NTFP trade is not likely to reconcile development and conservation

NTFP trade is not likely to reconcile development and conservation

NTFP trade is unlikely to reconcile development and conservation of natural forest, says a study that forms part of the world's largest and most comprehensive NTFP research. On the basis of the analysis of 55 cases across Asia, Africa and Latin America, the study team at CIFOR concludes that commercial production of nontimber forest products is not likely to reconcile the goals of conservation and development. "More of the one tends to mean less of the other", say the researchers. Read on...

"To what extent and under which conditions nontimber forest product (NTFP) trade leads to both livelihood improvement and forest conservation?" This was the question asked by the researchers at Center for International Forestry Research(CIFOR). In order to find an answer they analysed 55 cases of NTFP trade from three continents--Asia, Africa, and Latin America. They developed and used a methodology to assess livelihood and environmental outcomes, based on expert judgments. However, in order to maximize the objectivity they designed two assessment tools that were used by the individual case researchers associated with 55 cases. This was necessary to make the individual assessments systematic, comprehensive, to help ensure that all important issues are considered, and consistent, such that different assessors familiar with the case would make similar assessments. The team analyzed the livelihood and environmental outcomes independently as well as the relationship between the development and conservation outcomes using the statistical tools such as principal component analysis.

The results of the analysis by Koen Kusters, Ramadhani Achdiawan, Brian Belcher and Manuel Ruiz Pérezs shows that overall, nontimber forest product trade has a positive impact on local livelihoods, but there are greater differences in the environmental outcomes. The study shows that: (1) while NTFP trade benefits local livelihoods, it may increase inequality between households; (2) involvement of women in the production-to-consumption system (PCS) tends to have a positive impact on intrahousehold equity; and (3) in 80% of the cases, the commercial production of NTFPs does not enable people to make financial investments to increase quality and quantity of production, limiting the potential for development.

However, the most depressing news to those who have believed NTFP to be the panacea for sustainable forest use, is the finding, as Kusters et al. note, that: "In our set of cases, commercial extraction from the wild, without further management, tends to lead to resource depletion. NTFP production systems are generally considered to have lower environmental values than natural forest, but do contribute positively to the environmental values in the landscape. We found that higher livelihood outcomes are associated with lower environmental outcomes and conclude that NTFP trade is not likely to reconcile development and conservation of natural forest".

How can we link this knowledge to field and policy action? There seem to be a key application of this research. As authors rightly suggest "breaking away from the proposition that NTFP trade automatically reconciles conservation and development objectives will help the relevant agencies to formulate realistic objectives, and to also consider the potential negative effects of their interventions". Efforts to achieve NTFP-based development need to create conditions that enable people to intensify forest product management and production and improve their market access. But these same conditions tend to have negative impacts on natural forests. Governments and conservation and development organizations working in this area need to understand these trade-offs.

To read the full text of the paper go to the open access journal Ecology and Society link given below:
Kusters, K., R. Achdiawan, B. Belcher, and M. Ruiz Pérez 2006. "Balancing development and conservation? An assessment of livelihood and environmental outcomes of nontimber forest product trade in Asia, Africa, and Latin America". Ecology and Society 11(2): 20. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art20/

Other publications can be accessed at the CIFOR website: click http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/search and enter the name of author as "Belcher" in the advance search box (Dr Brian Belcher, Principal Scientist at CIFOR led the global NTFP research). Search results will yield links to numerous Full Text reports, papers and documents.

Absolute pay parity between private and public sector in India is must to help India become a developed nation

It is now necessary to grant parity between pay scales and perquisites in Government and the public/private sector for three reasons: (i) Low salaries in the Government are resulting into the recruitment of very ordinary public servants with comparatively low human capabilities. Workforce with average capabilities can not fulfill the aspiration of the country that aims to “transform the Government Organisations into modern, professional and citizen-friendly entities that are dedicated to the service of the people”. (ii) Journey of the nations towards the ecological, economic and social sustainability is a knowledge-intensive journey requiring Government workforce to continuously acquire and use the best available knowledge to make the difference on the ground. A Government workforce with low human capabilities is not only incapable of identifying the best available relevant knowledge it is also incompetent to convert knowledge to action. No country in the world has ever achieved sustainability for ecosystems and human well-being for its citizens without linking knowledge with action (i.e. without connecting science to decision making). (iii) The most problematic issue is that recruitment of public servants with low human capabilities and low intellectual capital due to salary-driven joining of talented people of the society to the private sector. There is now robust evidence to show that bulk of the creativity, innovation and thus productivity lies in the minds and abilities of a small number of highly talented individuals in society. Both before and after India gained independence, the country has consistently allowed such talented individuals either to migrate or to join the private sector. As numerous studies prove, by losing the top tier of talent to private sector, the Government also lost most of the intellectual energy to private sector due to comparatively low salary in Government. This lack of talented employees forces the Government to employ large number of personnel with very low human capital endowments who nevertheless continue to under perform resulting into a classic situation of oversized and underperforming bureaucracy. This is the key obstacle towards transforming the Government organisations into modern, professional, efficient, productive and citizen-friendly systems. Without making arrangements for incentives, such as pay parity with private sector, Government now would never reasonably be able to attract the talented tier of citizens to join it, and therefore may never be able to effectively reduce the size. The only plausible remedy is the absolute pay parity with private sector.