Prunus  africana:    a  reality  check

Meeting at CIFOR, Yaounde, 6 March 2014 A B (Tony) Cunningham, Terry Sunderland & Robert Nkuinkeu

OVERVIEW  

•  Introduc+on  

• Why  is  the  P.  africana  case  is  globally  significant  in  terms  of  policy  vs.  prac+ce?  

 •  6  “take  home  messages”;  

•  Recommenda+ons  for  the  future.  

Introduc+on    

Prunus  bark  trade  in  global  perspec+ve  • More  Prunus  africana  bark  is  wild  harvested  than  any  other  tree  species,  followed  by  quillay  (Quillaja  saponaria,  also  Rosaceae)  (Cunningham,  in  press);  

•  Quillay  is  exported  from  Chile  &  wild  populaDons  have  been  devastated  (872  t/bark  exported  =  60000  trees/yr  (FAO,  2001;  San  MarDn  &  Briones,  1999);  

•  All  other  large  scale  bark  trade  has  shiSed  to  farmed  trees  (e.g;  cinnamon,  cork,  waUle,  cassia).  

Prunus  africana:  valued  but  vulnerable  •  Considered  the  only  African  species  in  a  genus  of  c.200  species  

(although  Kalkman  (1965)  suggested  that  a  separate  species,  Prunus  crassifolia  might  occur  in  the  Kivu  region,  DRC);  

•  Gene+cally  &  chemically  dis+nct  popula+ons  across  Africa  &  Madagascar  (Kadu  et  al.,  2012;  Martelli  et  al,  1986;  Vicen+  et  al.,  2013);    

•  Wild  rela+ve  of  peaches,  plums,  almonds  &  apricots,  listed  as  Vulnerable  (IUCN),  even  in  countries  where  no  export  trade  occurs  &  CITES  Appendix  2  listed;  

•  Habitat  loss  due  to  clearing  from  farmland  &  future  impacts  predicted  due  to  climate  change  (Mbatudde  et  al,  2012;  Vicen+  et  al.,  2013).    

Export  trade:  Prunus    africana  

= established trade

= emerging trade “frontier” = traditional medicine trade only

Why  is  the  P.  africana  case  globally  significant  in  terms  of  policy  vs.  prac+ce?  

•  The  NaDonal  Management  plan  (Ingram  et  al,  2009)  is  now  being  seen  as  a  model  that  should  be  applied  on  a  global  scale;  

•  With  CIFOR’s  reputaDon,  the  report  was    a  key  to  liSing  the  EU  ban.  

•  Disconnect  between  policy  &  what  is  really  happening  in  the  forest.  

LESSON  1:  INCREDIBLE  SUPPORT  &  EFFORTS  HAVE  GONE  INTO  

SUSTAINABLE  WILD  HARVEST  

….but there are widespread concerns about the accuracy of some inventory, yield & quotas recommendations…..

PROGRESS  SINCE  2011  

• Mt.  Cameroon  as  a  model:  major  investment  in  management  &  monitoring  plans;  

•  SDmulated  by  the  2007  EU  trade  ban.    

CASE  STUDY:  GOING  DOWN  MT  CAMEROON  

•  Annual  “sustainable”  bark  yields  have  varied  enormously,  even  for  the  best  studied  locaDon  (Mt  Cameroon);  

•  4438  t/yr  -­‐>  330  t/yr  -­‐>178  t/yr  -­‐>  130  t/yr  to  MOCAP’s  harvest  of  57  tonnes  from  Block  1  in  2012.  

(Ewusi, 2006 in Amougou et al., 2011)

ROTATION  TIMES:  5  YRS?  7  YRS?  10YRS?  IT  ALL  DEPENDS…  

•  Current  management  on  Mt.  Cameroon  is  based  on  a  5  yr  rotaDon  (5  blocks)  (Eben  Ebai,  2011);  

•  7  year  rotaDon  recommended  (Nkeng,  2009),  with  9-­‐10  yr  rotaDon  used  for  cork  oak.  

(from Eben-Ebai, 2011)

LESSON  2:  IS  IT  WORTH  IT?  

WHO  BENEFITTED  &  BY  HOW  MUCH?  •  2012  harvest  (Block  1,  Mt  Cameroon  NP)  was  57  t  fresh  wt;  

•  57000  kg  @150  CFA/kg  =  8550000  CFA  (approx  $17,100);  

•  48  acDve  harvesters;  

•  Benefit  per  person  for  the  annual  harvest  =  $356  (or  ca.  $1  per  harvester  per  day).    

43%

16%

Harvester

VDF*

*Village Development Fund

Park mgmt. 20%

MOCAP

Regeneration 7%

7%

TransportWarehousing

4%3%

WILD HARVEST

Exporter pays 350 CFA/kgHarvester gets 150 CFA/kg

COSTS  OF  MANAGED  SUSTAINABLE  HARVEST  vs.  BENEFITS  

•  Cost  of  inventory  about  15  million  CFA  ($30  000),  more  than  two  Dmes  the  $17  100  earned  from  bark  harvest  (&  excludes  addiDonal  monitoring  costs);  

•  100  000  people  live  around  Mt  Cameroon.  48  acDve  harvesters.  20%  of  whom  are  not  from  Mt.  Cameroon  area;  

•  Are  the  costs  worth  it  for  0.0004%  of  the  local  populaDon?  

LESSON  3:  LOCAL  LIVELIHOODS  &  PRUNUS  INCOME  NEED  CONTEXT    

….both place, time & other benefits from forests

HIGH  VALUE,  HIGH  VOLUME,    HIGH  IMPACT  

Madagascar  &  Prunus  africana:  

•   remote,  small  forests,  local  value-­‐adding  &  high  porDon  of  cash  income…..  

•   Bioko  &  Cameroon  in  a  very  different  situaDon  (diverse  income  sources,  changing  economic,  global  links  &  migrant  remiUances).  

   

 

MADAGASCAR

° Lakato

Marovoay

Tsaratanàna

Tampoketsan’Ankazobe

° Antsahabiraoka

= Prunus africana

= bark processing factory

Bark  exploita+on  has  been    taking  place  in  Forest    Reserves  (e.g:  Zahamena    Special  FR)  un+l  overexploita+on  wiped  out  stocks…so  they  had  to  import  from  Cameroon.  Import from Cameroon

OTHER  LINKS  TO  LIVELIHOODS  •  Diverse  products  come  from  forests,  not  just  Prunus  bark;  

• Mt  Cameroon:  there  are  48  acDve  harvesters  out  of  100,000  people  around  the  park;  

•  PES  opportuniDes  &  lessons  from  other  countries.  

LESSON  4:  BARK  HARVEST  DOES  HAVE  AN  IMPACT    

.

BARK REMOVAL IS A SHOCK…from which some trees do not

recover

•  Demographic structure of natural stands shows very low

representation of mature trees with dbh > 30cm, but very high exploitation rate reaching 80% of total individuals in some areas (ICRAF/IRAD/ Univ of Dschang, 2008);

•  Overexploitation rate is more than 90% in all studied

villages: almost all individual with dbh >20 were totally debarked from buttresses to branches (ICRAF/IRAD/ Univ of Dschang, 2008);

•  60% of trees overexploited (Nkeng, 2009).

HIGH  VALUE,  WEAK  TENURE=OVERHARVEST  

PRUNUS  AFRICANA  IS  AN  ECOLOGICAL  KEYSTONE  SPECIES  

•  P.  africana  bark  is  not  just  “under-­‐exploited”  trees  for  commercial  trade;  

•  Keystone  species  for  colobus  monkeys  &  some  endemic  birds;  

•  Not  just  about  “saving  Prunus”.  Fashing, P J. 2004. Mortality trends in the African cherry (Prunus africana) and the implications for colobus monkeys (Colobus guereza) in Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Biological Conservation 120:449-459

LESSON  5:  PAU’s  FACE  MANY  CHALLENGES  

.

”Prunus Allocation Units (PAUs) have been participatively defined and developed with input from stakeholders” (Ingram et al, 2009)……yet “elite capture” & an exporter monopoly are still major factors, so “participatory” is questionable.

WHAT  ABOUT  ADAMOUA?  

•  Current  inventory,  management  &  monitoring  in  Mt.  Cameroon  PAU  are  an  inspiring  model….but  what  about  PAU’s  that  are  more  remote?  

(from Ingram et al, 2009)

RESOURCE RICH FRONTIER?

•  Traders from Bamenda employed local people to strip Prunus africana trees on Tchabal Mbabo since c.2001; •  In Nigeria (2003), Chapman (2004) reported extensive debarking & camps in the forest for bark exploitation - total stripping of trees, compromising transboundary conservation plans;

•  5 PAU’s in Adamoua: what is the impact of current harvest? Ref: Chapman, 2004

COMMERCIAL  HARVEST  &  COLLATERAL  DAMAGE?  

•  “Collateral  damage”  (“ladder  trees”  &  lianas)….naDonally,  1000  tonne  quota=c.180  000  Prunus  trees/yr);  

•  Does  the  cumng  of  c.150000  small  trees  &  c.300000  lianas  per  yr  have  an  impact?  

LESSON  6:  CULTIVATION  IS  A  MORE  VIABLE  OPTION  

.

…connecting farmers Prunus Growers Associations (PAG’s) to the export market will catalyze planting & bark Production….

•  Even  at  the  current  low  price,  culDvaDon  is  a  beUer  opDon  (money,  labour);  

•  Current  GiZ/PSMNR-­‐SW  funded  inventory  of  P.africana  on  farms  is  very  Dmely;  

•  So  is  the  forthcomingGiZ/PSMNR-­‐SW  project  on  economics  &  benefit  sharing.    

84%16%

Harvester

Traceability

*Village Development Fund

CULTIVATION

Farmer gets 294 CFA/kgExporter price = 350 CFA/kg

DOES IT PAY TO PLANT? •  While not as profitable as Eucalyptus, an

alternative enterprise, farmers want to grow P. africana;

•  Reasons: it is compatible with many crops and has multiple uses – bark sales, medicine, tools, poles, seed sales & mulch;

•  Cameroon: thousands of farmers have planted Prunus. Market demand is high, as herbal treatments of BPH are popular & demand grows & emerging Asian market.

Cunningham, A.B., Ayuk, E., Franzel, S., Duguma, B. & Asanga, C. 2002. An economic evaluation of medicinal tree cultivation: Prunus africana in Cameroon. People and Plants working paper 10. UNESCO.

TRANSPARENCY  ON  THE  VALUE  CHAIN  IS  CRUCIAL  

• We  are  sDll  cross-­‐checking  price  data,  but  preliminary  figures  are  that  the:  

•  150  CFA/kg  represents  4%  of  the  price  paid  to  Cameroonian  exporters  (3550  CFA/kg  (or  6  Euro/kg);  

•  If  the  above  figures  are  correct,  then  the  FOB  value  of  the  current  1000  tonne  quota  would  represent  a  profit  of  about  Euro  6  million/yr.    

RECOMMENDATIONS  

NEED  TO  PHASE  OUT  COMMERCIAL  BARK  HARVEST  IN  THE  LONG  TERM  

•  Economic  &  ecological  sustainability  reasons;  

•  Licensed  harvest  of  seed  &  wildings  from  wild  populaDons  is  an  incenDve  to  maintain  mother  trees;  

•  Also  contributes  seed  from  a  geneDcally  diverse,  local  P.  africana  populaDon    

CITES,  CULTIVATION  &  TRADE  

•  Local farmers have been cultivating P. africana since the 1970’s but are discouraged by lack of markets;

 •  Need CITES to recognize that “conservation through

cultivation” can & should happen (as with orchids & crocodiles);

•  Current on-farm inventories (GiZ/PSMNR-­‐SW)  very  Dmely;    •  Cultivation can bring higher income to more people, with less

effort, that trying to sustain wild harvest; • 

GREAT  OPPORTUNITY  FOR  BUILDING  ON  PAST  

CULTIVATION  STUDIES  

•  Long  history  of  ICRAF  work  on  P.  africana  &  lessons  from  Allanblackia  &  links  to  industry;    

•  New  research  on  ICRAF’s  old  P.  africana  trials  (known  age,  chemical  content).  

NEED  TO  UNDERSTAND  &  DEAL  WITH  BARRIERS  TO  TRADE  IN  CULTIVATED  BARK  

•  Diverse  vested  interests  in  maintaining  &  controlling  wild  harvest;  

•   Encouraging  a  shiS  to  culDvaDon  may  need  policy  reform  (“first  generaDon  seedlings  on  farm  are  wild”);  

•  OpportuniDes  to  learn  from  policy  outcomes  in  other  countries  (e.g:  sandalwood).  

NOT  ADVISABLE  TO  REPLICATE  THE  2009  MODEL  

•  Weaknesses  in  the  current  model  need  to  be  recognized,  whether  sampling  (AdapDve  Cluster  Sampling  (ACS)  (Morrison  et  al  (2008)  or  related  to  governance;  

•  ReplicaDon,  parDcularly  where  governance  is  weak  may  export  a  problem,  not  a  soluDon.    

Ref: Morrison, L. W., Smith, D. R., Young, C. C., & Nichols, D. W. (2008). Evaluating sampling designs by computer simulation: a case study with the Missouri bladderpod. Population ecology, 50(4), 417-425.

THANK  YOU  

“if it’s not sustainable, it’s not development” (UNDP)