Non-Timber Forest Products and Livelihoods in Michigan's Upper
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Non-timber Forest Products and Livelihoods in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula Marla R. Emery1 Abstract.—Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are increasingly looked to as potential income sources for forest communities. Yet little is known about the existing livelihood uses of NTFPs. Drawing on a case study in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, this paper describes the contemporary contributions of NTFPs to the livelihoods of people who gather them. First-hand use of products from over 100 botanical species was documented during a year of ethnographic research. These products contributed to gatherers’ livelihoods through both nonmarket and market strategies. The paper suggests the need for a broad view of economic activity to fully understand existing NTFP livelihood uses and anticipate the effects of developing markets for wild plant material on individuals and households in forest commu- nities. INTRODUCTION in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Taking a broad view of economic activity, the case study dem- As a small number of North American non- onstrates that the livelihood values of NTFPs go timber forest products (NTFPs) enter the inter- well beyond the numbers captured by market national market, there is mounting interest in statistics. I begin with a brief description of the their potential as livelihood resources for forest case study location and methods. A list of communities. While NTFPs seem like a “new” products gathered in the Upper Peninsula is opportunity to many, they are, in fact, one of followed by a discussion of their functional the first sources of the food, medicine, fiber, uses. Next, a brief theoretical interlude on a and other substances that have sustained broad view of economic activity introduces human beings throughout the millennia. Even information on the economic context of the in the industrial and post-industrial worlds, region and the household livelihoods of indi- they continue to provide important material viduals who participated in the study. This and cultural resources for many. Yet little is theoretical background and grounded informa- known about NTFP contributions to the liveli- tion leads to a discussion of the specific liveli- hoods of people who currently rely on them. hood uses of NTFPs in the case study and This lack of understanding on the part of generalized characteristics of their livelihood policymakers and rural economic development uses. The paper concludes with three ques- entities creates a danger that well-meaning tions, which I hope will provide food for efforts to promote NTFPs could displace exist- thought as we contemplate active promotion of ing livelihood strategies even as they try to NTFPs as livelihood strategies for forest com- improve the economic well-being of forest munities in the Third Millennium. communities. In response to that concern, this paper exam- CASE STUDY LOCATION AND METHODS ines the role of NTFPs in household livelihoods The Upper Peninsula (UP) is located in the north central United States. Bordered on three sides by Great Lakes—Superior, Huron, and 1 Research Geographer, U.S. Department of Michigan—it is part of the U.S. state of Michi- Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Re- gan, although its only land link is with the search Station, 705 Spear Street, P.O. Box 968, state of Wisconsin. Archaeological evidence Burlington, Vermont 05402-0968 USA; Phone: suggests seasonal human occupation of the 802-951-6771; e-mail: [email protected]. 23 NTFP Conference Proceedings region since the Woodland era, circa 3,000 to and boughs with 85 occurrences; medicinals 300 years B.P. (Cleland 1992). Permanent year- like flag root (Iris versicolor) and balm-of-Gilead round settlement appears to be relatively (Populus balsamifera) with 51 occurrences; and recent, dating to sometime around the early ceremonial/cultural uses with 18 occurrences 1600s (Cleland 1983). The present-day popula- (Emery 1998). tion includes people of European and Aborigi- nal ancestry. Average human population density in 1990 was less than 18 persons per A BROAD VIEW OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 1990). Forest cover in 1993 was 8,812,500 acres (83.9 Economic history and anthropology suggest a percent of the total land base) of mixed hard- view that looks beyond the formal market and wood and coniferous species in largely second- individual actors to a more inclusive definition and third-growth stands. Located between 47o of economic activity (Gudeman 1986, Halperin and 45o North latitude, the average annual 1988, Hart 1986, McGuire et al.1986, Smith growth of UP forests was a comparatively slow and Wallerstein 1992). From this perspective, 150.2 million cubic feet during the period 1980 the economy is constituted by any undertaking through 1992 (Schmidt et al. 1997). that provides the material means for human existence (Polanyi 1977). People endeavor to Between August 1995 and July 1996, I con- ensure their survival and meet their needs, as ducted over 400 hours of semi-structured they perceive and define them, by pursuing a interviews with gatherers, buyers, and public variety of what are termed livelihood strategies. and private land managers in the UP to learn These include both activities in the formal and what NTFPs were harvested there and what informal markets—such as wage labor, barter, role they play in gatherers’ household liveli- and petty commodity production and sale—and hoods. The results reported here are based on nonmarket approaches—subsistence activities, information provided by 43 individuals about gifts, and government transfers such as Social their personal gathering activities and experi- Security pensions and public assistance (table ences. Gatherers were identified through a 2). As social creatures, human beings generally networking, or snowball sampling, technique. reside in groups and put together a living by Of these, 10 identified themselves as Native pooling the resources of the household. At any American and 33 as European American. given time, most households will derive liveli- Questions asked during the interviews focused hood resources from multiple individuals and on what the individual gathers, how each NTFP strategies. The mix of livelihood strategies is used, what ecological characteristics are pursued by a household varies with its demo- associated with products, what harvesting graphic composition and economic conditions. techniques and norms are used, and how the This mix of strategies at any one time and over gatherer learned these skills. the course of time may be thought of as “liveli- hood diversity.” UPPER PENINSULA NON-TIMBER FOREST The informal economy literature documents the PRODUCTS AND THEIR USES reality of livelihood diversity in urban settings throughout the world (Mingione 1994, Portes et By the end of the field year, I had compiled a al. 1989, Roberts 1994, Smith 1994). A smaller list of 140 NTFPs that gatherers reported body of work has begun to explore the diverse personally harvesting in the region’s forests strategies that rural households in the United and associated open lands (table 1). This plant States use to secure their survival and the role material and fungi come from over 54 botanical of location in natural resource-rich areas in families and 87 genera, including more than those efforts (Dick 1996, Glass et al. 1990, 100 species. Gatherers use them as edibles and Jensen et al. 1995, More et al. 1993, Tickamyer medicinals, for ceremonial and cultural pur- and Duncan 1990). Read together, these bodies poses, and as raw materials for crafts and of work point to four important characteristics other decorative items. Many species are used of diverse livelihoods: 1) the often critical role of in multiple ways. Edibles, such as berries and subsistence goods; 2) the importance of even mushrooms, were mentioned most frequently small amounts of cash income for low-income by gatherers (102 occurrences), followed by households; 3) the primacy of culture and floral/nursery/craft items such as birch bark social relationships in much economic activity; and 4) the critical advantage of flexibility for 24 Table 1.—Upper Peninsula NTFPs Latin name Common name Latin name Common name Abies balsamea balsam, boughs Fraxinus nigra black ash Abies balsamea balsam, cones Ganoderma applanatum artist conk Abies balsamea balsam, needles Gaultheria procumbens wintergreen, berry Abies balsamea balsam, pitch Gaultheria procumbens wintergreen, leaf Acer saccharum maple, sap Gaylussacia spp. huckleberries Acer spp. maple, twigs Hericium coraloides &/or hedge hog mushroom ramosum Achillea millefolium yarrow Hierochloe odorata sweet grass Acorus calamus wiikenh/bitterroot/flag root Inonutus obliquus sketaugen Agaricus bisporus button mushroom Iris versicolor flag root Allium tricoccum wild leek Laetiporus sulphureus sulphur shelf mushroom Amaranthus spp. pigweed LAMIACEAE mint Amelanchier spp. juneberries Laportea canadensis stinging nettles Amelanchier spp. juneberry twigs Ledum groenlandicum Labrador tea Anaphalis margaritacea pearly everlasting Lycoperdon spp. puffball mushroom Anemone cylindrica thimbleweed Lycopodium obscurum princess pine complex Anthemis spp. chamomile Matteuccia fiddleheads struthiopteris & spp. Arctium spp. burdock, leaf Mitchella repens partridge berry Arctium spp. burdock, root Morchella spp. morel mushroom Arctostaphylos uva-ursi bearberry Nuphar variegata & yellow waterlily advena Armillaria mellea honey mushrooms Picea spp. spruce, boughs Artemisia spp. sage (woodland) Picea spp. spruce, cones Asclepias