[MPWG] On the Contribution of Non-Timber Forest Products to Our Economy
Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov
Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov
Mon Jul 6 22:46:39 CDT 2009
In 2007, the Medicinal Plant Working Group-Non-Timber Forest Products Task
Force1 compiled an "issues paper" on the harvest and management of
non-timber forest products (NTFP) in the United States. The Task Force
reiterated that data must often be gleaned from broader categories or from
sources that underestimate the activities, and that these data
deficiencies prevent accurate monitoring and evaluation this sector across
the United States,2 in the following areas:
Employment data: Census data only counts people employed during the
payroll period that includes March 12th. Since the late winter and early
spring are the down season for many harvesters, the Census greatly
underestimates the number of employees in this field. In addition, the
Census' ability to gather reliable data on self-employed persons and
micro-enterprises is limited, particularly if those firms operate partly
in the informal sector as many NTFP enterprises do. Thus the number of
people and businesses who make a living from NTFPs is likely several of
orders of magnitude higher than that currently measured by the Census.3
Production data: Many medicinal plants are wild-harvested and not all
species can be cultivated. However, for those under cultivation, there is
no good measure for amounts produced.
Harvest data: Reliable harvest and trade data are vital to understanding
the long-term conservation status of medicinal plants and other NTFPs. No
national mechanisms exist to monitor harvest data - even on public land.
Trade data: Domestic and international trade data can often be incomplete
or contain insufficient detail to evaluate the role or effect of trade on
NTFPs.
A 2008 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) publication was made
available online a few months ago, which assesses the contribution of
forestry sector to national economies and focuses specifically on three
economic indicators: Employment in the sector; value added (i.e. the
forestry sector?s contribution to GDP); and the value of forest products
exports and imports (i.e. the sector?s contribution to trade balances) (p.
ix).4 The report covers the forestry sector (including forestry, wood
industry, and pulp/paper industry) and the furniture industry (p. ix). The
forestry sub-sector includes roundwood and non-wood forest products (p.
46); the wood industry includes charcoal, sawnwood, wood based panels,
wood chips and residues, and further processed wood products (p. 46); and
the pulp/paper industry includes pulp, paper, recovered paper and further
processed paper products excluding printed articles (p. 48). The document
is quite large, so only the Executive Summary is attached to this e-mail.5
Chief among their findings (to me) was the conclusion that statistics on
informal forestry sector contributions (including collection of non-timber
forest products) on a global scale continue to be poorly recorded and
unreliable. As a result, the study excluded informal forestry sector
activities, which "in many developing countries, [can be] significant."
Therefore, the study provided "an underestimate of the total contribution
of the [forestry] sector to national economies" (p. ix).
Other findings include:
Employment: "The contribution of the formal forestry sector to total
employment is generally higher in the developed regions and Eastern Europe
than in developing regions. This is largely due to the significant numbers
of people employed in the processing sector." (pp. x-xi)
Based on 1997 data, the International Labour Organization6 estimated that
globally, the total number of people employed in forest industries was 47
million, comprising more than 17 million in the formal sector employment
is more than 17 million and a "tentatively estimated" 30 million in the
informal and subsistence sectors - although the figure "could well be
double that of the formal sector" (p. 40). Thus, for every one job in the
formal forestry sector in the late 1990s, there averaged another one or
two jobs in the informal forestry sector (related primarily to the
production of woodfuel, non-wood forest products, and small-scale wood
industries) (p. 25).
Value-added: "At the regional level, the majority of global value-added
in the forestry sector" is occuring in three developed regions, Northern
America,7 Western Europe and the Developed Asia-Pacific region. "This is
largely due to the high levels of value-added achieved in the forest
processing sectors in these regions (i.e. these three regions accounted
for about 70 percent of the global value-added in the wood industry and
the pulp and paper industry in 2006). "
If national accounts statistics included activities in the informal or
non-monetary sector, it is likely that the forestry sector?s share of GDP
would probably be at least twice what is reported in official statistics.
(p. 40)
Trade: "At the regional level, exports of forest products are dominated by
the three developed regions. For example, in 2007, Western Europe and
Northern America together accounted for about 65 percent of global forest
products exports, followed by the Developing Asia-Pacific region (with a
15 percent share) and Eastern Europe (with 10 percent share). Furthermore,
most international trade in forest products is either trade between these
three [developed] regions or between countries within each of these
regions." (p. xi:)
>From 1990 to 2006, the forestry sub-sector accounted for 0.6 percent of
total forest products exports, less than 0.2 percent of total merchandise
exports on a global scale (p. 46). By comparison, wood industry products
"account for nearly 35 percent of total forest products exports,"
contributing 0.8 percent of global merchandise exports (p. 46), and the
pulp/paper industry comprised 1.4 percent of global merchandise exports
(p. 48).
Overall: The three developed regions (Northern America, Western Europe and
the Developed Asia-Pacific region) account for about 25 percent of global
employment and the majority (about 65 percent) of global value-added and
forest products exports (p. xii).
However, the economic importance of the forestry sector is generally lower
in four regions ? Northern America, Western Europe, Developed Asia-Pacific
region and North Africa, Western and Central Asia - than in other parts of
the World. (p. 42)
Value-added in the forestry sector has not increased rapidly, except in a
few countries where development of the sector has been of specific
national development priority. Very few countries have focused on the
development of the forestry sector, such that the forestry sector has been
left behind, particularly in rapidly growing economies, suggesting that
the forestry sector is not a major driving force for economic growth and
development except in specific circumstances (p. 56).
"Further work on the contribution of informal forestry sector activities
would give a much better and more balanced picture of the importance of
the sector at the global, regional and country level" (p. 57).
Despite the lack of focus on the informal sector, the study provides some
interesting overall information while perpetuating long-standing
stereotypes. The latter of which inspired me to stay up late to write
this e-mail.
In the international arena, it is generally accepted that the "informal"
sector contributes significantly to the local economies of developing
countries (similarly, the contribution of NTFPs to healthcare is generally
considered to be more significant in developing countries). Conversely,
it is often stated, implied or presumed that NTFPs are not significant
contributors to the economy (or healthcare system) in the United States.
Yet, despite the imperfect system that currently exists to monitor the
contribution of NTFP-sector employment, production, harvest, and trade,
the estimated value of the North American market for medicinal herbs in
1998 ranged from $1.6 billion to $2 billion.8 If NTFP-sector data were
cohesively monitored, we might find that the contribution of NTFPs to the
economy is indeed "significant" in the United States, especially to
certain local economies - such as certain states in Appalachia and in the
Pacific Northwest. What about the cumulative contribution of the value of
NTFPs extracted for personal use from public lands, not to mention the
contribution of sustainable NTFP production to the preservation of
forested land?
The presumption of insignificance is based largely on the absence of data.
The absence of NTFP-sector data leads to an undervaluation of our
forested lands. Undervalued resources, without a driving force
designating sustainable NTFP development as a priority, translate into
missed economic opportunities on public and private lands. Thus, this
vicious cycle relegates the NTFP sector to the margins of our economy.
----------------------------------
1The Non-Timber Forest Products Task Force, an ad hoc committee of the
Medicinal Plant Working Group, was comprised of the following members: Jim
Chamberlain, USDA-Forest Service; Patricia De Angelis, US Fish and
Wildlife Service; Colin Donohue, National Network of Forest Practitioners;
Trish Flaster, Botanical Liaisons, LLC; Elise George, Rural Action; Megan
Haidet, Plant Conservation Alliance; Eric Jones, Institute for Culture and
Ecology; and Rebecca McClain, Institute for Culture and Ecology.
2See also: McLain, Rebecca J.; Jones, Eric T. 2005. Nontimber forest
products management on national forests in the United States. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-655. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Available at: <
www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr655.pdf>
3Alexander, S.J., J. Weigand, and K. Blatner. 2002. Nontimber forest
product commerce. In: Jones, E.T., R.J. McLain, and J. Weigand, eds.
2002. Nontimber forest products in the United States. University of
Kansas Press: Lawrence, Kansas.
4Lebedys, A. 2008. Contribution of the forestry sector to national
economies, 1990-2006. FAO Series title: Forest Finance Working Paper
- FSFM/ACC/08. Available online at:
<www.fao.org/docrep/011/k4588e/k4588e00.htm>.
5Executive summary:
6The ILO document is cited in the 2008 FAO paper. For more information,
see:
International Labour Organization. 2001. Globalization and
sustainability: The forestry sector and wood industries on the move.
Report for discussion at the Tripartite Meeting on the Social and Labour
Dimensions of the Forestry and Wood Industries on the Move. Geneva,
Switzerland. Available at:
<www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/techmeet/tmfwi01/tmfwir.pdf>.
7In the FAO study, "Northern America" includes Bermuda, Canada, Greenland,
Saint Pierre and Miquelon and United States of America (p.8).
8Chamberlain, J., R. Bush, and A.L. Hammett. 1998. Non-Timber Forest
Products: The Other Forest Products. Forest Products Journal 48(10): 2-12.
----------------------------------
Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.
Botanist - Division of Scientific Authority
Chair - Plant Conservation Alliance - Medicinal Plant Working Group
US Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 110
Arlington, VA 22203
703-358-1708 x1753
FAX: 703-358-2276
Promoting sustainable use and conservation of our native medicinal plants.
<www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20090706/13b976fe/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Contribution of the forestry sector to national economies_1990-2006_EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FAC (Lebedys 2008).pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 22755 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20090706/13b976fe/attachment.obj>
More information about the MPWG
mailing list