1. Forest Dependency in the Brazilian and Bolivian Amazon
Amy Duchelle1,2 and Karen Kainer1, 3
1School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, USA
2Universidade Federal do Acre, Brazil
3Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida, USA
World Forestry Congress, PEN Side Event, October 19, 2009

2. Objectives
Compare the role of forest-based income in livelihood systems of extractive communities in Acre, Brazil and Pando, Bolivia
Evaluate income contribution of principal non- timber forest products (NTFPs)
Explore policy and market-based tools for increasing income from NTFPs

3. Context – Acre, Brazil and Pando, Bolivia
Humid, moist tropical forest
(heavily forested ~90%)
Dry season (May-Sept); Annual precipitation: ~2100 mm
Acre:10,000km2; Pando:15,000km2
Communities (n=12);
HH range:
Acre: 16 to 28 (avg.= 24)
Pando: 14 to 80 (avg.= 31)
Households (n=189)
Avg. hhd size 5.4 Acre; 6.0 Pando
Variability:
Access (road vs. river) and distance to markets
Protected area status
Origin of settlers
Where is the PEN study located: country/ies, region, climate and forest zone(s)?
How large approximately is the study area (km2)?
What # of villages sampled? How many people live in the surveyed villages?
Your sample had how many households? Average # of people per household?
Are there key sub-dimensions dividing the sample in terms of livelihood strategies: ethnicity, closeness to markets, migrants vs. non-migrants, history of settlement, etc.?

5. Household income sources
Brazil
BRAZIL
Avg. income
Cash
Subsistence
US$1319
$815
$504
Bolivia
How large are household incomes – separating the subsistence and cash components (average, SD?)
What sources contribute to household income? Main categories:
forest (B, C, J5, J7, J8)[1],
other environmental (D1, E)
agriculture - crops (H),
agriculture - livestock (I)
wage (F)
business (G)
others (D2, J1-4, J6, J9) [2]
—bar chart of income shares (%) with SD intervals.
[1] In the brackets, we refer to the respective section of the quarterly questionnaire.
[2] Particular other income sources may be singled out if important in the specific case, e.g. remittances.
BOLIVIA
Avg. income
Cash
Subsistence
US$1095
$805
$289

6. Relative importance of main NTFPs
List products or product categories that provide at least 10% of forest and other environmental income, show their % contribution, and the distribution between cash and subsistence income.
2. Comment on which are “forest” vs. “other environmental income” sources….
3. Explain how the main subsistence forest/environmental goods were priced

7. Household income sources
Brazil
High relative forest income in all wealth classes – everyone is out there!
Bolivia

8. Income sources and seasonality
Brazil
Seasonal collection of forest products.
Q3 - Brazil nut harvest; Q4 – rubber harvest
Bolivia
Four bar charts (one for each Q1-4), each with mean and SD intervals, for:
total income
forest income
other environmental income
agriculture
other
Is there other evidence of environmental income serving as “seasonal gap filler” when agricultural incomes are low (qualitative)?
Q3 and Q4 represent Brazil nut harvest

9. Policy and market-based tools for NTFPs
Government subsidies - Brazil
1999: Chico Mendes Law in Acre – rubber price supports (150% price increase by 2002, Kainer et al. 2003)
2006: Rubber factory in Xapuri, Acre for “green” condoms ( % price increase from 2002 price)
2009: Brazilian National Plan for NTFP minimum prices

10. Policy and market-based tools for NTFPs
Certification of Brazil nuts
Organic
- product quality through
“best management practices”
2) Fair Trade
- affiliation with cooperatives
3) Forest Management
- environmental, economic
and social standards

11. Benefits of Organic + Fair Trade Brazil nut Certification
Income Benefits (2007):
Certified producers in Pando 2.5 times less likely to have Brazil nut debt (p=0.037) and in Acre 1.2 times less likely (p=0.034)
Also, significant associations between harvest and post-harvest practices and certification.

12. Conclusions
Extremely high levels of forest dependency in Acre, Brazil and Pando, Bolivia
NTFPs comprise a large portion of forest income, especially Brazil nuts in Pando
Government subsidies for NTFPs and certification schemes through affiliation with cooperatives can bolster forest-based income (Brazil vs. Bolivia)

13. Acknowledgements Field assistance Regional partners Funding sources
Gladys Guanacoma (Universidad Amazonica del Pando)
Marciane d’Araujo and Juceli da Souza (Escola da Floresta, Acre)
Peter Groenendjik (University of Utrecht), and others…
Regional partners
Embrapa-Acre, Herencia-Pando, ACCA-Madre de Dios, MAP Initiative
Funding sources
Brazil nut producers
in the MAP region
Contact: Amy Duchelle