Copyright by Wayne Ethan Mayer 2006

Copyright by
Wayne Ethan Mayer
2006
THE PIASSABA PALM: CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT IN THE BUFFER ZONE OF PERU’S
CORDILLERA AZUL NATIONAL PARK
by
Wayne E. Mayer
Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences
Duke University
Date:____________________________
Approved:
_________________________________
Gary S. Hartshorn, Supervisor
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
in the Graduate School of Duke University
2006
ABSTRACT
THE PIASSABA PALM: CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT IN THE BUFFER ZONE OF PERU’S
CORDILLERA AZUL NATIONAL PARK
by
Wayne Ethan Mayer
Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences
Duke University
Date:__________________________
Approved:
_________________________________
Gary S. Hartshorn, Supervisor
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
An Abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
in the Graduate School of Duke University
2006
ABSTRACT
Little scientific information exists on the use and conservation of the piassaba palm
(Aphandra natalia), a native tree commonly exploited in the Amazonian region of
northern Peru, southern Ecuador, and western Brazil for its petiole fibers. People
extract the leaf-sheath and petiole fibers to use as broom bristles. This dissertation
examines the production, harvest, and sale of piassaba palm fiber in the forests
surrounding Peru’s Cordillera Azul National Park to evaluate how non-timber forest
product practices might strengthen natural resource conservation and contribute to
poverty alleviation.
The results of both an ecological experiment and social survey research illustrate that
implementing a palm management strategy based on this study’s transition matrix
model could increase economic gains while at the same time conserving piassaba
palms because: 1) harvesters have an incentive not to cut down individual palms at
least until they reach approximately 40-years-old; and 2) the model’s five-year
harvesting interval optimizes fiber production. Implementation of this harvest model
would increase profits to local people. Local harvesters might gain further profits if
they produce brooms for sale directly to the market rather than selling raw fiber.
Increased local profits gained from community land should, in turn, ease human-use
pressures on the natural resources protected in Cordillera Azul National Park.
iv
RESUMEN
Poca información científica existe sobre el uso y la conservación de la palmera de la
piasaba (Aphandra natalia), un árbol nativo frecuentemente aprovechado en la región
amazónica del Perú norteño, al sur de Ecuador, y en Brasil occidental por sus fibras
del pecíolo. Las personas extraen las fibras del estuche de la hoja y del pecíolo para
usarlas como cerdas de escobas. Esta disertación examina la producción, cosecha, y
venta de la fibra de la palmera de piasaba en los bosques circundantes del Parque
Nacional Cordillera Azul del Perú para evaluar cómo las prácticas de los productos
forestales no-maderables podrían fortalecer la conservación de recursos naturales y
podrían contribuir al alivio de la pobreza.
Los resultados de un experimento ecológico y una investigación del estudio social
ilustran que llevando a cabo una estrategia de dirección de la palmera basada en el
modelo matriz de transición, este estudio pudiera aumentar las ganancias económicas
conservando las palmeras de la piasaba al mismo tiempo que: 1) los fibreros tienen
un incentivo para no cortar (matar) las palmeras individuales por lo menos hasta que
ellos alcancen aproximadamente 40 años de edad; y 2) el intervalo de cosecha de
cinco años perfecciona la producción de la fibra. La aplicación de este modelo de
cosecha aumentaría los ingresos de las personas locales. Los fibreros locales podrían
ganar mas si ellos producen las escobas directamente para la venta al mercado en
lugar de vender la fibra bruta. El aumento de las ganancias locales debería, a su vez,
reducir las presiones ocasionadas por el ser humano en los recursos naturales
protegidos en el Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul.
v
RESUMO
Pouca informação cientifica existe sobre o uso e a conservação da palmeira da
piaçava (Aphandra natalia), uma palmeira nativa cujas fibras peciolares são
comumente usadas no norte da Amazônia peruana, sul do Equador e oeste do Brasil.
As comunidades locais coletam a bainha das folhas e as fibras peciolares pra
confeccionar escovas de vassouras. Essa tese examina a produção, coleta, e
comercialização da piaçaveira nas florestas dos arredores do Parque Nacional da
Cordilhera Azul, Peru, avaliando como práticas extrativistas de produtos florestais
podem incrementar a conservação de recursos naturais e contribuir para a redução da
pobreza.
Os resultados de um experimento ecológico e de uma pesquisa social mostram que a
implementação de uma estratégia de manejo da palmeira baseada no modelo da
matriz de transição empregado pode aumentar os ganhos econômicos e ao mesmo
tempo conservar a piaçaveira pois: 1) ‘tiradores’ têm incentivo para não cortar
indivíduos até, pelo menos, que alcancem cerca de 40 anos de idade; e 2) os cinco
anos de intervalo de coleta empregado no modelo otimizam a produção de fibra. A
implementação desse modelo aumentaria a margem de lucro das populações locais.
Os ‘tiradores’ podem aumentar ainda mais a margem de lucro se produzirem
vassouras para o mercado, ao invés de comercializarem a fibra bruta. O aumento da
margem de lucro local pode, por sua vez, reduzir a pressão antrópica sobre os
recursos naturais protegidos sob o Parque Nacional da Cordilhera Azul.
vi
DEDICATION
To Jim & Kathe Mayer and to
the late Buenaventura Zapata and the
late Reneé Betty Zúñiga de Zapata,
With memories that linger
To my wife, Gladys: Thank you for believing in me, even
when the row looked too long to hoe
To our daughter, Mikela: Welcome to our cross-cultural clan
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iv
RESUMEN......................................................................................................................... v
RESUMO .......................................................................................................................... vi
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ xi
LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................. xiii
NOTE ON EQUIVALENTS......................................................................................... xiv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................. xv
PREFACE ..................................................................................................................... xviii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
Background........................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions......................................................................................... 12
Study Site............................................................................................................ 13
CHAPTER TWO: THE PIASSABA PALM (APHANDRA NATALIA) AND
HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIES ...................................................................................... 18
Background......................................................................................................... 18
Study Site............................................................................................................ 19
Methods: Social Science Survey Research ........................................... 21
Objectives............................................................................................................ 24
Analysis ................................................................................................................ 24
viii
CHAPTER THREE: Piassaba Biology .................................................................... 43
Background......................................................................................................... 43
Methods................................................................................................................ 46
Objectives............................................................................................................ 50
Analysis ................................................................................................................ 50
Participant Observation Analysis................................................................ 54
Palm Density ...................................................................................................... 63
Indications........................................................................................................... 72
CHAPTER FOUR: The Palm and the Park ......................................................... 74
The Status Quo ................................................................................................. 74
Conservation vs. Development................................................................... 76
Biological, Social, and Economic Sustainability.................................... 82
CHAPTER FIVE: Summary of Results: Discussion, Application, and
Integration .................................................................................................................... 93
APPENDIX 1: FOCUS GROUP FORM FOR IRB .............................................. 112
APPENDIX 2: THE QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................ 114
APPENDIX 3: IDEAS FOR A MARKET SURVEY ............................................. 128
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................. 136
BIOGRAPHY OF WAYNE ETHAN MAYER ........................................................... 144
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Household Income Frequency Distribution.....................................26
Table 2.2 Household Palm Fiber Dependency...............................................30
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Piassaba Palm Stem Covered in Fiber...........................................3
Figure 1.2. Map of Cordillera Azul National Park...........................................15
Figure 1.3 Communities along the Huallaga River.........................................16
Figure 1.4 Sectors of Santa Rosa de Chipaota..............................................17
Figure 2.1 Major Income Composition (Whole Community)...........................25
Figure 2.2 Household Income Distribution.....................................................27
Figure 2.3 Household Frequency Distribution................................................27
Figure 2.4 Household Income of Those Earning Less Than 500 Soles.........28
Figure 2.5 Household Income of Those Earning More Than 500 Soles.........29
Figure 2.6 Distribution of Palm Fiber Income.................................................30
Figure 2.7 Distribution of Monthly Expenses (Whole Community).................31
Figure 2.8. Distribution of Monthly Expenses for Those Who Earn Less Than
500 Soles........................................................................................................32
Figure 2.9 Distribution of Monthly Expenses for Those Who Earn More Than
500 Soles........................................................................................................33
Figure 2.10 Occasional Expenses over Six Months (Whole Community)......34
Figure 2.11 Occasional Expenses over Six Months for Those Who Earn Less
Than 500 Soles..............................................................................................35
Figure 2.12 Occasional Expenses over Six Months for Those Who Earn More
Than 500 Soles..............................................................................................36
Figure 2.13 When Do You Harvest Piassaba Palm Fiber?............................37
Figure 2.14 To Whom Do You Sell Piassaba Fiber?......................................39
Figure 2.15 Who Sets the Price?....................................................................40
xi
Figure 2.16 Do You Harvest Piassaba Palm Fiber?.......................................42
Figure 3.1 Simulations of Kilos of Fiber Harvested After 30 Years................53
Figure 3.2 Time Spent on Harvesting Fiber....................................................58
Figure 3.3 Number of Leaves Removed and Untouched Per Palm...............59
Figure 3.4 Average Amount of Fiber Harvested Per Palm.............................60
Figure 3.5 Number of Leaves Removed and Untouched: Male vs. Female...61
Figure 3.6 Harvested Fibers: Male vs. Female...............................................62
Figure 3.7 Harvested Time: Male vs. Female.................................................63
Figure 3.8 Transect Locations........................................................................65
Figure 3.9 Sangapilla Palms/Hectare.............................................................66
Figure 3.10 Shimbillo Palms/Hectare.............................................................67
Figure 3.11 Metorarca Palms/Hectare............................................................67
Figure 3.12 Sangapilla Male vs. Female Palms.............................................69
Figure 3.13 Shimbillo Male vs. Female Palms...............................................69
Figure 3.14 Metorarca Male vs. Female Palms..............................................70
xii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AC = Alternating Current
CBC = Community-Based Conservation
CBNRM = Community-Based Natural Resource Management
CIMA = Centro de Conservación, Investigación Y Manejo de Areas Naturales
CEDISA = El Centro de Desarrollo e Investigación de la Selva Alta
DC = Direct Current
ICDP = Integrated Conservation and Development Project
NGO = Nongovernmental Organization
NPV = Net Present Value
NTFP = Non-Timber Forest Product
PV = Photovoltaic
USD = United States Dollar
xiii
NOTE ON EQUIVALENTS
UNIT
U.S. EQUIVALENT
1 hectare
2.47 acres
1 kilometer
0.62 miles
1 kilogram
2.2 pounds
1 meter
39.37 inches (3.28 feet or 1.09 yards)
At the time of my fieldwork, summers 2003-2005, the value of one US dollar equaled
approximately 3.45 Peruvian Nuevo Soles. For the purpose of this dissertation, I use
this exchange rate for all conversions between United States dollars and Peruvian
Nuevo Soles.
xiv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Several people and organizations made the completion of this degree possible.
Many thanks to Gary Hartshorn, Norm Christensen, Francis Lethem, and Donovan
Webster for providing me guidance and expanding my knowledge. In Peru, José
Chira and Luís (Lucho) Arévalo added counsel and encouragement. Lily Rodríquez,
of the Centro de Conservación, Investigación, y Manejo de Recursos Naturales
(CIMA) first invited me to conduct research in the Cordillera Azul region. Later, she
offered advice, contacts, and logistical support. Many thanks to Lily, Lucia Ruíz,
Tatiana Pequeño Saco, Alvaro del Campo, Miguel “Gallo” Vásquez, Fernando “Pino”
Rubio del Valle, Pedro Pacheco, Jorge Valdéz, Teodoberto Sánchez Torres,
Wellington Cachique Rodríguez, Jaso Daniel Angulo, Roxana Otárola, and everyone
in CIMA for lending me a hand and making me feel welcome. Thanks to Walther
Román for his computer-savvy assistance and his database design know-how. I
couldn’t have done this without you.
My fellow graduate students supplied academic insights, technical knowledge,
compassion, motivation, and, most of all, camaraderie. Thanks, guys.
I am grateful to the following organizations for financial support: Cleveland
Zoological Society, Jewish Federation of Columbus, Ohio, the Kuzmier, Lee and
Nikitine (KLN) Fund, The Duke University Graduate School Dissertation Award for
International Research, and Student International Discussion Group (SIDG)
Internship Fund.
xv
Thanks to the following companies, in-kind donations and pro-purchase
discounts kept me well-equipped in the field: Best American Duffel (BAD Bags),
TRG Accessories, Forestry Supplier, Forests of the World, the Original Muck Boot
Company, Swiss Army, and Carhartt.
I extend my gratitude to Consuelo Arellano Ugarte of the biology department
of la Universidad Agraria de La Molina and to Rosemary Fernholz of Duke’s
Program in International Development Policy for their thoughts on questionnaire
design. Jim Penn of Grand Valley State University offered field-tested insights into
research design and methodology. I am grateful for his thoughts and his close
reading of my original proposal and parts of this dissertation. Marc Dreyfors shared
his extensive experiences with NTFPs and generously offered his time, insights, and
friendship. I tip my hat to Nathan Strait and The Field Museum of Chicago for
assistance with maps and illustrations. Alaka Wali, Daniel Brinkmeier, and Paul
Guggenheim of The Field Museum provided ideas, observations, and local contacts.
Merlise Clyde, Zhenglei Gao, Sharon Edwards, Kiyotaka Miyazaki, Heather R.
McCarthy, and Fernando Colchero gave me direction during my statistical analyses; I
am grateful for their patience, enthusiasm, and insights. Christopher Paul
transformed Endnotes and PowerPoint into essential tools; thank you.
The hard work of volunteer field assistants made data collection possible. To
Darvin Pérez Flores, Erika Raquel Gática Acosta, Dilmer Pezo Dávila, Manolo
Vargas Ramírez, Juan Morales Alva, Juan Carlos Barboza Dávila, Rosemery Girano
Flores, Anita Violeta Flores del Águila, Lenín Corál Rengifo, Roberto Carlos del
Castillo Ugarte, Jared Vela Zatalaya, Hugo Orlando Gática Flores, Wagner Luís
xvi
Garcia Tuista, Carlos Enrique Santa María Hidalgo, José Luís Amado Hidalgo
García, Aldo Pinchi García, Doris Vásquez Flores, Carlos Enrique Ynove Mendoza,
Irina Ríos Vásquez, Juan Manuel Ramírez Flores, Eusebio Montenegro Lozano and
Edson Pinchi Guerra thanks a million. Thanks to Flor de María Ruíz Reyna, Danila
Pezo Ruíz, Tania Cumapa López, Mirián Díaz Guevara for their diligent data entry.
I am grateful to Alberto Isuiza Tapullima (former Apu, or “chief” of Santa
Rosa de Chipaota), Andres Cenepo Chashnamote, Anderson Isuiza Tapullima, and
Uliver Cenepo Chashnamote for making the initial arrangements that led to offering
me the opportunity to conduct research in their indigenous community. Don Albino
Cenepo and Doña Rosa de Cenepo invited my assistants me and to use their home as
a base camp during fieldwork; I am grateful for their kindness. A huge thank you
goes out to the people of Santa Rosa de Chipaota who opened their doors and their
hearts to all of us involved in this project. A special thanks goes to Uliver Cenepo
Chashnamote and his wife, Alejandrina Saboya de Cenepo, for their warm hospitality
and generous friendship.
And once again, as always: Thanks to my family, especially to my kind and
loving wife, Gladys Zapata Mayer.
xvii
PREFACE
Little scientific information exists on the use and conservation of the piassaba palm
(Aphandra natalia), a plant commonly exploited for its leaf-sheath fibers. People
extract the leaf-sheath and petiole fibers to use as broom bristles. In this dissertation I
study the production, harvest, and sale of piassaba palm fiber to investigate how nontimber forest product practices might strengthen biodiversity conservation and
national park management. Understanding community-level economic dependency
on piassaba palm fiber helps us determine whether forests surrounding Peru’s
Cordillera Azul National Park can provide income for local communities and
maintain biodiversity. In this study, I strive to answer the following questions about
the local management of Aphandra natalia and the potential for sustainable harvests
of piassaba palm fiber: 1) What level of fiber harvesting can Aphandra natalia
sustain? 2) What contribution do the production, harvest, and sale of piassaba palm
fiber make to the typical household economy? 3) Within current land-use practices in
the Peruvian Amazon, how might an ideal piassaba–based integrated land-use and
conservation strategy operate?
In the Cordillera Azul region, local people extract the piassaba’s leaf-sheath and
petiole fibers to fashion bristles for brooms. Throughout Peru, merchants and multinational stores like Ace Home Center sell piassaba palm-fiber brooms. With a rise in
deforestation and an increasing number of rural people of Peru’s Cordillera Azul
suffering from the pressures of a cash society, the need for an investigation that
xviii
contributes to managing sustainable, small-scale forestry and the development of
rural people is abundantly clear.
I analyze the piassaba palm from different disciplinary perspectives: social science
and economics, biology and botany, forestry and conservation biology. Each
discipline forms its own chapter in the dissertation. Chapter One provides an
introduction to non-timber forest products, buffer zones, biodiversity conservation,
and Peru’s Cordillera Azul National Park. I include references to previous studies
related to community-based conservation, economic botany, and non-timber forest
products.
In Chapter Two, I apply social science survey techniques to determine the economic
importance of piassaba palm fiber in an indigenous community in the park’s buffer
zone. The study addresses gaps in scientific and local knowledge; my results will aid
local and regional planners to make conservation and land-use decisions. In Chapter
Three, I investigate the factors that influence leaf growth rates, petiole fiber
production, and the differences in leaf production between male and female palms
and between harvested and non-harvested palms. I also examine the population
density of piassaba palms in three sectors of community-owned land in the park’s
rural and forested buffer zone.
In Chapter Four, I analyze the ecological and economic effectiveness of the piassaba
palm as a non-timber forest product. Many buffer zone communities want to develop
xix
sustainable construction, food, and medicinal crops that have ready markets. I will
use the results of my study to help answer more general NTFP questions and place
the piassaba palm in the context of Integrated Conservation and Development
projects (ICDPs).
In the final chapter, I discuss the potential of socioeconomic variables as indicators of
the value of NTFPs for cash income and subsistence. I combine the botanical
information with the socioeconomic data to present a comprehensive picture of
natural resource (Aphandra natalia) use and conservation in a buffer zone
community. I offer recommendations for protection and management of Aphandra
natalia and the development of local piassaba-palm-based micro-enterprises. I also
relate this study to buffer zones worldwide.
The difficulties of applying science to practical problem-solving are clearer to me
now than when I started this dissertation project. Working with indigenous people
has taught me that many perceptions of development and of conservation exist and all
of them contain elements of accuracy and validity. I have learned to interact and to
communicate in the realm of comparative ways of knowing, without letting one way
dominate the other. I have gained an immeasurable level of respect for people who
live in forests, who live in poverty, and who maintain great dignity. The push-pull
conflict embedded in human poverty and natural resource consumption remains vital.
The “stories” of this dissertation work toward a solid recognition of this conflict and a
vision for a local-level resolution.
xx
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
A look at the Scientific Literature, How It Fits a Local Context, and How it
Applies to Global Research. That Peruvian rainforest you dream about visiting
might disappear, a victim of misguided buffer zone management. I've picked a
biodiversity hotspot to underscore the challenges faced by communities and
conservationists at forest margins, while the forest is still there.
Most of the planet’s rural poor live in the tropics. Unfortunately, these populations
have not transformed nature’s bounty into sustainable incomes. Instead, extensive
biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation inflame poverty and economic
uncertainty. Poverty forces local residents to destroy the most valuable capital they
have—biological resources. Shattering this continual loop of poverty and natural
resource depletion beckons new resource-use strategies that conserve--and don’t
over-harvest--biological species. The search for such practical solutions requires
analyses of local resource-use systems. For my dissertation, I evaluate such a system-the production, harvest, use, and sale of piassaba palm fibers in the buffer zone of
Peru’s new Cordillera Azul National Park.
Cordillera Azul National Park encompasses a 3-million-acre (Connecticut-sized)
biodiversity hotspot (Alverson et al. 2001). Lying between the Huallaga and Ucayali
Rivers, the Cordillera Azul is one of the easternmost ranges between the Andes and
1
the Amazon Basin. In 2001, Peru set aside the park from resource extraction,
hunting, and subsistence farming, but it still needs a biodiversity-sensitive
management plan for the forests bordering the park. No one resides inside the park.
Mestizo (mixed-race) and indigenous peoples live within the buffer zone. These
communities hunt, fish, and harvest plants for immediate needs. The communities
own their land and they struggle to keep it. Poverty drives them to put pressure on
the park’s resources.
In Peru, the extraction of non-timber forest products makes a limited contribution to
the national economy. For many rural populations, however, extracting products
from the forest generates a vital source of cash income. This is true on the eastern
slope of the Andes, along the northwestern border of Cordillera Azul National Park.
I first traveled to the Cordillera Azul in November 2002. There, I learned that people
extract palm fiber to make brooms; some do so illegally, going inside the new park to
harvest these stiff wiry fibers. This activity highlights a land-use problem worldwide:
when human needs are not met, natural resources are not conserved. The cash
economy reaches deep into remote societies: Where there is market demand, there is
supply. In Peru’s towns and cities people want inexpensive utility brooms. Broom
makers want bristles. Rural people harvest and sell piassaba palm fiber for bristles.
2
Piassaba Palm Stem Covered in Fiber
Figure 1.1. Aphandra natalia’s leaf sheaths and petioles disintegrate into a mass of
fibers that hang down and cover its stem.
3
Background
Despite its economic significance in Ecuador, Peru, and Brazil, few in-depth field
studies examine the piassaba palm (Aphandra natalia) (Borgtoft-Pederson 1992;
Borgtoft-Pederson & Balslev 1992). Botanists did not scientifically describe the palm
until 1987 and Aphandra remains a monotypic genus that only includes A. natalia
(Balslev & Henderson 1987). Named Ammandra natalia in 1987 (Balslev &
Henderson 1987), further analysis of the staminate flower clusters moved the palm to
a new monotypic genus, Aphandra natalia (Barford 1991). The common name,
piassaba, confuses people because of a similar fibrous palm called Leopoldinia
piassaba. The fibers (“piassaba”) from the stem of L. piassaba are also gathered,
traded locally, and used to make brooms (Henderson et al. 1995). Leopoldinia
piassaba, found in Colombia, Venezuela, and Brazil (Henderson et al. 1995), does
not grow in Peru’s Huallaga Valley where Aphandra natalia remains abundant.
Aphandra natalia (Fig. 1.1) resides in the subfamily Phytelephantoidaea (Balslev &
Henderson 1987; Barford 1991; Borgtoft-Pederson 1992; Henderson 1995;
Henderson et al. 1995; Henderson 2002). The Phytelephantoidaea group includes
three similar genera (Phytelephas, Ammandra, and Aphandra), their nine species all
confined to the Neotropics (Henderson 2002). This subfamily of “moderate-sized
palms with stout stems,” is economically important in the tropical Andes (e.g., the
endosperm of a Phytelephas species produces vegetable ivory) (Henderson 2002).
Like the other members of this subfamily, Aphandra natalia is dioecious and its
infructescences are dense, brown, and somewhat globular (Borgtoft-Pederson 1992).
4
The leaf sheaths and petiole margins of the palm’s leaves disintegrate into a mass of
dense fiber (Borgtoft-Pederson 1992; Borgtoft-Pederson & Balslev 1992). These
fibers, used to make brooms, make Aphandra natalia one of the most economically
important palms in both Ecuador (Borgtoft-Pederson 1992) and Peru.
Aphandra natalia ranges from southeastern Ecuador to northern Peru (brooms are
sold in the markets of Iquitos) to Acre, Brazil, near the Peruvian border (BorgtoftPederson & Balslev 1990; Borgtoft-Pederson 1992). It is a sub-canopy palm and is
widespread in this area up to 800 meters above sea level. The climate where
Aphandra natalia grows stays warm and humid year-round. In Ecuador, a small
number of agroforestry systems cultivate this palm at elevations up to 1000 meters
above sea level (Borgtoft-Pederson & Balslev 1990; Borgtoft-Pederson 1992).
Although a few scattered individuals grow wild in the forest, the palm usually grows
grouped together and reaches a high density in old-growth forests (Borgtoft-Pederson
& Balslev 1990; Borgtoft-Pederson 1992). Forest rodents (e.g., agoutis, pacas) play a
crucial role in seed dispersal (Borgtoft-Pederson 1992). In Peru, harvesters often
combine a trip to harvest piassaba palm fiber with hunting for large rodents (e.g.,
Agouti paca), a major source of protein. The palm’s fruit attracts these animals and,
therefore, the workers often harvest fiber during the day and set traps for these
nocturnal mammals at night (personal observation).
Although people exploit the edible fruit mesocarp, the main draw to Aphandra
natalia comes from the commercial use of its leaf-sheath and petiole fiber. Most of
5
the exploited individuals grow wild (Borgtoft-Pederson 1996). Nevertheless, in
Ecuador some cultivation of Aphandra natalia occurs (Borgtoft-Pederson & Balslev
1990; Borgtoft-Pederson 1992; Borgtoft-Pederson & Balslev 1992; BorgtoftPederson 1996). To harvest the fiber, the harvester wields a machete and cuts along
both sides of the petiole to separate it from the fiber (Borgtoft-Pederson 1992). Then,
the harvester cuts off the leaf and discards it. The harvester then works around the
base of the fibrous leaf-sheath, which completely encircles the stem. Then, the fiber
is removed, shaken and slapped to free it from dust, insects, and venomous scorpions.
According to Borgtoft-Pederson (1992), cutting off too many fronds makes the soft
leaf-bases of younger leaves vulnerable to attack from the weevil Rhynchophorus
palmarum L., which can kill the palm. Nevertheless, the harvesters peel and cut the
fiber from the stem, shake it clean, bundle it, and transport it back to work stations.
Often, after carrying the fiber to the work station but before cleaning the fiber, the
harvesters submerge the bundles in a nearby creek and weight them down with river
stones. They let the fiber soak for four or five days to absorb water (personal
observation). The water causes the fiber to swell, making it more pliable and flexible.
A work station consists of a rustic table complete with a metal comb or rake attached
to it; the teeth of the comb point straight up. The station provides a place for cleaning
the fiber. Once the harvesters remove the fiber from the creek, they air it out and then
clean it. The workers slap handfuls of the fiber into the vertical tines of the rake and
then pull it through the tines to comb out the dirt of the forest. They clean the fiber
and cut it into lengths of 28-30 cm. Then, they re-bundle it and take it to market for
6
sale. They sell the fiber to broom manufacturers who use it as bristles in their
brooms.
Peruvians commercially exploit a number of wild plants; among them, palms sit at the
top of the list, e.g., Mauritia flexuosa (aguaje for fruit), Bactris gasipaes (peach palm,
for fruit), and Aphandra natalia (fibers for brooms, and for the edible fruit).
Aphandra natalia, a multipurpose palm appears “well-suited for extractivism,”
(Borgtoft-Pederson 1992). Nevertheless, the current exploitation in Peru presents a
problem: People over-harvest individual palms (or simply cut them down to harvest
the fiber) and, therefore, must continually find new individuals to exploit. This
practice puts harvesters in direct conflict with the new park. Killing individual palms
might not pose a problem if the light gap generated allows new seedlings to grow. In
the absence of ready-to-harvest palms outside the park, however, some people enter
the park to harvest palm fiber illegally (Rodríguez 2003, personal communication).
To conserve this palm species and protect the natural resources within the park
requires a better understanding of how and why people use this palm.
My research, both ecological and socio-economic in scope, links the piassaba palm to
sustainable development opportunities in the Cordillera Azul’s buffer zone.
Examining and identifying how people use local plants increases our understanding
of both environmental and conservation issues in Peru and abroad. Biodiversity
conservation in forests managed sustainably for non-timber products recognizes that
managed forests can, and must, serve a wide array of biological and socio-economic
7
values (Hartshorn 1995). Biologists promote the extraction of non-timber forest
products because they believe it causes fewer negative impacts on forest communities
and ecosystems than other land-uses and because non-timber extraction also provides
communities with a source of income (Nepstad & Schwartzman 1992; Hartshorn
1995; Putz et al. 2001). Nevertheless, harvesting non-timber forest products (NTFPs)
can lead to overexploitation and extirpation (Peters 1999).
Since the late 1980s, when mass media promoted the “Save the Rainforest” trend,
researchers across disciplines have attempted to measure the ways local people
benefit from tropical forests (Myers 1984; Brody 1987). The literature on non-timber
forest products presents frequent excitement about their potential (Plotkin &
Famolare 1992) and great skepticism (Browder 1992; Salafsky et al. 1993). Some
authors emphasize the power of option and existence values to generate local
conservation incentives (Adger et al. 1995; Campos 2002). Others remind us that
non-timber products do not “save the rainforest” and small-enterprise strategies for
conservation do not fit all buffer zone situations (Salafsky et al. 1993; Salafsky &
Wollenberg 2000; Salafsky et al. 2001a). Here, the term buffer zone refers to the
rural land surrounding a protected area. If forested, these unprotected areas provide a
“green cushion” or “buffer” between the protected area and the region’s urban or
industrial areas. Although forest valuation studies serve a purpose (Peters et al.
1989), they do not provide information on sustainable forest use over time. Instead,
valuation studies aim to give economic values to whole swaths of land based on a few
key harvestable species. Such studies target the direct value of specific forest
8
products and try to extrapolate those values to the value of intact forest ecosystems
(Peters et al. 1989; Gavin 2002).
Other investigations focus on traditional communities living at the margins of
protected areas. These studies use household surveys to understand the resource-use
patterns of such communities and then seek ways to create community participation
in forest conservation (Hegde & Enters 2000). This approach recognizes that many
of the areas that conservationists want to protect already contain the impacts of
anthropogenic activities (Prabhakar 1994; Pimpert & Pretty 1995; Hegde & Enters
2000). Still other researchers focus on small-scale systems to produce forest-based
fruits for subsistence and sale in local markets (Clement et al. 2004). Often, palm
species are the key tree components in these agroforestry strategies (Plotkin &
Famolare 1992; Clement et al. 2004). Endress et al. (Endress et al. 2004) and others
group the NTFP literature into four categories: 1) Economics and marketing (Plotkin
& Famolare 1992; Prabhakar 1994; Pattanayak & Sills 2001); 2) the importance (or
lack thereof) to community development and biodiversity conservation (Dove 1993;
Salafsky 1993; Arnold & Ruiz Perez 2001); 3) harvest and management (Boot &
Gullison 1995; Runk 1998); and 4) effects of extraction on NTFP demography and
population dynamics (Pinard 1993; Anderson 1998; Zuidema 2000).
In recent studies, researchers use an experimental approach to evaluate NTFP
extraction
9
(Flores & Ashton 2000; Zuidema 2000; Ticktin et al. 2002). These investigations
deepen the literature on NTFPs, but they neglect a key component—local harvest and
management strategies and the connection of those strategies to household incomes.
Site-specific mechanisms such as the use and “savings” practices of local
communities (Pattanayak & Sills 2001) directly affect the success of NTFP extraction
programs from the community development and biodiversity conservation, harvest
and management, economic, and resource population perspectives. My investigation
joins a handful of recent studies (Runk 1998; Svenning & Macia 2002; Ticktin et al.
2002; Endress et al. 2004) addressing this void. I integrate a socio-economic
understanding of local management strategies with an ecological experiment.
Specifically, I focus on palm fiber extraction from Aphandra natalia in north-central
Peru.
In northern South America, palms constitute one of the most abundant plant families.
Taxonomists use both Palmae and Arecaceae to refer to this family (Henderson
2002). Botanists and ethno-botanists have documented hundreds of palm species and
their human uses (McCurrach 1960; Balick & Beck 1990; Henderson 1995;
Henderson et al. 1995; Henderson 2002). The palm family contains many multi-use
species that can be integrated into agroforestry systems (Balick & Beck 1990). In
thinking about palms and non-timber forest products contributing to tropical forest
conservation, I decided to look at a fringe idea and point it back to the center. I chose
to study the production, harvest, and sale of piassaba palm fiber to investigate how
the use of a non-timber forest product might help conserve biodiversity.
10
Understanding community-level economic dependency on piassaba palm fiber helps
us determine whether forests surrounding Cordillera Azul National Park can provide
income for local communities and maintain biodiversity. Local residents whose
livelihoods improve from learning and practicing long-term conservation techniques
tend to take action toward biodiversity protection (Salafsky et al. 2001a; Salafsky et
al. 2001b).
My study contributes to the field of sustainable development and its role in rainforest
conservation in several ways. I document the way local people harvest and utilize
fiber from the piassaba palm (Aphandra natalia) in an indigenous community in the
buffer zone of Peru’s Cordillera National Park. The Peruvian government identifies
these people as living in extreme poverty (earning less than one USD a day). They
live in a world where forest life now merges with an encroaching market economy.
Their livelihoods represent the intersection of poverty, rural development, and
conservation, which invites an interdisciplinary approach to problem solving.
Therefore, I use household survey techniques to determine the economic dependency
of this buffer zone community on palm fiber.
This socio-economic information helps land-use planners determine whether forests
in the buffer zone of this new national park can serve a dual purpose: Provide income
for local communities and help protect biodiversity. Honing in on a particular palm
species enables me to examine how non-timber forest products fit into the livelihoods
of buffer zone residents. Can palm fiber and other non-timber forest products provide
11
local conservation incentives? Can local people hitch economic forces to naturalresource conservation? The answers hinge on the market-based values people place
on biological resources and on the resilience of those resources.
My investigation uses Aphandra natalia as a case study on Amazonian natural
resource use; it addresses ways to improve livelihoods at the margins of protected
forests without jeopardizing protected resources. I examine the following questions:
Can we balance the goals of economic development for small-scale forest-owners, via
resource extraction, and the long-term conservation of the resources they extract?
Can the harvest and management of NTFPs be integrated with agriculture and natural
forest management? How might multi-use forest management operate in buffer zone
communities? These questions guided me to investigate the ecological and
socioeconomic elements of piassaba-fiber harvests and the resulting broom
production.
To answer the big-picture questions that apply to forest-based communities
worldwide, I focused on an indigenous community in the buffer zone of Cordillera
Azul National Park.
Research Questions
1. What level of fiber harvesting can Aphandra natalia sustain?
12
2. What contribution do the production, harvest, and sale of piassaba palm fiber make
to the average household economy?
3. How might an ideal piassaba–based integrated land-use and conservation strategy
operate? For the community? For the landscape? For the palm?
Study Site
Topography divides Peru into three biogeographic zones: The eastern lowlands
(which make up part of the upper and lower Amazon Basin), the Pacific coastal
plains, and the Andes mountains. Located between the Huallaga and Ucayali Rivers,
Cordillera Azul National Park (Figs. 1.2 and 1.3) encompasses a 3-million-acre
biodiversity hotspot on the eastern slope of the Andes. It marks one of the
easternmost ranges between the Andes and the Amazon Basin. A rich and complex
landscape of rugged terrain, sheer cliffs, mountain lakes, mid-altitude marshes, lush
cloud forests, and extensive lowland forests, Cordillera Azul’s estimated 4000-6000
plant species provide exceptional habitats for wildlife. Biologists suspect that the
park harbors more than 500 bird species, over 80 reptile and amphibian species, more
than 70 kinds of mammals including 10 species of primates and the endangered
spectacled bear (Alverson et al. 2001).
The indigenous community Mushuck Llackta (Santa Rosa de Chipaota) (Fig. 1.4;
6°37’S, 76°02’W) sits in the buffer zone of Cordillera Azul National Park and serves
13
as the focal site for this investigation. My research examines the leaf production of
piassaba palms over time, the local density of palms, and the current local harvesting
practices. My project also consists of household surveys of a random sample of
community members living close to the river (and the market) and up the hillside in
the forest closer to the national park. Collectively, the community of 163 households
owns legal title to more than 6,146 hectares (15,181 acres) of land in the buffer zone
of the Cordillera Azul National Park. Their land adjoins the northwestern border of
the park (Fig. 1.4).
14
Map of Cordillera Azul National Park
Santa Rosa de Chipaota
Huallaga River
Ucayali
River
Cordillera Azul
National Park
Orange = National Park
Yellow = Buffer Zone
Figure 1.2. Cordillera Azul National Park encompasses a 3-million-acre
biodiversity hotspot on the eastern slope of the Andes.
15
Figure 1.3. The indigenous community Mushuck Llackta (Santa Rosa de Chipaota)
sits on the bank of the Huallaga River in the buffer zone of Cordillera Azul National
Park.
16
Figure 1.4. The Chipaota community divides its land into sectors, which are
outlined in green, and slope upward from the Huallaga River to the border of
Cordillera Azul National Park.
17
CHAPTER TWO: THE PIASSABA PALM (APHANDRA
NATALIA) AND HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIES
A look at the economic importance of the leaf-sheath and petiole fibers of the
piassaba palm in an indigenous community in the Peruvian Amazon.
Background
In the tropics, rural poverty forces local residents to destroy the most valuable capital
they have--biological diversity. Wild foods and other forest products provide a vital
source of cash income for rural people who increasingly depend on hard currency as a
means of exchange. Although a wide array of issues surround the povertyenvironment nexus, especially in the tropics, (Wunder 2001; Sanderson & Redford
2003; Sanderson & Redford 2004; Sanderson 2005), forest resources in tropical
ecosystems must be managed for the long-term. My dissertation research, both
ecological and socio-economic in scope, fixes humans in the natural resource useand-conservation equation, exploring solutions that benefit both people and their
environment.
Cordillera Azul is the first national park in Peru to be managed by nongovernmental
organizations. The park management team collects and analyzes scientific and sociodemographic information. They use these data to design methods for the protection,
preservation, and restoration of the landscape, to garner support from diverse
18
stakeholders (local communities to the national government), and to build the
capacity of local entities to plan and implement conservation programs.
Against this backdrop, I chose to study the production, harvest, and sale of piassaba
palm fiber to investigate how non-timber forest product management might
strengthen natural resource conservation and national park management.
Understanding community-level economic dependency on piassaba palm fiber helps
us determine whether forests surrounding Cordillera Azul National Park can provide
income for local communities and help maintain biodiversity. In the park’s buffer
zone, I strive to answer questions about the local management of the piassaba palm
(Aphandra natalia) and to create models for the sustainable harvest of palm fiber that
conserve palms while helping to reduce poverty.
Study Site
On May 22, 2001, the interim President of Peru, Valentín Paniagua, signed a decree
that established the 5,225-square-mile (3-million-acre) Cordillera Azul National Park.
Located between the Huallaga and Ucayali Rivers, Cordillera Azul National Park
encompasses a Connecticut-sized biodiversity hotspot that stretches over one of the
easternmost ranges of the Andes and slopes down into the upper Amazon Basin. The
northern Cordillera Azul remains the “last intact expanse of lower-montane forest in
Peru” (Alverson et al. 2001). The government drew the park boundaries with respect
to local residents; as a result, nobody resides within the park. Approximately 70,000
people live in towns and villages in the “buffer zone” that surrounds the park.
19
Beyond the park’s western border lie the Huallaga Valley’s once-famous coca fields;
mostly abandoned, these disturbed areas are now reverting back to forest (Alverson et
al. 2001).
Creation of the park marked a political achievement for conservation, but the efforts
to ensure effective protection of Cordillera Azul's animal and plant communities was
just beginning. Peru set aside the park from habitat destruction caused by resource
extraction, hunting, and subsistence farming, but it still needed (and needs) a
biodiversity-sensitive management plan for the forests bordering the park. Mestizo
(mixed-race) and indigenous peoples live within the buffer zone. These communities
practice shifting and slash-and-burn agriculture and they hunt, fish, and harvest plants
for immediate needs. Poverty drives them to put pressure on the park’s resources.
The indigenous community Santa Rosa de Chipaota (Mushuck Llackta) (6°37’S,
76°02’W) sits in the buffer zone of Cordillera Azul National Park and serves as the
focal site for this investigation. My socio-economic research consists of household
surveys of a random sample of the community members living close to the river (and
the market) and up the hillside in the forest closer to the national park (and the
harvestable piassaba palms). Collectively, the community of 163 households owns
legal title to more than 6,146 hectares (15,181 acres) of land in the buffer zone of
Cordillera Azul National Park. Their land adjoins the northwestern border of the
park. Peru’s involvement of neighboring communities--critical to the long-term
20
feasibility of the park--sits at the center of the dynamic, collaborative conservation
and development projects within the park’s buffer zone. My work adds to these
efforts and offers more understanding of the local socio-economic use of the
dioecious (i.e., separate male plants and female plants) piassaba palm, Aphandra
natalia.
Methods: Social Science Survey Research
This section of my research utilizes information gathered from a representative
number of people (a sample size) to accurately represent a significantly larger number
of people (a local community). Using a survey instrument, I conducted interviews to
generate standardized data for statistical analysis. To answer my second research
question--What contribution does the production, harvest, and sale of piassaba palm
fiber make to the household economy?—I devised the following methodology.
1) Conduct focus group interviews with fiber harvesters who live in
the Cordillera Azul’s buffer zone (along the northwestern edge of
the park) to further understanding of the local piassaba harvesting
techniques and trends.
2) Design an effective questionnaire to survey a representative sample
of the community about their sources of income, their expenses,
and their use of the piassaba palm. From the community’s
population (or sampling frame) calculate a simple random sample
21
of households to interview. Conduct household surveys with the
members of the random sample. Collect information on the
economic activities of each household, on the agricultural calendar,
level of community participation, and on the harvest and sale of
piassaba palm fiber.
3) Build a database with the information gained from the survey. Use
statistics (R and Microsoft Excel) to analyze the data and create
graphs to provide visual evidence to tell the data’s story.
A team of students and recent graduates from San Martin University helped me
collect field data. With their assistance, I conducted household surveys in Santa Rosa
de Chipaota (Mushuck Llackta), an indigenous community in the park’s buffer zone,
during June and July 2004. After creating the survey instrument, I conducted a twoday, 13-interview pilot study to see how well it would work. From the pilot, the
students and I restructured the questionnaire to include more charts on the agricultural
calendar and added questions about overall household income.
The students and I then interviewed heads of households with this structured
questionnaire. The information collected included household composition, age,
education, agricultural practices including crops and planting and harvest times,
livestock holdings, the amount of labor spent on income-generating activities
including the collection of timber and non-timber forest products (NTFPs),
community participation, and the harvest of piassaba palm fiber. Agricultural
22
activities included the cultivation of both commercial crops like cacao and coffee as
well as subsistence crops including manioc, corn, and beans. Through the
questionnaire, I obtained data on crop yields, sale prices for commercial and
subsistence crops and their byproducts, and NTFP activities and prices for those
extractive products. NTFPs included commercial products (e.g., Aphandra natalia)
and subsistence crops such as palm fronds for thatch. I also obtained information on
household expenses.
The survey captured information on the collection, sale, and prices of NTFPs and,
specifically, Aphandra natalia. I collected information on how many people
currently harvest palm fiber and how many people previously harvested palm fiber
but no longer do so. These data enable me to place Aphandra natalia in the context
of household economies and reveal what percentage of the community depends on
Aphandra natalia for cash revenues, how much money they obtain from palm fiber,
when and with what frequency they harvest palm fiber, where they sell it, how they
transport it, and what those costs are. Data analysis reveals the level of contribution
that the production, harvest, and sale of piassaba palm fiber make to the household
economy. This provides insight into the pressure that a local community puts on this
resource, and it reveals how the community utilizes this resource. These data, then,
create a foundation for considering whether or not the production, harvest, and sale of
Aphandra natalia products might serve as a model for sustainable land-use in the
buffer zone of Peru’s Cordillera Azul National Park.
23
Objectives
1) Establish baseline or indicative measures of the present fiber harvesting
practices and the economic results of those practices.
2) Conduct social science surveys to identify the socio-economic
importance of piassaba palm fiber in household economies and to place
this fiber into the context of local economic activities and the local
agricultural calendar.
Analysis
After testing my pilot questionnaire in the community, I determined that most of the
community members’ income came from four main activities: 1) agriculture; 2)
livestock; 3) timber and non-timber forest products (including piassaba palm fiber);
and 4) hunting and fishing. To determine the contribution that the production,
harvest, and sale of piassaba palm fiber makes to the Chipaota community, I
separated the piassaba palm from the other forest products (Fig. 2.1).
24
Major Income Composition (Whole Community)
4%
31%
31%
Agriculture
Palm
Other Forest Products
Livestock
Hunting & Fishing
6%
28%
Figure 2.1. Almost one-third of household income comes from piassaba palm fiber.
From the graph, we can see that almost one-third of the household income comes
from piassaba palm fiber. Agriculture provides nearly one-third and livestock
provides close to one-third of the household income. Hunting and fishing and the
extraction of other forest products contribute a limited amount (4% and 6%,
respectively) to household income.
From the survey instrument (questionnaire), I determined the frequency distribution
of income levels in the community. This distribution enables us to identify the
“typical” household, as opposed to the average household. The frequency
25
distribution for Mushuck Llackta divides into seven categories as listed below in the
relative and cumulative frequency table (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1. Forty-one out of 62 households earn between 200 and 500 Soles over
six months.
Household Income Frequency Distribution
Income in Soles/six
months
less than 200
200-500
500-800
800-1100
1100-1400
1400-1700
more than 1700
Number of
households
Relative
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Frequency
24
17
11
3
3
1
3
24
41
52
55
58
59
62
39%
66%
84%
89%
94%
95%
100%
This table reveals that 66% of the community earns less than 500 Soles per six
months and 84% earn less than 800 Soles during the same time period. (The average
income in the community equaled 506 Soles per six months.) If we take 500 Soles as
the benchmark and look at our community, we see that the “typical” resident earns
less than 500 Soles per six months. To view this information differently, look at
figures 2.2 and 2.3. The steep slope between less than 200 and less than 500
Soles/six months illustrates the majority of the community members. The slope
maintains a relative steepness as it moves up to 800 Soles, but then it tapers off
dramatically.
26
Household Income Distribution
1
0.8
Proportion of
Households
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Total Income (Soles/SixMonths)
Figure 2.2. The majority of the households earn less than 500 Soles/six months.
Household Frequency Distribution
Cummulative Frequency
62
59
59
58
55
54
52
49
44
41
39
34
29
24
24
200
500
800
1100
1400
1700
>1700
Household Income (Soles/Six Months)
Figure 2.3. The typical household earns between 200 and 500 Soles per six months.
27
To examine the household dependence on piassaba palm fiber, I divided the
community into two groups: Those who earn more than 500 Soles/six months and
those who earn less than 500 Soles/six months. When we examine the income
distribution for the households that earn less than 500 Soles per six months we find
that over half (52%) of their income comes from piassaba palm fiber (see Fig. 2.4).
For those who earn more than 500 Soles over six months, the percentage of income
that comes from piassaba palm fiber drops to 23% of their total earnings, roughly half
as much as the poorer group (Fig. 2.5).
Household Income of Those Earning Less Than 500
Soles
5%
19%
21%
Agriculture
Palm
Plants
3%
Livestock
Hunt/fish
52%
Figure 2.4. Those who earn less than 500 Soles over six months earn more than
half their cash income from piassaba palm fiber.
28
Those who earn less than 500 Soles/six months rely heavily on income from piassaba
palm fiber (Fig. 2.4), whereas those who earn more than 500 Soles show a more
evenly diversified income across the five listed categories (Fig. 2.5).
Household Income of Those Earning More Than 500
Soles
3%
35%
33%
Agriculture
Palm
Other Forest Products
Livestock
Hunting & Fishing
6%
23%
Figure 2.5. For those who earn more than 500 Soles per six months, piassaba palm
fiber makes up a little less than a quarter of their cash income.
Then I looked at the two groups to determine how dependent each one is on palm
fiber for cash income. I broke the two groups into dependency categories: Those
who earn 50% and 80% of their income from palm fiber. From the table below
(Table 2.2), we see that 14 of the 41 households (41%) that earn less than 500
Soles/six months depend on the palm fiber for more than 80% of their cash income.
Only four of the 21 households (19%) that earn more than 500 Soles/six months
depend on the palm fiber for 80% of their cash income.
29
Table 2.2. The poorest of the poor depend on the palm fiber more heavily than the
“wealthier” segment of the population.
Household Palm Fiber Dependency
Number of
households
Income in Soles
50% of Cash Income from 80% of Cash Income
Palm
from Palm
Less than 500
41
17
41.46%
14
34.15%
More than 500
21
7
33.33%
4
19.05%
By comparing these two groups we can see that the poorer segment of the population
depends more heavily on the palm fiber for cash than the “wealthier” group.
Distribution of Palm Fiber Income
1
0.8
Proportion
from Palm
Fiber
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Total Income (Soles/Six Months)
Figure 2.6. The poorest segment of the population depends more heavily on the
piassaba palm fiber for cash income than the “wealthier” group.
During the analysis, I discovered a discrepancy in my survey instrument. I obtained
data on income over a six-month period. Culturally, however, my field assistants and
I found it difficult to obtain accurate information on the expenses over the same
period. I adapted the survey to the community’s way of thinking and asked about
30
monthly expenditures for last month in one table and then “occasional” expenditures
for the last six months and for the previous year in another table. My original
thinking was that I could multiply one month by six. Then, I could add the occasional
expenses to the total amount to obtain an estimate of monthly expenses over a sixmonth period. This turned out to be inaccurate because monthly expenses and,
especially the occasional expenses, varied widely. Therefore, I could not make
meaningful comparisons between income and outflow. I did, however, calculate the
distribution of outflow expenses for the community. This enables me to illustrate, in
broad terms, the cash flow in the community.
Distribution of Monthly Expenses (Whole
Community)
1%
0%
4%
14%
16%
4%
18%
16%
7%
3%
17%
COOKING OIL
RICE
SUGAR
BATTERIES
SHOTGUN SHELLS
MATCHES
SOAP
KEROSENE
SALT
CANDLES
OTHER
Figure 2.7. Sugar, shotgun shells, soap, cooking oil, and kerosene make up the
largest monthly expenses for the community, as a whole.
As seen in figure 2.7, sugar, shotgun shells, soap, cooking oil, and kerosene make up
the largest monthly expenses for the community, as a whole. When we break that
31
down into two groups: Those who earn less than and those who earn more than 500
Soles per six months, we see slightly different distributions (Figs. 2.8 and 2.9).
Distribution of Monthly Expenses for Those Who
Earn Less Than 500 Soles
1%
0%
13%
4%
2%
17%
16%
15%
10%
4%
COOKING OIL
RICE
SUGAR
BATTERIES
SHOTGUN SHELLS
MATCHES
SOAP
KEROSENE
SALT
CANDLES
OTHER
18%
Figure 2.8. Monthly expenses for those who earn less than 500 Soles per six
months differ only slightly from those who earn more than 500 Soles per six months.
32
Distribution of Monthly Expenses For Those Who
Earn More Than 500 Soles
1%
0%
4%
17%
COOKING OIL
15%
RICE
SUGAR
6%
BATTERIES
SHOTGUN SHELLS
MATCHES
SOAP
17%
KEROSENE
19%
SALT
CANDLES
3%
OTHER
16%
2%
Figure 2.9. Monthly expenses for those who earn more than 500 Soles per six
months differ only slightly from those who earn less than 500 Soles per six months.
For example, those who earn less than 500 Soles/six months spend more money (18%
of their income) on shotgun shells. Those who earn more than 500 Soles spend 16%
on shotgun shells. Perhaps those who earn less hunt more. This coincides with the
observation that those who earn less harvest fiber more frequently because fiber
harvesters often combine their harvesting excursions with hunting and fishing
activities. We also note that those who earn more spend more of their income (19%
as opposed to 16%) on sugar. We do not, however, see major differences in the
spending habits between the two groups.
33
When we examine occasional expenses, as defined by the community members
during a focus group, we learn that clothing and education are the two biggest
occasional expenses for the community, with medicine coming in third at about half
as much as each of the other two (Fig. 2.10).
Occasional Expenses over Six Months (Whole
Community)
8%
4%
17%
Machetes
Medicine
Clothing
38%
Education
Other
33%
Figure 2.10. Clothing and education are the two biggest occasional expenses for the
community, with medicine coming in third at about half as much as each of the other
two.
When we divide the community into the two previously defined categories we find
that those who earn less than 500 Soles per six months spend a larger percentage of
their income on education and a slightly larger percentage on medicine (Fig. 2.11).
Clothing remained the same at 33% of their total income. Those who earn more than
500 Soles spend proportionately less on education and more on clothing (Fig. 2.12).
34
Occasional Expenses over Six Months for those
Who Earn Less Than 500 Soles
0%
3%
19%
Machetes
Medicine
45%
Clothes
Education
Other
33%
Figure 2.11. Those who earn less than 500 Soles per six months spend a larger
percentage of their income on education and a slightly larger percentage on medicine
35
Occasional Expenses over Six Months for Those Who Earn
More Than 500 Soles
5%
21%
12%
Machetes
Medicine
Clothing
Education
28%
34%
Other
Figure 2.12. Those who earn more than 500 Soles spend proportionately less on
education and more on clothing.
The interpretation of these distribution pies reveals that, among daily activities, cash
income enables children to attend school, people to wear clothes, and the sick to
purchase medicine. We also observe that, even within the community, income levels
differ. Those at the poorer end of the spectrum use the piassaba palm fiber as their
main opportunity to generate cash.
The data reveal that the members of the community use piassaba palm fibers like a
natural savings account. When they need cash for their children’s education, clothes,
medicine, basic foodstuffs (e.g., sugar, cooking oil) and supplies (e.g., shotgun shells,
soap) they harvest fiber. The data reveal that most people harvest the fiber when they
have a “necessity.” In our questionnaire, most people answered that a necessity
means: 1) medicine (or healthcare); 2) school supplies for their children; 3) food; or
4) money to maintain their houses and sustain their families. At least 69% of the
36
community harvests palm fiber when they have a “necessity” (Fig 2.13). Although
they harvest year-round, most of the harvesting activity occurs in the dry season.
Some harvesters only harvest in the dry season, but no one only harvests fiber during
the wet season. The seasonal categories, however, overlap the periodical (necessity)
category. For example, a fiber harvester might harvest fiber when he has a necessity,
but only in the dry season. There also might be a harvester who harvests fiber
regularly, but only in the dry season. Therefore, I do not know how many people
within the 29% of the dry-season-only category harvest fiber regularly and how many
harvest fiber periodically when they have a necessity (Fig. 2.13).
When Do you Harvest Piassaba Palm Fiber?
2%
0%
29%
Dry Season Only
Wet Season Only
Necessity
One or Two months a year
Other
0%
69%
Figure 2.13. At least 69% of the households harvest piassaba fiber year-round
whenever they have a “necessity.” A necessity usually means a need for health
services or school supplies.
37
If the dry season harvesters harvest fiber only when they have a necessity, then the
necessity category would cover 98% of the community (Fig. 2.13). If the harvesters
who only harvest one or two months a year (2%) do so only when they have a
necessity and not on a regular basis, then 100% of the harvesting activities would
occur only when a harvester has a financial need (a necessity for cash).
Unfortunately, from the way I designed the questionnaire, I cannot obtain an accurate
account of that level of detail.
In Santa Rosa de Chipaota (Mushuck Llackta), fiber harvesters, called fibreros, are
members of the community who have community permission to harvest piassaba
fiber. Those who harvest without permission are known as “extractores ilegales,”
illegal extractors, and are usually people from outside the community. Fibreros pay a
“tax” to the community in relation to the amount of fiber taken to market (for 100
kilos of fiber, the fibrero must pay the community10 Nuevo Soles [approximately
$2.90 USD] in “taxes” or “rights”). The community leaders log the amount of tax
paid by each harvester in a register book. The money enters the community funds,
which function as a sort of rotating credit association (Geertz 1962). If, for example,
a child falls ill, her parents might borrow money from the community to pay for
medicine. Later, that family will contribute to the fund (or reimburse the fund) and
another family might borrow from the fund. The community might also vote to
invest the money in a community project or celebration.
38
The fiber harvesters sell their clean and cut fiber by weight to either members of the
community who will transport it to market, buyers who come to the community in
boats, broom manufacturers in Chazuta, or broom manufacturers in Tarapoto (Fig.
2.14). From a kilo of “raw” fiber, they obtain, after the cleaning process, about 800
grams of sellable fiber. Over fifty percent of the harvesters sell their fiber directly to
broom manufacturers either in Chazuta or Tarapoto.
To Whom do you sell Piassaba Fiber?
0%
21%
21%
Community Members
Buyers who arrive in boats
Broom Manufacturers in
Chazuta
Broom Manufacturers in
Tarapoto
Other
28%
30%
Figure 2.14. The fiber harvesters sell over half their fiber directly to broom
manufacturers.
When asked who sets the price for the fiber, fifty percent of the harvesters answered
that the broom makers do and forty percent said that the buyers who arrive in boats do
(Fig. 2.15).
39
Who Sets the Price?
0%
10%
Community Residents
27%
Buyers who arrive in boats
40%
23%
Broom manufacturers in
Chazuta
Broom manufacturers in
Tarapoto
Others
Figure 2.15. Broom makers (50%) and buyers who arrive in boats (40%) set the
price of the fiber. This confirms that the community members do not control the
pricing of their fiber. The poorest of the poor remain the most vulnerable.
This confirms that the community members do not control the pricing of their fiber.
The buyers set the price, whether in the community, in Chazuta, or in Tarapoto. If,
however, the community members manufactured brooms, perhaps they could
eliminate the intermediary buyers and the broom manufacturers and, therefore, earn
more money from their fiber. Bypassing market intermediaries would, as Anderson
said in her 2002 paper, Harvesting and conservation: are both possible for the palm
Iriartea deltoidea? (Anderson & Putz 2002), “increase profits to local people” and
“ensure them a share of profits from the final sale.”
To transport a 50-kilogram bundle of fiber across and up the Huallaga River to
Chazuta costs 3 Soles per 50-kilo bundle plus the cost of the harvester’s passage
40
(another 3 Soles). If the harvester travels via collective taxi (pick-up truck) to
Tarapoto the cost runs approximately 8 Soles per 50-kilogram bundle plus the cost of
the passenger (8 Soles). These costs are in addition to the community tax.
Officially, according to Peruvian law, to commercially extract forest products from
your own land (the community holds title to their land) the owner must obtain a
permit from the Park Service (INRENA). I was unable to acquire a copy of the legal
requirements and application for this permit. My understanding is, however, that
INRENA issues these permits and only INRENA is authorized to enforce this law.
Nevertheless, the local police know about this vague law and they use it to their
benefit. If, for example, they stop a collective taxi and see a fiber harvester with
bundles of fiber, they will demand to see his permit. If the harvester does not have a
permit, the police will expect a bribe in exchange for turning a blind eye on the fiber.
This bribe usually runs 5 Soles per 50 kilos of fiber. I recommend that further
investigators obtain copies of this extraction law to gain a more clear understanding
of how to obtain a permit. Perhaps, if a proper permit could be provided for the fiber
harvesters they could, at least, try to avoid paying off the police. (The problems of
police corruption and permit obtainment might run beyond the scope of sustainable
palm fiber harvests.)
41
Almost all households (79%) harvest or previously harvested piassaba palm fiber
(Fig. 2.16).
Do You Harvest Piassaba Palm Fiber?
21%
Yes & Previously
No
79%
Figure 2.16. Most households harvest or previously harvested piassaba palm fiber.
The socio-economic data analyzed reveal that households rely on piassaba palm fiber
to fill in income gaps when they require cash income to solve a problem. The poorest
households depend on the piassaba palm fiber for most of their cash income and these
households show the least diversified economic portfolios. Piassaba palm fiber
harvesting might be less important to households with other income-smoothing
activities (e.g., livestock or agriculture) but it is not absent from their incomegenerating activities. Piassaba palm fiber plays a safety net role for the wealthiest
households and offers an essential source of cash income for the poorest households.
42
CHAPTER THREE: Piassaba Biology
Exploring the piassaba palm’s leaf-growth patterns, a well-kept secret in the
Amazon. PLUS: A new plan for a sustainable palm-fiber harvest.
Background
Production and Harvest of Fibers from Aphandra natalia
Aphandra natalia remains the most recently described genus of palms in the
Americas (Balslev & Henderson 1987; Henderson 1995; Henderson et al. 1995).
Botanists scientifically named it Ammandra natalia in 1987 (Balslev & Henderson
1987), but further analysis of the staminate flower clusters moved the palm to a new
monotypic genus, Aphandra natalia (Barford 1991). Aphandra remains a monotypic
genus that includes only A. natalia (Balslev & Henderson 1987; Henderson 1995;
Henderson et al. 1995; Henderson 2002). The common name, “piassaba,” confuses
people because of a similar fibrous palm named Leopoldinia piassaba. Rural people
also gather and trade the fibers (“piassaba”) from the stem of L. piassaba and use
them as bristles for brooms (Henderson 1995; Henderson et al. 1995). Leopoldinia
piassaba, found in Colombia, Venezuela, and Brazil (Henderson 1995; Henderson et
al. 1995), does not grow in Peru’s Huallaga Valley where Aphandra natalia remains
abundant.
Botanists place Aphandra natalia in the subfamily Phytelephantoidaea (Balslev &
Henderson 1987; Barford 1991; Borgtoft-Pederson 1992; Henderson 1995;
43
Henderson et al. 1995; Henderson 2002). Three similar genera (Phytelephas,
Ammandra, and Aphandra), with their nine species all confined to the Neotropics
(Henderson 2002) reside in the Phytelephantoidaea group. This subfamily of
“moderate-sized palms with stout stems,” is economically important in the tropical
Andes (e.g., the endosperm of a Phytelephas species produces vegetable ivory)
(Henderson 2002). Like the other members of this subfamily, Aphandra natalia is
dioecious (i.e., separate male plants and female plants) and its infructescences are
dense, brown, and somewhat globular (Borgtoft-Pederson 1992). The leaf sheaths
and petiole margins of the palm’s leaves disintegrate into a mass of dense fiber
(Borgtoft-Pederson 1992; Borgtoft-Pederson & Balslev 1992). These fibers, used for
brooms, make Aphandra natalia one of the most economically important palms in
both Amazonian Ecuador (Borgtoft-Pederson 1992) and Peru (personal observation).
Aphandra natalia ranges from southeastern Ecuador to northern Peru (brooms are
sold in the markets of Iquitos) to Acre, Brazil, near the Peruvian border (BorgtoftPederson & Balslev 1990; Borgtoft-Pederson 1992). It is a sub-canopy palm and is
widespread in this region up to 800 meters above sea level. Aphandra natalia tends
to grow in lowland and lower montane moist forests where the climate is warm and
humid year-round. In Ecuador, a small number of agroforestry systems cultivate this
palm at elevations up to 1000 meters above sea level (Borgtoft-Pederson & Balslev
1990; Borgtoft-Pederson 1992). Although a few scattered individuals grow wild in
the forest, the palm usually grows grouped together and reaches a high density in oldgrowth forests (Borgtoft-Pederson & Balslev 1990; Borgtoft-Pederson 1992). Forest
44
rodents (e.g., agoutis, pacas) play a crucial role in seed dispersal (Borgtoft-Pederson
1992). In Peru, harvesters often combine a trip to harvest piassaba palm fiber with
hunting for large rodents (e.g., Agouti paca), a major source of protein. The palm’s
fruits attract these animals and, therefore, the workers often harvest fiber during the
day and set traps for these nocturnal mammals at night (personal observation).
Although people exploit the edible fruit mesocarp, the main draw to Aphandra
natalia comes from the commercial use of its leaf-sheath and petiole fiber. Most of
the exploited individuals grow wild (Borgtoft-Pederson 1996). Nevertheless, in
Ecuador some cultivation of Aphandra natalia occurs (Borgtoft-Pederson & Balslev
1990; Borgtoft-Pederson 1992; Borgtoft-Pederson & Balslev 1992; BorgtoftPederson 1996). To harvest the fiber, the harvester wields a machete and cuts along
both sides of the petiole to separate it from the fiber (Borgtoft-Pederson 1992). Then,
the harvester cuts off the leaf blade and discards it. The harvester chops around the
base of the fibrous leaf-sheath, which completely encircles the stem. Then, he peels
the fiber from the stem, shakes it and slaps it to free it from dust, insects, and
venomous scorpions. According to Borgtoft-Pederson (Borgtoft-Pederson 1992)
cutting off too many fronds makes the soft leaf-bases of younger leaves vulnerable to
attack from the weevil Rhynchophorus palmarum L., which can kill the palm.
Nevertheless, the harvesters peel and cut the fiber from the stem, shake it clean,
bundle it, and transport it back to work stations. Often, after carrying the fiber to a
work station but before cleaning the fiber, the harvesters submerge the bundles in a
nearby creek and weigh them down with river stones. They let the fiber soak for four
45
or five days to absorb water (personal observation). The water causes the fiber to
swell, making it more pliable and flexible.
A work station consists of a rustic table complete with a metal comb or rake attached
to it; the teeth of the comb point straight up. The station provides a place for cleaning
the fiber. Once the harvesters remove the fiber from the creek, they air it out and then
clean it. The workers slap handfuls of the fiber into the vertical tines of the rake and
then pull them through the tines to comb out debris. They clean the fiber and cut it
into lengths of 28-30 cm. Then, they re-bundle it into several smaller packages and
transport it to market for sale. They sell the fiber to broom manufacturers who use it
as bristles in their brooms. Although some residents of Chipaota claim to earn 2 to
2.20 Soles per kilo of fiber, most buyers pay between 1.4 Soles/Kilo of fiber to 1.8
Soles/Kilo of fiber depending on the quality and condition of the fiber and on where
the buyer is located (personal communication, 2003, 2004, 2005). Buyers in Chazuta
pay more than those in Chipaota and buyers in Tarapoto pay more than those in
Chazuta. All of the broom-makers in Tarapoto that I spoke with in June and July of
2003, 2004, and 2005 offered less than 2 Soles/Kilo. Most told me that they pay
(“more or less”) 1.8 Soles per Kilo of fiber. Of course, the farther a harvester travels
the higher his transportation costs.
Methods
This section of my investigation documents the piassaba palm’s leaf-sequence growth
patterns. I started by looking for a relationship between time and leaf production
46
(annual rotation of classified leaves and an average number of new leaves produced
per palm per year). I used participant observation to document the average harvest
time, average number of leaves cut, average number of leaves left untouched, and
amount of fiber (in kilos) harvested per palm per harvesting activity.
To answer my first research question--what level of fiber harvesting can Aphandra
natalia sustain?—I devised the following methodology.
1) Mark and number 130 randomly selected piassaba palms in the wild.
Divide the palms into two groups: Recently harvested (over the last six
months) and never harvested. On each palm, use color-coded plastic
cables (zip-ties for binding electrical wires) to band five fronds: Blue for
the spear-shaped, new (i.e., unfolded) leaf; pink for the first open leaf;
green for the first light-green leaf; orange for the first dark-green leaf; and
yellow for the oldest senescing leaf.
2) For each marked palm, note the following information: Sex,
estimated age, number of leaves on the palm (and number of leaves
harvested from the palm), stem height (distance from the ground to
the base of the leaf sheath surrounding the spear-shaped leaf), and
length of the dark green leaf. During later (annual) field visits,
record the number of new leaves and the shift of the coded leaves.
47
3) From another sample, use participant observation techniques to
document the fiber harvest process and collect data on harvest
time, amounts of fiber harvested per palm (and calculate per leaf
amounts), number of leaves harvested, and number of leaves left
on the palm after harvest.
4) Mark 50 10-by-100 meter transects in each of three community
sectors and count the number of piassaba palms in each sector.
Divide the palms into six classes: Seedlings, seedlings with more
than five leaves and with leaves longer than one meter, young adult
male palms, young adult female palms, mature adult male palms,
and mature adult female palms. Calculate the density of piassaba
palms (and their different classes) per hectare by sector of forest.
The marked palm trees provide insights into the production of leaves on the palms.
Local people harvest the leaf sheath and petiole fiber. First they hack away at the
base of the palm to clear enough area to work. Then, they cut a green frond (or a
dying yellowing frond) off the stem, near the base of the leaf. With the frond (or
fronds) removed, they peel the accessible fiber away from the stem. After that, they
cut and remove more leaves to reach more fiber. Sometimes they climb into the palm
to remove leaves or bend the leaves back into steps. They climb up into the crown of
the palm, partially cutting the leaves and bending them back so that they can stand on
them like a stepladder. Harvesters in Ecuador climb the piassaba palms this way
(Borgtoft-Pederson & Balslev 1990; Borgtoft-Pederson 1992). By using the leaves as
48
a stepladder, they can reach fiber that might otherwise require cutting the palm down.
Not cutting down the palm opens up the potential to repeatedly harvest fiber from the
same palm tree—a technique not widely practiced in this region.
The leaf sequence data should reveal if a difference in leaf production exists between
male and female palms growing in the same forest. The leaves produce the fiber that
people harvest. Knowing how many leaves grow per palm per year, combined with
the amount of fiber people harvest per leaf, could guide us toward a sustainable
management strategy. Knowing the average number of leaves cut per palm, the
amount of fiber that each palm yields, and the average number of leaves left
untouched, leads us toward understanding the sustainability of harvesting Aphandra
natalia.
Knowing the average amount of time it takes to harvest a palm and clean the fiber
coupled with the average amount of fiber a harvester might clean in a day, I can
estimate how much money a fiber harvester might earn from this extractive activity
and how many days he would have to work. From there, I can estimate how many
kilograms of fiber one hectare with “normal densities” of the palm might produce.
This will help us learn the potential for a sustainable harvest. By comparing
harvested and non-harvested palms, the data should reveal if harvesting affects
production. The data will show if harvested palms produce more or less or the same
49
number of leaves as non-harvested palms. All of this information, when taken
together, will indicate how much harvesting Aphandra natalia can sustain.
Objectives
1) Examine the relationship between time and leaf production (average number
of new leaves produced per palm per year).
2) Model the production and harvest of palm fiber over time. Illustrate possible
harvesting scenarios over the estimated 40-year lifespan of a piassaba palm.
3) Use participant observation to conduct a quantitative analysis of the fiber
extraction process. Measure the average amount of time it takes to harvest
one palm, the average number of leaves cut, the average number of leaves left
untouched, and the amount of fiber (in kilograms) that one palm, on average,
produces.
Analysis
Fernando Colchero, a fellow Nicholas School Ph.D. candidate, and I designed a
statistical model in R to investigate the feasibility of palm-level (as opposed to
landscape-level) sustainable harvests of piassaba palm fiber. R is a statistical
programming environment similar to S-Plus. In R, I explored and analyzed the palmleaf data and created graphics to provide visual illustrations to tell the data’s “story.”
I also used R for the descriptive statistics about the number of leaves cut and left
untouched and the amount of fiber harvested per palm.
50
From my fieldwork with the fiber harvesters and from the botanical literature
(Borgtoft-Pederson & Balslev 1990; Borgtoft-Pederson 1992; Borgtoft-Pederson &
Balslev 1992; Henderson 1995; Henderson et al. 1995; Borgtoft-Pederson 1996;
Henderson 2002; Pennington et al. 2004), I learned that the fiber comes from the leaf
sheaths and petioles and that the harvesters discard the rest of the leaf. Each petiole
produces about one kilogram of sellable fiber. Petioles extend 2.5-4.0 meters in
length. Male petioles tend to run 3.5-4.0 meters in length and female petioles
measure 3.0-3.7 meters in length. The palm’s petioles splinter into the harvestable
fiber; when leaves break from the stem they often break at the top end of the petiole
(where the leaflets weigh down the length of the leaf). This means that fallen leaves
might also be fiber leaves. Further studies might examine the physiological effects of
removing fiber (and leaves) from piassaba palms.
Although the scientific literature documents 10-20 leaves per palm up to 8 meters
long (Henderson 1995; Henderson et al. 1995; Pennington et al. 2004), my field
assistants and I consistently measured leaves over 12 meters long with a few reaching
14 meters. The petiole lengths that I recorded coincide more closely with those of the
literature, 3.0-3.5 meters (Henderson 1995; Henderson et al. 1995; Pennington et al.
2004). I did count more leaves per palm, 15-25 (some palms held more than 30
leaves), than the 10-20 in the literature (Henderson 1995; Henderson et al. 1995;
Pennington et al. 2004). Local people estimate the lifespan of the piassaba palm to be
about 40-50 years (personal communication), which coincides with Borgtoft-
51
Pederson’s 1996 Ecuadorian findings of “the tallest palms [being] only about 50 years
old,” (Borgtoft-Pederson 1996).
From the data gathered from 130 palms (30 non-harvested palms marked in 2003)
and 100 palms (50 previously harvested and 50 non-harvested) marked in 2004,
Fernando Colchero and I created a model of leaf growth for a “typical” piassaba
palm. For each palm, I labeled five leaves, each on five consecutive stages of growth
(stages 1-5 described in the methods section). Colchero and I designed the model
based on estimating the multinomial probability for a leaf to transition from each of
these stages to the following stage and we included one additional stage: Leaves that
are, in Andrew Henderson’s words, disintegrating “into a mass of persistent fibers
that [will] hang down and obscure the top of the stem” (Henderson et al. 1995). This
analysis resulted in a transition matrix, which Colchero and I applied to simulated
palms, basing the transitions on an inverse sampling function (Clark 2006). Colchero
and I created a model that incorporates the extraction of green leaves in different
stages to collect the fiber (as is done traditionally by the piassaba harvesters). I ran
200 simulations with ten different yearly intervals between consecutive extractions,
for periods of 20 and 30 years, to determine what interval of extraction maximized
fiber harvest at the end of these periods.
The following graphs (Fig. 3.1) illustrate how much total fiber a harvester would
collect by harvesting all of the available fiber from a “typical” piassaba palm at
different year intervals.
52
Figure 3.1. Simulation of kilograms
of fiber harvested after 30 years with
1 to 10 year intervals between
harvests for a) transition matrix built
with all (130) of the marked palms;
b) transition matrix for only
previously harvested palms (50); and
c) transition matrix for non-harvested
palms (50).
53
In the model, the palm produces four leaves per year (based on the data), the
harvester cuts no leaves from phases 1 and 2 (the unopened, spear-shaped leaf and
first open leaf, respectively), two leaves from phase 3 (open, light-green leaf), five
leaves from phase 4 (open, dark-green leaf) and five leaves from phase 5 (oldest,
senescing leaf), for a total of 12 leaves. In each graph the harvester cuts 12 leaves
and harvests fibers over a 30-year period. In all three graphs, the harvester begins
taking fiber when the palm is 10-years-old and the palm produces four leaves per
year.
The graphs reveal that more fiber can be harvested when the harvester collects fiber at
five-year intervals than at longer or shorter intervals. Over a 20-year period, the
optimal interval is five years and over a 30-year interval the optimal interval is five or
six years. At the end of 30 years, the total amount of fiber at each interval ranks a
little higher than over the 20-year period. In both cases, harvesting at five-year
intervals yields higher total amounts of fiber than harvesting every year or two.
If I run the model with the average number of leaves produced per year at 5.5, as
reported by Borgtoft-Pederson (1996) in his findings from Ecuador, the model yields
similar amounts of fiber per harvest as those found by this author. At a harvest
frequency rate of a year-and-a-half (and a leaf production rate of five leaves per year),
the average yield falls to between 2.3-3.0 kilograms of fiber per harvest; this is
slightly lower than Borgtoft-Pederson’s findings of an average of 3.4 kilograms per
harvest (Borgtoft-Pederson 1996). My field data, however, revealed an average of
54
four leaves produced per year and, therefore, Colchero and I chose to run the model
with a production rate of four leaves instead of five-and–a-half leaves. With a
production rate of four leaves per year, if harvested every five years (six harvests over
the 30-year period) the average yield is 12.35 kilos of fiber per harvest and the
amount ranges from 11.2 to 13.5 kilos per harvest.
The indigenous community of Santa Rosa de Chipaota (Mushuck Llackta) owns title
to more than 6,000 hectares of land (and uses more than 12,000 hectares). In the area
where I collected density data, the density of harvestable piassaba palms was
approximately 180 per hectare (see density analysis below). If 1,000 hectares of their
forested land contain this density of piassaba palms, then 180,000 palms would be
available for harvest. If, every five years, they were all harvested at once, the total
fiber yield would be 2,223,626 kilograms (with a range of 2,008,779 to 2,422,622 kg)
of fiber per harvest. When I divide that total by the number of households (163), each
household could collect an average of 13,642 kilos of fiber every five years. To make
this optimal fiber available every year requires managing these palms in a rotating
harvest. Instead of harvesting all of the palms every five years, we harvest a fifth
(36,000) of the palms every year; 36,000 palms x 12.35 kg of fiber equals a yearly
total of 444,600 kg of fiber per year or an average yearly total of 444,725 kilos (with
a range of 401,756 to 484,524 kg per year). Each household could harvest an average
of 2,728 kilograms of fiber per year (with a range of 2,465 to 2,973 kg of fiber per
year).
55
At a market value of 1.8 Soles per kilo of fiber, each household would, in theory, earn
an annual average of 4,911 Soles. This amount appears much higher than the
community’s average income (refer to Chapter 2) of 506 Soles over a six-month
period (doubled to approximate an average annual income of 1,012 Soles). Although
this theoretical average probably exceeds the practical total income obtainable from
harvesting fiber, it does imply that a rotating harvest could maximize the yield while
minimizing the damage to the palm. Using a five-year harvest frequency rate and
rotating the harvest to enable annual harvests means that the harvesters maintain the
ability to take fiber when they need it, without reducing the total yield over time. A
rotating harvest means that the community members could earn more money than
they presently do from their piassaba palms (even if they do not earn as much as the
theoretical annual average of 4,911 Soles).
It is important to acknowledge that these estimates assume that the palms are not
affected by insect infestation or other possible problems that could reduce their
productivity. Also, I am assuming that all palms are of the same age in the region,
which I could correct by incorporating a distribution of ages in my estimates.
Although the lifetime of the fibers and the leaves remains unknown, the local
harvesters estimate that, without insect infestation, only about 5% of the fiber
decomposes on the palm during the course of a year (20% if insects plague the palm).
It appears, from my leaf-sequence data, that new leaves (i.e., spear-shaped leaves)
progress to open, dark green leaves over the span of one-to-two years and dark green
56
leaves tend to move into the category of fiber leaves over a two-year period.
Therefore, I can infer that the lifetime of a leaf might range between 4-5 years. This
also fits my optimal harvesting frequency of every five years. From the leaf-sequence
data and the harvesters’ 5% per year loss rate, I infer that fibers function best when
harvested every five or six years, before they turn brittle or decompose.
In 2004, I marked 100 palms, 50 recently (over the last six months) harvested (H) and
50 never harvested (NH). Fernando Colchero and I recalculated the transition matrix
(based on estimating the multinomial probability for a leaf to transition from one
stage to another) to run simulations based on the data from the 50 previously
harvested (H) palms and other simulations based on the data from the never harvested
palms (NH). I ran 200 simulations over a 40-year period to see if the leaf sequences
differed from the never harvested palms. The simulations present no significant
differences in fiber production between the previously harvested and the nonharvested palms.
The simulations revealed that the time intervals for harvest remain the same; optimal
harvesting occurs at intervals of 5-6 years (Fig. 3.1). In the simulations, the same
intervals held true for the never harvested palms (Fig. 3.1). The harvest intervals
remain the same and the data indicate that both the harvested (H) and the nonharvested (NH) palms produce approximately equal amounts of harvestable fiber
(Fig. 3.1) over the 30-year time span.
57
Participant Observation Analysis
From a separate sample of 65 palms (42 male and 23 female), I employed participant
observation techniques to document the current fiber harvest process and collect data
on harvest time, amounts of fiber harvested per palm (and calculate per leaf amounts),
number of leaves cut, and number of leaves left on the palm after harvest. The
descriptive statistics below illustrate what I learned about the present harvesting
practices in Santa Rosa de Chipaota.
Time Spent on Harvesting Fiber
harvest time (minutes)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
per palm
per leaf
per kg of fiber
Figure 3.2. To harvest fiber means cutting green leaves (future fiber lost) and
discarding them so that one can access the disintegrating petiole fiber from dead
leaves. It takes time to cut and discard green leaves before one can peel the fiber free
from the stem.
Fiber harvesters frequently work in teams of two people. Two people worked
together to harvest most of the palms in our 65-palm sample. One individual worked
alone to harvest a few of the smaller palms. On average, it took the harvesters just
58
under an hour to harvest all of the available fiber from each piassaba palm (Fig. 3.2).
Dividing out the time per leaf, we see about five minutes of work per leaf and
approximately ten minutes per kilogram of fiber (Fig. 3.2), which coincides with
Borgtoft-Pederson’s 1996 findings of “9.5 minutes to harvest 1 kg. of fiber,”
(Borgtoft-Pederson 1996).
number of leaves
Number of Leaves Removed & Untouched Per Palm
20
15
10
5
0
Removed
Untouched
Figure 3.3. On average, the harvesters removed and discarded 13 (±5.4) leaves and
they left 8.2 (±2.9) leaves untouched.
On average, the harvesters removed and discarded 13±5.4 leaves and they left 8.2±2.9
leaves untouched (Fig 3.3). The average amount of fiber harvested per palm totaled
5.6±3.6 kg (Fig 3.4).
59
Average Amount of Fiber Harvested Per Palm
10
9
8
7
Kg
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
harvested fibers per palm
Figure 3.4. The average amount of fiber harvested per palm totaled 5.6±3.6 kg.
Two harvesters working together would harvest at least four palms in a day (personal
observation.) and based on my data and my observations they could harvest as many
as six including time walking between palms and time transporting the fiber back to a
work station. Six palms times 6 kilos of fiber equals 36 kilos of fiber in a day. Even
though some harvesters took over 20 kilos of fiber from one palm, based on my
observation (within practical harvesting limits), 36 kilos of fiber in a day from six
palms would be a good day of fiber harvesting. Add four or five days to submerge
the bundles of fiber in river water until they are flexible and ready for cleaning.
Then, a half day of cutting and cleaning the fiber for sale and the rest of the day to
transport the fiber down the hillside to “New Town” on the bank of the Huallaga
River. The cleaned fiber weighs less than the “raw” fiber. The fiber harvesters
estimate about a 5-10% loss from the cleaning process. Nevertheless, 36 kilos of
fiber sold for 1.8 Nuevo Soles equals 64.8 Soles (USD $19). Most harvesters do not
60
harvest such a small amount of fiber during a harvesting excursion. By and large,
two men working together will harvest at least 50-100 kilos of fiber before cleaning
and cutting it for sale (personal communication).
In the field, the fiber harvesters told me that they prefer to harvest fiber from male
palms because the male palms have longer more flexible fibers and they usually have
more fiber than the female palms. Within our sample, the harvesters selected 42 male
palms and 23 female palms to harvest. When I looked at the use of male verses
female piassaba palms, however, I found no significant difference between the use of
male and the use of female palms. The number of leaves removed and untouched
appears almost the same between the male and female palms (Fig. 3.5).
number of leaves per
palm
Number of Leaves Removed & Untouched: Male vs.
Female
25
20
15
male
10
female
5
0
Removed
Untouched
Figure 3.5. The number of leaves removed and untouched appears almost the same
between the male and female palms.
61
The average amount of fiber harvested came out almost equal between the two groups
(Fig. 3.6). The average harvest time also fits the same range (Fig 3.7). This indicates
that although the harvesters prefer male palms, when they choose to harvest a female
palm they do not harvest it differently than a male palm.
kg
Harvested Fibers: Male vs. Female
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
male
female
harvested fibers per palm
Figure 3.6. The amount of fiber harvested from male palms appears almost equal to
the amount harvested from female palms.
62
Harvested Time: Male vs. Female
100
harvest time (minutes)
90
80
70
males
females
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
per palm
per leaf
per kg of fiber
Figure 3.7. The average harvest time remains practically the same whether the palm
is male or female.
Palm Density
The community of Santa Rosa de Chipaota (Mushuck Llackta) owns title to 6,146
hectares (15,181 acres) of land but uses an additional adjoining 6,723 hectares
(16,606 acres), to which, at the time of this research, the community sought to obtain
full title. In other words, the community claims 12,869 hectares (31,786 acres). The
community divides the land into 11 sectors starting from Pueblo Nuevo on the bank
of the Huallaga River and sloping upward through agricultural plots, second-growth
forest and old-growth forest at the border of Cordillera Azul National Park (refer to
Fig, 1.4). The names of these sectors are: Pueblo Nuevo, Pueblo Viejo, Sangapilla,
Bombonaje, Shimbillo, Metorarca, Raquina, Aguanorarca, Galluyco, Robashca.
Robashca, the highest sector in elevation, borders the park. Piassaba palms inhabit
63
most of the sectors and dense stands begin in Sangapilla and range upward into the
park. These sectors overlap the titled and non-titled lands that the community claims
rights to use. For all intents and purposes the sectors delineate where different
families live and function as reference points for discussion as to where people go to
farm, hunt, fish, and harvest piassaba palm fiber or visit families. The three-hour
climb from Raquina to Aguanorarca is not well explored and might contain more or
less piassaba than areas above and below that elevation.
To calculate an average number of piassaba palms per hectare, I ran 50 ten-meter
wide by 100-meter long transects in each of three sectors: Sangapilla, Shimbillo, and
Metorarca (Fig.3.8).
64
Figure 3.8. The yellow marks represent 50 ten-meter wide by 100-meter long
transects in each of three sectors.
Each of these sectors represents second-growth forest and some old-growth forest,
particularly in Shimbillo and Metorarca. In each sector, with the help of community
65
fiber harvesters and a group of agronomy and forestry students from Tarapoto, I
counted the number of piassaba palms encountered. I divided the palms into six
classes: Seedlings, seedlings with more than five leaves and with leaves longer than
one meter, young adult male palms, young adult female palms, mature adult male
palms, and mature adult female palms. The pie charts (Figs. 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11)
present the proportion of seedlings to reproductive palms per hectare in each of the
three sectors.
Sangapilla Palms/Hectare
179.6+
Total Reproductive/Hectare
Total Seedlings/Hectare
395.6+
Figure 3.9. Sangapilla, well used for piassaba palm fiber harvesting, contains fewer
reproductive aged palms than Metoraraca, the least accessible of the three sites.
66
Shimbillo Palms/Hectare
117
Total Reproductive/Hectare
Total Seedlings/Hectare
288.4
Figure 3.10. Shimbillo contained the least number of piassaba palms.
Metorarca Palms/Hectare
236.6
Total Reproductive/Hectare
Total Seedlings/Hectare
388.8
Figure 3.11. Metorarca contained the largest total number of piassaba palms.
67
As hoped for, the data reveal many more seedlings than mature palms, which implies
palm reproduction. The community hopes to use some of this information as a
management tool at the sector level, which reflects my decision to keep the sectors
separate rather than combining them into one larger data set. Nevertheless, for all
three sectors combined, the average number of harvestable palms per hectare totaled
178.
Shimbillo contained the least number of piassaba palms, which is interesting because,
when I began this investigation in 2003, the community members recommended that I
work in Shimbillo because of the abundance of piassaba palms. I marked my first
sample of 30 palms in that sector. Sangapilla, well used for piassaba palm fiber
harvesting, contains fewer reproductive aged palms than Metoraraca, the least
accessible of the three sites. Although I documented an adequate density of piassabas
in Sangapilla, the data show that, compared to Metorarca, there remain fewer
harvestable palms available. This is also true for Shimbillo.
The piassaba palm is dioecious (separate male and female plants) and, as mentioned
above, the fiber harvesters prefer the fibers from the male palms over the female
palms. To learn about the density of sexually mature male and female palms in each
sector, I graphed the percentage of palms per hectare in the following four classes:
Young adult male palms, young adult female palms, mature adult male palms, and
mature adult female palms (Figs. 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14).
68
Sangapilla Male vs. Female Palms
21%
29%
Young Adult Male
Young Adult Female
Old Adult Male
Old Adult Female
20%
30%
Figure 3.12. In each of the three sectors the sex ratio is almost 1:1.
Shimbillo Male vs. Female Palms
14%
32%
Young Adult Male
Young Adult Female
24%
Old Adult Male
Old Adult Female
30%
Figure 3.13. In each of the three sectors the sex ratio is almost 1:1.
69
Metorarca Male vs. Female Palms
18%
34%
Young Adult Male
Young Adult Female
Old Adult Male
21%
Old Adult Female
27%
Figure 3.14. In each of the three sectors the sex ratio is almost 1:1.
The older palms might offer the most fiber, but they do so for the least amount of
time. Therefore, a sustainable harvest requires adequate numbers of young adult
palms to sustain repeated harvesting over time. In Shimbillo and Metorarca the data
reveal more young adult male palms per hectare than any other category (32 % and
34%). The young adult female palms made up 30% in Shimbillo and 27% in
Metorarca. In Sangapilla, young adult females appear most abundant (30%), but only
slightly over the young adult males (29%). This means that, given a thoughtful
harvest strategy, enough male and female palms grow per hectare to enable
reproductive growth of the piassaba palm population and, theoretically, enable the
harvesters to continue their economic activity without completely diminishing the
harvestable palms.
70
To learn more about the distribution of the palms per sector, I ran a simple regression
of the palms per sector. I discovered no gradient. Instead, a fairly even distribution
of piassaba palms exists over all three sectors, which means that the density in the
area remains relatively constant. A fairly even distribution suggests a higher
probability of implementing a practical harvesting strategy than if the palms grew in
tight clusters in one or two sectors. Although the community owns the land title, they
divide it into commons sections and family sections. If the land allotted to one family
contained no piassabas and the land used by another family contained a high volume
of piassabas, it would be more difficult to implement a new management strategy. A
fairly even distribution means that the community benefits as a whole more than any
one individual, which, in theory, would make implementing a new strategy more
applicable.
Cutting and discarding green leaves to access harvestable fiber directly reduces
photosynthesis, which potentially hinders growth and reproduction. Most palms
possess biological mechanisms to mitigate the negative effects of leaf damage
including: Increased photosynthetic rates per unit area of remaining leaves, increased
allocation of assimilates to the production of new leaves, and remobilization of stored
carbohydrates (Anten & Ackerly 2001b; Anten & Ackerly 2001a; Anten et al. 2003).
These mechanisms affect leaf photosynthesis and the patterns of biomass
development (Anten & Ackerly 2001b; Anten & Ackerly 2001a; Anten et al. 2003).
Our model indicates the most efficient way to harvest individual palms; sustainable
levels of defoliation, however, should be defined at the population level (Ackerly
71
2006, personal communication). Therefore, further ecological research should include
examining both organ-level compensatory responses to fiber harvests and piassaba
palm population dynamics. This density study provides basic insights into the
demographics of the piassaba palm to help determine sustainable levels of fiber
harvesting at the population-level. While this study does not consider whether or not
current piassaba palm fiber harvesting practices cause piassaba populations to
decline, the model indicates that harvesting all the fiber from all the harvestable
palms each year diminishes the available amount of harvestable fiber. The model
indicates that, given four-to-six year intervals between harvests, the individual palms
recover and produce enough fiber for subsequent rounds of harvesting. Combining
this botanical knowledge with the socio-economic information from Chapter 2, I can
evaluate whether the biologically sustainable levels of fiber harvesting are also socioeconomically sustainable.
Indications
What is “Sustainable Exploitation?”
Two assumptions underlie the concept of sustainable exploitation: 1) With an
understanding of the abundance and productivity of the harvestable species, nontimber plants, including palms, can be harvested repeatedly, over time, from a tropical
forest ecosystem; and 2) local people, who depend on these biological resources, tend
to be the most effective at collecting data and monitoring growth and productivity
rates (Plotkin & Famolare 1992; Peters 2006, personal communication). Armed with
scientific knowledge, rural people, including indigenous peoples in remote
72
communities, can become natural resource decision-makers, identifying forest
products for increased extraction and monitoring plant exploitation to ascertain
sustainable yields. This is, indeed, the case in Santa Rosa de Chipaota and, most
probably, throughout the buffer zone of Cordillera Azul National Park. Empowered
by knowledge, both local and scientific, these communities can design piassaba
management plans that optimize the amount of fiber harvested and exchanged for
cash while mitigating and minimizing the negative effects of this harvesting activity.
The challenge to a sustainable harvest, as is the case with many integrated
conservation and development projects (see chapter 4), lies in changing human
behavior.
73
CHAPTER FOUR: The Palm and the Park
Are Palm Fiber Harvests in the Buffer Zone of Peru’s Cordillera Azul National
Park Compatible with Biodiversity Maintenance? An Ecological and
Socioeconomic Assessment of Piassaba-fiber Harvests as a Strategy for
Community-based Conservation
The Status Quo
In the tropics, rural poverty and the degradation of renewable forest resources remain
inextricably intertwined. The clash between human betterment and biodiversity
conservation clangs loudest in the buffer zones or unprotected areas that border
protected areas (Wells & Brandon 1993). In these rural areas local residents survive
on small-scale harvests of natural resources. Poverty drives them to use and overharvest local biological resources. They put pressure on these natural resources
inside and outside the protected areas. To address the problems of rural poverty and
those of protecting biological riches requires understanding the intricate relationships
that link these phenomena. To integrate biodiversity conservation and human
livelihood opportunities in developing countries means evaluating policies,
introducing technologies, adapting management practices, and creating innovative
institutional designs. Since the 1980s, scholars have dedicated diligent efforts to
address these problems, while governments, nongovernmental organizations, donors,
aid agencies, and private sector businesses have poured hundreds of millions of
dollars into Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) in
74
developing countries around the world. Despites these efforts, ICDPs carry a
reputation for producing “disappointing results” (Wells & McShane 2004) and the
“linkages between biodiversity and poverty are generally poorly understood (DFID
2002)” (Roe & Elliott 2004).
My piassaba-palm research adds to the growing body of conservation literature that
recognizes that protected areas, especially those in developing countries, must rely on
the cooperation and support of local people (Wells & McShane 2004). To understand
how poverty alleviation and conservation interrelate, I examine the experience of
piassaba palm fiber harvesters working along the northwestern edge of Peru’s
Cordillera Azul National Park. According to the Field Museum’s rapid biological
inventory (Alverson et al. 2001), “palms are abundant in the northern Cordillera Azul
both in number of individuals and species.” Conservation practitioners express
concern about the commercial use of the piassaba palm. At present, the local
harvesting practices do not appear sustainable (Rodríguez 2003, personal
communication). People living in the newly created buffer zone of the park depend
on the piassaba for cash income and, according to Lily Rodríguez, former president of
the Peruvian conservation organization, CIMA, some people enter the park to harvest
fibers from piassaba palms found within the park’s boundaries. This practice is
illegal.
What concerns practitioners most is the compatibility of the park and the local buffer
zone residents. These local people depend on the forest for their livelihoods and
75
palms provide many of their necessities: Thatch for their homes, fibers to sell to
broom-makers and others to use as twine, fruits to eat, and oils for cooking and for
medicinal remedies (personal observation). Rodríguez and her CIMA colleagues, as
well as members of The Field Museum of Chicago, express concern that the status
quo use of the piassaba palm could mean declines in the local palm population,
which, in turn, might negatively affect the Cordillera Azul ecosystem. Combined
with these ecological concerns, conservation practitioners worry that, if naturalresource-use strategies do not coincide with meeting human needs, then local people
will oppose the park. From this study, it appears that current use patterns are not
structured for long-term sustainability nor have local fiber harvesters degraded the
resource beyond applying new, more long-term, management strategies. This
knowledge opens up the potential for community-based integrated conservation and
development practices that both use (for cash income) and conserve the palm and its
surrounding habitat.
Conservation vs. Development
Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) emerged in the protected
area literature in the early 1980s. On the ground, ICDPs meant a shift in conservation
emphasis from absolute protection to an examination of the social causes of
biodiversity loss (and natural resource over-consumption). This shift highlighted the
human needs of local people who directly depend on biological resources. The
integration of socio-economic development with natural resource protection meant
identifying the social and economic benefits (and costs) of conservation. One of the
76
most concise and frequently referenced definitions of ICDPs comes from Wells and
Brandon (Wells et al. 1992): Projects that link biodiversity conservation in protected
areas with local socio-economic development. Although other definitions exist they
all include two essential elements: Biodiversity conservation and socio-economic
development (Sanjayan et al. 1997).
Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) strive to simultaneously
address two major societal goals: The conservation of natural resources (e.g.,
biodiversity); and socioeconomic development. In the conservation arena, ICDPs
“have become one of the most widely implemented and yet controversial approaches
of biodiversity conservation,” (McShane & Wells 2004). Protecting natural resources
requires more than protected areas. The issues that surround protected area
management and rural development spill over the political boundaries of parks and
other protected areas. Larger threats such as gold, copper, silver, and bauxite mining,
oil and natural gas exploration and extraction, land conversion for agri-business and
industrial-level cattle ranching pose potentially more damaging impacts on fragile
ecosystems than small-scale rural activities like the extraction and sale of non-timber
forest products (NTFPs). Conservation “requires a perspective that stretches well
beyond park boundaries and involves national policies as well as programs affecting
rural communities,” (Wells et al. 1992). The main goal, therefore, of ICDPs is to
“link conservation and development such that each fosters the other,” (Alpert 1996).
77
The ICDP framework often focuses on the extraction of natural resources from
protected areas by the rural poor who live near (or in) these protected areas and
depend on the protected resources for they own survival or subsistence. The initial
response to this problem, the same problem that emerged after Peru created Cordillera
Azul National Park, took the techniques of rural development: Poverty alleviation,
promotion of local institutions, and empowerment and involvement of local people in
decisions affecting the areas (Robinson & Redford 2004), and applied them to
conservation. As a result, many ICDPs (and the bulk of their budgets) “target human
populations as primary beneficiaries so that biodiversity can survive and flourish”
(Brown 1992). ICDPs (and their brethren NTFP projects) offer land-use possibilities
in developing countries that yoke the exploitation for profit of species-rich tropical
forests with the conservation of their biodiversity and ecosystem services. ICDPs that
incorporate NTFPs operate under two basic assumptions: NTFPs can be sustainably
harvested from tropical forests given solid information on the population and
productivity of the extracted species, and the most effective data collection and
monitoring occurs when the local people do it themselves (Plotkin & Famolare 1992;
Peters 2006, personal communication).
The controversy stems from the dichotomy of trying to accomplish two distinct goals
at the same time. Conservationists worry that the emphasis favors human livelihoods
and poverty reduction and that biodiversity and “ecosystem health” take a backseat to
the broad concept of sustainable development (Robinson & Redford 2004).
Development professionals maintain primary development goals—poverty reduction,
78
potable water, appropriate technology—even if biodiversity conservation is
neglected. In other words, either one or the other of these two societal goals tends to
dominate the other. The “disappointing results” (McShane & Wells 2004; Wells &
McShane 2004) come from the confusion of goals and objectives (Robinson &
Redford 2004), which leads to results that do not achieve the originally forecasted and
much hoped for win-win scenarios that married natural resource conservation to rural
development in the first place.
The harvest and use of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as oils, nuts, fruits,
and plants, including palms (e.g., one source of vegetable ivory comes from one of
the Phytelephas species, which resides in the same sub-family as Aphandra natalia)
(Henderson 2002) surfaced as a key component of ICDPs. The extraction of nontimber forest products offered a means to maintain ecosystem services in protected
areas and in the rural buffer zones that surround protected areas, as well as improve
local livelihoods. This new comprehensive approach to natural resource conservation
required local community participation so that both people and biodiversity benefit
from protecting forest resources. ICDPs expanded the traditional roles of
conservationists into revitalizing human communities as well as protecting wildlife
and plant communities. This expansion included offering capacity building and
training for small-business managers and farming cooperatives, developing business
plans, coordinating marketing strategies, presenting options and opening access to
tools for ecologically sensitive economic development. Most ICDPs operate under a
community-based approach to ecosystem management that aims to reduce poverty,
79
conserve biodiversity, and create sustainable socio-economic development.
Economic development activities are, by definition, demand-drive. Herein lies the
challenge.
If demand for NTFPs does not exist, as in the case of certain handicrafts, conservation
and development practitioners must partner with local entrepreneurs, small
businesses, and their associations to create that demand. If, on the other hand, too
much demand exists, or demand grows too quickly, then NTFPs might provide an
incentive for deforestation as people clear land to cultivate more of the focal species
or, as in the case of Brazil nuts, buyers might switch to agri-businesses to supply their
large demand. In either case, local communities would not receive the forecasted
benefits and, therefore, neither would biodiversity. As mentioned in the introduction,
conservation biologists promote the extraction of non-timber forest products because
they believe it causes fewer negative impacts on forest ecosystems than other landuses and because non-timber extraction also provides human communities with a
source of income (Nepstad & Schwartzman 1992; Hartshorn 1995; Putz et al. 2001).
Nevertheless, harvesting NTFPs can lead to overexploitation and extirpation (Peters
1999).
The challenge of using NTFPs (like piassaba palm fiber and palm-fiber brooms) as a
component of ICDPs comes from balance; tradeoffs lurk in the shadows of poverty
and conservation dilemmas. Local markets must provide enough demand for the
NTFPs to warrant local extraction and local extraction must continue on a scale small
80
enough to maintain the exploited resources over time and, simultaneously, large
enough to supply the demand.
In the Huallaga Valley, the concept of dependable supply over time to fill a steady
demand is, in part, why coca (Erythroxylon coca) production persists. According to
Rensselaer W. Lee III, author of The White Labyrinth: Cocaine and Political Power:
“The coca plant produces three to six harvests each year for up to forty years.
Although market conditions vary, coca is typically much more profitable than licit
cash crops in Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia…coca apparently thrives in conditions that
other crops find inhospitable: Heavy rainfall, rugged terrain, and soils high in acid
and low in nutrients,” (Lee 1989). Although coca farming and processing coca paste
remain low-income parts of the cocaine industry, they offer rural people more
profitable cash income than the exploitation of most other plant resources and
agricultural cash crops. Nevertheless, many people in the Huallaga Valley associate
coca plantations with a high risk of violence (a result of the intersection between the
underworld cocaine industry and the Marxist terrorist organizations prevalent in the
area during the 1980s and early 1990s).
The Peruvian government crushed the threat of terrorists in the early and mid-1990s.
Since then, although coca growing in the Huallaga Valley still exists, many of the
larger plantations are reverting back to forests (Alverson et al. 2001) and many of the
valley’s residents are looking for economic alternatives. Some, as this study presents,
harvest non-timber forest products including piassaba palm fiber for cash (albeit
81
much less cash than coca leaves). With the local people using the piassaba palm as a
NTFP to sell for cash income, the question remains: Can the piassaba palm play an
essential role in community-based conservation in buffer-zone communities
surrounding Cordillera Azul National Park? Can it help link natural resource
conservation with socio-economic development (as in the ICDP framework)?
Biological, Social, and Economic Sustainability
The matrix model presented in Chapter 3 indicates that if the community implements
a rotating harvest with a five-year interval between fiber harvests from each
individual palm, then a sustainable harvest appears possible at least over a period of
30-years per palm. The density data illustrated that an almost one-to-one ratio exists
between male and female piassaba palms in the study area. The number of males
needed to efficiently pollinate the females in a population of a dioecious species of
palm depends on the phenology and flowering behavior of the male. Although no
hard data exist on the required sex ratio needed for Aphandra natalia to reproduce
and maintain a growing (as opposed to a stable or declining) population, most
probably relatively few males could fertilize enough females to create such a
population, provided that the males were well-spaced and within pollinator flying
distance of the females (Balslev 2006, personal communication).
82
To the best of my knowledge, no demographic studies exist on Aphandra natalia, and
any extrapolation from a different species (even if related) in a different area might
lead to inaccurate results (Bernal 2006, personal communication). Even so, Bernal’s
work with Phytelephas seemannii, another dioecious palm in the Phytelephantoid
sub-family, reveals a 1:1 sex ratio (Bernal 1998). Although the necessary aspects of a
“healthy” (growing or stable) population require knowledge about population
genetics, population dynamics, associated pollinator populations, elasticity, adult
mortality, and juvenile survivorship, Bernal does offer that “the pollination system of
Phytelephas seemannii is quite efficient, and a reduced number of males in the
populations (e.g., a 10:1 female:male ratio) would probably still guarantee a good
fruit set and would not have a strong demographic impact, if any,” (Bernal 2006,
personal communication).
Bernal also discovered that Phytelephas seemannii palms of both sexes “produced
leaves at the same rate. Seedlings produced 1.2 leaves per year on average, juveniles
1.8, and adults 6.1-7.4. Adult females had fewer leaves than males (18.5 vs. 21.3 on
average). Leaves of females lasted about 2.7 years in the crown, those of males about
3.2 years,” (Bernal 1998). Although the adult leaf production of Phytelephantoid
palms varies among species, the general trend shows that the leaf production rate
increases with age, until it stabilizes in adult palms (Bernal 2006, personal
communication). Bernal mentioned that “using the same figures of leaf production
rate of P. seemannii for A. natalia would not be too wrong,” (Bernal 2006, personal
communication). He went on to caution that I would need to consider “whether the
83
individuals grow under shade or in the open, because the latter condition increases
leaf production substantially,” (Bernal 2006, personal communication). Bernal’s
study helps validate the accuracy of the four-leaves-per-year production used in my
study’s matrix model. All of the palms in my study grew in shade as wild, subcanopy palms. The average leaf-per-year production rate equaled approximately four
leaves per year. In contrast, Borgtoft-Pederson found a leaf production rate of 5.5
leaves per year, but all of the palms in that study grew in full or partial sunlight
(Borgtoft-Pederson 1996). In other words, the data used to create the matrix model
used in this study coincide with the current scientific knowledge on A. natalia and P.
seemannii. From here, further research might confirm the leaf production rate (given
that I included spear-shaped leaves in my leaf count) and add a full demographic
study (see chapter five for more details).
A demographic study would present the biological aspects of a sustainable harvest at
the population (and perhaps the meta-population) level. To implement a sustainable
harvest requires the maintenance of a vigorous population (of, in this case, piassaba
palms) over time. In the language of demographics, the population growth rate must
be greater than or equal to zero across lengthy time intervals. With abundant data on
survivorship, growth, reproduction and fecundity, a demographic matrix model could
evaluate the contribution of each stage of the life cycle to the overall population
dynamics (Ackerly 2006, personal communication). The impact of extracting NTFPs
on population demographics depends on the product that people are harvesting.
84
According to Dr. David Ackerly, Dept. of Integrative Biology, University of
California at Berkley, “biologically, there is an important distinction between lethal
and non-lethal harvests, i.e., harvest of a plant part that does not directly kill the
individual, vs. the harvesting of individual plants. In the case of NTFPs, lethal
harvests include fruit and seed collection (demographically the seeds represent new
individuals), the collection of entire individuals (e.g., orchids), or the destruction of
an individual to obtain the desired product (e.g., hearts of palm). If the demography
of a population has been carefully studied, the impact of lethal harvests may be
assessed by increasing the mortality rate for the appropriate life stages. Non-lethal
harvests present a more challenging case, as their effects must be considered first in
terms of functional impacts at the level of the individual plant and then these impacts
on individuals must be integrated at the population level,” (Ackerly 2006, personal
communication). The matrix model used in Chapter 3 presents the impact of
piassaba-palm fiber harvesting at the individual level and proposes a management
strategy for sustainable harvests at that level. It presents a model for the maximum
sustainable yield at the individual level. In other words, to maximize fiber and
minimize negative impacts to an individual palm, the results of the matrix model
recommend harvesting each individual palm on a five-year cycle over a minimum 30year period.
The harvest of fiber or the removal of leaves might alter individual plant sizes in
ways that affect fecundity and reproduction, which could result in reduced growth
rates, survivorship, reproduction, and/or fecundity. This might, over time, distort the
85
population size and the reproduction rates, which, in a classic domino effect, might
cause demographic changes such as declining transitions between size (age) classes.
Ackerly highlighted that “The overall impacts at the population level will depend on
the relative magnitude of the changes in each parameter weighted by their
demographic elasticities,” (Ackerly 2006, personal communication). Plants such as
palms might display compensatory responses that enable future growth to repair or
replace lost tissues (e.g., leaves lost to herbivory or harvesting) (Anten & Ackerly
2001a; Anten et al. 2003). It appears that A. natalia exhibits such a response to fiber
harvesting, which should enable sequential harvests from the same individual palms
every five years.
Maintaining vigorous individual palms and a viable (growing as opposed to stable or
declining) population of palms means conserving enough palms with enough fiber to
harvest over time. Sustainability, in the context of the ICDP framework, also
includes social and economic factors. The data analyzed in Chapter 2 revealed that a
majority (79%) of the community knows how to harvest piassaba palm fiber (see Fig.
2.16) and that a majority of the poorer members of the community rely on the fiber
for at least 80% of their income. (Recall Table 2.2, which revealed that 14 of the 41
households (41%) earning less than 500 Soles/six months depend on the palm fiber
for more than 80% of their cash income.) These socio-economic details illustrate that
piassaba palm fiber plays a critical role in household incomes. In some households,
the entire income consisted of selling piassaba palm fiber.
86
Culturally, the palm already functions as a vital source of cash income for community
members and it already exists in local markets. If the five-year-interval-rotatingharvest strategy functions well, then the palm might provide economically helpful as
well as ecologically prudent sources of income. The comparison between recently
harvested and non-harvested palms underscores the potential for harvesting the palm
without damaging its productivity (see Chapter 3). Although the model predicts
substantial economic gain from a five-year rotating harvest, I would not expect the
on-the-ground production to equal the model. Nevertheless, implementing a palm
management strategy based on the model should increase economic gains while at the
same time conserving the palms. This will increase profits to local people. Local
people might gain further profits if they produce brooms for sale directly to the
market rather than selling raw fiber (see recommendations in Chapter 5).
Unfortunately, local people living in extreme poverty might choose other options
rather than attempt the strategies presented in a sustainable harvest model. The
pressure of today--of I need cash for medicine or food or school supplies now--might
outweigh the long-term benefits or desirable net present value (NPV) of sustainable
yield. If the power of “now” overtakes local people they will probably choose other
options including but not limited to: Forest conversion to agriculture, over-harvesting
NTFPs, exploitation of timber, and deforestation for coca plantations. The same
might occur if insufficient income comes from the sustainable harvest of NTFPs. To
make fiber harvesting sustainable means finding ways to create value-added at the
local level by, for example, eliminating intermediaries and maintaining easy access to
87
local markets. This, as mentioned above, might require that conservationists team up
with development professionals to provide local business education. Business
education would offer local people access to capacity building and training for smallbusiness managers including information on marketing strategies as well as access to
micro-finance opportunities. The case of the piassaba palm requires careful
assessment of the local and regional palm-fiber and palm-fiber-broom markets before
developing and implementing plans for more streamlined harvest, manufacture, and
sale of piassaba palm fiber and brooms (see Appendix 3 for a draft questionnaire for
market surveys).
Despite the “disappointing results” of ICDPs, “no other approach has been more
effective,” (McShane & Wells 2004). Linking protected area management with the
interests of local people, many of whom live in poverty (on, according to the World
Bank, less than 1 and 2 US dollars a day) “remains one of the few widely applicable
approaches to site-based biodiversity conservation that offers a realistic prospect of
success,” (McShane & Wells 2004). Applying this link to both conserve natural
resources and reduce poverty (or improve livelihoods) means “trying to achieve the
best possible outcomes, not necessarily a perfect outcome,” (Fisher et al. 2005).
Given the complex, double-barreled mandate of ICDPs (or similar projects by
different names, e.g., community-based conservation [CBC], community-based
natural resource management [CBNRM]), conservationists and development
practitioners might find it more useful to think in terms of “win-more-lose-less”
(Fisher et al. 2005) instead of win-win, win-and-lose, or lose-lose scenarios.
88
Governments establish protected areas like Cordillera Azul National Park to conserve
natural resources (including biodiversity), but conservation (or degradation) also
occurs in the multi-use landscapes that surround protected areas. Wildlife and wild
plants do not recognize the political boundaries of protected areas. Seed dispersal
crosses these artificial lines and maintains biodiversity inside and outside the
protected areas. If unprotected zones that border protected areas turn into depredated
landscapes (e.g., coca plantations or eradicated plantations coated with pesticides that
runoff into streams) then biodiversity is reduced both outside and inside the protected
area. Although different physical, social, and political environments require sitespecific approaches and implementations of ICDPs, two conceptual tools remain
essential: 1) Look beyond the local level to multiple geographical scales and
institutional levels; and 2) view poverty not just in terms of the absence of assets and
resources, but as a lack of capability to realize these assets. Then, turn these “assets”
or capital into livelihood outcomes (Fisher et al. 2005).
In this context, the piassaba palm fiber and the brooms manufactured from this fiber
present a strong case for an applied ICDP that uses a NTFP to both protect natural
resources (specifically the piassaba palm, but also the palm’s habitat) and increase
local household incomes in the buffer zone surrounding Cordillera Azul National
Park. If collected within limits (e.g., taking fiber harvests every five years from each
individual palm) this renewable resource will grow back and, if the harvests are
rotated to enable harvesters to take fiber every year, year after year, the piassaba palm
89
will increase household incomes in these remote villages, while maintaining the palm
and other forest resources. (To follow this logic, future studies could use comparative
satellite images of the areas to see whether or not forest conversion decreases.)
The local people in the buffer zone put pressure on the piassaba palm because they
exchange it for cash income. Without viable alternatives, they will continue to do so
because “necessities” drive them toward the cash economy. People do not live in
isolation and a need for cash income now plays an essential and on-going role in the
lives of people who live in these remote buffer zone communities. Worldwide, forest
ecosystems provide “vital safety-net functions for rural livelihoods in terms of risk
safeguarding (“famine foods”), health (medicinal plants), filling income gaps and
balancing nutrition” (Wunder 2001); this appears to be the case along the
northwestern border of Corrdillera Azul National Park. Although the extraction of
non-timber forest products makes a limited contribution to Peru’s national economy,
for the rural populations living along the park’s border, extracting products
(especially piassaba palm fiber) from the forest generates a vital source of cash
income. As seen in Chapter 2, poor households “derive a relatively larger share of
their income from forests and wildlands than better-off households in the same
community,” (Wunder 2001). This means that, whether or not the government or
nongovernmental organizations apply an ICDP approach to the use and conservation
of the piassaba palm, local people, especially the poorest of the poor, will continue to
harvest and sell the fiber for cash income because they can and they feel they must.
90
Piassaba palm fiber harvesting exists. A market exists for the palm fiber. A market
exists for piassaba-palm-fiber brooms. From an economic perspective, the optimum
harvesting strategy maximizes net present value (NPV) of both current and future
harvests. The model in Chapter 3, presents a harvesting strategy that maximizes
biological yield over time and also increases net economic value. By implementing
the biological results for harvesting and management of piassaba palms, the local
people should, in theory, be able to harvest the same palms every five years to obtain
the highest biological yield, which could then be exchanged for the largest economic
gain. Before implementation occurs, however, future research should include a
population study that supports the baseline information presented here. Nevertheless,
all of the components exist and co-mingle in this region for the implementation of an
ICDP. Without an ICDP (or combined poverty alleviation biodiversity conservation
approach), the piassaba palm and its habitat will not be conserved. If an economic
incentive does not exist to inspire the poor to capitalize on this resource in different
ways, they will use it as they see fit regardless of both the conservation and the
development agendas.
The potential exists to incorporate the piassaba palm fiber into a long-term integrated
conservation and socio-economic development plan that improves local livelihoods
and protects natural resources in the park’s buffer zone. The success of such a project
depends largely on the population size of the palms, the demand for the fiber (and the
brooms), and the approach utilized during the implementation. Success requires
landscape-level approaches and site-specific solutions to problems of both
91
conservation and development. In the case of piassaba palm fiber, folding human
needs into biodiversity conservation plans (e.g., park management plans) will lead to
better conservation outcomes than could have been achieved if a “people-based”
approach were not used. Empowering people to improve their earnings through their
own actions will also fuel more conservation-minded socio-economic development
than would have been achieved otherwise. Although use and conservation of the
piassaba palm does not present a complete win-win scenario, it does lend itself to a
win-more-lose-less scenario. For this reason, I recommend that conservationists
incorporate the piassaba palm into their buffer zone management strategies.
Intensification of piassaba harvests in the rural buffer zone, based on a five-yearrotating harvest, might alleviate pressure on palms and other resources now protected
inside the Cordillera Azul National Park. With conservation planning that protects
natural resources and the interests of local people, the production, harvest, and sale of
piassaba palm fiber could enable local harvesters to benefit more from forest markets
and contribute more to forest conservation. The implications of such an integrated
conservation and development project, though unclear, suggest that commercial use
by local people, within the discussed parameters, will improve rural livelihoods (at
least to some small degree) and provide reasonable incentives to conserve piassaba
palms over time in unprotected forests while protecting biodiversity in the park.
92
CHAPTER FIVE: Summary of Results: Discussion,
Application, and Integration
This study provides a foundation for considering whether or not piassaba palm
products might serve as a model for land-use planning in the Cordillera Azul’s buffer
zone. The information in this dissertation presents conservation practitioners and
development specialists with solid data about the local use and production of piassaba
palm fiber. The application of this information might lead to a more sustainable
management plan for the use of piassaba palm fiber that protects the palm (and its
habitat) while increasing local household incomes. An ideal management and
harvesting strategy would fit both the biological functions of the piassaba palm and
the current socio-economic context of the park’s buffer zone.
The transition matrix model presented in Chapter 3 reveals the potential for repeated
fiber harvesting from the same individuals over a 30-year period at five-year intervals
to yield the maximum amount of fiber per harvest, while minimizing the negative
functional effects to each palm. Negative effects include the removal of green leaves
to access fiber; this practice reduces palm biomass (size). Although our matrix model
indicates that, after a five-year recovery period, these individuals attain their previous
quantities of fiber, the effect of the harvest on growth rates, survivorship, the
likelihood of reproduction, and the fecundity of palms that do reproduce remains
unknown. Within such ecological uncertainty, however, this maximum yield
provides more fiber for sale that, in turn, generates more income for the harvesters.
93
The resilience of the palm (i.e., compensatory responses) enables the harvesters to
return to the same individuals every five years to harvest approximately the same
amount of fiber each harvest (Anten & Ackerly 2001a; Anten et al. 2003; Ackerly
2006, personal communication). If the fibreros identify their harvestable palms by
year (with exterior paint, for example) they could apply a rotating harvest to ensure
that after each harvest palms produce leaves and fiber for a five-year period before
enduring the next harvest. Meanwhile, by not harvesting all the available palms at
once, fiber would be available for harvest each year. This would enable the fibreros
to harvest fiber when they have “necessities” without over-exploiting this renewable
resource.
To design a more precise sustainable management plan, I suggest following this
palm-level study with a demographic study. This would allow the impacts on
individual palms to be integrated at the population level. In other words, the loss of
biomass from cutting leaves and harvesting fiber affect the size of an individual palm,
which might or might not affect reproduction. If harvesting reduces individual
reproduction, which does not appear to be the case, then the size structure of the
population might change in ways that it would not have otherwise changed. For
example, reduction in growth rates might facilitate shorter (or longer) transition times
between size classes. The big-picture effects of these harvest practices at the
population level pivot on the “relative magnitude” of the changes in each variable
(e.g., fecundity) balanced by their elasticity within the population’s demographics.
94
To more clearly understand the population demographics of the piassaba palm, I
recommend that future studies collect data on size classes (instead of age classes),
survival, growth, sex ratios, and fecundity (the expected number of offspring per
female per year) to build a structured population dynamics model. Then a transition
matrix can be used to model and simulate changes in the piassaba palm population
from one life stage to the next. This will enable researchers to determine the
population size per age (or size) class. In turn, researchers can determine if the
population is growing, stable, or declining. This population-level knowledge will
facilitate making more-informed decisions about the application of the “sustainable”
rotating five-year harvest strategy. The five-year strategy offers a seemingly
sustainable harvest regime at the individual palm level and the added population-level
knowledge would reveal the long-term feasibility of implementing such a plan across
the piassaba landscape. The size-class transition matrix would produce an
understanding of the elasticity of the population and knowing the elasticity leads to
understanding the resilience of the population to continue to produce offspring that
mature and produce enough fiber for profitable harvests.
Dr. David Ackerly of the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of
California Berkeley gave me an example of how an elasticity analysis would apply to
determining a sustainable harvest and I paraphrase his comments here. The discovery
that sea turtle populations are sensitive to adult mortality, but quite insensitive to
juvenile survivorship variances demonstrates the use of an elasticity analysis (Ackerly
2006, personal communication). This knowledge directly influences policy decisions
95
based on the importance of reducing the loss of turtles to the fishing industry relative
to protecting juveniles during their journey from sand to sea (Ackerly 2006, personal
communication). “Elasticities,” Ackerly cautioned, “and other outputs of
demographic models, change as the structure and dynamics of the population
change,” (Ackerly 2006, personal communication). This means that, in his turtle
example, if the nesting grounds deteriorate, then juvenile survival would, over time,
become more and more essential to maintaining the population. The same holds true
for palm populations. Nonetheless, combining the new knowledge presented in this
dissertation to an elasticity analysis would lead to a more reliable management
strategy. I recommend an analysis of population-level sustainability because, in wild
populations of palms (and other plants and animals), all individuals eventually die.
Without the assistance of people planting and propagating the palms to ensure
reproduction (as in a plantation or agroforestry arrangement) the question of
sustainability must be addressed at both the individual and the population levels. In
plantations and intensely managed natural stands like those studied in Ecuador
(Borgtoft-Pederson 1996) the concept of sustainability might be better addressed at
the individual level presented here.
In wild forest populations, harvesting activities that maximize the amount of fiber
taken from individual palms might not be sustainable because of far-reaching effects
on demographic variables--growth, reproduction, fecundity, and survival. The use of
a structured population growth model, like a Leslie Model (Vandermeer & Goldberg
96
2003; Colchero 2006, personal communication) offers an accurate method to evaluate
the status and dynamics of a palm population and the impacts of harvesting fiber on
that population. As a starting point for future research, I offer a quick summary of
matrix models: A matrix model breaks the population into groups based on age, size,
or stage, (Vandermeer & Goldberg 2003; Colchero 2006, personal communication).
Researchers build the models based on field data. They use the data to calculate the
probability and frequency of different outcomes for each group, from one year (or
stage) to the next; the probability of staying at a specific stage, the probability of
moving to another stage (usually advancing, but possibly moving backward or
remaining stagnant because of injury or disturbance), or dying, and the average (or
mean) fecundity per adult palm.
To forecast the future of the piassaba palm population, researchers can run the
transition matrix of these fecundity values and probabilities. This calculation
produces λ, the rate of population growth (λ = 1.0 indicates stable population size, λ
< 1.0 indicates decline, λ > 1.0 indicates growth) (Vandermeer & Goldberg 2003;
Ackerly 2006, personal communication; Colchero 2006, personal communication).
To ensure a sustainable piassaba palm population, the desired outcome would reveal
λ > 1.0, a growing population. If that turns out to be the case, then the population
would need to be monitored over the 30-year period of time that the five-yearrotating-harvest technique is implemented.
97
In addition to determining if the population is growing, declining, or remaining
stable, matrix models also enable elasticity (sensitivity) analyses. An elasticity
analysis demonstrates the effect of differences in any one variable or fecundity value
on the rate of population growth (λ). A transition matrix model uses standardized
elasticity values for relative modifications. Understanding the elasticity of the local
piassaba palm population would quantify the relative impacts of changes over time on
the identified demographic stages (e.g., growth, juvenile survivorship, reproduction).
For example, the elasticity analysis could compare λ for simulated decreases in adult
survival, tree growth rate or fecundity. This, in turn, would underscore the long-term
sustainability of piassaba palm fiber harvests based on a five-year rotating harvest and
an average leaf production rate of four leaves per year.
This study demonstrates that piassaba palm leaves grow larger than previously
thought, up to 14 meters as opposed to a reported maximum of eight meters
(Henderson 1995; Henderson et al. 1995; Pennington et al. 2004). The harvestable
fibers come from the petiole, which grows 2.5-4 meters in length. This means that
fibers run approximately 2.5-4 meters long. Older palms with taller stems (> 5
meters) tend to produce slightly shorter leaves than younger, shorter palms. This
suggests that the leaves of this subcanopy palm compete for sunlight and that sunlight
plays an important role in the palm’s growth and development (Borgtoft-Pederson
1996). In the forested areas along Cordillera Azul National Park’s northwestern
border the piassaba palm produces 2-4 leaves per year. In open areas in Ecuador, the
piassaba palm produces an average of 5.5 leaves per year (Borgtoft-Pederson 1996).
98
With more knowledge about the propagation and cultivation of the piassaba palm, it
might be possible to combine the five-year rotating wild harvest with an agroforestry
plantation that includes the piassaba palm and offers the palm more sunlight for faster
growth (and faster fiber production). This study only provides baseline data about a
little known palm endemic to the buffer zone of Peru’s Cordillera Azul National Park.
Beyond the scope of my research, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the
region (e.g., El Centro de Desarrollo e Investigación de la Selva Alta-CEDISA)
implement a variety of agroforestry projects that include the use of “bolaina blanca”
(Guazuma crinita), a fast-growing hardwood species often used for the block and the
handle of piassaba-palm-fiber brooms. The potential exists, therefore, to grow the
main materials needed to make piassaba-palm-fiber brooms. The practicalities of an
integrated piassaba-bolaina-cash-crop (e.g., coffee, cacao, plantains, uña de gato
[Uncaria tomentosa]) agroforestry plantation warrants further investigation.
Along with agroforestry experiments, future market research should explore product
diversification and links with steady buyers. For example, the Tarapoto-based
chocolate factory, La Orquidea, purchases cacao produced locally and throughout the
region. La Orquidea has a buyer who operates in Chazuta. If Chipaota produced
high-quality cacao, as part of a piassaba-based agroforestry project, they might be
able to sell it to the La Orquidea buyers.
99
Nevertheless, implementing a palm management strategy based on this study’s
transition matrix model should increase economic gains while at the same time
conserving piassaba palms because: 1) Harvesters have an incentive not to cut down
individual palms at least until they reach approximately 40-years-old; and 2) the fiveyear harvesting interval allows the “compensatory responses” enough time to
recuperate from one round of harvesting before the next round and before too much
fiber turns brittle and disintegrates (or decomposes), which results in lost fiber. This
will increase profits to local people. Local harvesters might gain further profits if
they produce brooms for sale directly to the market rather than selling raw fiber
(Nepstad & Schwartzman 1992; Padoch 1992; Plotkin & Famolare 1992; Godoy &
Bawa 1993; Peters 1996; McShane & Wells 2004; Wells & McShane 2004).
Increased local profits gained from community land should, in turn, ease human-use
pressures on the natural resources protected in Cordillera Azul National Park.
Increasing profits to local people by adding value locally, diversifying the kinds of
products made from piassaba palm fiber, and bypassing market intermediaries
increases the potential for NTFPs (e.g., palm fiber) to provide household income and
to encourage forest conservation (Anderson & Putz 2002). Local and regional people
already market and sell piassaba palm fiber and palm-fiber brooms, which make this
NTFP an appealing source of income (Anderson & Putz 2002), a better conservation
alternative than deforestation, and a social alternative to coca plantations. Even so,
for a sustainable piassaba-palm-fiber harvest to compete in the “individual decisionmaking arena, it must become economically rational as well as ecologically
100
prudent,”(Anderson & Putz 2002). The likelihood of applying an ecologically
sustainable harvest improves when “short-term goals of increased income coincide
with long-term goals of forest preservation,” (Vayda 1993; Anderson & Putz 2002).
This study shows how the collection and processing of a forest product (piassaba
palm fiber) fits into the overall livelihood strategies of local people (Hegde & Enters
2000) in the buffer zone of Cordillera Azul National Park. Although households with
other consumption-smoothing activities (e.g., a varied portfolio of agricultural and
animal husbandry practices) rely less heavily on piassaba-palm-fiber collection, its
“importance is not restricted to the poorest households,” (Pattanayak & Sills 2001;
Coomes et al. 2004). This knowledge provides a basis for “seeking the participation
of such communities in forest conservation,” (Hegde & Enters 2000).
The need to add value to forest resources so that they out-compete other, more
destructive land-uses, and the need to address local poverty while protecting
biological resources for the “global good” highlights the controversy that surrounds
both NTFPs and ICDPs. A holistic approach to the use and management of piassaba
palm fiber could contribute to sustainable development, conserve buffer zone forests
and both protected and unprotected biodiversity, and promote small enterprises to
improve household economies and diversify the economic base of the local, rural
poor (Wollenberg & Ingles 1998). To accomplish this requires a more complete
understanding of the local and regional palm fiber and palm-fiber broom markets.
Knowledge of markets would generate a better understanding of local forestry
products including piassaba palm fiber. This would empower local harvesters and
101
merchants because they would know when and where to sell their fiber and their
brooms, making the activity more efficient and more profitable. To gain market
information and to evaluate if market-oriented conservation fits the use and
management of the piassaba palm in the park’s buffer zone requires market surveys in
Chazuta, Tarapoto, Yurimaguas, Iquitos, Piura, and other towns and cities where the
fiber and brooms are sold.
A market survey should focus on how local merchants and vendors already sell, buy,
and distribute palm fiber and palm-fiber brooms. To build a “sustainable link”
between the buffer zone communities and the palm fiber and palm-fiber broom
buyers means understanding how the current market operates even if the market
functions in a haphazard or informal way. In a market assessment, a researcher (e.g.,
from a local NGO) would partner with local palm fiber salespeople and local broom
vendors to try to understand the local experience with marketing and non-timber
forestry. What is the demand for palm fiber? Where do they sell the fiber? Where
do they sell the brooms? How do they decide when to sell, how much to sell, and at
what price? How are fiber harvesters, fiber salespeople, fiber buyers (broom
manufactures), and broom distributors organized and how do they share information?
Successful market development should complement what people are already doing.
As a NTFP, piassaba palm fiber brooms are more cheaply sold (and probably more
cheaply produced) than nylon-bristle brooms. Piassaba-palm-fiber brooms are readily
available in local regional and national markets. Consumers often choose palm-fiber
102
brooms over synthetic-bristle brooms. This indicates that a demand-driven market
exists for these brooms (and the fiber needed to make the brooms). Although a
danger exists that “poorly focused initiatives to increase commercialization of NTFPs
[piassaba palm fiber] could both disadvantage the very poor among local users, and
encourage over use of the forest resource,” (Arnold & Ruiz Perez 2001), the potential
benefits both to the local poor and to the new national park outweigh this risk.
Therefore, I recommend exploring different ways to bypass market intermediaries
and increase profits to the local communities. A seemingly obvious way to achieve
this is to enable the local people to produce their own brooms. They have the
knowledge and the skills to do so. They lack, however, electricity. To produce
brooms at a competitive volume (at least 24-dozen brooms per day or 120 dozen
brooms per week) requires power tools. The necessary tools include: Hand drills, a
circular saw, sanders, a lathe, and manual heavy-duty staplers.
In Tarapoto, Lima, and the United States I have discussed several options for creating
broom-manufacturing possibilities at the local level. Some people suggest a
cooperative in Chazuta, where grid electricity exists. Complications inherent to
cooperatives and the collective management of resources surround this option and a
whole body of literature on cooperatives extends beyond the scope of this paper.
Others recommend bringing generators to the communities. This option requires
more than locally feasible amounts of overhead, mechanical capacity training, fuel
and maintenance expenses. Mathematicians and civil engineers recommend creating
dams, harnessing the Chipaota River, and using paddle wheels to create electricity.
103
The seasonality of the river’s water levels combined with the costs and complicated
technology make this option appear less practical than at first glance. The same goes
for a wind-generator. If community members are going to produce electrical power
in their remote villages, they need systems that are easy to install, easy to repair
(including access to parts), easy and inexpensive to maintain. From my informal
research into the realm of “appropriate technologies” and “renewable energy for rural
communities,” the best option appears to be a photovoltaic (PV) power system (Nasir
El Bassam 2004).
In Peru, many rural communities and households use vehicle batteries to power their
electric appliances ranging from lanterns and radios to televisions and Ham radios, so
the potential for six-volt golf-cart (or 12-volt automobile) battery-and-solar-panel
power seems feasible. Small-scale PV systems, therefore, offer the possibility to
power village-level broom-making enterprises for either community or private use.
Even a solar-and-battery powered system contains problematic elements including the
wear-and-tear of high humidity on cordless power tools and the limited availability of
tools and parts in Tarapoto. Nevertheless, a simple PV system might generate enough
reliable and environmentally safe energy to recharge the batteries of the cordless
power tools required to manufacture brooms and generate income. Here I describe
the basic design and equipment necessary to create a solar-and-battery powered (or
photovoltaic) workshop in Santa Rosa de Chipaota.
104
If the broom-makers use few tools at a time and if the tools needed to operate eight
hours per day, perhaps three or four laborers working at any given time, the workshop
would need: Two drills, one 1-inch bit for the handle hole and a smaller (~3/8 inch)
bit for the bristle holes, one circular saw, two sanders, one lathe (or lathe-drill), two
or three manual (no electrical power required) staplers and staple presses, four solar
panels, six 6-volt, deep-cycle batteries, and the appropriate wiring. The drills, saw,
and sander all come in hand-held 18-volt models (Dewalt’s line of 18-volt tools is
known for its durability and draws only 2-3 amps per tool). Each of the 18-volt tools
includes a required charger that would draw 2 amps of power from the battery bank.
Volts times amps equals watts (V x A = W), therefore, a Dewalt 18-volt cordless
charger uses 2 amps at 12 volts (drawing from a 12-volt vehicle battery or two 6-volt
golf-cart batteries) and 2A x 12V = 24 Watts. The 8-hour workday would be divided
into shorter shifts to enable mid-day re-charging. Therefore, 24 watts times 4 hours
equals 96 watt-hours. Lumping all of the cordless tools together because they use the
same battery power means that six tools would need 576 watt-hours or .576 Kilowatthours per cycle.
The lathe does not come in a cordless, re-chargeable model, but one could exchange
the alternating current (AC) motor in a lathe for a direct current (DC) motor. This
would require slightly larger power consumption, but would enable the entire system
to run on DC power. If all the tools run on DC voltage rather than AC, we eliminate
the need for an inverter because the solar panels generate DC power.
105
Inverters work as the go-between link that transforms a battery's direct current (DC)
power into the alternating current (AC) power needed to operate standard household
electrical appliances. Batteries produce power in DC form. DC power can operate at
low voltages (e.g., 18 volts) but it cannot be used to power modern household
appliances. In most countries, utility companies or governments and stand-alone
generators produce sine-wave alternating current (AC) power; most household
appliances require AC power at either 110 volts or 220 volts, depending on the
country’s system. Inverters electronically convert the DC power from an “alternative
energy’s” storage battery bank into AC power. This conversion consumes about 20%
of the energy produced by the solar panels. Selecting tools that run on DC power
from the beginning, keeps more of the power produced available to charge the
batteries in the hand-tools. Eliminating the need for an inverter also means one less
piece of equipment to break down in the field.
An important note about the half-horsepower lathe is that one horsepower equals 746
watts and, therefore, a half horsepower equals 373 watts. If we multiply this by 1.2
(because an inexpensive motor might contain approximately 20% friction loss), the
result is 447.6 watts, multiplied by an 8-hour workday equals 3,580.8 watt-hours or
3.580 kilowatt-hours per day. The solar-battery power system would need to produce
enough energy every day to power the cordless tools and the lathe. Therefore, deepcycle batteries would produce the best results because they are manufactured to
106
supply current for long periods of time (unlike a standard automobile battery, which
is designed to discharge rapidly and then spend most of its time being charged).
There are many factors such as battery bank specifications, estimated number of rainy
verses sunny days, and availability of tools and repairs that need to be considered to
design the most practical solar-powered system for a community like Chipaota.
Future research can build on the rough sketch that I have provided here. In this
system, which could be set-up for as little as 12,075 Nuevo Soles ($3,500 USD at an
exchange rate of $1.00 US = 3.45 Nuevo Soles), the batteries would need to be
replaced every three years, the tools every five years and the solar panels could come
with a 20 or 25-year warranty. If, however, 18-volt tools are not easily available, a
similar system could be designed to run on 110 or 220 volt direct current (DC) power;
unfortunately a higher voltage system would increase the safety risks to the operators.
Introducing the above technology or other “appropriate technology” to communities
in the buffer zone of Cordillera Azul National Park could bring positive, lasting
change to people's lives and serve as a model for small-scale NTFP activities in the
rural areas that border protected areas worldwide. Enabling fiber harvesters to
become broom producers would help poor people make a better living. Therefore,
future investigations should determine the best power systems with the most
appropriate equipment and technology for the region and purpose. Given the right
tools and technology, micro and small-scale enterprises based on the piassaba palm
could expand the product line from brooms to include small brushes or miniature
107
brooms to be sold to tourists, decorative baskets, and perhaps horticultural planters
produced at home-based workshops. Piassaba-based enterprises could be
community-owned or family-led enterprises, depending on the political structure of
the communities involved. Although local in scale and operating in an informal
economy, piassaba-based enterprises might be tied into regional and national markets,
as part of supply chains, (e.g., Ace Home Center [Ace Hardware] operates five bigbox stores in Lima and all the stores stock piassaba-palm-fiber brooms) based on the
demand for the fiber, brooms, and other products.
Before enthusiasm exceeds practicalities, however, practitioners must remember that
small-scale enterprises remain the most vulnerable to rapid and external changes.
Rural and isolated enterprises also tend to lack the know-how to benefit from market
changes because they contain limited access to information and limited influence in
the marketplace. To protect communities like Santa Rosa de Chipaota from these
vulnerabilities requires careful planning. An essential step includes connecting the
communities to steady and frequent buyers such as stores and other distributors in
Tarapoto, custodial companies, schools, and governmental agencies that buy large
quantities of brooms at regular intervals.
Implementing a piassaba broom-making enterprise in Santa Rosa de Chipaota and in
other buffer zone communities requires more than appropriate technologies and tools;
it requires access to market information, business knowledge, and marketing skills, all
of which must come from capacity training and education. This means
108
conservationists and development specialists must collaborate from the onset and
work at different levels—local community, regional, town and city governments as
well as with national and international NGOs. They must help the communities
pinpoint piassaba market opportunities that offer a sustainable future. Then, through
focus groups and capacity training activities, they must open avenues that enable
local manufacturers to create better quality piassaba-fiber products, with more value
added, for these local and regional markets. This might also include bringing
together groups of mini-producers (e.g., broom-makers from different communities)
and developing their capacities to organize and represent themselves as a larger entity
of local producers. (Here, perhaps an exploration of cooperative management would
be useful.) A producer organization (or cooperative) could even influence policy
makers at the local and regional governments. At least, given the “strength-innumbers” philosophy, such an organization might weaken bureaucratic roadblocks
and maybe even minimize hassles and bribe requests from the local police.
To achieve the conservation and development goals surrounding the use and
management of the piassaba palm in the buffer zone of the Cordillera Azul means
linking palm fiber harvesters and their products (i.e., fiber, brooms) to local and
regional governmental policies. Orchestrating these connections between the rural
poor and the people who make decisions that directly affect their well-being could
facilitate working agreements (convenios) with regional governments, local
municipalities, and both conservation and development organizations. With careful
planning and local participation, the harvest and sale of piassaba palm fiber and fiber109
based products like brooms might contribute to both the socio-economic development
of the rural poor and the conservation of the protected resources in Cordillera Azul
National Park. Small-scale broom manufacturing through businesses that develop
flexible and adaptable production strategies with simple, inexpensive equipment
might improve livelihoods for low-income households and provide an incentive to
manage forest resources in ways that are more sustainable than present resource-use
practices.
Although my research does not extend into business management, I must mention
constraints exist that might limit the development of small-scale piassaba broom
making in the park’s buffer zone. These constraints persist in many developing
countries. First, starting and growing a small business in a developing country
requires persistence and dedication. Micro-enterprises must leap over many hurdles
including political and economic instability and the uncertainty surrounding access to
reliable markets and to additional funding needed for development.
By offering both scientific knowledge and business training, conservationists might
shift the odds in favor of protecting this natural resource and improving the
livelihoods of local residents. If the information provided here creates an immediate
benefit to the people of Chipaota (and conserves the piassaba palm) then
conservationists worldwide might adapt the recommendations from this study to their
own local situations. Future research can sharpen the information presented in this
110
study to produce even more specific details for conservation and development
programs in the Huallaga Valley, around the Cordillera Azul, and worldwide.
111
APPENDIX 1: FOCUS GROUP FORM FOR IRB
Un grupo de discusión se llevara a cabo en la Comunidad de Santa Rosa de Chipaota
con pobladores que están estrechamente vinculados con el manejo de la fibra de la
palmera piasaba como parte de un proyecto de investigación de la Universidad de
Duke. El objetivo principal de éste estudio está en investigar cual es el método mas
adecuado de extracción de los productos forestales exceptuando la madera, que pueda
así mismo facilitar el proceso de conservación de los recursos naturales y el manejo
del parque nacional con el propósito de difundirlo a la comunidad de Chipaota y a los
investigadores de CIMA y volcarlo al uso y manejo de la fibra de la palmera Piasaba
y a las perspectivas de crecimiento del negocio de escobas hechas de estas fibras
como producto rentable para la comunidad de Chipaota.
Este grupo de discusión incluirá un investigador de la Universidad de Duke de los
Estados Unidos y entre 8 a 10 miembros de la comunidad de Chipaota y tendrá una
duración de aproximadamente una hora y media.
Durante el desarrollo del mismo, se necesitara la participación activa y la
colaboración voluntaria de todos los asistentes y los temas a tratar serán con el objeto
de recolectar información necesaria para ésta investigación.
Los resultados obtenidos al termino de este grupo de discusión servirán para informar
a los investigadores de CIMA y científicos de la Universidad de Duke sobre el actual
manejo de éstas pequeñas empresas, las perspectivas de cambios y los pasos a seguir
para la conservación del medio ambiente y el desarrollo socio-económico de las
comunidades en una zona de amortiguamiento.
Para proteger el anonimato (si así lo requieren) se usara sólo el nombre de pila sin
incluir apellidos ni otra información personal en los materiales escritos en este grupo
de discusión.
Con autorización previa de los miembros del grupo, las conversaciones serán
grabadas. La cinta será utilizada para hacer trabajos escritos del grupo y para ayudar
a los investigadores a escribir reportajes vivenciares sobre este tema de investigación.
Para su información solamente tendrán acceso a la grabación de la información los
investigadores de Cima y de la Universidad de Duke.
Ya que la participación de ustedes en éste grupo es totalmente voluntaria, es potestad
de cada uno de los participantes no contestar a cualquier pregunta que no se desee y a
salirse del grupo de discusión en el momento que así lo consideren pertinente.
Para cualquier consulta sobre este grupo de discusión, por favor comunicarse con el
Sr. Wayne E. Mayer en Duke University al teléfono (919) 613-8091 o a la oficina de
112
CIMA en Tarapoto al teléfono (525-379). Si tienen cualquier pregunta sobre sus
derechos como participante en un grupo de investigación, por favor contactarse con
el director del Comité de Recursos Humanos de la Universidad de Duke al teléfono
(919) 684-3030.
Antes del inicio de este grupo de discusión, los participantes ya informados con
anterioridad sobre este procedimiento llenaran este formato con la información
solicitada:
Yo he leído la información en este formato y recibí la oportunidad a hablar y
preguntar sobre esto.
[
[
] Aceptó que se grabe la conversación.
] No aceptó que se grabe la conversación.
Nombre
Firma
113
Fecha___
APPENDIX 2: THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Fibra de la Palmera Piasaba
Un estudio de la cosecha y dependencia dentro una comunidad indígena
Introducción
La Universidad Duke, en colaboración con el Centro de Conservación, Investigación
Y Manejo de Areas Naturales (CIMA), está dirigiendo un estudio para evaluar las
experiencias de la comunidad de Santa Rosa de Chipaota en la producción, cosecha, y
venta de fibra de la palmera de piasaba. Este estudio apunta a identificar la
importancia económica de la fibra de esta palmera en los residentes de esta
comunidad. El objetivo principal de este estudio esta en investigar cual es el método
mas adecuado de extracción de los productos forestales exceptuando la madera que
pueda así mismo facilitar el proceso de conservación de los recursos naturales y el
manejo del parque nacional. Entendiendo como la economía de su comunidad
depende en la fibra de la palmera de la piasaba, queremos contar con su ayuda para
determinar como los bosques alrededor del Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul pueden
contribuir a conseguir ingresos económicos para las comunidades locales y mantener
la biodiversidad. Nosotros estamos particularmente interesados en las opiniones e
información de los hombres y mujeres que viven en la comunidad y que sus ingresos
sean o no derivados de la cosecha de esta fibra. Para este fin agradeceríamos nos
respondan un cuestionario que les tomara aproximadamente 20 minutos de su tiempo.
Por favor siéntanse libres en expresar sus opiniones ya que de sus valiosas
experiencias depende el éxito de esta investigación; a.C. no existe respuesta correcta
o incorrecta es su opinión lo que cuenta. Si hubiese alguna pregunta que usted no
desea contestar, siéntase libre a dejarla en blanco. Nosotros no estamos buscando
respuestas específicas y para su información todas sus respuestas permanecerán
confidenciales. Su participación en nuestro estudio es voluntaria y la información que
nosotros obtengamos será de valiosa ayuda. Los resultados de este estudio estarán
disponibles en CIMA – Cordillera Azul, bibliotecas universitarias, y los residentes
interesados, podrán solicitar allí una copia de estos
Si usted tuviese cualquier pregunta o preocupación con respecto a este estudio, por
favor comuníquese con nosotros en estos números telefónicos: en Tarapoto al (042)
52-64-71 y en los Estados Unidos al (919) 613-8091 o al correo electrónico de Wayne
Mayer: [email protected]
Muchas gracias por su valioso aporte,
Atentamente,
Wayne E. Mayer
Investigador Principal
Duke University
114
ENCUESTA
Código de la Entrevista ________________
Fecha de la Entrevista __________________
Hora de la Entrevista___________
Hora de concluida la Entrevista______________
Marcar si es:
1era. Visita
Nombre del Encuestador
__________________________________________
2da. Visita
3era. visita
Nombre y Apellido del Entrevistado ______________________________________________________
Comunidad ____________________________ Sector de la Comunidad_______________________
1. Sexo del entrevistado (Observación)
Hombre 1
Mujer 2
2. Cuántos años vive en esta comunidad?___________
3. Donde Nació Usted:
3a. Comunidad ___________________
3b. Distrito
___________________
3c. Provincia ___________________
3d. Departamento ________________
4. Cuántas personas viven en su casa? ___________
5. La Información de las Personas que dependen de Usted, incluyéndose?
5a. Miembros de su familia
( Señalar primer nombre)
5b.Parentesco
5.c
Edad
5.d Nivel Educativo
(Poner código)
Código
Jefe
Para la pregunta 5b.
Esposo/a…………………………1
Hijo/a…………………………….2
Nieto/a………………………… 3
Yerno/ Nuera…………………… 4
Padres/ Suegros…………………. 5
Año
Grado
/
Idioma
5e
Que lengua
usas más
Para la pregunta 5d
Ningún Nivel ……..……….…..1
Primaria Completa ………….…2
Primaria Incompleta…….. ……..3
Secundaria Completa.…………..4
Secundaria Incompleta ………...5
115
5f
Que otras
lenguas usas
Otros Parientes (especifica) ……..6
Formación técnica Completa...…6
Formación técnica incompleta.....7
Estudios Superiores Completos…8
Estudios Superiores Incompletos..9
Para la pregunta 5c
Idioma
Castellano
Kewchua Lamista
Otros _____________
1
2
3
116
1
Maíz
2
Arroz
3
Yuca
117
4
Frijol
5
Plátano
6
Cacao
7
Café
8
Té
9
Cítricos
Otros
10
11
12
No
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6g.
Intercambio
o trueque ?
/ Unidad de
Medida
6h.
venta?
/
Unidad
de
Medida
6j. ¿A
qué
precio
vendió
su
prod?
/U.M
3 Tarapoto
6e.
U.M
6h.
Almacenado/
Unidad
de
Medida
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4 Otro mercado
Si
1
6.d ¿Qué
cantidad
de
…...
cosechó?
6f.
autoconsumo?
/ Unidad
de
Medida
6k. ¿Dónde vendió?
2 Chazuta
6.a Tipo
de Cultivo
6b.
¿Cuántas
Has
de .….
tienes
en total ?
6c.
¿Cuántas
Has
de ...….
cosechaste
de enero a
Junio del
2004?
De lo cosechado, ¿cuánto utilizaste para…..?
1 Chipaota
6. DESCRIBA LOS TIPOS DE CULTIVO QUE TIENE EN SU
CHACRA
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
7. ¿Extrae Usted los siguientes productos del Bosque?
7.a PRODUCTOS DEL
BOSQUE / MADERABLES
Si
1
No
2
FIBRA DE PIASABA
1
2
UÑA DE GATO
1
2
SANGRE DE GRADO
1
2
CEDRO
1
2
ISHPINGLO
1
2
TORNILLO
1
2
CAOBA
1
2
MOENA
1
2
CORRIENTE
1
2
OTROS
7.b.
¿Qué cantidad
han sacado
desde enero a
junio del 2004?
7.c Unid.
Medida
7.d.
¿Cuánto utilizó para su
consumo?
7.e.
¿Qué cantidad vendió
desde enero a junio del
2004? / U.M.
7.f.
¿Cuánto le pagaron por
U.M?
118
8. ¿Qué tipo de animales posee usted desde enero hasta junio 2004?
8f. Unidad
8e. Ventas
8d. Intercambio
No
2
8c. Autoconsumo
Si
1
8b. ¿Cuántos …..
tiene a la fecha?
8a. Animales
8g. ¿Precio venta?
por U.M
De enero a junio del 2004, ¿cuánto
destinó a . . . . . . . ?
PRODUCTOS Y SUB
PRODUCTOS
8h.
¿Qué obtiene o saca de
sus crianzas de ……?
Si
1
Huevos
1
Aves
1
2
S/.
119
3
4
Ovinos
6
7
2
S/.
Ganado
Vacuno
Porcino
Otros
5
1
1
2
1
2
S/.
No
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Lana
1
2
Queso
1
2
Leche
1
2
Carne
1
2
Cuero
1
2
Cecina
1
2
Carne
1
2
Carne
Carne
2
8i.
¿Qué cantidad
de … . ha
sacado
de enero a
junio del
2004?
S/.
8j.
¿Qué
cantidad de
…… ha
vendido
de enero a
junio del
2004?
8.k
¿A qué
precio
a vendido
la unidad
de
..
….? El
ultimo
mes
9. Aproximadamente en una salida, ¿cuánto es lo que pesca o caza?
De esta cantidad total, cuánto destina
para . . .
Cantidad por
unidad
9a. Ventas
9b. Unidad
9c. Precio por
unidad
1. Pesca
2. Caza
10. ¿Cual es la cantidad del tiempo que invierte según cada uno de los productos señalados anteriormente? (ver codificación de
Meses)
10a. Número de días
que invierte en cada
salida de …..
120
CAZA
PESCA
10b. Número de
salidas por año
10c. Meses de Extracción
Escriba el código del mes
11. ¿Cuál es la cantidad del tiempo que invierte en las siguientes actividades? (ver codificación)
Días que le dedicó en la última
campaña
11a.
Siembra
11b.
Limpieza y
Preparación
1
Maíz
2
Arroz
3
Yuca
4
Frijol
5
Plátano
6
Cacao
7
Café
121
8
Té
9
Cítricos
Otros
10
11
12
11c.
Cosecha
Días que le dedicó en la campaña
anterior
11d.
Siembra
11e.
Limpieza &
Preparación
11f.
Cosecha
11g.
Númer
o de
campa
ñas al
año
11h. Meses
de Siembra
1
2
3
11i. Meses de
Cosecha
1
2
3
Tabla de codificación de Meses
Enero
Febrero
Marzo
Abril
Mayo
Junio
Julio
Agosto
Setiembre
Octubre
Noviembre
Diciembre
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12. Cuánto gasto en soles en comprar estos productos el ultimo mes?
El último mes
GASTO MENSUAL
1 Azúcar
2 Sal
3 Aceite
4 Jabón
5 Fósforos
6 Velas
7 Baterías
8 Cartuchos
9 Kerosene
10 Otro (especificar)
12a. Cantidad
12b. Unidad
Medida
12c. Aproximado Costo en
Soles
13. Cuántos soles ha gastado el último año en la compra de éstos productos?
PRODUCTO
Gastos Anuales y Eventuales
enero a junio 2004
El año 2003
OBSERVACIONES
1Herramientas Machetes
2 Medicina/Salud
3 Ropa
4 Educación/
Suministros Colegio
5 Otro (especificar)
14. Entre los cultivos siguientes, cuál de ellos piensa usted que provee mayor ingreso
económico?
122
1 Maíz
2 Fibra de la Piasaba
3 Madera
4 Cacao
5 Miel
6 Otro, por favor especificar_______________________
14a. Porqué?_________________________________________________
15. En su opinión, es la cosecha de la fibra de la piasaba una buena forma de ganar
dinero?
1. Si
2 No 15.a.
Porqué?_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Sección especifica de la palmera
16. Cosecha Ud. piasaba?
1 Si (pasar a 17)
2 No ¿porqué? (pasar a 20)
3 Anteriormente
___________________________________________________________________________
17. De ser sí, cuántas veces has cosechado piasaba al último mes? _________________
18. Cuántas veces durante el año 2003? _________
19|. Señale las personas con las que regularmente sale a cosechar piasaba?
19a. Primer
Nombre
19b Sexo
1 Hombre
2 Mujer
19c. Grado de
parentesco
(poner código)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Esposo(a)
Hijo (a)
Nieto (a)
Yerno/ nuera
Padres/ suegros
Hermano (a)
Sobrinos (a)
Otras personas
20. ¿Qué labores tienen las mujeres en la cosecha de la piasaba?
__________________________________________________________________________
21. ¿Qué labores tienen los niños en la cosecha de la piasaba?
__________________________________________________________________________
22. ¿Cuándo cosecha la fibra? [Hay un patrón estacional para la cosecha de la fibra?]
1 Sólo en verano
123
2 Sólo en invierno
3 Visitas periódicas durante cualquier mes del año
¿En qué ocasiones? _________________________
4. Uno a dos veces al año
¿Qué meses? ______________
5. Cada mes, mensualmente en el verano
6. Cada mes, mensualmente en el invierno
7. Cada mes, mensualmente todo el año
8. De vez en cuando
Por qué?__________________________________________
9. Otro
23. ¿Cuántas veces dentro de los últimos seis meses tuvo necesidad de ir a cosechar la fibra
de la piasaba? ____________________________
24. ¿Qué tipo de necesidades hubieron desde enero 2004 hasta junio de este año?
___________________
25. En promedio, ¿cuántos días gastas por salida al monte para cosechar
piasaba?____________________
26. Promedio de días gastados en la cosecha de piasaba en el año 2003__________
27. ¿Cuántas piasabas machos cosecha Ud. por día en una salida al campo?
______________________
28. ¿Cuántas piasabas hembra cosecha Ud. por día en una salida al campo?
______________________
29. En promedio, ¿cuánto tiempo toma para cosechar una piasaba?
29a Macho
29b Hembra
30. En promedio, cuántas hojas por planta cosecha?
30a Macho
30b Hembra
31. En promedio, cuántas hojas por planta deja después de la cosecha?
31a Macho
31b Hembra
124
32. En promedio, cuánta fibra rinde cada planta?
32a Macho
32b Hembra
33 ¿A quiénes vende frecuentemente la cosecha de piasaba?
(Marca varias alternativas si es el caso) Leer alternativas
1 __ Alguien de la comunidad que acopia
2 __ Clientes que llegan a la comunidad en botes
3 __ Fabricantes de escobas en Chazuta
4 __ Fabricantes de escobas en Tarapoto
5 __ Otros clientes (especificar)___________________
34. ¿Cuál es el precio promedio de venta por kilo de la fibra en Chipaota? ____________
35. y ¿en Chazuta? _______
36. y ¿en Tarapoto? _______
37. ¿Se mantiene el mismo precio todo el año? ___Si
___No
38. ¿Quién fija el precio? (Leer alternativas)
1__ Moradores en la comunidad
2__ Clientes que vienen a la comunidad en botes
3__ Fabricantes de escobas en Chazuta
4__ Fabricantes de escobas en Tarapoto
5__ Otros clientes (por favor especifique)
39. ¿Cuál es el costo del transporte de la fibra desde Chipaota a Chazuta? ________.
40. ¿De Chazuta a Tarapoto? ________
41. ¿Cuándo viaja usted a vender, se queda una noche en Tarapoto?
Si 1
No 2 (pasar.44)
42. ¿Cuánto gasta en la noche en Tarapoto? ______
43. ¿Cuánto cuesta regresar a Chipaota desde Tarapoto?________
125
44. ¿Se requiere de algún tipo de permiso para vender la fibra?
Si 1
44a. ¿De quién?_____________________________
Sección Participación
45. ¿Ud. Pertenece a alguna organización de la comunidad?
Si 1 ¿Cuál? ____________________________
No 2
46. ¿Ud. Perteneció a alguna organización de la comunidad?
Si
1
No
2
¿Cuál?____________________________
47. ¿Tiene Ud. algún cargo dentro de la comunidad?
Si
1
No
2
¿Qué cargo? ______________________________________
48. ¿Cuánto tiempo tiene en ese cargo?___________________
49. ¿Ud. Participa en las reuniones de la comunidad?
Si
1
No
2
50. ¿Con qué frecuencia Ud. atiende:
50 a
Reuniones de la Comunidad
1 Nunca
2 Ocasionalmente
3 Frecuentemente
50b
Otras Reuniones
1 Nunca
2 Ocasionalmente
3 Frecuentemente
126
No 2
51. ¿Ud. Participa en las actividades de la escuela?
Si 1
No 2
GRACIAS POR EL TIEMPO TAN VALIOSO QUE INVIRTIO EN RESPONDER
ESTA ENCUESTA
127
APPENDIX 3: IDEAS FOR A MARKET SURVEY
During my 2004 field season, Luis (Lucho) Arévalo and I designed the following
ideas and outline for a market study about piassaba-palm-fiber brooms.
ESTUDIO DE MERCADO
Hacer una encuesta con una muestra representativa de los vendedores de escobas de
la piasaba (bodegas, ferreterías, y tiendas donde se venden dichas escobas). El
enfoque será la colección de datos sobre la preferencia de los diferentes tipos de
escobas que se ofertan en dichos establecimientos, conocer los precios fluctuantes,
para comprender la demanda y el mercado de éstas escobas.
Hacer una encuesta de la población de Tarapoto sobre que tipo de escobas prefieren y
porque. Esta información va a darnos un mejor conocimiento sobre el mercado de
escobas dentro de la ciudad. Será importante saber por cuántos años éstas tiendas
están vendiendo éstas escobas. También, será interesante saber la distribución de las
escobas de fibra de la piasaba en una escala nacional, consultando con los talleres de
escobas. Podríamos aprender adonde son enviadas, cuál es la cantidad enviada, con
que frecuencia, y el precio por docenas o, media docena, o un curto de docena.
También, será importante saber por cuantos años están fabricando y vendiendo éstas
escobas.
128
Estas encuestas serán útiles en Lima también, especialmente en tiendas grandes como
Ace Home Center. Podemos entrevistar a los vendedores y también a los clientes
para aprender porque prefieren un determinado tipo de escoba, si están de acuerdo
con el precio o no. ¿Que precios estarián dispuestos a pagar por cada escoba? ¿Cuál
es el tiempo de duración por cada tipo de escoba? ¿Cuántas escobas compran en un
año? También será importante aprender de donde las tiendas en Lima compran las
escobas de fibra de la piasaba.
En las tiendas de Ace Home Center se venden escobas de fibra de la piasaba, las
escobas son de diferentes tamaños, y el proveedor de escobas a ésta tienda es la
Distribuidora Darisa, no me informaron la dirección ni el teléfono, sin embargo,
probablemente se encuentra en las paginas amarillas.
Otra estrategia sería conversar con la gerencia de Ace Home Center, cuyas oficinas
están en Canaval y Moreyra 555. Ace Home Center comenzó en Lima en 1994 y
ahora tiene cinco tiendas grandes (~10,000 metros cuadrados) en diferentes lugares de
Lima incluyendo en el Centro Comericial Jockey Plaza (Av. Javier Prado Este 4200).
Ace Home Center vende productos directamente al público y Ace Home Center
Master (e.g. localizado en la intersección de las avenidas República de Panamá y
Angamos en el distrito de Surquillo) venden productos directamente a los
profesionales en construcción (e.g. especialistas en gasfitería y electricidad).
129
ENCUESTA PARA VENDEDORES (BODEGAS,
FERRETERÍAS, TIENDAS, INDIVIDUOS) DE ESCOBAS
DE PIASABA.
1. Qué escoba vendes más:
- plástico
- fibra de piasaba
2. Qué precio tiene la escoba de:
- plástico
- fibra de piasaba
1. Cuántas escobas compras por:
Fibra
plástico
- semana
- mes
- otro tiempo
2. Cuántas escobas vendes por:
Fibra
plástico
- semana
- mes
- otro tiempo
3. A qué precio compras las escobas por:
- unidad
- docena
- cientos
- otras cantidades
4. A qué precio vendes las escobas por:
- unidad
- docena
- cientos
- otras cantidades
5. A quién compras las escobas
- al fabricante
- al intermediario
- ambulante
6. Los precios de las escobas son:
- estables durante el año
- variables durante el año
- en que meses cuestan más caros
7. Compras y vendes diferentes tipos de escobas:
- Tipos: enumerar
8. A qué precio compras y vendes éstos diferentes tipos de escobas:
- Tipo...... precio de compra.............precio de venta............
130
-
Tipo .......precio de compra.............precio de venta............
9. ¿Las escobas se pueden comprar y vender durante todo el año o hay época de
escasez de las escobas?
10. Cuánto tiempo hace que se dedica a comercializar las escobas:
- semanas
- meses
- años
ENCUESTA PARA LOS USUARIOS DE ESCOBAS
1. Qué tipo de escobas compras:
- Tipo ......
- Tipo.......
- Tipo..........
- Tipo............
2. Cuántas escobas compras por:
a. Semana ............ tipo......................tipo
b. Mes ...................tipo......................tipo
c. otro tiempo
3. A qué precio compras las escobas según el tipo por:
a. Unidad.....................tipo..................................tipo
b. Docena.....................tipo..................................tipo
c. Cientos.....................tipo..................................tipo
d. otras cantidades .......tipo.................................tipo
4. A quién compras las escobas
a. al fabricante
b. al intermediario( señale al que corresponde) Bodega, Ferretería
c. ambulante
5. Los precios de las escobas son:
a. estables durante el año
b. variables durante el año
c. en que meses cuestan más caros
6. ¿Las escobas se pueden comprar y vender durante todo el año o hay época de
escasez?
7. ¿Cuál es el tiempo útil de la escoba?
131
ENCUESTA PARA LOS FABRICANTES DE ESCOBAS
1. Qué tipo de escobas fabricas:
- Tipo ......
- Tipo.......
- Tipo.......
- Tipo.......
2. Cuántas escobas fabricas por:
a. Día.................... tipo.....................tipo
b. Semana ............ tipo......................tipo
c. Mes ...................tipo......................tipo
d. otro tiempo.....................tipo...............tipo....
3. Cuántos kilos de fibra compras por:
a. día
b. semana
c. mes
4. Cuánto pagas por kilo de fibra
- Peinada
- Sin peinar
5. A quién compras la fibra
- empresa
- individuos
- familia
- otros
6. ¿Cuántas escobas fabricas con 1 kilo de fibra peinada?
- Tipo .....................
- Tipo......................
- Tipo.....................
- Tipo.....................
7. ¿Cuál es el costo del palo (2) para la escoba?
8. ¿A quién le compras los palos para las escobas?
9. ¿Tú mismo fabricas los palos?
10. ¿Cómo haces para fabricarlo, cuanto tiempo gastas fabricándolo, donde
consigues los palos, cuanto tiempo tardas en cosechar los palos, etc.?
132
11. ¿A quién vendes las escobas?
a. A ferreterías, Bodegas, tiendas, etc
b. a intermediarios
c. ambulantes
12. A qué precio vendes las escobas por:
a. unidad
b. docena
c. cientos
13. ¿Las vendes en tu casa o tienes que transportarlas a otro sitio?
14. Cuánto es el precio del transporte de las escobas por:
- unidad
- docena
- cientos
15. ¿Las escobas se pueden fabricar y vender durante todo el año o hay época de
escasez de la fibra?
16. ¿Si hay época de escasez, cuales son los meses de escasez?
17. ¿Qué otros materiales utilizas para la fabricación de las escobas?
18. ¿Cuál es el costo de estos otros materiales?
Enumerar los materiales y su costo por escoba (unidad o docena)
19. Cuánto le cuesta hacer una escoba por:
- unidad
- docena
- cientos
20. ¿Necesitas algún permiso para fabricar las escobas?
21. De ser Sí la respuesta: ¿Tienes el permiso?
22. ¿Quién otorga el permiso?
23. ¿Cuánto cuesta tener el permiso?
133
ENCUESTA PARA LOS EXTRACTORES DE FIBRA DE
PIASABA
1. Cuántas veces cosechas fibra de piasaba por:
a. semana
b. mes
c. cada tres meses
d. cada seis meses
2. ¿Cuántos kilos de fibra cosecha por salida?
3. ¿Cuántos árboles de piasaba cosechas por salida?
4. ¿Para cosechar, tumbas todo el árbol o cosechas algunas hojas cada vez?
5. ¿Cuántos días demoras en la cosecha por salida?
6. Cuándo vas a cosechar te vas:
a. solo
b. acompañado
Si la respuesta es acompañado, entonces hacer la siguiente pregunta:
7. ¿Cuántos te acompañan a la cosecha?:
c. una persona
d. dos personas
e. tres personas
f. más de tres
8. ¿Pagas a cada uno de tus acompañantes?: Si No.
¿Cuánto pagas a cada uno de ellos?:
Si la respuesta es NO entonces necesitamos construir el costo de cosecha,
hacer las siguientes preguntas:
¿Les das de comer?
¿Cuántas veces al día?
¿Cuál es el precio aproximado de la comida (si el cosechador no sabe intentar
preguntar de que esta compuesto las comidas)?
9. ¿Tú mismo fabricas las escobas?
10. De ser No la respuesta: ¿A quién vendes la fibra?
134
11. ¿Vendes la fibra peinada o sin peinar?
12. ¿A cómo vendes el kilo de fibra de piasaba?
g. peinada
h. sin peinar
8. ¿Necesitas algún permiso para cosechar?
9. ¿Quien da el permiso?
10. ¿Cuánto cuesta el permiso?
11. ¿Cuántos kilos de fibra se permite cosechar con el permiso,
12. O cada cuánto tiempo se debe renovar el permiso?
13. ¿Conoces los límites del Parque?
14. Siendo la respuesta Si, entonces preguntar: ¿cosechas dentro o fuera del Parque
Nacional Cordillera Azul?
135
LITERATURE CITED
Ackerly, D. D. 2006, personal communication.
Adger, W. N., K. Brown, R. Cervigni, and D. Moran. 1995. Total economic value of
forests in Mexico. Ambio 24:286-296.
Alpert, P. 1996. Integrated conservation and development projects. BioScience
46:845-855.
Alverson, W., L. Rodríguez, and D. Moskovits 2001. Peru: Biabo Cordillera Azul.
Field Museum, Chicago.
Anderson, P. 1998. Using ecological and economic information to determine
sustainable harvest levels of a plant population in E. Wollenberg, and A.
Ingles, editors. Methods for the development and conservation of forest
products for local communities. Center for International Forestry Research,
Bogor, Indonesia.
Anderson, P. J., and F. E. Putz. 2002. Harvesting and conservation: are both possible
for the palm, Iriartea deltoidea? Forest Ecology and Management 170:271283.
Anten, N. P. R., and D. D. Ackerly. 2001a. Canopy-level photosynthetic
compensation after defoliation in a tropical understorey palm. Functional
Ecology 15:252-262.
Anten, N. P. R., and D. D. Ackerly. 2001b. A new method of growth analysis for
plants that experience periodic losses of leaf mass. Functional Ecology
15:804-811.
Anten, N. P. R., M. Martinez-Ramos, and D. D. Ackerly. 2003. Defoliation and
growth in an understory palm: quantifying the contributions of compensatory
responses. Ecology 84:2905-2918.
136
Arnold, M. J. E., and M. Ruiz Perez. 2001. Can non-timber forest products match
tropical conservation and development objectives? Ecological Economics 39
437-447.
Balick, M. J., and H. T. Beck 1990. Useful palms of the world: a synoptic
bibliography. Columbia University Press, New York.
Balslev, H. 2006, personal communication.
Balslev, H., and A. Henderson. 1987. A new Ammandra (Palmae) from Ecuador.
Systematic Botany 12:501-504.
Barford, A. S. 1991. A monographic study of the subfamily Phytelephantoideae.
Opera Botanica 105:1-73.
Bernal, R. 1998. Demography of the vegetable ivory palm Phytelephas seemannii in
Colombia, and the impact of seed harvesting. Journal Of Applied Ecology
35:64-74.
Bernal, R. 2006, personal communication.
Boot, R. G. A., and R. E. Gullison. 1995. Approaches to developing sustainable
extraction systems for tropical forest products. Ecological Applications 5:896903.
Borgtoft-Pederson, H. 1992. Uses and management of Aphandra natalia (Palmae) in
Ecuador. Bull. Inst. Fr. Etudes Andines 21:609-621.
Borgtoft-Pederson, H. 1996. Production and harvest of fibers from Aphandra natalia
(Palmae) in Ecuador. Forest Ecology And Management 80:155-161.
Borgtoft-Pederson, H., and H. Balslev. 1990. Ecuadorian palms for agroforestry.
Pages 1-122. AAU Report.
Borgtoft-Pederson, H., and H. Balslev. 1992. The economic botany of Ecuadorian
palms in M. Plotkin, and L. Famlore, editors. Harvest and marketing of rain
forest products. Island Press, Washington D.C.
137
Brody, J. E. 1987. Concern for rain forest has begun to blossom: a worldwide
network of activists and scientists is gaining ground. New York Times New
York, NY, 13 October.
Browder, J. O. 1992. The limits of extractivism - tropical forest strategies beyond
extractive reserves. Bioscience 42:174-183.
Brown, M. a. B. W.-B. 1992. Designing integrated conservation and development
projects. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C.
Campos, D. G. 2002. Assessing the value of nature: A transactional approach.
Environmental Ethics 24:57-74.
Clark, J. S. 2006. Models for ecological data. In Press, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Clement, C. R., J. C. Weber, J. van Leeuwen, C. A. Domian, D. M. Cole, L. A. A.
Lopez, and H. Arguello. 2004. Why extensive research and development did
not promote use of peach palm fruit in Latin America. Agroforestry Systems
61:195-206.
Colchero, F. 2006, personal communication.
Coomes, O. T., B. L. Barham, and Y. Takasaki. 2004. Targeting conservationdevelopment initiatives in tropical forests: insights from analyses of rain forest
use and economic reliance among Amazonian peasants. Ecological
Economics 51:47-64.
DFID. 2002. Wildlife and poverty study. Page 89. Livestock and Wildlife Advisory
Group, London, UK.
Dove, M. R. 1993. A revisionist view of tropical forest deforestation and
development. East-West Center Environmental Series, Honolulu, HI.
Endress, B. A., D. L. Gorchov, and M. B. Peterson. 2004. Harvest of the palm
Chamaedorea radicalis, its effects on leaf production, and implications for
sustainable management. Conservation Biology 18:822-830.
138
Fisher, R. J., S. Maginnis, W. J. Jackson, E. Barrow, and S. Jeanrenaud 2005. Poverty
and conservation: landscapes, people and power. World Conservation Union
(IUCN).
Flores, C. F., and P. M. S. Ashton. 2000. Harvesting impact and economic value of
Geonoma Deversa, Arecaceae, an understory palm used for roof thatching in
the Peruvian Amazon. Economic Botany 54:267-277.
Gavin, M. C. 2002. An assessment of forest value in the northern Peruvian Amazon.
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Geertz, C. 1962. The rotating credit association: a “middle rung” in development.
Economic Development and Cultural Change 10.
Godoy, R. A., and K. S. Bawa. 1993. The economic value and sustainable harvest of
plants and animals from the tropical forest - assumptions, hypotheses, and
methods. Economic Botany 47:215-219.
Hartshorn, G. S. 1995. Ecological basis for sustainable development in tropical
forests. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:155-175.
Hegde, R., and T. Enters. 2000. Forest products and household economy: a case study
from Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Southern India. Environmental
Conservation 27:250-259.
Henderson, A. 1995. The palms of the Amazon. Oxford University Press, New York,
NY.
Henderson, A. 2002. Evolution and ecology of palms. New York Botanical Garden
Press, Bronx, NY.
Henderson, A., G. Galeano, and R. Bernal 1995. Field guide to the palms of the
Americas. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Lee, R. W. 1989. The white labyrinth: cocaine and political power. Transaction
Books, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
139
McCurrach, J. C. 1960. Palms of the world. Harper & Brothers, New York, NY.
McShane, T. O., and M. P. Wells 2004. Getting biodiversity projects to work:
towards more effective conservation and development. Columbia University
Press, New York, NY.
Myers, N. 1984. The primary source: tropical forests and our future. W.W. Norton &
Company, New York, NY.
Nasir El Bassam, P. M. 2004. Integrated Renewabole Energy for Rural Communities:
Planning Guidelines, Technologies and Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Nepstad, D. C., and S. Schwartzman. 1992. Non-timber forest products from tropical
forests: evaluation of a conservation and development strategy. Page 164 in D.
C. Nepstad, and S. Schwartzman, editors. Advances in Economic Botany 9.
New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.
Padoch, C. 1992. Marketing of non-timber forest products in Western Amazonia:
general observations and research priorities. Page 164 in D. C. Nepstad, and
S. Schwartzman, editors. Advances in Economic Botany 9. The New York
Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
Pattanayak, S. K., and E. O. Sills. 2001. Do tropical forests provide natural
insurance? the microeconomics of non-timber forest product collection in the
Brazilian Amazon. Land Economics 77:595-613.
Pennington, T. D., C. Reynel, and A. Daza 2004. Illustrated guide to the trees of Peru.
DH Books, Sherborne, England.
Peters, C. A. 2006, personal communication.
Peters, C. A., A. Gentry, and R. Mendelsohn. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian rain
forest. Nature 339:655-656.
Peters, C. M. 1996. The ecology and management of non-timber forest resources.
World Bank technical paper, Washington D.C.
140
Peters, C. M. 1999. Ecological research for sustainable non-wood forest product
exploitation: an overview in T. C. H. Sunderland, L. E. Clark, and P.
Vantomme, editors. Non-wood forest products of Central Africa: current
research issues and prospects for conservation and development. FAO, Rome.
Pimpert, M. P., and J. N. Pretty. 1995. Parks, people and professionals. putting
‘participation’ into protected area management. UNRISD, Geneva
Switzerland.
Pinard, M. 1993. Impacts of stem harvesting on populations of Iriartea-Deltoidea
(Palmae) in an extractive reserve in Acre, Brazil. Biotropica 25:2-14.
Plotkin, M., and L. E. Famolare 1992. Harvest and marketing of rain forest products.
Island Press, Washington D.C.
Prabhakar, R. 1994. Ph.D. thesis: resource use, culture, and ecological change: a case
study of Nilgiri Hills of South, India. Page 297. Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore, India.
Putz, F. E., G. M. Blate, K. H. Redford, R. Fimbel, and J. Robinson. 2001. Tropical
forest management and conservation of biodiversity: an overview.
Conservation Biology 15:7-20.
Robinson, J. G., and K. Redford. 2004. Jack of all trades, master of none: inherent
contradictions among ICD approaches. Page 442 in T. O. McShane, and M.
Wells, editors. Getting biodiversity projects to work: towards more effective
conservation and development. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Rodríguez, L. 2003, personal communication.
Roe, D., and J. Elliott. 2004. Poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation:
rebuilding the bridges. Oryx 38:137-139.
Runk, J. V. 1998. Productivity and sustainability of a vegetable ivory palm
(Phytelephas aequatorialis, Arecaceae) under three management regimes in
northwestern Ecuador. Economic Botany 52:168-182.
141
Salafsky, N. 1993. Mammalian use of a buffer zone agroforestry system bordering
gunung-palung national-park, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Conservation
Biology 7:928-933.
Salafsky, N., H. Cauley, G. Balachander, B. Cordes, J. Parks, C. Margoluis, S. Bhatt,
C. Encarnacion, D. Russell, and R. Margoluis. 2001a. A systematic test of an
enterprise strategy for community-based biodiversity conservation.
Conservation Biology 15:1585-1595.
Salafsky, N., B. L. Dugelby, and J. W. Terborgh. 1993. Can extractive reserves save
the rain-forest - an ecological and socioeconomic comparison of nontimber
forest product extraction systems in Peten, Guatemala, and West Kalimantan,
Indonesia. Conservation Biology 7:39-52.
Salafsky, N., M. Henderson, and M. Leighton. 2001b. Community-based timber
production: a viable strategy for promoting wildlife conservation? Pages 575594 in R. A. Fimbel, A. Grajal, and J. G. Robinson, editors. The cutting edge:
conserving wildlife in logged tropical forests. Columbia University Press,
New York, NY.
Salafsky, N., and E. Wollenberg. 2000. Linking livelihoods and conservation: A
conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs
and biodiversity. World Development 28:1421-1438.
Sanderson, S. 2005. Poverty and conservation: the new century's "peasant question?"
World Development 33:323-332.
Sanderson, S., and K. Redford. 2004. The defence of conservation is not an attack on
the poor. Oryx 38:146-147.
Sanderson, S. E., and K. H. Redford. 2003. Contested relationships between
biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. Oryx 37:389-390.
Sanjayan, M. A., S. Shen, and M. Jansen. 1997. Experiences with integratedconservation development projects in Asia. World Bank Technical Paper.
World Bank, Washington D.C.
142
Svenning, J. C., and M. J. Macia. 2002. Harvesting of Geonoma macrostachys Mart.
leaves for thatch: an exploration of sustainability. Forest Ecology and
Management 167:251-262.
Ticktin, T., P. Nantel, F. Ramirez, and T. Johns. 2002. Effects of variation on harvest
limits for nontimber forest species in Mexico. Conservation Biology 16:691705.
Vandermeer, J. H., and D. E. Goldberg 2003. Population ecology. first principles.
Princeton University Press Oxford, England.
Vayda, A. P. 1993. Ecosystems and human actions. Pages 61-71 in M. J. McDonnell,
and S. T. A. Pickett, editors. Humans as components of ecosystems: the
ecology of subtle human effects and populated areas. Springer, New York,
NY.
Wells, M., K. Brandon, and L. Hannah. 1992. People and parks: linking protected
area management with local communities. Page 99. The Internatinal Bank for
Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington D.C.
Wells, M., and T. O. McShane. 2004. Integrating protected area management with
local needs and aspirations. Ambio 33:513-519.
Wells, M. P., and K. E. Brandon. 1993. The principles and practice of buffer zones
and local-participation in biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22:157-162.
Wollenberg, E., and A. Ingles 1998. Incomes from the forest. Center for International
Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.
Wunder, S. 2001. Poverty alleviation and tropical forests--what scope for synergies?
World Development 29:1817-1833.
Zuidema, P. A. 2000. Demography of exploited tree species in the Bolivian Amazon.
PROMAB, Beni, Boliva.
143
BIOGRAPHY OF WAYNE ETHAN MAYER
Biographical Information
Born: 23 December 1969, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
Education
Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Durham,
North Carolina, Ph.D. December 2006
Certificates: International Development Policy, Latin American and Caribbean
Studies
University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington
M.S., cum laude, Forest Ecology and Conservation June 1994
University of Denver, Department of Geography, Denver, Colorado
B.A., cum laude, Environmental Science June 1991
Completed Publications
No Scholarly publications
Grants and Fellowships
University of Washington College of Forest Resources Scholarship, 1993 and 1994
National Forestry Honor Society, 1994
Cleveland Zoological Society Research Grant 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
Jewish Federation of Columbus, Ohio Research Grant 2004, Kuzmier, Lee and
Nikitine (KLN) Fund Research Grant 2005, The Duke University Graduate School
Dissertation Award for International Research 2005, and Student International
Discussion Group (SIDG) Internship Fund Research Grant, 2005.
144