

ção

Asm

opre

ura

Nat

ural

/Com

mun

ity

NT

FP o

nly

Tuc

umã

palm

lea

ves

for

2007

4

ha

ndcr

aft

( Ast

roca

rium

vu

lgar

e )

**So

urce

: ht

tp://

ww

w.im

aflor

a.or

g/in

dex.

cfm

?fus

eact

ion=

cont

ent&

IDas

sunt

o=4&

IDsu

bAss

unto

=14

#man

ejo

Dec

embe

r, 1s

t, 20

07

Page 5

EXPERIENCE WITH NTFP CERTIFICATION IN BRAZIL 41

propagules,etc., result in less damage to the plant – in contrast to parts such as roots and bark, the harvesting of which can result in the death or severe damage to the plant. Many of the medicinal herbs certified as part of Klabin Pulp and Paper, for example, are exotic species (Table 3) (Shanley et al. in press).

Brazil was the first country to develop a regional forest management certification standard for a forest type in which no timber harvesting is permitted. This standard – for remaining remnants of the threatened Atlantic Forest – is, therefore by default, an NTFP harvesting standard, since this is the only harvesting permitted in this region. The standard is not yet fully accredited under the FSC system and is undergoing revision by the FSC working group (Bruno Martinelli, FSC Brasil, pers. communication). Certifiers IMAFLORA/SmartWood are presently defining their own interim standard for both timber and NTFPs management in the natural forests in Brazil. This document is under public consultation, and will be used by the certifiers until FSC approves revised versions of national standards.

AccEssIbILItY OF NtFP cErtIFIcAtION

To date, the most successful NTFP certifications have been subsidized by donors, NGOs, governments or by sales of certified timber. FSC members and observers have been quick to point out that certification was disproportionately accessible to certain groups (e.g. large-scale industrial forest organizations in the developed world), due – among other things – to economies of scale, access to information, and familiarity with formalized, documented auditing procedures (Higman and Nussbaum 2002; Wenban-Smith et al. 2000; EFTRN 1999). The relatively high cost of certification evaluations for smaller operation was of particular concern. FSC eventually responded to the pressure to rectify this imbalance, and took a range of steps to simplify the certification process (FSC 2003). These include the Increasing Access to small and Low Intensity Managed Forests (sLIMF) initiative and the group certification model. The former introduced an option for cases with low environmental risk, such as small forests and low intensity operations (Robinson and Brown 2002), incorporating:

• less frequent audits, • smaller assessment teams, and • fewer reporting requirements.

Increasing Access to small and Low Intensity Managed Forests (sLIMF) FSC’s SLIMFs initiative was developed to try to reduce the barriers to obtaining and retaining certification for small forest operations, and those practising low-intensity activities, albeit in very large area: this latter case specifically intended

Page 6

42 PINTO ET AL.

to include NTFP harvesters, and operations removing very few trees from large tropical forest regions. IMAFLORA played an active role on the technical committee that developed the procedures and reviewed the Forest Stewardship Council proposals using stakeholder meetings and tests of the field procedures.

The Increasing Access for Small and Low Intensity initiative, that began in 2001 and whose policies were formally adopted by the Forest Stewardship Council in 2004, actively tackled some of the problems of certification for NTFP harvesters. The initiative worked to streamline procedures, reduce both direct and indirect costs of certification and create a more practical evaluation process for small producers and NTFP harvesters. The initiative resulted in requirements for certification assessments of qualifying forest management units to be modified to include shorter, more concise reports, and options for fewer evaluators, desk-audits and fewer peer reviews. These ‘streamlined auditing procedures’ were designed to reduce costs to small and low intensity operations. The procedures are accompanied by a set of eligibility criteria to define those operations that can be considered as SLIMFs, and a set of guidelines for the development of national forest management standards that take better account of operations which are of different scales and intensities (Robinson and Brown 2002). The objective of this latter guidance is to promote national standards that take into account the social and economic realities of community operations, small scale timber harvesters, and NTFP gatherers. However, to date national standards setting bodies have been slow to respond to this guidance. The criteria for SLIMF operations in Brazil are:

• operations smaller than 1.000 ha in the Amazon and 100 ha in the other regions, or the timber harvest is lower than 20% of the annual forest increment, and

• total annual harvest is lower than 5000 m3 per year, or in native forests only NTFPs are managed.

The application of the SLIMF procedures by IMAFLORA/SmartWood in Brazil has proven to be highly effective in reducing the cost of certification evaluations and annual audits. The new procedures decreased the cost of initial assessments by 50% and reduced annual monitoring audits costs to 40% of their former cost. The cost differential is due to three factors: a smaller team of auditors (1–2); less time in the field (1–2 days); and a simplified report (1–2 days to complete) (Freitas 2003a). Further work is needed to investigate whether the cost savings and experience from certifiers in Brazil are being replicated elsewhere in the region, and whether there is a corresponding increase in access to certification. Worldwide there are already around 50 certificates issued using the SLIMF procedures, that would provide a reasonable sample to determine the impacts, and the type of operations being certified. No figures are available to determine how many of these 50 certificates include the harvesting of NTFPs.

Page 7

EXPERIENCE WITH NTFP CERTIFICATION IN BRAZIL 43

Group and Joint certification

Another attempt to increase accessibility to certification is group certification where costs are divided among many separate operators (e.g. families, small timber harvesters, or even various communities), with much lower values per operator than would be the case for individual certificates. All the new certificates issued by IMAFLORA/SmartWood in Brazil for community forestry operations generally use both the SLIMF procedures and group certification to reduce costs. However, issuing a group certificate requires the individual operators (or families) to work together and have a single ‘group entity’ that holds the certificate. It requires social organization, internal monitoring and commitment of the operators (families or communities) to a common objective (Nussbaum, 2002).

IMAFLORA’s policy is to subsidize the direct costs of audits to communities and small operations through the use of resources from donors and the creation of an internal Social Certification Fund. Money to support the fund is drawn from a 3–5% mark up to the fees for their certification of private companies. The Social Fund has helped to decrease the cost of certification for communities by up to 40% (Patricia Gomes – Community and NTFP Certification Coordinator at Imaflora – personnal communication).

Joint Certification – assesses more than one certification scheme during a single assessment visit in order to decrease costs and add even more value to communities. A new landmark in community certification was recently achieved in Brazil, with the joint certification by the Forest Stewardship Council for forest management and by the International Federation of Organic Association Movements (IFOAM) for organic Brazil Nut extraction and processing in an indigenous territory of 1.5 million hectares. This evaluation of the Kayapó TI Baú (Baú Indigenous Territory) in Pará state took place in March 2006, and was conducted by a multidisciplinary team of four people including a Kayapó-speaking anthropologist. To reduce costs, the evaluation was carried out as a joint initiative between IMAFLORA and Instituto Biodinâmico Certification Association (IBD) – a Brazilian organic certifier with IFOAM accreditation. The joint evaluation resulted in the issuing of two certificates. Since this was a case of NTFP collection by family groups over a vast area, the operation was classified as ‘low intensity’ and the Forest Stewardship Council’s streamlined audit procedures using the SLIMF initiative was employed. Both certifiers treated the TI Baú operation as a group certification.

One novel element was the way that the traditional Kayapó model of organization, management and division of work via family units fitted the group certification requirements. The rules, responsibilities, controls and sanctions in case of non-fulfilment of the rules, were designed by the individual family groups themselves. In addition, the simplified procedures, allowed the evaluation to take into account the local management and monitoring practices used by the

Page 8

44 PINTO ET AL.

Kayapó, such as the low collecting intensity and historical tradition of Brazil nut collection. The certification also resulted in the generation of three interesting spin-offs:

• a ‘traditional management plan’ which recaptures and integrates the myth of the creation of the brazil nut tree,

• a proposal for benefit sharing, and • maps identifying areas where significant resources are found (e.g. hunting,

fishing, fruit, seeds, oils, vines, straw and endemic species). These maps also identify areas of cultural and religious importance for the indigenous community, such as the location of cemeteries and the first site of contact with ‘white people’.

The Kayapó Brazil nut operation is designed to offer an economic return on a traditional Kayapó activity. As a sustainable production model it aims to safeguard traditional knowledge, and offer an alternative to illegal timber extraction and mining which were previously the only source of revenue for the community. However, the success of the new model will depend, in part, on the demand for certified Brazil nut oil. Currently there is a growing demand for oils and other non-timber forest products for the cosmetics industry. It is the cosmetics industry which is driving the certification of community NTFP operations and their production chains to help guarantee sustainable sources of raw materials.

Overall, in spite of the enormous achievement of certification for the Kayapó community of TI Baú, the biggest challenges lie ahead. These include: taking the necessary actions to improve management; maintaining certification by complying with the timelines and rules that the certification system demands, and continuing to respect the customs and beliefs of their own culture.

communities, natural product industries and NtFP certification

One key factor that has contributed to IMAFLORA’s success in promoting NTFP certification has been their substantial investment of time in educating and informing forest communities and the private sector about the potential of certification. An example of communication and information exchange around the topic of NTFP certification was a workshop entitled “NTFPs and Cosmetic and Phytotherapeutic Industries” during which industry leaders and NTFP harvesters from forest communities came together to discuss raw material needs, marketing strategies, access issues and the opportunities and obstacles that they face. This August 2002 workshop in the small Amazonian town of Alter do Chão was a key event in raising the awareness of both producers and industries about the market and certification potential for NTFPs (Souza 2004, pers. communication). Events such as this led directly to several companies that process NTFPs – mainly those producing cosmetics and beauty products – to seek and obtain Forest Stewardship Council ‘chain of custody’ certificates. Chain of custody certificates guarantee

Page 9

EXPERIENCE WITH NTFP CERTIFICATION IN BRAZIL 45

the traceability of certified forest products throughout the stages of processing, transformation and retail (Table 2). Products labeled as containing ingredients made with FSC-certified NTFPs have helped to raise awareness among both corporations and consumers.

An important actor that participated in these information exchanges was the Brazilian cosmetics company Natura that markets its products globally and has adopted a policy for the sustainable use of Brazilian natural materials. Natura strove to deliver their commitment to using the Brazilian flora economically, while ensuring sustainable extraction and supporting communities in developing more secure livelihoods. In 2000, they developed a specific natural products brand line, ‘Ekos’ and began to develop relationships with harvesting communities who supply their raw materials such as Brazil nuts, fragrant breu resin (Protium spp.), and cocoa. The path has not been an easy one, and challenges remain, including how to ensure that communities do not become dependent for income on Natura. This is particularly important given the unpredictable nature of the cosmetics market. Changing consumer preferences and market volatility can precipitate a decline in the volumes of products sourced by companies.

TABLE 2

Industries Marketing Certified NTFPs in Brazil: holders of FSC CoC certificates for NTFPs.

Name of Company or Community Products Certification Date

Klabin do Paraná Produtos Phytotherapeutics2 and 2001Florestais Ltda. Phytocosmetics3

Ervateira Putinguense Ltda. Dried maté herb for tea. 2003 (Ilex paraguariensis)Coop Mista Prod Estrativistas do Unrefined brazil nut oil, 2004Rio Iratapuru – COMARU brazil nut biscuit, brazil nut 2004 flour, brazil nutCrodamazon Ltda. Buriti oil, brazil nut oil, copaiba 2004 oil (Copaifera spp)Beraca Sabará Químicos e Essential oils, and plant-based 2004Ingredients Ltda. aromaticsCroda do Brasil Ltda. Buriti vegetable oil and 2005 brazil nut oilIndústria e Comércio de Cosméticos Cosmetics 2005Natura Ltda.Cógnis do Brasil Ltda. Brazil nut oil 2005ATINA - Indústria e Comércio de Candeia essential oil. 2005Produtos Florestais Não MadeireirosS.A.

Source: FSC Brazil web site certificate database (accessed 3 January 2007) and personal communication, Patricia Cota Gomes, Coordinator, Forest Certification, Imaflora (Feburary 2007).2plants or herbs used to treat diseases or to alleviate pain.3cosmetics that are made with natural ingredients from plants.

Page 10

46 PINTO ET AL.

TABLE 3

Native and Exotic Medicinal Plants of Klabin Pulp and Paper Company Certified in 2000

Trade Name Scientific Name Trade Name Scientific Name(Portuguese) (Portuguese)

1 Agrião Nasturtium officinale 21 Espinheira santa Maytenus ilicifolia 2 Aipo Apium graveolens 22 Eucalipto Eucalyptus globulus 3 Arnica Arnica Montana 23 Fel da terra Erythraea centaurium 4 Artemisia Crysantemium partnenium 24 Gervão Stachytarpheta dichotoma 5 Avenca Adiantum cunneatum 25 Goiabeira Psidium guajava 6 Barbatimão Accacia adstringens 26 Guaco Mikania glomerata 7 Bardana Arctium minus 27 Maria preta Solanum nigrum 8 Urucum Bixa orellana 28 Mentrasto Ageratum conyzoides 9 Boldo Coleus barbatus 29 Pata de vaca Bauhinia forficata10 Carqueja Bacharis articulata 30 Ipê roxo Tabebuia avellanedae11 Casca d’anta Rauwolfia selowii 31 Picão Bidens pilosus 12 Cavalinha Equisetum arvense 32 Quebra pedra Phyllanthus spp.13 Chapeu de couro Echinodorus macrophyllus 33 Rubim Leonorus sibiricus14 Cipo cabeludo Mikania hirsutissima 34 Sabugueiro Sambucus australis15 Cipo mil homens Aristolochia triangularis 35 Sete sangrias Cuphea carthagenensis16 Confrei Symphytum officinale 36 Tanchagem Plantago major17 Dente de leão Taraxacum officinale 37 Taquara Guadua spp.18 Erva de bicho Polygonum acuminatum 38 Tenente jose Picrasma excelsa19 Erva mate Ilex paraguariensis 39 Umbauba Cecropia spp.20 Erva de Sta. Maria Chenopodium ambrosioides 40 Verbasco Conyza virgata

Source: FSC Brazil web site certificate database (accessed 3 January 2007) and personal communication, Patricia Cota Gomes, Coordinator, Forest Certification, Imaflora (February 2007).

From its experiences in working with communities, Natura offers a number of ‘lessons learned’:

• Integrate logistical complexity into business plans; • Limit the introduction of new active ingredients in products;• Be vigilant about avoiding community dependence on any one ingredient and

seek community input for idea creation. • Help communities widen their product base by seeking out opportunities for

product line extensions from the same ingredient;• Mobilize third parties in developing local capability;• Be prepared for unpredictability;• Invest in training;• Manage the risks of sourcing from distant communities;• Seek out external political support & advice;

Page 11

EXPERIENCE WITH NTFP CERTIFICATION IN BRAZIL 47

• Be determined and invest in negotiating;• Trust and make sure the company is seen as trustful.

(Adapted from World Business Council for Sustainable Development {WBCSD} 2006)

INtEGrAtING tIMbEr AND NtFP cErtIFIcAtION

NTFPs need to be more effectively integrated within timber certification efforts which, to date, have not adequately addressed the interrelationship between these types of forest products. A species-specific appendix for certification of NTFPs from forest areas where timber is the primary product is one approach. A more integrated approach to addressing NTFPs – many which have important local uses that are not always recognized – is also required; this would include accounting for NTFPs in management plans and harvesting activities. Integrated plans would identify species with high subsistence, market and cultural value – species that may be more valuable for their public health or cultural importance than for their timber.

Integrated management of forests for timber and NTFPs is increasingly viewed as economically as well as socially desirable. The cosmetics company Aveda has supported NTFP management and harvesting efforts that has led to the certification of community forestry users in Nepal. Increasing numbers of industries may perceive the benefits of certification in marketing and public relations and provide a price premium, market access and training to field operators. The additional costs of covering NTFPs in a certificate are likely be relatively minor for companies undergoing timber certification. Furthermore, the process of certification can help to raise industry awareness of the pressing livelihood concerns of forest-reliant communities and help to create innovative mechanisms to ensure mutual benefits. With inventories and maps of resources in hand, logging companies could potentially make useful partners for cosmetic and essential oil companies.

There are useful parallels between community forestry and commercial timber harvesting operations, although they generally work with different models of production, organization and business. Forest communities who are engaged in timber harvesting often have a strong ‘extractivist’ tradition where NTFPs play a critical role in the portfolio of productive activities. They have often harvested NTFPs for subsistence (eg. fruits, nuts, bush-meat, medicinal plants) and sometimes commercial uses (eg. rubber tapping, brazil nut harvesting) for a longer time than they have harvested timber commercially (Molnar 2003). For example, after receiving certification for timber, the Associação Seringueira Porto Dias (the Rubber Tappers Association of Porto Dias), located in the state of Acre in the Brazilian Amazon, sought certification for copaiba oil extraction. The difficulty for such a community to obtain joint certification is not, generally,

Page 12

48 PINTO ET AL.

related to its costs, since some certifiers simply attach NTFP generic guidelines as an addendum to their timber standards. Rather the difficulties lie in the challenge to demonstrate the ecological sustainability of NTFP harvesting and management – given the lack of technical data available, and in the organizational challenges associated with demonstrating compliance to norms of access, harvesting, and monitoring etc.

trAINING IN NtFP MANAGEMENt

Lack of adequate attention to the detailed knowledge base underlying sustainable harvest can result in a failure not only of certification, but of broader community forestry conservation initiatives. The need for less glamorous but pragmatic research initiatives has been well captured by Kammen and Dove (1997) in the phrase ‘the value of mundane science’. In Brazil, some institutes and states are giving specific attention and support to research and development on the ecology and management of NTFPs, as well as to revising University forestry curricula and technical forestry training to include NTFPs (Kainer et al. 2003).

Technical forestry and agricultural training schools in the Brazilian States of Acre, Para, Amazonas and Amapa, have integrated NTFPs into their curriculum. For close to a decade, training at the Escola Agricola (Agricultural School) in Manaus, the capital of the State of Amazonas, has included integrated management of timber and non-timber forest products, in which students map and plan extraction regimes of timber and NTFPs. The Instituto Florestal Tropical (IFT – former Tropical Forest Foundation) based in Belém, in Pará State, has demonstrated innovative training in forestry, integrating a component on the market value and ecology of non-timber forest products into their curriculum. Collaborating with the Brazilian certification agency, IMAFLORA and CIFOR, the Center for International Forestry Research, they have developed a module that trains foresters to inventory both timber and non-timber forest products, and to consider local values of forests for communities (Shanley and Medina 2005). Similar excellent training of rural communities along Brazilian logging frontiers is being promoted as part of adult literacy training, supported by the National Institute of Land Reform (INCRA) and the Brazilian federal rural education program Pronera. At the national level, the Brazilian Forest Service is planning training initiatives targeting community forestry operations and including the management of both timber and non-timber forest products. Progressive leadership at the national level has resulted in the hiring of forestry professionals who have research and practical experience with both NTFPs and rural communities. Revising forestry training to include community perspectives and NTFPs is integral to creating a new generation of foresters, certification assessors and rural leaders who can evaluate effectively where and how much timber and NTFPs to extract, which species to extract, and which to retain.

Page 13

EXPERIENCE WITH NTFP CERTIFICATION IN BRAZIL 49

NtFPs AND PUbLIc POLIcIEs

Internationally, studies have shown that certification has proven more effective in countries that promote sustainable forest management, encourage the participation of civil society, and designate secure land tenure for local stakeholders (Richards 2004). Although clear gains have been made in Brazil, public reaction to certification remains ambivalent. Some small producers have termed certification a “black box” to characterize the difficulty of understanding and accessing the tool (Shanley et al. in press). In some parts of Brazil, it is commonly believed that it is easier to get legal permits for deforestation than to get approval for a forest management plan (Freitas 2003c). However, many NGOs and small producers also recognize the positive changes catalyzed through certification (Veríssimo and Smeraldi 1999, Viana et al. 1996). The emergence of forest management certification has served a valuable – if variable – role by bringing to light inequities in resource and land rights and the inappropriateness of some bureaucratic requirements for sustainable management. Certification processes have also helped to stimulate national and local dialogues on trade and equity issues and amendments in policies related to NTFPs (Viana 2003).

Interest in better NTFP regulation around the world has promoted governments, community organizations, NGOs and others to address this (Laird et al. in press). In the Brazilian context, local and national governance structures attempting to curb illegal logging have also helped timber and NTFP certification to flourish. Processes used to promote and implement certification are beginning to provide benefits for different levels of natural resource governance, including the poor dependent on the forest for their livelihoods. Forward-looking governments can make use of the consultations that develop certification standards and guidelines and draw upon the final text of certification policies and standards to improve laws and policies regulating NTFPs. For example, the 20 multi-stakeholder meetings held to develop national certification standards in Brazil helped to spur a national dialogue focused on sustainable forest management, the rights of harvesters and the need for social equity (Viana 2003).

Working toward sustainable forest management in Brazil has required negotiations with the federal government and state agencies to alter legislation to facilitate and make community forest management viable. Certain requirements regarding documentation as proof of land title have been relaxed and rules for preparing management plans have been simplified. In addition, certification standards were adapted to make them more appropriate to community forest management. As part of this process, IMAFLORA has been instrumental in conducting field trials in different forest types and promoting the development of specific standards for community forest management in the Amazon region (Azevedo and Freitas 2003).

Getting the NTFP regulatory framework ‘right’ is a complex and difficult task, often resulting in unintended consequences. Drawing government attention to NTFP trade runs the risk of diminishing benefits and raising barriers for local

Page 14

50 PINTO ET AL.

producers and harvesters dependent upon NTFPs for their livelihoods (Arnold and Ruiz-Perez 2001; Laird et al. in press; Wynberg and Laird, 2007). On the other hand, the better and more visible organization of rubber tappers in Acre, Brazil under new legislation has improved earnings and production (Kainer et al. 2003).

Two examples of progressive NTFP legislation in Brazil are the 1999 Chico Mendes Law in the state of Acre, Brazil, and the 2003 legislation in the state of Amazonas prohibiting the extraction of two valuable medicinal oil tree species. The Chico Mendes Law created an environmental and social subsidy for rubber tappers to favour pro-forest, pro-poor development (Kainer et al. 2003). The initiative was designed as an innovative financial incentive to help the rural population of Acre, not only to tap rubber, but to diversify the base of their extractivist activity using the rubber trails as a natural pathway to a variety of other NTFPs. During a time of decreasing rubber prices, the law has been criticised on the grounds that it attempts to revive an anachronistic industry. In contrast, the law has also been viewed as a progressive policy to directly pay rubber tappers for environmental services associated with keeping the forest cover intact. This law provides rubber tappers in Acre with an additional payment per kilogram of rubber extracted. The payment is in recognition of the environmental services and related economic benefits of retaining forest cover. To receive the monetary benefit, tappers must belong to a producer association or cooperative. The law was created to stabilize extractivist populations by supporting their principal economic activity. Additional goals of the law include:

• To stem rural-urban migration and retain a rural workforce for current and future sustainable forest development;

• To promote organization and administrative capacity of rubber tappers and facilitate marketing;

• To improve rubber quality through more intensive monitoring and documentation of rubber transactions; and

• To facilitate documentation and legal authentication of the rubber tapper service required to receive future federal retirement benefits.

There is some evidence to show that the law is achieving its desired objectives. Since 1999, when the law was enacted, rubber production in the state of Acre has more than tripled. From 1998 to 2001 the number of tappers has increased from 1,480 to 6,154. In addition, 30% of the 87 cooperatives in existence were created since the Chico Mendes Law. The impact of such additional income at the household level must be substantial.

Another example of progressive regulatory changes governing NTFPs in Brazil is the 2003 law awarding legal protection to two multi-use trees species in the state of Amazonas. In the Brazilian Amazon, many trees providing widely used and traded fruit and medicinal NTFPs, are also timber species. For example, the two most popularly used medicinal oils – copaiba (Copaifera spp.) and andiroba (Carapa guianensis) are also highly valued for their timber (Shanley and Luz

Page 15

EXPERIENCE WITH NTFP CERTIFICATION IN BRAZIL 51

2003). In regions where such “conflict of use’ species exist, it is critical to weigh the costs and benefits of logging a species for timber, or retaining it for subsistence medicine or nutrition, or trade. Often this comes down to questions of power and access to the resources, especially where NTFP harvesters rights are secondary to those with logging rights; however legislation can play a role in safeguarding important NTFP species (Rockwell et al. 2007). In Amazonas, recent legislation (Decreto N.º 25.044) has called for a halt to the extraction of copaiba and andiroba trees, thus setting a path-breaking precedent for NTFPs and timber certification. A heightened awareness of the role of NTFPs in forest use and management could encourage timber certifiers to press for the retention of species more valuable for their non-wood products than for their timber. Managing for sustainability ensures the resource for the long-term, avoiding boom-bust phenomenon (Homma 1992) in resource extraction, and providing for local livelihoods in a consistent manner over time.

ADDItONAL cONsIDErAtIONs

Increasing numbers of companies are seeking certified sources of raw materials as part of wider efforts to:

• position themselves as socially and environmentally responsible,• to secure reliable sources of well-managed raw materials, or• to enter new markets

(Shanley et al. 2002; Freitas 2003a). Although certified products have a limited consumer base in countries with widespread poverty where immediate livelihood concerns are a priority, in some countries (e.g. Mexico and Brazil), a growing urban middle class and greater awareness about environmental services, habitat conservation, and deforestation open up new possibilities for domestic markets for certified forest products (Shanley et al., in press). The Forest Stewardship Council certification has opened possibilities to promote forest management of timber and NTFPs for communities and add value to forests (Veríssimo and Smeraldi 1999). It has also provided access to markets for community forest products. Much progress can be observed in the Forest Stewardship Council system, and in the work of certification bodies, communities and companies. However, it is still necessary to overcome a number of constraints in order to guarantee that there will be livelihood benefits of forest dependent people in the long term.

Despite improved procedures made by the Increasing Access for Small and Low Intensity Managed Forests initiative, the forest management standards (the set of requirements against which operations are evaluated) are still difficult to apply to the reality of communities. The official documents – requirements, standards, reporting formats – are not yet well adapted and continue to limit the active participation and empowerment of local people in certification processes.

Page 16

52 PINTO ET AL.

Generally, communities are dependent on NGOs, donors, governments or companies for technical, financial and management assistance. The inclusion of the communities in a sophisticated market opens opportunities, but imposes new paradigms and challenges. Social organization, business management, compliance with labour, fiscal and other laws and other demands from markets about quality, timing and volumes of products tend to provoke changes to the way the communities have survived and worked. Furthermore, external organizations such as the Forest Stewardship Council, do not differentiate products from communities from those of more sophisticated, commercial companies.

The existence of a number of community forestry operations with FSC certificates for timber and non-timber products, has moved the focus of and challenges to progress to marketing and internal organization for commercial success in order to move forward and add value to products originating in socially and ecologically responsible forest management operations. It is also important to work to ensure that the costs of conserving the forest – currently borne by producers – are more equitably shared along the chain, and that the financial benefits from enterprised marketing their products as coming from responsibly or sustainably managed resources are shared with the communities managing the forest.

Studies have recently concluded that the growing implementation of partnerships between communities and companies in the Brazilian Amazon may have mixed impacts on the forests, companies and communities.Forest communities experience problems and fail to sustain their efforts, particularly in remoter areas with a low government presence, like some regions of the Amazon (Morsello 2005). Lack of marketing options is particularly common where local markets are flooded with illegal, or unsustainably produced timber. In Brazil during 2007, two communities lost their certificates issued by IMAFLORA/SmartWood due to problems of weak organization (certifiers require effective organization to demonstrate reliable management and monitoring) or because they had not been able to find markets for their products. Such difficulties naturally result in frustration in or, indeed, collapse of organizations and communities involved.

cONcLUsIONs

Some of the key factors which have allowed IMAFLORA and other organizations to promote NTFP certification effectively include:

• Interest from the private sector to incorporate social responsibility and forest conservation;

• Support from progressive governmental sectors at the state and national level;

• The creation of direct links between communities and industries – actively promoted through workshops and meetings of producers and natural products companies;

Page 17

EXPERIENCE WITH NTFP CERTIFICATION IN BRAZIL 53

• Locally drafted guidelines to fit the regional context;• Emerging markets – globalization is allowing access to niche markets which

are potential candidates for certified products;• Investment of time and energy to create the enabling conditions to increase

the competitiveness of small holders; • Donor organizations and NGOs focused on conservation and development

have shown enthusiastic support for certification;• Interest in the socio-cultural aspects of NTFPs is significant and growing in

many regions, leading to rising demand.

Communities, NGOs, governments and civil society are in a learning process regarding the relatively new tool of certification; however substantial results have been achieved. Certification needs to be understood as only one tool, among others, to foster both forest management and improved livelihoods. As such, the tool needs to work in concert with public policies, capacity building, corporate responsibility, consumer awareness and research. To be effective, such multi-sectoral efforts need to be well coordinated over both the short and long term.

rEFErENcEs

Arnold, J.E.M., and Ruiz-Perez, M. 2001. Can non-timber forest products match tropical forest conservation and development objectives? Ecological Economics 39: 437–447.

Azevedo, T.R. and Freitas, A.C. de. 2003. Forest certification in Brazil: The parallel evolution of community forest management in the Brazilian Amazon and FSC certification. Annex 1 in Molnar, A. Forest Certification and Communities, Washington D.C.: Forest Trends.

Brown, L., Robinson, D., and Karmann, M. 2002. The Forest Stewardship Council and non-timber forest product certification: A discussion paper. Viewed online 18 March, 2003: www.fscoax.org

Clay, J. 1996. Generating income and conserving resources: Twenty lessons from the field. Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund.

Donovan, R. 2000. Observations on Equity After Ten Years of SmartWood Certification. Informal paper, provided as input into the Second Annual FSC Conference, November 2000, Oaxaca, www.rainforest-alliance.org/forestry/documents/observations.pdf

ETFRN. 1999. Proceedings of a workshop on “Constraints of certification to small businesses with particular relevance to developing countries”. September 30, 1999, Hamburg Germany. http://www.etfrn.org/etfrn/workshop/certification/index.html

Freitas, A.C. de. 2003a. Brazil forest certification case study. Annex 2. In Molnar, A (ed). Forest Certification and Communities. Washington D.C.: Forest Trends.

Freitas, A.C. de. 2003b. Responsible tropical forest management in Brazil and the role of FSC forest certification. In Richards, M. (ed). Certification in complex socio-political settings: Looking forward to the next decade. Washington, DC: Forest Trends.

Freitas, A.C. de. 2003c. Sustainable forest management in Brazil and the role of FSC Forest Certification. Pages 60–61 in ETFRN News 39-40/03.

FSC. 2003. SLIMF streamlined certification procedures, FSC policy document: FSC-POL-20-101-2003.

FSC. 2006. Minutes of the 4th General Assembly (Ordinary Meeting) of the Forest Stewardship Council. Manaus, Brazil 7–9 December, 2005.

Page 18

54 PINTO ET AL.

Higman, S., and Nussbaum, R. 2002. How standards constrain the certification of small forest enterprises. Report for UK DFID Forestry Research Programme.

Homma, A.K. O. 1992. The dynamics of extraction in Amazonia: A historical perspective. In Nepstad, D.C. and Schwartzman, S. (ed). Non-Timber Products from Tropical Forests: Evaluation of a Conservation and Development Strategy. Advances in Economic Botany, Volume 9. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx.

IFOAM. 1998. Basic standards. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). Bonn, Germany.

Kainer, K.M. Schmink, M.A. Leite, and Fadell, M. 2003. Experiments in forest-based development in Western Amazonia. Society and Natural Resources 16: 869–886.

Kammen, D., and Dove, M.R. 1997. The Virtues of Mundane Science. Environment 39(6): 11–15, 38–41.

Klabin Pulp and Paper Industries. 2002. www.klabin.com.br.Laird, S., McLain, R. and Wynberg, R. In press. Wild Product Governance: Laws and Policies

Regulating the harvest management and trade of NTFPs. People and Plants International Manual, Earthscan, London.

Laird, S.A., Nkuinkeu, R. and Lisinge, E.E. In press. Promoting sustainable livelihoods through commercialization of NTFPs: The case of Cameroon medicinal plants in international trade.

Molnar, A. 2003. Forest certification and communities: Looking forward to the next decade. Washington D.C.: Forest Trends.

Morsello. 2005. Company–community non-timber forest product deals in the Brazilian Amazon: A review of opportunities and problems. Forest Policy and Economics 8: 485–494.

Nussbaum, R. 2002. Group Certification for Forests: A Practical Guide. Proforest, Oxford. 59p.Plotkin, M., and Famolare, L. 1992. Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products.

Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Richards, M. 2004. Certification in complex socio-political settings: Looking forward to the next

decade. Washington D.C.: Forest Trends.Robinson, D. and Brown, L. 2002. The SLIMFs Initiative: A Progress Report, FSC.Rockwell, C., Kainer, K.A., Marcondes, N., and Baraloto, C., 2007. Ecological limitations of

reduced-impact logging at the small holder scale. Forest Ecology and Management 238: 365–374.

Shanley, P., and Medina, G. 2005. Frutíferas e Plantas Uteis na Vida Amazônica. Editora Supercores. Belém, Brazil: CIFOR/IMAZON.

Shanley, P. and Luz, L, 2003. Eastern Amazonian Medicinals: Marketing, Use and Implications of Forest Loss. BioScience 53(6): 66–69.

Shanley, P., Pierce, A.R., Laird, S.A. and Guillén, A. (eds) 2002. Tapping the Green Market: Certification and Management of Non-Timber Forest Products. Earthscan: London.

Shanley, P., Pierce, A.R., Laird, S.A. and Robinson, D. In press. Beyond Timber: certification of Non-Timber Forest Products. CIFOR/Forest Trends, Bogor, Indonesia.

Souza, A. 2004. Personal communication. July 2, Belém, Brazil. Review vol. 9(1): 475–490. Veríssimo, A., and Smeraldi, R. 1999. Hitting the target: Timber consumption in the Brazilian

domestic market and promotion of forest certification. São Paulo, Amigos do Terra – Programa Amazonia, SP, IMAFLORA; Belém, PA; IMAZON.

Viana, V. Ervin, J., Donovan, R., Elliot, C. and Gholz, H. 1996. Certification of forest products: issues and perspectives. Island Press, Washington D.C., 261p.

Viana, V. 2003. Indirect impacts of certification on tropical forest management and public policies. In Meidinger, E., Elliott, C. and Oesten, G.(eds). Social and political dimensions of forest certification, www.forstbuch.de.

WBCSD. 2006. Natura. Using raw materials sustainably. Case Study by The World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

Wynberg, R. and Laird, S.A. 2007. Less is often more: Governance of a non-timber forest product, marula (Scleocarya birrea subsp. caffra) in Southern Africa. International Forestry Review 9(1) 475–490.