DOCSLIB.ORG

What Isn't an NTFP

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Isn't an NTFP International Forestry Review 5(2), 2003 161 COMMENT What isn’t an NTFP? B.M. BELCHER Senior Scientist, Forests and livelihoods Program, Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), P.O. Box 6596 JKPWB Jakarta, 10065 Indonesia Email: [email protected] INTRODUCTION users, based on my experience in the field. Two recent activities have heightened my awareness of the need for What is a Non-Timber Forest Product (NTFP)? This debate clarification. Some of the conceptual ambiguities were has raged since the term was coined by de Beer and revealed in a recent survey of donor and development McDermott (1989)1. At every meeting where NTFPs are agencies working on NTFP issues (Profound and CIFOR discussed there will be some discussion about the unpublished). And, as the coordinator of a large project terminology and about what should be included and what doing a comparative analysis of cases of commercial NTFP should not be included in the definition. There are many production and use, I have been challenged on the alternate terms that are used more or less as synonyms, appropriateness of including certain products in our set each with its proponents. Terms such as ‘wild products’, of cases. In the process I have refined my own ideas about ‘natural products’, ‘non-timber forest and grassland what an NTFP is. products’, ‘veld products’ and ‘sustainably produced wood This discussion begins with a brief history of the term products’ (ostensibly distinct from industrial timber) and ‘NTFP’ and the evolution of the definition. It is readily many others have entered the vernacular. apparent that the definition used depends on the interests While in some ways this interminable debate can appear and the objectives of the user. There is a highly eclectic trivial, the fact is that it reflects ambiguity and confusion group of stakeholders interested in NTFPs as subjects of that inhibits understanding and progress in research and research, as tools for conservation and for development, development. There are major differences in the and as commercial products. Each brings different understanding of what an NTFP is and, more importantly, assumptions and interests, both implicit and explicit. I in the expectations of how and why NTFPs are important. analyse the elements of the definition of the term against Different individuals/organisations use the same term, but these different ideas and conclude that there is no perfect have modified the definition in different ways to suit their term to encapsulate all of these ideas. needs. The term and the underlying concepts have different meanings to different people, so both agreements and What do you mean by ‘NTFP’? disagreements can be false. On the positive side, this ambiguity has made it possible to bring together ideas The problems begin with the term itself. ‘Non-timber forest about rural development and conservation that might products’ is a negative term. It includes, literally, all products otherwise have seemed incompatible. However, similarities other than timber that come from forests. In their in the terms often disguise real differences in understanding groundbreaking publication on the economic value of and in assumptions, values and beliefs. There is a risk that NTFPs in South East Asia, de beer and Mcdermott (1989) the ‘NTFP concept’ will be seen to have failed if it does used the term Non-Timber Forest Products as an not meet the unattainable expectations that have been raised alternative to the ‘dismissive epithet ‘minor forest products” because of improper or inconsistent interpretation. and proposed the following definition: In this paper I analyse the elements of the terminology by looking at the underlying assumptions and beliefs of The term ‘Non-Timber Forest Products’ (NTFPs) encompasses all biological materials other than timber, which are extracted from forests for human use. 1 This is the first reference to the term ‘non-timber forest product’ in the English-language literature recorded in TREECD. The authors clearly recognised problems with the definition. References to the term ‘non wood forest products’ date back They addressed them by setting out what they saw as the to 1980. key point of distinction between timber and non-timber June2003.p65 161 18/06/2003, 12:04 162 B.M. Belcher forest products: that timber is managed on an industrial In some early discussions resources such as gravel and rocks scale for interests located outside the forest, while NTFPs were included, and many currently working in this field ‘are extracted using simple technologies by people living in would include services (e.g. watershed functions, carbon or near forest.’ They dismissed the alternative term ‘non- sequestration, ecotourism). Peters (1997) considered both wood forest products’ as being too exclusive. And they also ‘natural or managed forests’. Wickens (1991) exluded offered a definition of forest: ‘industrial roundwood and derived sawn timber, wood chips, wood-based panels and pulp’ and left the possible By ‘forest’ we refer to a natural ecosystem in which sources wide open (‘…extracted from natural ecosystems, trees are a significant component. However, forest managed plantations, etc.’). In addition, many more products are derived not only from trees, but from all authors leave the term undefined. As a literature on NTFP plants, fungi and animals (including fish) for which has built up the variations on what is included (or, more the forest ecosystem provides habitat. correctly, excluded), in combination with the inconsistent use of the tem ‘forest’, has left enormous scope for This kind of clarity is helpful, and many authors offer ambiguity. This is particularly worrisome as governments definitions and examples to clarify their own use of the and development agencies undertake projects and policy term NTFP in a given publication (e.g. Wickens 1991; Peters changes in the ‘NTFP’ sector, possibly based on false 1997). However, the various definitions are inconsistent. understanding of the actual and potential role of NTFPs. What are ‘Non-Wood Forest Products’ for FAO? P. VANTOMME Non-Wood Forest Products Officer, Wood and Non-Wood Utilisation Branch, FOPW, Forest Products Division, Forestry Department, FAO, Via Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy Email: [email protected] In previous decades a large number of governmental and non- vast, but so far hidden or poorly known aspect of forest use governmental organisations, individuals and private into the open and to facilitate a shift of focus towards the companies have become involved in the promotion and economies of forest-dependent peoples and to more utilisation of ‘Non-Wood Forest Products’ (NWFP). A great ‘environmentally-friendly’ use of the forest. It was hoped to deal of new information has been compiled on the resources, encourage a more balanced management and utilisation of and better insight has been achieved on the socio-economic forest resources in order to shift away from the prevalent contribution of NWFPs to livelihoods and on the impact of industrial timber production focused approach. In this sense their use on the environment. However, little progress has each of the terms mentioned above highlights the way the been made in the meantime to clarify and/or harmonise terms products are obtained rather than specifying what kind of and definitions in relation to NWFPs. On the contrary a products they are. proliferation of new terms is being introduced (such as: ‘non- Although there is nothing wrong in having many terms wood goods and benefits’, ‘non-wood goods and services’, used in different countries or by different language groups, ‘other forest products’, ‘secondary forest products’, ‘special the scope and coverage of all these terms are frequently forest products’, ‘wild crafted products’, ‘biodiversity different and sometimes vague. All these terms cover different products’, ‘natural products’, ‘minor forest products’, ‘non- aspects, species and products according to the focus of work timber forest products’, ‘non-wood forest products’, ‘forest of the respective author or organisation and few propose clear products other than wood/timber’ and ‘tree-crops’). In definitions of the terms used. In some cases, their coverage English, the most common term presently used is ‘Non- varies depending on the situation (covering only those Timber Forest Products’ (NTFP), while other languages may gathered from forests or those from any vegetated land if have terms that differentiate between ‘wood’ and ‘timber’ gathered from wild sources, while others include domesticated (French and Spanish for example), or refer to different species). The lack of clear terminology, and the fact that in concepts which are not easily translated into other languages spite of their differences, these terms are often used inter- or understood in different cultural contexts. The term changeably within and among languages, causes serious ‘NWFP’ will be used throughout this paper for reasons of problems for the NWFP sector in general, i.e.: consistency and clarity and not because not because any value • Communications and reporting among countries/languages judgement has been attached to the term. is problematic and ambiguous: people are using the same All these terms emerged to encompass the vast array of terms with different definitions, or without providing any both animal and plant products harvested in forests in a ‘non- definition at all. Translation of terms from one language industrial’ or ‘informal’ way. They were introduced to get this to another often changes the concept. June2003.p65 162 18/06/2003, 12:04 What isn’t an NWFP 163 As part of an effort to better understand current were also substantial reservations and disagreements. In activities in the NTFP area, CIFOR and Profound addition, the list of products and services that respondents conducted a worldwide survey of 84 organisations that are working with includes many that do not fit the proposed support or carry out NTFP-related activities. These definition. They would need a more inclusive definition. included conservation organisations, multilateral and Some respondents prefer a more restrictive definition.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Non-Timber Forest Products
    Agrodok 39 Non-timber forest products the value of wild plants Tinde van Andel This publication is sponsored by: ICCO, SNV and Tropenbos International © Agromisa Foundation and CTA, Wageningen, 2006. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photocopy, microfilm or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. First edition: 2006 Author: Tinde van Andel Illustrator: Bertha Valois V. Design: Eva Kok Translation: Ninette de Zylva (editing) Printed by: Digigrafi, Wageningen, the Netherlands ISBN Agromisa: 90-8573-027-9 ISBN CTA: 92-9081-327-X Foreword Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are wild plant and animal pro- ducts harvested from forests, such as wild fruits, vegetables, nuts, edi- ble roots, honey, palm leaves, medicinal plants, poisons and bush meat. Millions of people – especially those living in rural areas in de- veloping countries – collect these products daily, and many regard selling them as a means of earning a living. This Agrodok presents an overview of the major commercial wild plant products from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. It explains their significance in traditional health care, social and ritual values, and forest conservation. It is designed to serve as a useful source of basic information for local forest dependent communities, especially those who harvest, process and market these products. We also hope that this Agrodok will help arouse the awareness of the potential of NTFPs among development organisations, local NGOs, government officials at local and regional level, and extension workers assisting local communities. Case studies from Cameroon, Ethiopia, Central and South Africa, the Pacific, Colombia and Suriname have been used to help illustrate the various important aspects of commercial NTFP harvesting.
    [Show full text]
  • BEYOND the STATUS QUO: 2015 EQB Water Policy Report
    BEYOND THE STATUS QUO: 2015 EQB Water Policy Report LAKE ST. CROIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . 4 Health Equity and Water. 5 GOAL #1: Manage Water Resources to Meet Increasing Demands . .6 GOAL #2: Manage Our Built Environment to Protect Water . 14 GOAL #3: Increase and Maintain Living Cover Across Watersheds .. 20 GOAL #4: Ensure We Are Resilient to Extreme Rainfall . .28 Legislative Charge The Environmental Quality Board is mandated to produce a five year water Contaminants of Emerging Concern . .34 policy report pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 103A .204 and 103A .43 . Minnesota’s Water Technology Industry . 36 This report was prepared by the Environmental Quality Board with the Board More Information . .43 of Water and Soil Resources, Department of Agriculture, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Department of Health, Department Appendices available online: of Natural Resources, Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Council, • 2015 Groundwater Monitoring Status Report and Pollution Control Agency . • Five-Year Assessment of Water Quality Degradation Trends and Prevention Efforts Edited by Mary Hoff • Minnesota’s Water Industry Economic Profile Graphic Design by Paula Bohte • The Agricultural BMP Handbook for Minnesota The total cost of preparing this report was $76,000 • Water Availability Assessment Report 2 Beyond the Status Quo: 2015 EQB Water Policy Report Minnesota is home to more than 10,000 lakes, 100,000 miles of rivers and streams, and abundant groundwater resources. However, many of these waters are not clean enough. In 2015, we took a major step toward improving our water by enacting a law that protects water quality by requiring buffers on more than 100,000 acres of land adjacent to water.
    [Show full text]
  • Forty Years of Community-Based Forestry. a Review of Its Extent And
    176 176 FAO FORESTRY PAPER Forty years of Forty years of community-based forestry community-based forestry Forty years of community-based forestry – A review its extent and effectiveness A review of its extent and effectiveness A review of its extent and effectiveness Since the 1970s and 1980s, community-based forestry has grown in popularity, based on the concept that local communities, when granted sufcient property rights over local forest commons, can organize autonomously and develop local institutions to regulate the use of natural resources and manage them sustainably. Over time, various forms of community-based forestry have evolved in different countries, but all have at their heart the notion of some level of participation by smallholders and community groups in planning and implementation. This publication is FAO’s rst comprehensive look at the impact of community-based forestry since previous reviews in 1991 and 2001. It considers both collaborative regimes (forestry practised on land with formal communal tenure requiring collective action) and smallholder forestry (on land that is generally privately owned). The publication examines the extent of community-based forestry globally and regionally and assesses its effectiveness in delivering on key biophysical and socioeconomic outcomes, i.e. moving towards sustainable forest management and improving local livelihoods. The report is targeted at policy-makers, practitioners, researchers, communities and civil society. ISSN 0258-6150 ISBN 978-92-5-109095-4 ISSN 0258-6150 FAO FORESTRY
    [Show full text]
  • Gender and Non-Timber Forest Products
    Gender and non-timber forest products Promoting food security and economic empowerment Marilyn Carr, international consultant on gender, technology, rural enterprise and poverty reduction, prepared this paper in collaboration with Maria Hartl, technical adviser for gender and social equity in the IFAD Technical Advisory Division. Other staff members of the IFAD Technical Advisory Division contributing to the paper included: Annina Lubbock, senior technical adviser for gender and poverty targeting, Sheila Mwanundu, senior technical adviser for environment and natural resource management, and Ilaria Firmian, associate technical adviser for environment and natural resource management. The following people reviewed the content: Rama Rao and Bhargavi Motukuri (International Network for Bamboo and Rattan), Kate Schreckenberg (Overseas Development Institute), Nazneen Kanji (Aga Khan Development Network), Sophie Grouwels (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and Stephen Biggs (School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia). The opinions expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IFAD concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The designations ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries are intended for statistical convenience and do not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached by a particular country or area in the development process. Cover: Women make panels and carpets from braided coconut leaves at this production unit near Naickenkottai, India.
    [Show full text]
  • Importance and Uses of Forest Product Bamboo and Rattan: Their Value to Socioeconomics of Local Communities
    International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences Vol. 8 , No. 12, Dec, 2018, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2018 HRMARS Importance and Uses of Forest Product Bamboo and Rattan: their Value to Socioeconomics of Local Communities Wan Rafiekal Wan Abdul Rahim & Roszehan Mohd Idrus To Link this Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i12/5252 DOI: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i12/5252 Received: 16 Nov 2018, Revised: 20 Dec 2018, Accepted: 24 Dec 2018 Published Online: 09 Jan 2019 In-Text Citation: (Rahim & Idrus, 2018) To Cite this Article: Rahim, W. R. W. A., & Idrus, R. M. (2018). Importance and Uses of Forest Product Bamboo and Rattan: their Value to Socioeconomics of Local Communities. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(12), 1484–1497. Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s) Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com) This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Vol. 8, No. 12, 2018, Pg. 1484 - 1497 http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/IJARBSS JOURNAL HOMEPAGE Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/publication-ethics 1484 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Cameroon & Community Forestry in the Congo Basin
    Cameroon & Community Forestry in the Congo Basin Project Outline Introduction: Rainforest Alliance & Community Forestry Since 1987, the Rainforest Alliance has pioneered an innovative approach to solving environmental crises by advocating for the implementation of sustainable management practices that conserve biodiversity and improve livelihoods. We work up and down the supply chain, from indigenous communities to multilateral corporations, to deliver the tools and information necessary to mitigate climate change, empower communities, and prevent deforestation. However, the last few years have seen a sharp increase in threats to forests, especially from the establishment of large-scale agricultural and mining operations. Land grabbing by multinational companies – abetted by government agencies – in forest areas under ancestral tenure is quickly destroying large areas of forest in the conversion to monocrop plantations producing rubber and oil palm. Such development has been widely documented as severely undermining local livelihoods and biodiversity. In the face of mounting threats a promising alternative is emerging. Year to year, globally across the tropics, increased responsibility over natural forest areas is being given to local communities. Evidence from across Latin America – where the Rainforest Alliance has been working for 15 years to support community forestry shows clearly that community-managed forests can outperform strictly protected areas in maintaining forest cover, while providing economic development opportunities for marginalized groups. For example, a recent analysis of the Maya Biosphere of Guatemala showed that community-managed forests had deforestation rates close to zero, whereas adjacent protected areas experienced forest conversion above regional averages. While in Africa this approach is still in its nascent stages, the country of Cameroon offers significant hope for demonstrating the potential of community forestry to save the Congo Basin’s forests and empower locally- owned enterprise.
    [Show full text]
  • Irrigation Management Effects on Soil Fertility and Environmental Impacts
    Irrigation Management Effects on Soil Fertility and Environmental Impacts Mike Cahn, Irrigation and Water Resources Advisor, UCCE Monterey Water Management Needs to be Factored into Soil Fertility Management Costly to build up soil fertility in organic systems Poor water management can lead to loss of nutrients (mostly N and P) Potential water quality impairments from sediment and nutrients in run-off and leachate from organic fields Organic Liquid Fertilizers* (0.1 – 7% N) Activate, Micronized Fertall Liquid Iron Aqua Power Liquid Fish Fertall Liquid MB Azomite Fertall Liquid Zinc Biolink Organic 0/5/5 HFPC Hydrolyzed Fish Powder Biolink Organic 5/5/5 Maxicrop Kelp Extract Biolink•5-1-1 Organic liquidMicronutrients costs $9.6Micro Hume per lb of N Cranford's Micronized Compost Micro Phos Diamond•13-0-0 K Solution dry grade Gypsumcosts $4 Multi-Ke-Min per lb of N Earth Juice Bloom 0/3/1 Neptune's Harvest Liquid Fish Earth Juice Catalyst Nutra Min Earth Juice Grow 2/1/1 Omega 1/5/5 Eco-Hydro•A substantial fish Liquid amountOmega 6/6/6of the N Eco-Nereo Kelp and Humic Acids Phytamin 800 Eco-Polycould 21 mciro be Shrimp in mineralSolubor form Boron (12-50%) Feather Tea Sulfate of Potash, Diamond K Soluble Fertall Liquid Chelate Calcium *Organic Material Research Institute, National Organic Program Compost sources of Nitrogen • $1.5 - $2 per lb of N (1.4% N product) Cover Crops as a Source of Nitrogen •100 – 150 lb of N/acre in above ground Biomass •Production costs of $150 – $200/acre for a winter cover crop •$1-2 per lb of Nitrogen •Roughly
    [Show full text]
  • The Soil Fertility and Drainage Indexes: 2 United States Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO Taxonomically Based, Ordinal Estimates of Relative Soil Properties Bradley A
    1 Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI The Soil Fertility and Drainage Indexes: 2 United States Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO taxonomically based, ordinal estimates of relative soil properties Bradley A. Miller1, Randall J. Schaetzl1, Frank Krist Jr.2 Validation of the Soil Fertility Index Among other validation approaches with different data sets, 2009 crop yield data for 11 Midwestern states were used to evaluate the FI. In a GIS, we determined the soils and crops in particular fields, and thus were able to ascertain the mean FI value per soil, per crop, per county. These crop specific, mean, county level FI values were then compared with the county yield values reported by USDA-NASS. Statewide summaries of these data produced correlations among yields of specific crops and FI values that were all positive. Below are selected examples. Illinois Crop Rs value Corn 0.73 Soybeans 0.75 Winter Wheat 0.78 Minnesota Crop Rs value Corn 0.29 Soybeans 0.23 Oats 0.80 Sugar Beets 0.24 Low Soil Fertility Index Soil Drainage Index This poster introduces a new, ordinally based, Soil Fertility Index (FI). The above map shows the FI for the lower 48 states. The FI uses family-level The map above shows the natural, inherent, soil wetness of the lower 48 states, as determined by the ordinally based Soil Taxonomy information, i.e., interpretations of taxonomic features or properties that tend to be associated with natural low or high soil Natural Soil Drainage Index (DI). The DI is intended to reflect the amount of water that a soil can supply to growing plants under Wisconsin fertility, to rank soils from 0 (least fertile) to 19 (most fertile).
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Impact: Lessons Learned from the Forest, Climate And
    MEASURING IMPACT Lessons Learned from the Forest, Climate and Communities Alliance PREPARED FOR THE BUREAU FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH, EDUCATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT/OFFICE OF FORESTRY AND BIODIVERSITY July 2014 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. FCICAt was LESSONS prepared LEARNED by Environmental Incentives, LLC, Foundations of Success and ICF International. 1 DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. MEASURING IMPACT CONTRACT INFORMATION This program is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of its requisition number REQ- EGAT-12-000014 (Measuring Impact) implemented by prime recipients Environmental Incentives, LLC, Foundations of Success and ICF International. The Measuring Impact project has been issued under contract number AID-OAA-C-12-00078 and supports the same program objectives as described in RFP number SOL-OAA-000050. The Measuring Impact project is funded and managed by the USAID Office of Forestry and Biodiversity, and Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and the Environment. PREPARED BY Judy Boshoven, Foundations of Success CONTRIBUTIONS BY Benjamin Hodgdon, Rainforest Alliance Olaf Zerbock, USAID SUBMITTED BY Elizabeth Lauck, Environmental Incentives, LLC SUBMITTED TO Rebecca Butterfield, Contracting Officer Representative Office of Forestry and Biodiversity/Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and the Environment United States Agency for International Development FOR MORE INFORMATION Environmental Incentives, LLC 1606 20th Street NW Washington, DC 20009 Tel: 202.525.2450 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.enviroincentives.com DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Agroforestry
    Second Wednesdays | 1:00 – 2:15 pm ET www.fs.fed.us/research/urban-webinars USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. COMMUNITY FOOD FORESTS: FRUITFUL AND FIRE-SMART Catherine Bukowski Ann Audrey Researcher & Consultant Chair Virginia Tech & Linking Edible Arizona Forests (LEAF) communityfoodforests.com Network [email protected] [email protected] Community Food Forests Catherine Bukowski, PhD Candidate, Virginia Tech [email protected] Committee: John Munsell- Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation & Forest Management Extension Specialist Paul Kelsch- Department of Landscape Architecture Kim Niewolny- Department of Agricultural, Leadership, and Community Education in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Jim Chamberlain- Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service Community Food Forest Research Sites Visited During 2014-2015 Sites are mapped over EPA Level II Ecoregions of North America. Ecoregions are areas where ecosystems are typically similar- they are useful for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across organizations. https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregions 2013 As of 2018, over 75 urban food forestry projects have been found through online searches or word of mouth. What is a community food forest? A place where people come together to collaboratively grow food using an ecologically designed system based on structural and functional patterns found in forest ecosystems. Community Food Forest Public food commons Multifunctional green infrastructure Beacon Food Forest, Seattle, WA (2009) AGROFORESTRY- A land use management system that intentionally integrates trees with agricultural crops and/or livestock to create economically viable and environmentally sustainable food production. PERMACULTURE- Philosophy + and Design Approach based on whole-systems thinking and ecological patterns and observations.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Ph and Soil Fertility
    Soil pH and Soil Fertility Dave Wilson Research Agronomist March 7, 2013 Environmental factors influencing plant growth – Which can we manage? 1. Temperature 2. Moisture Supply 3. Radiant Energy (Sunlight: quality, intensity & duration) 4. Composition of the atmosphere 5. Gas content of the soil 6. Soil reaction (Soil pH) Degree of acidity or alkalinity 7. Biotic factors (Plant variety type- genetics, soil biology) 8. Supply of mineral nutrient elements What is pH? • pH can be viewed as an abbreviation for Power of concentration of Hydrogen ion in solution • pH = - [log (H+)] in solution, The pH of a soil is a measure of hydrogen ion activity or concentration ([H+]) in the soil solution. Impact of soil PH changes As the H+ activity increases, soil pH decreases. As the soil pH decreases, most desirable crop nutrients become less available while others, often undesirable, become more available and can reach toxic levels. Total pH scale: 0 ------------------------------ 7 -------------------------------- 14 Acid Neutral Basic or Alkaline The relative availability of Nutrients as a function of pH Color coded chart of relative nutrient availability with change in pH. The darker the blue the more available the nutrient Logarithmic Scale of pH Total pH scale: 10x 0 ---1----2----3----4-----5-----6----- 7 -----8-----9----10-----11-----12-----13--- 14 100x Acid Neutral Basic or Alkaline • Hydrogen activity is mathematically expressed as a negative logarithm: • pH = -log[H+]. Because of the logarithmic scale, one unit decrease in pH implies a 10
    [Show full text]
  • 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community Forestry: Lessons from Tropical America
    REGIONAL EXAMPLES OF FOREST RElatED CHALLENGES AND OPPortUNITIES 16 Opportunities and Challenges for Community forestry: Lessons from Tropical America Convening lead author: Wil de Jong Lead authors: Carlos Cornejo, Pablo Pacheco, Benno Pokorny and Dietmar Stoian Contributing authors: Cesar Sabogal and Bastiaan Louman Abstract: Community forestry is pursued as rural development strategy in many tropical forest regions worldwide. In Tropical America, rich experiences have been ac- cumulated with community forestry support initiatives and this chapter summarizes published and the author’s hands on experiences. The chapter is divided in two parts. The first half focuses on the actual contribution of forests and trees to rural livelihoods, evidence that allows a more precise identification of the actual potential of communal forestry for rural development. The second half of the chapter reviews some of the challenges faced by community forestry development initiatives. The chapter critically reflects on generating profits, inserting communities in forest product value-chains, setting up community forestry enterprises and the challenge to adequately deal with complex regulations. By exploring the experiences of a handful of current community forestry initiatives in Amazonia, and with some reference to Central America, the poten- tials, limitations and challenges of communal and smallholder forestry are discussed. Keywords: forest incomes, forest regulations, forest product value-chains, community forestry support initiatives, community forestry enterprises ■ 16.1 Introduction and anticipated fuelwood shortages, and mitigating undesired impacts of forest conversion on the en- The livelihoods of an estimated 300 million people vironment. worldwide living close to tropical forests depend on A review of the literature that deals with the tree or forest products for daily subsistence (Pimentel wide range of community forestry initiatives, also et al.
    [Show full text]