Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses Crnogorskih serdara, Lamela C 1-2 81000 Podgorica, Montenegro Phone/Fax: (00 382 20) 634 338, 634 329 E-mail: [email protected] , Web site: www.isspm.org

Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) Survey SUB -SECTOR ANALYSIS (SSA)

FINAL REPORT

July 2008 2

Foreword

In cooperation with SNV, the Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses realized a project-survey on non-timber forest products (NTFPs) in Montenegro, including all important subjects involved in the value chain (collectors, middlemen, NTFP processors and exporters).

The NTFP sector in Montenegro is still undeveloped but considering the wealth of NTFP natural resources, especially mushrooms, wild fruits and medicinal plants, it has great potential. With this presumption and data gathered from field work (survey), this report shows the main findings, which have been grouped in two separate analyses.

The first part of the report contains the results and analysis of the first survey-field work conducted among the households in the northern municipalities. The survey was conducted on a pre-determined representative sample and was focused on three groups of people that may be part of the NTFP value chain. It was conducted among private forest owners, as well as those who deal with NTFPs as collectors and middlemen. The first part of this report contains a quantitative analysis of data derived from the survey. The second part of the report addresses individual processing companies that process and export NTFPs. This qualitative analysis is based on individual meetings and discussions with major NTFPs processors in Montenegro. Another important part of this report contains the main findings and conclusions based on a focus group organized between NTFP processors who had previously been interviewed.

Based on the produced analyses, this report gives an overall picture of the NTFP sector in Montenegro and addresses the most important questions about its future development. It takes a close look at the main threats and opportunities identified through the quantitative and qualitative research.

The annexes in the last part of this report includes all of the SPSS outputs related to quantitative analysis of private forest owners, collectors and middlemen, as well as the two types of the questionnaires that were used in the survey for the purposes of quantitative and qualitative analysis.

3

ISSP TEAM

Msci Jadranka Kaludjerovic, ISSP program director

Milica Dakovic, project coordinator

Msci Ana Krsmanovic, ISSP analyst

Milika Mirkovic, ISSP researcher

Mirza Muleskovic, ISSP researcher

Vojin Golubovic, ISSP researcher

Marina Glendza, ISSP researcher

Jadranka Milacic, ISSP researcher

4

CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction and Objectives 6

Chapter 2: The Methodology 7 2.1. The sample 7 2.2. Questionnaire 9 2.3. Data collection, processing and analysis 9 2.4. Qualitative Analysis 9

Chapter 3: Main findings 11 3.1. Quantitative analysis on NTFPs survey 11 3.1.1. General information about the households 11 3.1.2. Private forest owners (PFO) 14 3.1.3. NTFP Collectors and middlemen 22 3.1.4. Household income 28 3.2. Qualitative research - NTFPs Processors and Exporters 30 3.2.1. Introduction 30 3.2.2. Summary 31

FOCUS GROUP WITH NTFP PROCESSORS 35

Chapter 4: Interpretation and analysis of the main findings 37 4.1. Private forest owners 37 4.2. NTFPs collectors 38 4.3. NTFPs middlemen 38 4.4. NTFPs processors and exporters 39 4.5. Recommendations with regards to program design 41

ANNEX 1 SPSS OUTPUTS 44

ANNEX 2 QUESTIONNAIRES 69

5

Tables

Table 1 Sample stratification Table 2 Urban sample stratification Table 3 Rural sample stratification Table 4 List of the NTFPs processors Table 5 Urban/rural sample structure of municipalities Table 6 Level of satisfaction with the services that PFO received from the Forestry Directorate Table 7 How much did you sell in 2007? (average) Table 8 Do you regard NTFP money as a sustainable source of income?/crosstab Table 9 How much did you (middlemen) sell in 2007 (kg)? Table 10 Average price of sold NTFPs from middlemen Table 11 Average HHS income from forest products Table 12 List of the NTFPs processors

Graphs

Graph 1 What was your primary activity in the past month? Graph 2 Do you own forest? Graph 3 Size of Private Forests Graph 4 Type of ownership documents Graph 5 How did you obtain your forest? Graph 6 Main reasons of ownership Graph 7 How often do you visit your forest? Graph 8 What do you think about forest certification? Graph 9 Reasons why you should consider certifying of your forestland Graph 10 Do you get permits for wood cutting? Graph 11 Main purposes of wood cutting Graph 12 Is firewood a sustainable source of income? Graph 13 What kind of services you received from Forestry Directorate? Graph 14 Who helps you solve these problems? Graph 15 Who should solve the problems of the forestry sector? Graph 16 If there is an association of PFO, what services should be useful for you? Graph 17 How much are you willing to pay annually for these services? Graph 18 Does your household collect NTFPs? Graph 19 To what extent does your household rely on this revenue? Graph 20 Do you (head of the household) collect NTFPs? Graph 21 Why do you collect NTFPs? Graph 22 What NTFPs do you collect? Graph 23 Where do you sell your NTFPs? Graph 24 Do you regard NTFP revenues to a sustainable source of income? Graph 25 If there were associations of collectors, what services would be useful to you? Graph 26 What improvements would you suggest for the development of the NTFP sector? Graph 27 Where do you sell medicinal plants? Graph 28 Do you think the price is fair? Graph 29 What is the main barrier for the NTFPs sector? Graph 30 If there was an association of collectors, what services would be useful to you? Graph 31 What is your main source of household income? Graph 32 Trends in NTFPs collecting within the last three years

Acronyms

NTFPs Non Timber Forest Products PFO Private Forest Owner HHS Household

6

Chapter 1: Introduction and Objectives

Gathering information and data is necessary to create a sound analysis of the development of the non-timber forestry sector, and to subsequently design a detailed intervention programme that has appropriate objectives, a well-targeted set of indicators, and sound monitoring.

The objectives of this sub-sector analysis are:

To obtain relevant data on actors, factor, interactions and relationships in the sustainable exploitation of NTFP in the study area, and with a specific social focus on the dimensions of poverty and social inclusion;

To establish facts about the relative importance of various NTFPs in household economies (possibly by categorising households by level of income/set of NTFPs);

To identify organisational and institutional issues affecting NTFP collection;

To make relevant recommendations for an SNV programme of interventions, including objectives, main activities, possible results and indicators for measuring success.

Engaging the NTPF value chain as a whole is a critical factor to the further improvement and development of this sector. Thus, this project has involved all necessary actors: Private Forest Owners (PFOs), collectors of NTPFs, middlemen (or suppliers) and NTPFs processors and exporters. In order to meet the objectives of this analysis, the ISSP conducted a quantitative survey about PFOs, collectors and middlemen in the NTFP process. The survey was directed at 500 households from the northern municipalities, which includes 1,980 individuals (household members). The survey results provided information on PFOs and the engagement of households in NTPFs. A qualitative analysis was conducted among NTFPs processors and exporters in northern Montenegro. This analysis is based on set of individual interviews with NTFPs processors and one focus group session involving all NTPF processors who were previously interviewed. The interviews and the focus group were conducted using a single standardized questionnaire. The NTPFs processors greatly contributed to the process in helping understand the current problems, challenges and overall state of the sector.

7

Chapter 2: The Methodology

2.1. The sample

The sample used for the NTFPs Survey is made up of a three-stage stratified sample on the basis of regional, municipal and urban/rural divides (30%:70%) in accordance with the total population. The sample is based on 500 households from municipalities in the northern part of Montenegro.

Table 1 Sample stratification MUNICIPALITY TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS URBAN RURAL Andrijevica 20 6 14 Berane 92 28 64 Bijelo Polje 122 36 85 Kolasin 46 14 32 Mojkovac 26 8 18 Plav 36 11 25 Pljevlja 80 24 56 Rozaje 58 17 41 Zabljak 20 6 15 TOTAL 500 150 350

The urban divide is determined by previously defined urban municipalities in which surveyors randomly picked those households that are possibly involved in NTFPs collection or are private forest owners.

Surveyors were followed lists of given streets in the urban parts of municipalities. In these streets they randomly choose the first house/apartment and continued with surveying in each fifth house/apartment in targeted street. After they choose household, surveyors asked two ‘test’ questions - Is some household member private forest owner (PFO) or NTFPs collector or middlemen? If the answer on each of these questions was positive, surveyors started with surveying of that household, making an interview with the head of the household and fulfilling the questionnaire.

In case when answer on previously defined question is negative, surveyor skip that household and continue to search another fifth household from that street looking to find other that are possibly involved into PFO or NFTPs. Surveyors were obliged to stick to the street previously defined within the sample.

8

Table 2 Urban sample stratification STREET Andrijevica Branka Deletica Berane 29 Novembra Njegosev trg Miljana Tomicica Bijelo Polje 29 Novembra Rakonje Kolasin Mojkovacka Mojkovac Ljubomira Bakoca Plav Ulica Slobode Pljevlja Manastirska Trsova Velimira Jakica Rozaje Rifata Burdzevica Jaha Kurtagica Zabljak Njegoseva

The rural divide is based on the size of the population in each rural unit in a targeted municipalities and their share in the total population of each municipality. Based on that and the fact that share of rural parts of municipalities will be dominant in the sample (70%) in comparison to urban parts, rural areas of municipalities from the north were defined by the settlements in each of municipality 1. The most important issue regarding the settlement that will be part of the sample is number of population in it and proportion of population in each municipality. Based on that 28 settlements were defined and they were a basis for further fieldwork. In these settlements surveyors started fieldwork on the same principle/method previously defined for surveying in urban areas.

Table 3 Rural sample stratification RURAL Andrijevica Tresnjevo Slatina Berane Donje Luge Dolac Budimlja Beran Selo Buce Bijelo Polje Zaton Godijevo Kukulje Gubavac Grab Godusa Kolasin Drijenak Breza Bare Kraljske Mojkovac Polja Proscenje Plav Vusanje Vojno selo Pljevlja Zidovici Komine Sula Gradac Rozaje Kalace Donja Lovnica Zabljak Njegovudja

1 Census 2003, Monstat.

9

In regards to the methodology used in the data processing it is important to stress that the quantitative analysis is based on the analysis of two target groups. The standard household information gathered is based on answers that were given in all 500 households (by the heads of the household). Other parts of the questionnaire, which collected data from NTPFs collectors and middlemen, are based on answers from 1,980 individual respondents (household members) from those 500 targeted households from the sample.

2.2. Questionnaire

The questionnaire used in the quantitative survey contained 67 different questions grouped into five separate sections: General household information; PFOs; NTPF collectors; NTFP middlemen and household revenues.

2.3. Data collection, processing and analysis

The ISSP recruited 20 (twenty) surveyors to collect data. The surveyors conducted fieldwork through direct interviews with households in the targeted northern municipalities, which are considered as urban, or in northern settlements, which are considered as rural. An ISSP team of experts was involved in data processing. Data analysis was based on the previously created SPSS data base which was a basis for further quantitative analysis of the results.

2.4. Qualitative Analysis

The qualitative research was done by ISSP experts who conducted individual interviews with 13 (thirteen) NTPF processors and exporters. Firstly, there’s no standardized and unified database of NTFP processors in Montenegro. Because of that problem, ISSP created database of NTFP processors from different small data bases of other organizations and instiutions and put it together. That initial database contained up to 20 NTFP processors. All of them were firstly contacted by phone and 13 of them wanted to participate in this survey. The rest of them were absent or there was a problem to contact and find them (not correct phone numbers, don’t answer, etc.). These interviews were based on unified questionnaire which was consisted of the twenty-five previously defined questions grouped into five sections:

1. General information about NTFP processors; 2. Sourcing; 3. Processing; 4. Destination: customers and processors; 5. Threats and opportunities.

10

Table 4 List of the NTFPs processors

Municipality NTFPs processor/Company NTPFs they are processing 1. Berane Zemljoradnicka zadruga Vrbica – Adrovic Medical plants Avdul 2. Bijelo Polje “Vrganj” – Petar Zivkovic Mushrooms 3. Bijelo Polje Ramiza Ibrizovic Medical plants 4. Bijelo Polje “Eko-Meduza” – Jelica Vujicic Mushrooms, forest fruits, medical plants 5. Bijelo Polje Interfood – Spasoje Ilic Mushrooms 6. Kolasin Predrag Puletic Mushrooms, forest fruits 7. Kolasin Radosav Puletic Mushrooms, forest fruits 8. Mojkovac Flores – Veselin Vucinic Medical plants 9. Mojkovac Pam – Miroslav Palevic Mushrooms, forest fruits 10. Pljevlja RM Commerce – Dejan Loncar Mushrooms 11. Pljevlja NVO “Proizvodnja cajeva Boljanic” – Medical plants Dragica Rovcanin 12. Rozaje Asir Klica Mushrooms, forest fruits 13. Rozaje Agroprodukt – Sefkija Nurkovic Mushrooms, forest fruits, medical plants

To gather more information about the NTPF sector the ISSP put together a focus group made up of NTFP processors who had been previously interviewed. Nine NTFP processors and exporters have been participating on the focus group. The focus group session was also based on the same questionnaire used during individual interviews with NTFPs processors. Focus group session was another step forward in looking for questions and answers related to development of NTFPs sector in Montenegro. Direct interaction between NTFPs processors was very useful for completion of this analysis, especially related to existing problems and also recommendations and further steps related to this sector.

11

Chapter 3: Main findings

3.1. Quantitative analysis on NTFPs survey

3.1.1. General information about the households

The sample is based on 500 households from municipalities in the northern part of Montenegro. The sample used for the NTFPs Survey is made up of a three-stage stratified sample on the basis of regional, municipal and urban/rural divides (30%:70%) in accordance with the total population.

Table 5 Urban/rural sample structure of municipalities MUNICIPALITY URBAN % RURAL % Kolasin 38.4 61.5 Plav 23.3 76.6 Andrijevica 26.3 73.6 Rozaje 21.6 78.3 Mojkovac 16.6 83.3 Berane 30.8 69.1 Pljevlja 26.3 73.6 Bijelo Polje 29.0 70.9 Zabljak 100

Age structure

The age structure of the respondents is given in intervals. The largest group of respondents (27.5%) is between 46 and 55 years old; 25.7% are 35 to 46 years old, while 18.8% are 56 to 65 years old.

Gender

From the total number of heads of households, 89.1% are male and 10.9% are female. Among the average of 89.1% male respondents, 92% are from rural areas; 92.2% are between the ages of 26 and 35. Among the average of 10.9% female respondents, 18.2% are between the ages of 18 and 25; 17.6% are from urban areas, while 21.3% of the female respondents are from municipality of Berane.

12

Education

From the total number of respondents, 98% indicated what their level of education is. From that number, 36.9% indicated they completed secondary school (four years), 25.4% had some secondary school (three years) and 15.3% completed only primary school. Only 11.7% of respondents have a university education. Out of average of those who completed secondary school, 42.3% of respondents are from urban areas and 31% are between the ages of 36 and 45 years; 43.5% of those living in Mojkovac have completed secondary school.

Occupation

From the total number of respondents, 92.7% indicated what their occupation is. From that number, 30.9% are employed in agriculture, forestry and in the water supply industry, 20.9% work in other organizations and bodies, while 8.3% work in public administration and social insurance. Out of the 30.9% who are employed in agriculture, forestry and the water supply industry, 36% are from rural areas. These sectors account for the employment of 43.2% of respondents living in Pljevlja.

Graph 1 What was your primary activity in the past month?

Sick/disabled 1.4%

Retired 1.4%

Housekeeping 1.4%

Other 3.0%

Job searching 11.3%

Stay at home 22.6%

Working/helping to earn income 58.9%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Out of average of those who are currently employed, or are helping the household earn income, 69.5% are from urban areas; 73.7% of those living Andrijevica are employed, while 91.4% of the employed have higher education.

PRIVATE FOREST OWNERS 14

3.1.2. Private forest owners (PFO)

Note: This part of analysis is based not just on 500 households as main respondents (head of the household).

Do you own forestland?

Out of the total number of sample households (500), 98% answered this question. From that number, in 60.1% of these households, one household member is a private forest owner. This means that 60.1% of households from the sample own forest and 39.9% of households do not own forest.

Graph 2 Do you own forest?

No 40%

Yes 60%

Out of average of those households with a private forest owner, 60.5% respondents live in a rural area. 97.1% of those living in Plav are PFOs. On the other hand, 42% of respondents live in an urban area and 68.8% of those living in Pljevlja are PFOs.

Size of Private Forests

Out of the 60.5% of respondents who are private forest owners, most have a forest of up to 5 ha (57.2%). Graph 3 Size of Private Forests

Over 51ha 2.5%

From 21 to 50ha 13.0%

From 11 to 20ha 11.6%

From 6 to 10ha 15.6%

Up to 5ha 57.2%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

15

Out of the PFOs with less than 5 ha, 57.3% live in rural areas. 87.5% of the respondents from Mojkovac have forestland less than 5 ha, as do 100% of the respondents from Zabljak.

Type of the forest

From the total number of PFOs in the sample, 38.9% have mostly broadleave forests, 33.2% have mixed forests and 27.9% have mostly coniferous forests.

Forest ownership

A large majority of the heads of households are also owners of forestland (85.1%), while in 10.5% of cases it is another family member.

Graph 4 Type of ownership documents Graph 5 How did you obtain your forest?

Something else 0.3% Other 1.0%

In process of restitution 1.4%

Purchased 3.8%

Only those from cadastre 42.5%

Inheritance 95.2% Full documentation 55.8%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Graph 6 Main reasons of ownership Graph 7 How often do you visit your forest?

For hunting and fishing 4.7% Never 2.0% For recreation, hunting and fishing 6.0%

To collect NTFPs 7.4% Annually 20.2% For grazing livestock 10.1%

For timber production 12.8% Almost twice times per year 23.2% Long -term investment 15.8%

To collect firewood 25.8% Almost four times per year 27.3%

Part of my family heritage 31.2% Monthly Pass on to children or other 66.1% 27.3%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

16

Do you sell forest products?

From the total number of households, 30% do not sell any forest products, 16.8% sell firewood, while 10% sell NTFPs. If we only consider households with a PFO, 50.3% do not sell forest products, 28.2% is sell firewood, while 16.7% sell NTFPs.

Do you have a forest management plan for your forest?

From the average number of households that have a PFO, 50.5% do not have a forest management plan while 24.9% do; 8.4% of respondents are of the opinion that the lack of forest management plans is a great problem; 23.2% households from rural areas have forest management plans; 66.7% of households from Mojkovac and Pljevlja do have plans. On the other hand, 67.1% of households from urban areas do not have forest management plans. 78.9% households from Andrijevica do not have plans.

Graph 8 What do you think about forest certification?

Other 4.0%

It will increase profit in tree farming 17.1%

It will improve competitiveness of the local wood 18.5% producers

It will satisfy consumers of wood 20.8%

It will reduce need for forestry regulation 21.1%

It will improve fores management 33.2%

It will improve forest management 47.3%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

Do you have experience with getting forest certification?

Out of the total number of households with PFOs, 71.5% do not have any experience with acquiring forest certification, 19.3% have received important information, while 4.1% do not believe it to be important.

17

Among of the households that do not have experience with the forest certification, 71.6% are from rural areas; 87.5% of households from Bijelo Polje do not have such experience.

Graph 9 Reasons why you should consider certifying of your forestland

If it would give me access to wood markets that are 11.4% not normally available

If it would improve wildlife 14.8%

If my wood products could be sold for a higher price 25.5%

If it would help to protect the environment 50.7%

If it would make my forest more healthy 52%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

How often do you cut your wood?

From the total number of those that are PFOs, 36.7% do their wood cutting during the season (spring), 35.7% have never cut their wood and 16.5% do their wood cutting during the winter and 10.1% do their wood cutting more than five times a year. Out of the average of those households that do wood cutting during the spring, 38.9% are from rural areas; 66.7% of the households from Pljevlja do their wood cutting in the spring.

Graph 10 Do you get permits for wood Graph 11 Main purposes of wood cutting cutting?

Permits are inadequate 14.1% Selling to companies 4.8%

Difficult, but I am allowed to cut 20.8% Selling to individuals 42.3%

Without any problems 65.1% For household needs 52.9%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

18

Out of the 4.8% of households that sell their wood to companies, 88.9% have contract deliveries.

How important is firewood for you?

From the total number of households that have a PFO, 63.8% answered to this question. From that number, 90% indicated that firewood is very important, 6.8% said it is not so important and 3.2% said it is not important at all. From the average of 92.5% households from rural areas indicated that firewood is very important, out of which 93.5% own up to 5ha of forest. 95% of households from Pljevlja indicated that firewood is very important.

Graph 12 Is firewood a sustainable source of income?

Yes, always 16.3%

Yes, in next ten years it would be 16.8% better

No, in next ten years it would be worse 20.0%

No 46.8%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Are you aware of current forestry sector legislation?

From the total number of sample households, 58.9% provided an answer to this question. From that number, 40.3% are not well aware and want to know more about legislation of the forestry sector. On the other side, there are 27.5% those that think that they are sufficiently informed and 22.8% need more information but cannot have it.

Graph 13 What kind of services you received from Forestry Directorate?

Other 4.0%

Seedlings 35.6%

Transport documents 36.4%

Advice 37.9%

Cutting permits 44.7%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

19

Table 6 Level of satisfaction with the services that PFO received from the Forestry Directorate LEVEL OF SATISFACTION (1-THE BEST, 3-THE WORST) THE BEST REGULAR THE WORST Cutting permits 38% 22.6 % 39.4 % Advice 45.3% 25.5% 29.2% Transport documents 31.5% 25% 43.5% Seedlings 61.7% 20.6% 17.8%

Households have indicated that the best ways to get better informed of the forestry sector would be: seminars (38.7%); workshops (11.6%) and training programs (5.7%).

The forestry sector is, based on the perception of respondents, faced with many problems. These problems include: illegal cutting and wood stealing, lack of control, lack of information, outdated technologies, as well as lack of knowledge of regulations, which should form the basis for the future protection of forests in Montenegro.

Graph 14 Who helps you solve these problems? Graph 15 Who should solve the problems of the forestry sector?

Donor 0.0% Other 0.2% Someone else 0.2% Family 3.4% NGO 1.2%

Government 2.0% NGO 4.3%

Forest Directorate 8.7% I don't know 8.5% I don't need any help 12.3% Government 46.0% Relatives 17.0%

Nobody 22.3% Forestry Directorate 63.8%

0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Are you a member of a Private Forest Owners Association?

From the total number of households from the sample 92.5% answered to this question. From that number 78.4% are not members of any Private Forest Owners Association, 16% has opinion that there are not present any associations in their area (municipalities), while 2.4% are members of some associations.

20

Graph 16 If there is an association of PFO, what services should be useful for you?

Other 4.5%

Land registration 10.7%

Training in forest management 13.2%

Influence on national plans and policies 15.6%

Selling forest products 17.6%

Fire management 28.9%

Getting cutting permits 32.2%

Making forest management plan 36.4%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

How much are you willing to pay annually for these services (association of PFO)?

From the total number of respondents that answered to this question, 36.2% is not willing to pay any money for these services; 20.8% is willing to pay between 2 and 5 euros while 15.6% are willing to pay between 5 and 10 euros.

Graph 17 How much are you willing to pay annually for these services?

Between 10 and 20 euro/year 6.3%

Above 20 euro/year 6.6%

Less than 2 euro/year 14.5%

Between 5 and 10 euro/year 15.6%

Between 2 and 5 euro/year 20.8%

Somebody else should pay this 36.2%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

NON TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS

22

3.1.3. NTFP Collectors and middlemen Note: This part of analysis is based not just on 500 households as main respondents but contains 1,983 answers of each household member.

Does your household collect NTFPs?

From the total number of households, 38.6% do not collect NTFPs, while 29.8% do for household purposes.

Graph 18 Does your household collect NTFPs?

No, but have intention 6.0%

Yes, for processing 25.7%

Yes, just for household purposes 29.8%

No 38.6%

0 10 20 30 40 50

To what extent does your household rely on this revenue?

Out of the total number of households that gave an answer to this question, 63.2% stated that they do not rely on revenue from NTFPs very much while 4.97% of households rely totally on the revenue. The average rate of this measure is 1.7 (in a range from 1 to 5, where 1-‘Does not relly at all’ and 5-‘totally relly’).

Graph 19 To what extent does your household rely on this revenue?

5 4.9%

4 4.0%

3 11.5%

2 16.2%

1 63.2%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

23

Do you collect NTFPs?

From the total number of individuals in the households, 612 collect NTFPs, which represents 30.8% out of 1,980 respondent household members. On the other side, if we analyze just 506 respondents (head of the household), 59.3% of the household heads collect NTFPs, while 31.2% of household heads do not collect NTFPs.

Graph 20 Do you (head of the household) collect NTFPs?

Yes, but stopped 4.2%

No, but have intention 5.2%

No 31.2%

Yes 59.3%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Respondent’s role in NTFPs

From the total number of individuals who are involved in NTFPs collection, 93.9% are collectors, 4% are middlemen and 1.6% is processors.

Why do you collect NTFPs?

For 39.4% of individuals collecting NTFPs is the way to supplement the household budget. For 18.5% of individuals collecting of NTFPs is a part of family tradition.

Graph 21 Why do you collect NTFPs?

The main activity in our family 1.0%

Something else 3.1%

Stabile source of income 9.6%

Pocket money 16.8%

Family tradition 18.5%

Supplement for household budget 39.4%

0 10 20 30 40 50

24

During which seasons do you collect NTFPs?

The largest number of collectors collects NTFPs during the summer (60.3%), then during the fall (18%), spring (15.2%) and winter (0.2%). From the total number of collectors, 56.9% pick mushrooms, 34.2% pick forest fruits and 18.5% pick medicinal plants.

Graph 22 What NTFPs do you collect?

Other 0.3%

Medical plants 16.8%

Forest fruits 31.1%

Mushrooms 51.8%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

How long have you been collecting NTFPs?

The largest share of collectors have been collecting NTFPs between 3 and 10 years (41.8%), 27.5% of collectors have recently started to pick NTFPs, 17.4% have been collecting between 10 and 20 years, while 13.2% of collectors have been collecting NTFPs for more than 20 years.

Where do you sell your NTFPs?

Respondents had the opportunity to provide multiple answers. From the total number of collectors, 45.6% sell NTFPs to suppliers, 11.9% do not sell their products, 7.8% of collectors sell their products in improvised settings while 2.6% of collectors sell directly to processors. Graph 23 Where do you sell your NTFPs?

Other 0.5%

To processor 2.6%

On a improvised place during the 7.8% season

Directly to customer 8.5%

On a local market 9.2%

I don't sell the products 11.9%

To middleman 45.6%

0 10 20 30 40 50

25

Table 7 How much did you sell in 2007? (average) Note: If total amount of sold NTFPs is < 100kg per year and based on number of those HHS that are collecting NTFPs. Number Minimum Maximum Mean Mushrooms 41 30.0 100.0 72.8 Forest fruits 13 10.0 100.0 80.0 Medical plants 1 25.0 25.0 25.01

The average amount of sold quantity of mushrooms was 72.8kg in 2007, 80.0kg of forest fruits and 25.0kg of medicinal plants.

How do you spend revenues from NTFPs?

Respondents had the opportunity to provide multiple answers. Out of the total number of answers, 44.7% indicated that collectors use their revenues as supplements to their budget while 14.8% used the funds to finance school expenditures, while 12.9% of households consider it to be pocket money.

Do you consider NTFP revenues to be a sustainable source of income?

From the total number of collectors, 71.8% do not regard these revenues as a sustainable source of income, while 28.2% do regard money as a sustainable source of income.

Graph 24 Do you regard NTFP revenues to a sustainable source of income?

Yes 28%

No 72%

Only 3.1% of the total number of collectors took part in a training program for NTFPs collection while 96.9% of collectors never have.

Table 8 Do you regard NTFP money as a sustainable source of income?/crosstab No Yes Male 76,3% 23,7% Female 60,0% 40,0%

26

Are you a member of an association of NTFP collectors?

From the total number of collectors only 1.5% are members of an association of NTFP collectors while 71.7% are not members of such associations. For 25.3% of collectors an association of NTFP collectors does not exist in their region.

Graph 25 If there were associations of Graph 26 What improvements would you suggest collectors, what services would be useful to you? for the development of the NTFP sector?

Selling together 4.4% Other 6.7% Reduction of illegal cutting 8.2%

Cooling together 25.7% Don't know 8.8%

Information on quality 32.9% Environment protection 10.2%

Quality control 44.7% Information and education 11%

Information about collecting 51.6% Points of sale 15.5%

Selling together NTFP 59.1% Bigger prices 41.9%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50

From the total number of HHS members, 88.7% are not suppliers of NTFPs, 2.7% are engaged as suppliers of NTFPs, while 0.9% used to be suppliers but stopped.

Who acts as a middleman in the household?

Out of the total number of household members, only 1.2% acts as middlemen.

Graph 27 Where do you sell medicinal plants?

Other 8.3%

NTFPs processor 8.3%

Foreign processors 25%

Other middlemen 41.7%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Table 9 How much did you (middlemen) sell in 2007 (kg)? Number Minimum Maximum Mean Wild mushrooms 15 80 3,000 805.3 Forest fruits 7 25 4,000 934.2 Medical plants 6 50 170 103.3 Other 1 500 500 500

27

The average amount of wild mushrooms sold in 2007 was 805.3kg. The average amount of forest fruits sold was 934.2kg and average amount of medicinal plants sold was 103.3kg.

Average price of wild mushrooms per kg in 2007 was 3.9 euro/kg, 4 euro/kg of forest fruits and 8.6 euro/kg for medical plants.

Table 10 Average price of sold NTFPs from middlemen Number Minimum Maximum Mean Mushrooms 13 1.7 6 3.9 Forest fruits 5 3 7 4 Medical plants 5 5 12 8.6

Graph 28 Do you think the price is fair?

Yes 9%

Don`t know 27%

No 64%

From the total number of suppliers, 47.8% noticed that prices increased occasionally in the last five years and 39.1% think that the prices have increased in the last five years.

Graph 29 What is the main barrier for the NTFPs sector?

Lack of natural resources 12.5%

Lack of knowledge 25%

Lack of processors and exporters 25%

Lack of collectors 41.7%

Lack of motivation between collectors 45.8%

Low prices 75%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

28

Are you a member of an association of NTFP collectors?

From the total number of collectors only 0.8% are members of an association of NTFP collectors, 70.1% are not members of an association of NTFP collectors. For 25.9% of collectors, an association of NTFP collectors does not exist in their region.

Graph 30 If there was an association of collectors, what services would be useful to you?

Other 6.1%

Cooling together 22.1%

Information on quality 39.9%

Quality control 51.9%

Information about collecting 56.6%

Selling together NTFPs 74.3%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Out of the total number of collectors, 41.9% indicated that higher prices would improve the NTFP sector, while 11% believe that more information and training would help improve this sector.

3.1.4. Household income

Graph 31 What is your main source of household income?

Agricultural pension 1.6%

Social assistance 2.2%

Revenues from property 13.9%

Revenues from other sources 18.6%

Revenues from agriculture 22.4%

Pension 29.3%

Wages 69.5%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

29

The average monthly household income for 42.5% of households is up to 300 euros, 37.5% of households have an average monthly income is between 300 and 600 euros and 11.1% between 600 and 800 euro.

HHS income in the last three years

Average households income has been mostly stabile for 72.5% of households. For 17% of households average income has been constantly decreasing while for 10.5% of households the average income in last 3 years has been constantly increasing.

Average HHS income from forest products

The average HHS income from wood is about 853.2€ and 454€ from wild mushrooms. The average annual HHS income from forest fruits is 434.6€ while the average annual income from medicinal plants was 248.7€.

Table 11 Average HHS income from forest products Forest Products Average HHS income in € Wood 853.2 Medicinal plants 248.7 Forest fruits 434.6 Mushrooms 454.7

Trends in NTFPs collecting within the last 3 years

From the total number of households, 48% have the opinion that NTFPs collection during last three years has been stable, 18% believe they are increasing and 34% of households thinks that trends in NTFPs collecting in last three years have decreased.

Graph 32 Trends in NTFPs collecting within the last three years

80 75.9%

70 61.9% 60% 60

50 40 36.1%

30 24.1% 20% 20 10

0 Decreasing Stable Increasing

Urban Rural

In comparison to the average of 48% households which think that trends in NTFPs collecting in last 3 years are stable, the same stands for 80% from rural area and 20% from urban area. From the total number of households who have opinion that trends in NTFPs collecting in last 3 years are increasing, 24.1% stands from those from rural area.

30

3.2. Qualitative research - NTFPs Processors and Exporters

3.2.1. Introduction

The Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses (ISSP) has conducted an evaluation of the NTFPs sector in the northern region of Montenegro. The questionnaire was prepared by SNV and the ISSP. Interviews were conducted with thirteen NTFPs processors who were involved in the NTFP sector. Interviews were conducted with processors from different municipalities of the northern region.

A survey among NTFPs processors was conducted in order to identify the main threats and opportunities in the NTFP sector and to give recommendations on how to promote and improve this sector. The qualitative analysis is based on meetings with the main processors and exporters of wild mushrooms, medical plants and forest fruits in Montenegro.

Table 12 List of the NTFPs processors Municipality NTFPs processor/Company NTPFs they are processing 1. Berane Zemljoradnicka zadruga Vrbica – Adrovic Medical plants Avdul 2. Bijelo Polje “Vrganj” – Petar Zivkovic Mushrooms 3. Bijelo Polje Ramiza Ibrizovic Medical plants 4. Bijelo Polje “Eko-Meduza” – Jelica Vujicic Mushrooms, forest fruits, medical plants 5. Bijelo Polje Interfood – Spasoje Ilic Mushrooms 6. Kolasin Predrag Puletic Mushrooms, forest fruits 7. Kolasin Radosav Puletic Mushrooms, forest fruits 8. Mojkovac Flores – Veselin Vucinic Medical plants 9. Mojkovac Pam – Miroslav Palevic Mushrooms, forest fruits 10. Pljevlja RM Commerce – Dejan Loncar Mushrooms 11. Pljevlja NVO “Proizvodnja cajeva Boljanic” – Medical plants Dragica Rovcanin 12. Rozaje Asir Klica Mushrooms, forest fruits 13. Rozaje Agroprodukt – Sefkija Nurkovic Mushrooms, forest fruits, medical plants

The ISSP summarized the results based on the conducted interviews. The final results are presented in this report.

31

3.2.2. Summary

Sourcing

The prices of wild mushrooms vary from year to year and from season to season: in the spring the price of wild mushrooms is 2 €/kg, while in the autumn the price is much bigger: 4-5 €/kg. Prices vary between seasons because of the quality of the mushrooms. Namely, wild mushrooms picked during autumn are of higher quality than those picked in the spring. In 2008 we expected an increase in prices because of high demand. Prices should be around 2.5€/kg for the mushrooms. The price of wild mushrooms is 2-3€/kg at the beginning of a season, and later increase to 6-10€/kg.

The prices of medical plants also vary from year to year. In 2007 they were: juniper – 0.70 €/kg and hazelnut – 0.50€/kg to 0.60€/kg, dock – 2.50€/kg, marigold – 3.30€/kg, ehinacea – 3.30 €/kg. There is always a deviation of around 15% or 20% from these prices. The main reason for the price variation is the present of other suppliers from neighboring countries who offer a higher quality or offer products with lower prices. However, the prices of final products do not vary. Prices are standardized and deviation from year to year is +10%.

The supplier's price of blueberries is 1.80 – 2.00 €/kg while the consumer market price is 2.5 €/kg. The supplier's price of strawberries is 3 €/kg, while the consumer market price is 3.5 – 3.8 €/kg. An additional problem contributing to the fluctuation of prices is the undeveloped and standardized market of this sector.

Prices depend on supply and demand. Montenegro is a small market if we compare it with the East (China, Romania and Bulgaria) or Western Europe, so it cannot influence the prices of NTFPs, especially wild mushrooms. China is the biggest exporter of wild mushrooms in spite of their lower quality. Foreign companies from Italy buy wild mushrooms from Montenegro, which are high in quality, and combine them with lower quality wild mushrooms from China, and then sell to foreign markets.

32

Processing

There are several ways of processing wild mushrooms: cutting, cooking, drying and freezing. In large part wild mushrooms are processed manually, which is what is demanded by the markets. There are some machines for cutting, a cylinder and ladle for cooking and drying. Some processors use mills. All of these operations are done before the making of the final product, and are thus a semi-final product. For the final product, all companies in Montenegro have to have a certified cooler with the HASAP standard.

Medical plants are all processed manually, since any mechanical processing could negatively impact medicinal value of plants. The main phases of processing medical plants are: cutting, drying and packing. After selecting the best medical plants, producers then wash the plants and percolate them into compress. Forest fruits are usually are sold fresh, without processing.

There are few companies in Montenegro that produce final NTFPs products. There is one for medical plants in Mojkovac, one for forest fruits and mushrooms in Bijelo Polje, and one in Rozaje for medical plants, mushrooms and forest fruits. The company in Bijelo Polje has a large capacity for refining wild mushrooms, forest fruits and medical plants at the industrial level. All processing in the company is done by large, modern machinery.

Wild mushroom production (champignons and shiitake) is based on the farming method. Champignons are sold both fresh and marinated. For example, one company from Rozaje produces essential oils as final products. These products are used in pharmacy, cosmetic and medical industry. For these products we use medical plants. Also, they mill juniper and forest fruits.

In general machinery is old and has a low production capacity. The machines do not comply with appropriate standards. Some processors are planning to increase capacity, purchase the required HASAP standard cooler for producing the final products. The main problem is the lack of financial resources.

There are some hints of entrepreneurship. One company recently purchased an electronic machine for cleaning and calibrating blueberries and other forest fruits.

33

Other owners, however, feel that all old machines do the same job as new machines. In reality new machines have greater capacitates. Turnover of NTFP processors are limited by availability of raw materials, which in turn depends on the climate.

Packaging for NTPFs is designed to preserve the quality of the products. Mushrooms are packaged in PVC bags when dealing with larger quantities of the products. Beside bags, products are also packed in wood boxes. Raw mushrooms are packed in wood and paper boxes. Final products are packed in metal, glass and plastic packaging (barrels, plastic jars). Medical plants are packed in small bottles, barrels and bags. Forest fruits are packed in packages-foils, while frozen fruits are packaged in cardboard boxes.

Destination: Buyers of NTFPs

Most products were sold to companies abroad. It is important to note that semi-final products are mostly exported to Serbia. The companies from Serbia that purchase semi-final products from Montenegro include Interfood from Cacak and the PAMS Company from Belgrade, particularly in the export of wild mushrooms. Semi-final products are also exported to Italy and Macedonia.

Final products, largely juices and preserves, are mostly exported to EU countries, including Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary and France. There is also registered export to Canada. The producers of different types of salves and immune system enhancers also sell their products to different customers abroad. Producers of teas mainly find their market in Montenegro. Most purchasers of NTFPs produced in Montenegro are companies from abroad.

Some companies from Serbia buy semi-final products and then package and sell them as final products. Moreover, the buyers of final products such as preserves ad juices are usually foreign companies and hotels. The main customers of tea are found in domestic markets. Besides foreign companies, the main purchasers of mushrooms are local pizzerias.

34

Threats Opportunities

• Unmanaged market; • Possibility for creating a Montenegrin • Outdated technology of NTFP processing brand in this sector; machinery; • Advantages in comparison to other • Inability of producers to process final countries that produce NTFPs; products due to lack of certification and • These products does not need lot of time standardized machinery; to be produced; • Export disincentives; • Possibility of making profit for collectors • Low nutrition in the consumption of and producers; NTFPs; • Tremendous natural forest resources • Export of semi-final, not to final (woods, herbs, wild mushrooms, fruits, products; etc.); • Costs of concessions; • Subsequent development of the Northern • Neglectful using of medical plants; region of Montenegro; • Problems with financial resources; • Expansion of production to final products; • Existence of unfair competition; • Plant species that exist exclusively in • Lack of motivation for NTFPs collectors; Montenegro. • Few points of sale; • Lack of public education about the benefits of NTFPs; • Small capacities.

Montenegro has immense potential to develop the NTFPs sector. Currently resources are not being used and the market is underdeveloped. Therefore, action must be taken to foster the development of this sector.

The government should become more involved. Also, there is a need for an Agro bank market in Montenegro. While there is great potential, the aforementioned obstacles must first be overcome.

35

FOCUS GROUP WITH NTFP PROCESSORS

Bijelo Polje, June 27 th 2008

On June 27 th 2008, the ISSP organized a focus group in Bijelo Polje with NTFPs processors and exporters. The focus group was attended by nine representatives of NTFPs processors that deal with three types of products: medicinal plants, mushrooms and forest fruits. During the two hour discussion the processors provided important information about the sector as well as useful suggestions for its development.

Photo 1 & 2 Focus group with NTFP processors in Bijelo Polje

At the very beginning the participants pointed out the importance of medicinal plants in Montenegro. Some of the most important species include: marigold, hazelnut, thyme, juniper, nettle. It is important to mention that a large part of reselling is done in the southern and central parts of Montenegro, rather than in the northern part. The participants pointed out that the important forest fruits for processing are blueberries, barberries, strawberries and wild apples and pears. For example, Berane has the capacity to produce wild apple and pear vinegar. Besides that, there is an ongoing preparation for the production of blueberry wine.

Montenegro has only a few companies that have the capacity to produce final products made from medicinal plants, forest fruits and mushrooms. Other producers process them using very old equipment that insufficient capacities. The most important final products are tea, essential oils, preserves, juices, pate and dried or fresh mushrooms. The basic problem is that all of these products are sold as semi final products. Most of the NTFPs processors

36

agree that producing the final product (mushrooms) is not profitable. For example, I class mushrooms from northern Montenegro would not be profitably used to produce pate.

Most of the processed and semi-processed products are exported to Serbia, BIH and Kosovo. There are some exports to Western Europe, but in very small quantities. The most important international market is in Serbia. Products exported from Montenegro are later exported from Serbia as final products. After Montenegro's independence, Montenegro introduced export duties that have significantly increased the cost of export. For example, to export tea NTFP processors must pay approximately 300 euro in taxes. As a result, every export valued less than 2,000 euro is not profitable. That results in a 50% decrease in sales.

Few NTFP processors have any kind certification. Only one mushroom processor meets the HASAP standard for production and export. Some processors have certificates from the Biotechnological Institute in Podgorica. This fact is important in the context of EU integration. The EU will require NTFP processors to get appropriate certification. NTFP processors from Montenegro, however, do not feel that exports need to meet standards or should require certification. At the same time, Western European states have established standards to protect their domestic producers. On the other hand, if there is sufficient demand for mushrooms, certification should not pose a barrier to free export.

Problems for NTFP processors: Recommendations:

• Difficulties in reselling medicinal plants • Seminars and training about the because of high costs; importance of NTFPs;

• Lack of knowledge about medicinal plant • Organized plantation of medicinal plants; collection, which can endanger the • Bank system that would support the sector; sector; • Medicinal plant processing does not have • A developed network of NTFPs processors many opportunities for future and middlemen that can further network development and profit; with other NTFP processors abroad; • Illegal middlemen. • Opening of distilleries;

• Introduction of standards for pricing.

37

Chapter 4: Interpretation and analysis of the main findings

Project ‘NTFPs Survey’ is consisted of quanititative and qualitative analysis which included all NTFPs subjects involved into NTFPs value chain. Quantitative analysis is conducted on the total sample of 500 households which accomplish precondition that are private forest owners (PFO) or involved in NTFPs collecting and reselling.

On the other side, qualitative analysis is focused on 13 NTFP processors and exporters that are separately interviewed about NTFP sector in Montenegro. These subjects were also involved and participated in one focus group that was organized for the purposes of qualitative analysis.

4.1. Private forest owners

Regarding total sample of 500 households 60% of respondents are private forest owners (PFO). In comparison to the average of those that are PFO, 60.5% lives in rural parts of municipalities from the north.

Most common PFO are respondents themselves (head of household) in 85.1% cases.

Majority of PFO (57.2%) owns forest area up to 5ha and among majority of them has broadleave type of forest.

50.5% of PFO still does not have forest management plan.

If we consider total number of PFO from the sample 35.7% never done wood cutting. Among those which are cutting wood, majority do that just for household purposes.

PFO are not still introduced with existing legislative in forestry which seems that 40.3% of PFO need more information regarding to this topic.

PFO has opinion that presentation of better knowing and understanding of forest management should be duty of Association for forests in the future.

38

4.2. NTFPs collectors

From the total number of households (500) 29.8% of them are NTFPs collectors and they often do that job fur household purposes.

If we consider total number of household members (1,980), from that number 30.8% are NTFPs collectors.

NTFP collecting seems not to be permanent source of household income for 63.2% of households, while in 5% of household NTFPs collecting represents permanent source of income.

For majority of the households that are dealing with NTFPs, for most of them (39.4%) NTFPs collecting represents supplement for household budget.

Households from the north mostly collect mushrooms (51.8%), forest fruits (31.1%) and medical plants (16.8%).

Majority of households that are collecting NTFPs sell them to middlemen (45.6%).

97% of collectors are not members of any Association of NTFP collectors.

The most common recommendation from NTFP collectors in order to improve NTFP sector is based on three important suggestions:

Open points of sale;
More information about collecting process;
Better quality control.

4.3. NTFPs middlemen

From the total number of individuals from the sample only 1.2% recognized themselves as middlemen in NTFPs process. If we consider number of households from the sample then in 4% of them head of the household is middlemen as well.

Most of middlemen sell previously collected NTFPs to other middlemen.

Middlemen are not members of any Association of NTFPs collectors. Their most common suggestion related to future development of NTFPs sector in Montenegro is addressed to opening of points of sale.

39

4.4. NTFPs processors and exporters

Nevertheless Montenegro has a great potential for NTFPs sector development, this sector is still not enough developed and promoted. If we consider main threats that NTFPs processors and exporters are facing with it could be concluded that something need to be done which will make better situation in this field.

There are few companies in Montenegro that produce final NTFPs products. There is one for medical plants in Mojkovac, one for forest fruits and mushrooms in Bijelo Polje, and one in Rozaje for medical plants, mushrooms and forest fruits. The company in Bijelo Polje has a large capacity for refining wild mushrooms, forest fruits and medical plants at the industrial level. All processing in the company is done by large, modern machinery.

Based on information given from NTFPs processors, NTFPs sector is facing with lots of challenges:

Unmanaged market – It seems that this sector is still not enough recognized as future potential chance for development of the north. Market is still undeveloped.

Outdated technology of NTFP processing machinery – Producing of NTFPs needs modern and new technology. Especially in those cases of final product production. Qualitative surveys showed that majority of NTFPs processors are using old technologies for production of NTFP semi-final products.

Inability of producers to process final products due to lack of certification and standardized machinery – Certification and lack of information regarding to this is one of the major problems for NTFP processors, as well. This is one of the preconditions for production of final products in this sector. Most of NTFP processors and exporters from Montenegro are producing semi-final products and exporting them to other countries in which they become final products.

A problem with financial resources – One of the major problems that NTFPs are faced with is lack of financial resources which will help NTFPs processors to develop better capacities in order to increase production. Special loan arrangements from banks, for small NTFP producers, under favourable conditions and interest rates should increase interest for developing of this sector.

40

Lack of motivation between NTFPs collectors – Another challenge which NTFP processors are faced with is lack of motivation between NTFPs collectors. They are or too old to continue NTFPs collecting or underpriced for their job.

Few points of sale – Almost all subjects in value chain related to NTFPs are unified in premiss that NTFP sector should face with positive changes if there’s exist organized points of sale in all municipalities from the north. It should facilitate process for NTFPs collectors, middlemen and processors.

Low nutrition in the consumption of NTFPs – Population in Montenegro does not have tradition of using NTFPs (especially myshrooms) in everyday consumption. Lack of information about nutrition values as well as ‘traditional’ national cuisine that does not involve these products resulted in low consumption of NTFPs between the populations. More information regarding that should improve existing situation and promote NTFPs as valuable nutrition source.

Lack of public education about the benefits of NTFPs – NTFPs processors and exporters have a common attitude that population in Montengro is not enough informed about benefits that NTFPs can have for Montenegrin economy and its population.

41

4.5. Recommendations with regards to program design

NTFPs sector need to be recognized firstly as a profitable business among all the subjects involved in this process (collectors, middlemen and processors)! Based on that, NTFP sector in Montenegro need to be developed as attractive and profitable for all NTFP subjects from the value chain. Maybe one of the most important challenge for start-up among NTFP processors is financial resources for business starting or improvement of existing capacities.

It is evident that Montenegro has great natural resources of different high quality NTFP products. According to that, NTFPs sector can be used for promotion and export of natural products from Montenegro. Nevertheless NTFP sector is still undeveloped and underestimated it represent sector that can be valuable contributor and catalyst of economic growth of the northern region in Montenegro. NTFP sector has a great chance to be developed and its development can bring new Montenegrin brand for variety of NTFP products. Making efforts to produce final NTFP products and export those under brand ‘Made in Montenegro’ can give valuable contribution for Montenegrin economy and development of the north. Montenegro has great natural resources of high quality mushrooms, forest fruits as well as medical plants that exists exlusively in Montenegro.

For that process NTFP processors need to be introduced and implement HASAP standards. Another task that is directly connected to this process is education . Better knowledge about forest management among PFO or better knowledge about NTFP collecting and processing should positively influence all subjects in this value chain. Lack of knowledge and information on all levels in area of PFO or NTFPs is still evident and future steps regarding this problem need to be considered in the future. Seminars and training programs related to forest management plans, NTFP collecting and reselling are very important for future development of this sector. Participants in this process should develop and strengthen network of PFO and NTFPs processors and middlemen in the future.

On the other side, Governmental bodies need to assure legal and institutional framework which should be a basis for development of this sector. That should assure a framework for further open market competitiveness of different subjects in this sector. Standardization in all aspects of this sector should be a solid starting point for its further development.

ANNEX 1

SPSS OUTPUTS

44

Urban/Rural Frequency Percent Valid Percent Urban 131 25.9 27.9 Rural 339 67.0 72.1 Total 470 92.9 100.0

Municipality/crosstabs Municipality Urban Rural Kolasin 38.5% 61.5% Plav 23.3% 76.7% Andrijevica 26.3% 73.7% Rozaje 21.6% 78.4% Mojkovac 16.7% 83.3% Berane 30.9% 69.1% Pljevlja 26.3% 73.7% Bijelo Polje 29.0% 71.0% Zabljak 100.0%

Age of respondent Frequency Percent Valid Percent Up to 18 1 0.2 0.2 From 19 to 25 11 2.2 2.2 From 26 to 35 64 12.6 12.7 From 36 to 45 130 25.7 25.7 From 46 to 55 139 27.5 27.5 From 56 to 65 95 18.8 18.8 More than 66 65 12.8 12.9 Total 505 99.8 100.0

Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Male 450 88.9 89.1 Female 55 10.9 10.9 Total 505 99.8 100.0

Gender/crosstabs Male Female Urban/Rural Urban 82.4% 17.6% Rural 92.0% 8.0% Municipality Kolasin 92.3% 7.7% Plav 97.1% 2.9% Andrijevica 100.0% Rozaje 88.9% 11.1%

Mojkovac 95.8% 4.2%

Berane 78.7% 21.3% Pljevlja 88.3% 11.7% Bijelo Polje 90.3% 9.7% Zabljak 94.7% 5.3% Age of respondent Up to 18 100.0% From 19 to 25 81.8% 18.2% From 26 to 35 92.2% 7.8% From 36 to 45 88.5% 11.5%

From 46 to 55 89.9% 10.1%

From 56 to 65 89.5% 10.5% Over 66 86.2% 13.8%

Highest completed level of education Frequency Percent Valid Percent Currently attending primary school 2 0.4 0.4 Currently attending University 11 2.2 2.2 Primary school 76 15.0 15.3 Secondary school - 3 years 126 24.9 25.4 Secondary school -4 years 183 36.2 36.9 College 38 7.5 7.7 BA 58 11.5 11.7 MSci 1 0.2 0.2 PhD 1 0.2 0.2 Total 496 98.0 100.0

45

Highest completed level of education/crosstabs Currently Currently Primary Secondary Secon College BA MSc PhD attendin attending school school - 3 dary g universit years school primary y -4 school years Urban/Rura Urban 4.6% 6.9% 16.9% 42.3% 8.5% 20.8 l % Rural 0.6% 1.5% 17.2% 29.2% 34.3% 7.8% 8.7 0.3 0.3 % % % Municipality Kolasin 2.6% 12.8% 7.7% 38.5% 15.4% 23.1 % Plav 2.9% 14.3% 25.7% 22.9% 34.3 % Andrijevic 31.6% 31.6% 36.8 a % Rozaje 2.7% 5.4% 10.8% 29.7% 27.0% 8.1% 13.5 2.7 % %

Mojkovac 21.7% 43.5% 30.4% 4.3% Berane 1.1% 4.3% 25.5% 48.9% 7.4% 12.8 % Pljevlja 26.7% 30.7% 41.3% 1.3% Bijelo 5.7% 20.5% 33.6% 31.1% 3.3% 5.7 Polje % Zabljak 42.1% 10.5% 47.4% Age of Up to 18 100.0% respondent From 19 45.5% 9.1% 27.3% 18.2% to 25 From 26 1.6% 4.8% 17.5% 55.6% 9.5% 11.1 to 35 % From 36 4.7% 31.0% 42.6% 7.0% 14.7 to 45 %

From 46 1.5% 5.9% 25.0% 41.9% 9.6% 14.7 0.7 0.7 to 55 % % % From 56 1.1% 3.2% 24.5% 29.8% 25.5% 6.4% 9.6 to 65 % Over 66 1.6% 58.1% 19.4% 12.9% 3.2% 4.8 %

Respondent's occupation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Agriculture, forestry and 145 28.7 30.9 water supply Fishing 1 0.2 0.2 Mining and quarrying 3 0.6 0.6 Electricity, gas and water 15 3.0 3.2 supply Construction 25 4.9 5.3 Wholesale and retail trade 22 4.3 4.7 Hotels and restaurants 12 2.4 2.6 Transport, storage and 19 3.8 4.1 communication Financial intermediation 4 0.8 0.9 Real estate activities, 5 1.0 1.1 renting Public administration and 39 7.7 8.3 social insurance Education 24 4.7 5.1 Health and social work 15 3.0 3.2 Other community, social 36 7.1 7.7 and personal services Households with employed 5 1.0 1.1 persons Extra-territorial 98 19.4 20.9 organizations and bodes Other 1 0.2 0.2 Total 469 92.7 100.0

46

Respondent's occupation/crosstabs Agricultur Electricit Constructi Transport, Public Educatio Extra- e, forestry y, gas on storage and administrati n territorial and water and communicati on and organizatio supply water on social ns and supply insurance bodes Urban/ Urban 12.6% 5.0% 8.4% 7.6% 9.2% 8.4% 25.2% rural Rural 36.0% 2.9% 4.5% 2.9% 7.0% 4.1% 19.4%

Municipali Kolasin 13.2% 15.8% 2.6% 5.3% 5.3% 21.1% ty Plav 28.6% 5.7% 8.6% 5.7% 20.0% 5.7% Andrijevi 15.8% 10.5% 10.5% 5.3% 21.1% 10.5% ca Rozaje 30.3% 3.0% 6.1% 12.1% 9.1% 15.2%

Mojkovac 31.8% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 45.5%

Berane 20.7% 1.1% 4.6% 3.4% 2.3% 9.2% 32.2%

Pljevlja 43.2% 2.7% 4.1% 6.8% 25.7% Bijelo 43.0% 2.6% 8.8% 6.1% 8.8% 3.5% 8.8% Polje Zabljak 21.1% 5.3% 68.4% Age of Up to 18 100.0% responden From 19 9.1% t to 25 From 26 14.5% 3.2% 11.3% 4.8% 12.9% 1.6% 14.5% to 35 From 36 21.4% 4.0% 6.3% 3.2% 7.9% 7.9% 26.2% to 45

From 46 20.2% 5.4% 5.4% 6.2% 7.8% 6.2% 24.8%

to 55 From 56 49.4% 1.2% 3.6% 4.8% 9.6% 6.0% 14.5% to 65 Over 66 73.7% 3.5% 19.3% Education Currently 50.0% level attending primary school Currently 44.4% 11.1% attending universit y Primary 64.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 19.2% school Secondar 44.6% 0.9% 6.3% 3.6% .9% 22.3% y school - 3 years Secondar 21.6% 2.9% 5.8% 5.8% 8.8% 1.8% 28.1% y school -4 years College 5.6% 5.6% 11.1% 8.3% 16.7% 11.1% 16.7% BA 3.4% 12.1% 3.4% 1.7% 24.1% 29.3% 5.2% MSci 100.0% PhD

What was yours primary activity in the past month? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 504 99.6% 100% Working/helping to earn 297 58.7% 58.9% income Job searching 57 11.3% 11.3% Housekeeping 7 1.4% 1.4% Retired 7 1.4% 1.4% Stay at home 114 22.5% 22.6% Sick/disabled 7 1.4% 1.4% Other 15 3.0% 3.0%

47

What is the main source of household income? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 795 100% 157.4% Agricultural pension 8 1.0% 1.6% Social assistance 11 1.3% 2.2% Revenues from property 70 8.8% 13.9% Revenues from other sources 94 11.8% 18.6% Revenues from agriculture 113 14.2% 22.4% Pension 148 18.6% 29.3% Wages 351 44.1% 69.5%

Average monthly household income Frequency Percent Valid Percent More than 1,000 euro 11 0.5 2.2 From 800 to 1,000 euro 33 1.6 6.7 From 600 to 800 euro 55 2.7 11.1 From 300 to 600 euro 186 9.4 37.5 Up to 300 euro 211 10.64 42.5 Total 496 25.1 100

Household income during previous three years is… Frequency Percent Valid Percent Constantly increasing 51 2.6 10.5 Mostly the same-stabile 353 17.8 72.5 Constantly decreasing 83 4.2 17.1 Total 487 24.6 100

Household income during previous three years is/crosstabs Constantly increasing Mostly the same- Constantly stabile decreasing U/R Urban 9.4% 75.0% 15.6% Rural 9.5% 76.8% 13.7% Municipality Kolasin 21.4% 64.3% 14.3% Plav 66.7% 33.3% Andrijevica 75.0% 25.0% Rozaje 25.0% 66.7% 8.3% Mojkovac 100.0% Berane 4.0% 76.0% 20.0% Pljevlja 5.6% 83.3% 11.1% Bijelo Polje 9.4% 81.3% 9.4% Zabljak 62.5% 37.5% Do you own Yes 7.4% 75.5% 17.0% forestland? No 11.1% 80.0% 8.9% Is your household Yes, just for household 6.3% 84.4% 9.4% aware of NTFPs purposes collecting? Yes, for processing 5.5% 76.4% 18.2% No 15.2% 69.6% 15.2% In which measure 1.00 8.0% 72.0% 20.0% does your household 2.00 89.5% 10.5% rely on this money? 3.00 6.7% 86.7% 6.7% 4.00 100.0% 5.00 100.0% Do you regard NTFP Yes 10.0% 90.0% money as a No 84.2% 15.8% sustainable source of income?

Average annual household income from forest products (euro) Number Minimum Maximum Mean Wood 134 2.0 5,000.0 853.2 Medical plants 43 0.0 1,000.0 248.7 Forest fruits 116 20.0 10,000.0 434.6 Mushrooms 201 0.0 15,000.0 454.7

Do you own forestland? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes 298 58.9 60.1 No 198 39.1 39.9 Total 496 98.0 100.0

48

Do you own forestland/crosstabs Yes No Urban/Rural Urban 58.0% 42.0% Rural 60.5% 39.5% Municipality Kolasin 56.8% 43.2% Plav 97.1% 2.9% Andrijevica 100.0% Rozaje 73.0% 27.0%

Mojkovac 37.5% 62.5%

Berane 63.3% 36.7% Pljevlja 31.2% 68.8% Bijelo Polje 58.1% 41.9% Zabljak 100.0% Age of respondent Up to 18 100.0% From 19 to 25 63.6% 36.4% From 26 to 35 66.1% 33.9% From 36 to 45 56.7% 43.3%

From 46 to 55 57.8% 42.2%

From 56 to 65 61.1% 38.9% Over 66 62.5% 37.5% Education level Currently attending primary 100.0% school Currently attending university 81.8% 18.2% Primary school 60.5% 39.5% Secondary school - 3 years 52.5% 47.5%

Secondary school -4 years 55.8% 44.2%

College 73.0% 27.0% BA degree 75.9% 24.1% MSc degree 100.0% PhD 100.0% Respondent's occupation Agriculture, forestry and water 59.7% 40.3% supply Mining and quarrying 100.0% Electricity, gas and water 60.0% 40.0% supply Construction 80.0% 20.0%

Wholesale and retail trade 68.2% 31.8%

Hotels and restaurants 41.7% 58.3%

Transport, storage and 57.9% 42.1% communication Financial intermediation 25.0% 75.0% Real estate activities, renting 40.0% 60.0% Public administration and 66.7% 33.3% social insurance Education 70.8% 29.2% Health and social work 66.7% 33.3% Other community, social and 63.9% 36.1% personal services Households with employed 80.0% 20.0% persons Extra-territorial organizations 46.7% 53.3% and bodes Other 100.0% What was yours primary Working/helping to earn 62.7% 37.3% activity during the past income month? Job searching 48.2% 51.8% Housekeeping 71.4% 28.6% Retired 33.3% 66.7%

Stay at home 59.6% 40.4%

Sick/disabled 42.9% 57.1% Other 69.2% 30.8%

49

Size of forestland/crosstabs Up to 5ha From From From Over 51ha 6 to 10ha 11 to 20ha 21 to 50ha Urban/Rural Urban 55.2% 14.9% 14.9% 13.4% 1.5% Rural 57.3% 16.7% 10.4% 12.5% 3.1% Municipality Kolasin 52.4% 38.1% 9.5% Plav 2.9% 5.9% 41.2% 44.1% 5.9% Andrijevica 5.3% 26.3% 57.9% 10.5% Rozaje 76.9% 11.5% 7.7% 3.8%

Mojkovac 87.5% 12.5%

Berane 79.2% 13.2% 5.7% 1.9%

Pljevlja 50.0% 20.0% 5.0% 20.0% 5.0% Bijelo Polje 69.4% 24.2% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6% Zabljak 100.0%

Type of the forest Frequency Percent Valid Percent Conifers 83 27.9 27.9 Broadleaves 116 38.9 38.9 Both types 99 33.2 33.2 Total 298 100.0 100.0

Type of the forest/crosstabs Coniferous Broadleaves Both types Urban/Rural Urban 15.8% 35.5% 48.7% Rural 26.6% 44.2% 29.1% Municipality Kolasin 4.8% 28.6% 66.7% Plav 23.5% 41.2% 35.3% Andrijevica 15.8% 15.8% 68.4% Rozaje 63.0% 37.0%

Mojkovac 11.1% 88.9%

Berane 8.8% 54.4% 36.8%

Pljevlja 70.8% 8.3% 20.8% Bijelo Polje 6.9% 68.1% 25.0% Zabljak 94.7% 5.3% Forest area Up to 5ha 29.1% 43.7% 27.2% From 6 to 10ha 20.9% 39.5% 39.5% From 11 to 20ha 21.9% 34.4% 43.8% From 21 to 50ha 33.3% 16.7% 50.0%

Over 51ha 14.3% 28.6% 57.1%

Who owns the forest? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Myself 252 84.6 85.1 Spouse 4 1.3 1.4 Family member 31 10.4 10.5 Other 9 3.0 3.0 Total 296 99.3 100.0

Type of ownership documents Frequency Percent Valid Percent Full documents 164 55.0 55.8 Only documents from cadastre 125 41.9 42.5 In process of restitution 4 1.3 1.4 Something else 1 0.3 0.3 Total 294 98.7 100.0

50

Type of ownership documents/crosstabs Full documents Only documents In process of Something else from cadastre restitution Urban/Rural Urban 71.1% 27.6% 1.3% Rural 49.2% 48.7% 1.5% 0.5% Municipality Kolasin 90.5% 9.5% Plav 30.3% 69.7% Andrijevica 21.1% 73.7% 5.3% Rozaje 66.7% 25.9% 7.4%

Mojkovac 88.9% 11.1%

Berane 41.1% 55.4% 1.8% 1.8%

Pljevlja 54.2% 45.8% Bijelo Polje 56.9% 43.1% Zabljak 94.1% 5.9% Size of forest Up to 5ha 63.2% 36.1% 0.6% From 6 to 10ha 48.8% 48.8% 2.3% From 11 to 20ha 56.3% 43.8% From 21 to 50ha 37.1% 60.0% 2.9%

Over 51ha 14.3% 71.4% 14.3%

How did you obtain the forest? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Inheritance 275 92.3 95.2 Purchase 11 3.7 3.8 Other 3 1.0 1.0 Total 289 97.0 100.0

How did you obtain the forest/crosstabs Inheritance Purchase Other Urban/Rural Urban 94.7% 2.6% 2.6% Rural 94.7% 4.7% 0.5% Municipality Kolasin 100.0% Plav 87.5% 12.5% Andrijevica 94.7% 5.3% Rozaje 81.5% 11.1% 7.4%

Mojkovac 100.0%

Berane 100.0% Pljevlja 100.0% Bijelo Polje 95.4% 4.6% Zabljak 100.0% Size of forest Up to 5ha 98.1% 1.3% 0.6% From 6 to 10ha 95.1% 4.9% From 11 to 20ha 87.1% 6.5% 6.5% From 21 to 50ha 88.6% 11.4%

Over 51ha 100.0%

Why do you own forest? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 594 100% 199.3% Pass on to children or other 197 33.1% 66.1% To enjoy scenery and privacy 58 9.7% 19.4% Long-term financial investment 47 7.9% 15.7% For hunting and fishing 14 2.3% 4.6% For timber production 38 6.3% 12.7% As part of my family heritage 93 15.6% 31.2% To collect NTFPs 22 3.7% 7.3% Fore recreation other than hunting and fishing 18 3.0% 6.0% For grazing livestock 30 5.0% 10.0% To collect firewood 77 12.9% 25.8%

How often do you visit your forest? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Never 6 2.0 2.0 Monthly 81 27.2 27.3 Almost four times per year 81 27.2 27.3 Almost twice a year 69 23.2 23.2 Annually 60 20.1 20.2 Total 297 99.7 100.0

51

How often do you visit your forest/crosstabs Never Monthly Almost four Almost twice Annually times per year a year Urban/Rural Urban 1.3% 18.4% 31.6% 21.1% 27.6% Rural 2.5% 28.1% 25.6% 25.1% 18.6% Municipality Kolasin 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 42.9% Plav 2.9% 11.8% 26.5% 44.1% 14.7% Andrijevica 5.3% 47.4% 21.1% 26.3% Rozaje 33.3% 37.0% 11.1% 18.5%

Mojkovac 44.4% 44.4% 11.1%

Berane 5.3% 24.6% 29.8% 22.8% 17.5%

Pljevlja 66.7% 4.2% 12.5% 16.7% Bijelo Polje 1.4% 22.2% 25.0% 25.0% 26.4% Zabljak 5.6% 33.3% 22.2% 38.9% Forest area Up to 5ha 2.5% 28.7% 28.7% 21.0% 19.1% From 6 to 10ha 32.6% 30.2% 16.3% 20.9% From 11 to 3.1% 28.1% 21.9% 31.3% 15.6% 20ha From 21 to 11.1% 30.6% 30.6% 27.8% 50ha Over 51ha 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% Age of Up to 18 100.0% respondent From 19 to 25 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% From 26 to 35 4.9% 22.0% 26.8% 19.5% 26.8% From 36 to 45 2.8% 25.0% 23.6% 29.2% 19.4%

From 46 to 55 1.3% 32.5% 22.1% 22.1% 22.1%

From 56 to 65 1.7% 27.6% 41.4% 15.5% 13.8%

Over 66 25.0% 27.5% 30.0% 17.5% Education Currently 50.0% 50.0% level attending primary school Currently 11.1% 22.2% 33.3% 33.3% attending university Primary school 35.6% 22.2% 15.6% 26.7% Secondary 1.6% 29.7% 32.8% 25.0% 10.9% school - 3 years

Secondary 5.0% 32.7% 16.8% 26.7% 18.8% school -4 years College 11.1% 44.4% 33.3% 11.1% BA degree 13.6% 38.6% 15.9% 31.8% MSc degree 100.0% PhD 100.0% Respondent's Agriculture, 2.4% 35.3% 29.4% 22.4% 10.6% occupation forestry and water supply Mining and 33.3% 66.7% quarrying Electricity, gas 33.3% 44.4% 22.2% and water supply Construction 25.0% 25.0% 15.0% 35.0%

Wholesale and 33.3% 6.7% 26.7% 33.3%

retail trade

Hotels and 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% restaurants Transport, 9.1% 36.4% 45.5% 9.1% storage and communication Financial 100.0% intermediation Real estate 50.0% 50.0% activities, renting Public 19.2% 30.8% 26.9% 23.1% administration and social insurance Education 5.9% 58.8% 11.8% 23.5% Health and 10.0% 30.0% 10.0% 50.0%

52

social work Other 4.3% 34.8% 17.4% 17.4% 26.1% community, social and personal services Households with 50.0% 50.0% employed persons Extra-territorial 7.0% 25.6% 23.3% 32.6% 11.6% organizations and bodes What was Working/helping 2.7% 23.1% 28.0% 23.6% 22.5% yours primary to earn income activity during Job searching 37.0% 25.9% 25.9% 11.1% the past Housekeeping 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% month? Retired 100.0%

Stay at home 1.5% 29.4% 27.9% 22.1% 19.1%

Sick/disabled 33.3% 66.7%

Other 55.6% 22.2% 11.1% 11.1%

Do you sell forest products? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. All the households Only PFO 336 100% 67.2% 112.7% Yes, firewood 84 25% 16.8% 28.1% Yes, timbers 48 14.2% 9.6% 16.1% Yes, NTFPs 50 14.8% 10% 16.7% Yes, all 4 1.1% 0.8% 1.3% No 150 44.6% 30% 50.3%

Is there a forest management plan for your forest? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes 74 24.8 24.9 No, but it is not a problem 150 50.3 50.5 No, and this is big problem 25 8.4 8.4 I don't know 48 16.1 16.2 Total 297 99.7 100.0

Is there a forest management plan for your forest/crosstabs Yes No, but it is not a No, and this is a I don't know problem big problem Urban/Rural Urban 14.5% 67.1% 6.6% 11.8% Rural 23.2% 48.0% 9.6% 19.2% Municipality Kolasin 4.8% 42.9% 19.0% 33.3% Plav 11.8% 70.6% 8.8% 8.8% Andrijevica 5.3% 78.9% 15.8% Rozaje 11.1% 59.3% 14.8% 14.8%

Mojkovac 66.7% 22.2% 11.1%

Berane 24.6% 38.6% 1.8% 35.1%

Pljevlja 66.7% 25.0% 4.2% 4.2% Bijelo Polje 5.6% 68.1% 9.7% 16.7% Zabljak 94.4% 5.6% Forest area Up to 5ha 26.8% 45.9% 9.6% 17.8% From 6 to 10ha 25.6% 46.5% 27.9% From 11 to 20ha 18.8% 65.6% 15.6% From 21 to 50ha 25.0% 58.3% 11.1% 5.6%

Over 51ha 14.3% 57.1% 14.3% 14.3% Age of Up to 18 100.0% respondent From 19 to 25 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% From 26 to 35 26.8% 56.1% 9.8% 7.3% From 36 to 45 26.8% 53.5% 11.3% 8.5%

From 46 to 55 20.5% 53.8% 7.7% 17.9%

From 56 to 65 19.0% 44.8% 10.3% 25.9%

Over 66 30.0% 45.0% 2.5% 22.5%

53

What do you think about forest certification? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 483 100% 162.1% Certification will improve forest management 141 29.1% 47.3% Certification will increase my profit 51 10.5% 17.1% Certification will satisfy consumers of wood 62 12.8% 20.8% Certification will reduce need for forestry regulation 63 13.0% 21.1% Certification will give me recognition for the good forestry 99 20.4% 33.2% Certification will improve competitiveness of a local wood producers 55 11.3% 18.4% Other 12 2.4% 4.0%

Do you have experience with the forest certification? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes, I have certification 15 5.0 5.1 Yes, I have proper information 57 19.1 19.3 No 211 70.8 71.5 No, I think that is not useful 12 4.0 4.1 Total 295 99.0 100.0

Do you have experience with forest certification/crosstabs Yes, I have Yes, I have No No, I think that certification proper is not useful information Urban/Rural Urban 6.7% 25.3% 68.0% Rural 5.1% 17.3% 71.6% 6.1% Municipality Kolasin 4.8% 95.2% Plav 6.1% 30.3% 51.5% 12.1% Andrijevica 47.4% 47.4% 5.3% Rozaje 3.7% 25.9% 59.3% 11.1%

Mojkovac 11.1% 22.2% 44.4% 22.2%

Berane 1.8% 12.5% 85.7% Pljevlja 12.5% 41.7% 45.8% Bijelo Polje 1.4% 9.7% 87.5% 1.4% Zabljak 11.1% 5.6% 83.3% Forest area Up to 5ha 5.8% 11.5% 79.5% 3.2% From 6 to 10ha 18.6% 79.1% 2.3% From 11 to 20ha 3.1% 40.6% 50.0% 6.3% From 21 to 50ha 8.6% 40.0% 42.9% 8.6%

Over 51ha 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% Age of Up to 18 100.0% respondent From 19 to 25 100.0% From 26 to 35 4.9% 24.4% 63.4% 7.3% From 36 to 45 5.6% 25.4% 64.8% 4.2%

From 46 to 55 5.1% 23.1% 69.2% 2.6%

From 56 to 65 5.2% 12.1% 77.6% 5.2% Over 66 5.3% 10.5% 81.6% 2.6% Is there a forest Yes 13.7% 27.4% 56.2% 2.7% management No, but it is no 1.4% 18.9% 77.0% 2.7% plan for your problem forest? No and this is big 8.0% 36.0% 52.0% 4.0% problem I don't know 89.6% 10.4%

Why would you consider certifying of your forestland? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 460 100% 154.3% If it would help to protect the environment 151 32.8% 50.6% If it would improve wildlife 44 9.5% 14.7% If it would make my forest more healthy 155 33.6% 52.0% If my wood products could be sold for a higher price 76 16.5% 25.5% If it would give me access to wood markets that are not normally available 34 7.3% 11.4%

How often do you cut your wood? Frequency Percent Valid Percent All year (monthly) 3 1.0 1.0 All year (five times or less) 30 10.1 10.1 Seasonal (winter) 49 16.4 16.5 Seasonal (spring) 109 36.6 36.7 Never done that before 106 35.6 35.7 Total 297 99.7 100.0

54

How often do you cut your wood/crosstabs All year All year Seasonal Seasonal Never done (monthly) (five times or (winter) (spring) that before less) Urban/Rural Urban 9.2% 15.8% 26.3% 48.7% Rural 1.5% 10.6% 17.2% 38.9% 31.8% Municipality Kolasin 4.8% 9.5% 85.7% Plav 29.4% 5.9% 35.3% 29.4% Andrijevica 21.1% 31.6% 47.4% Rozaje 3.7% 11.1% 18.5% 29.6% 37.0%

Mojkovac 77.8% 22.2%

Berane 8.8% 22.8% 33.3% 35.1%

Pljevlja 4.2% 4.2% 8.3% 66.7% 16.7% Bijelo Polje 1.4% 4.2% 18.1% 41.7% 34.7% Zabljak 16.7% 77.8% 5.6% Forest area Up to 5ha 0.6% 6.4% 22.3% 40.1% 30.6% From 6 to 10ha 2.3% 7.0% 7.0% 34.9% 48.8% From 11 to 9.4% 12.5% 37.5% 40.6% 20ha From 21 to 27.8% 5.6% 33.3% 33.3% 50ha Over 51ha 57.1% 14.3% 28.6% Age of Up to 18 100.0% respondent From 19 to 25 28.6% 28.6% 42.9% From 26 to 35 9.8% 19.5% 29.3% 41.5% From 36 to 45 2.8% 8.3% 12.5% 54.2% 22.2%

From 46 to 55 1.3% 15.4% 16.7% 28.2% 38.5%

From 56 to 65 10.3% 19.0% 19.0% 51.7%

Over 66 5.1% 12.8% 56.4% 25.6% Is there a Yes 1.4% 12.3% 17.8% 43.8% 24.7% forest No, but it is no 1.3% 8.7% 16.0% 38.7% 35.3% management problem plan for your No and this is 8.0% 44.0% 48.0% forest? big problem I don't know 12.5% 22.9% 16.7% 47.9%

How do you get permits to cut the wood you want? Frequency Percent Valid Percent For as much as I want, 125 41.9 65.1 without much problems Difficult, but I am allowed 40 13.4 20.8 to cut Terrible, permit is in 27 9.1 14.1 adequate Total 192 64.4 100.0

How do you get permits to cut the wood you want/crosstabs For as much as I Difficult, but I am Terrible, permit is want, without much allowed to cut inadequate problems Urban/Rural Urban 59.0% 23.1% 17.9% Rural 65.4% 22.1% 12.5% Municipality Kolasin 100.0% Plav 37.5% 20.8% 41.7% Andrijevica 60.0% 40.0% Rozaje 38.9% 38.9% 22.2%

Mojkovac 88.9% 11.1%

Berane 81.1% 18.9%

Pljevlja 80.0% 10.0% 10.0% Bijelo Polje 63.8% 23.4% 12.8% Zabljak 100.0% Forest area Up to 5ha 76.4% 18.2% 5.5% From 6 to 10ha 54.5% 27.3% 18.2% From 11 to 20ha 47.4% 26.3% 26.3% From 21 to 50ha 37.5% 20.8% 41.7%

Over 51ha 80.0% 20.0% Age of respondent Up to 18 100.0% From 19 to 25 60.0% 40.0%

55

From 26 to 35 70.8% 8.3% 20.8% From 36 to 45 58.9% 30.4% 10.7% From 46 to 55 62.5% 27.1% 10.4% From 56 to 65 64.3% 17.9% 17.9%

Over 66 75.9% 10.3% 13.8% Is there a forest Yes 85.5% 9.1% 5.5% management plan for No, but it is no problem 55.1% 24.5% 20.4% your forest? No and this is big 46.2% 38.5% 15.4% problem I don't know 68.0% 24.0% 8.0%

How often do you cut All year (monthly) 66.7% 33.3% your wood? All year (five times or 53.3% 30.0% 16.7% less) Seasonal (winter) 75.5% 16.3% 8.2% Seasonal (spring) 64.2% 20.2% 15.6%

Never done that before 100.0%

Main purposes for wood cutting Frequency Percent Valid Percent Selling to companies 9 3.0 4.8 Selling to individuals 80 26.8 42.3 For household needs 100 33.6 52.9 Total 189 63.4 100.0

Main purposes for wood cutting/crosstabs Selling to companies Selling to individuals For household needs Urban/Rural Urban 10.3% 35.9% 53.8% Rural 3.7% 46.3% 50.0% Municipality Kolasin 66.7% 33.3% Plav 13.6% 77.3% 9.1% Andrijevica 20.0% 70.0% 10.0% Rozaje 5.6% 38.9% 55.6%

Mojkovac 11.1% 11.1% 77.8%

Berane 2.7% 51.4% 45.9%

Pljevlja 50.0% 50.0% Bijelo Polje 29.8% 70.2% Zabljak 100.0% Forest area Up to 5ha 0.9% 31.2% 67.9% From 6 to 10ha 59.1% 40.9% From 11 to 20ha 16.7% 66.7% 16.7% From 21 to 50ha 13.0% 78.3% 8.7%

Over 51ha 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% Age of respondent Up to 18 100.0% From 19 to 25 20.0% 80.0% From 26 to 35 8.7% 39.1% 52.2% From 36 to 45 1.8% 45.5% 52.7%

From 46 to 55 10.4% 35.4% 54.2%

From 56 to 65 3.6% 50.0% 46.4%

Over 66 50.0% 50.0%

Do you have contracts with any companies in the area of wood processing? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes, contract deliveries 14 4.7 7.5 No, I sell when I have 41 13.8 21.9 wood to sale No, don't selling to wood 126 42.3 67.4 companies Other 6 2.0 3.2 Total 187 62.8 100.0

56

Do you have contracts with any companies in the area of wood processing/crosstabs Yes, contract No, I sell when I No, don't sell to Other deliveries have wood to wood companies sale Urban/Rural Urban 13.2% 23.7% 63.2% Rural 6.7% 22.4% 67.9% 3.0% Municipality Kolasin 33.3% 66.7% Plav 21.7% 56.5% 21.7% Andrijevica 20.0% 50.0% 30.0% Rozaje 11.8% 29.4% 47.1% 11.8%

Mojkovac 12.5% 87.5%

Berane 2.7% 10.8% 83.8% 2.7%

Pljevlja 25.0% 65.0% 10.0% Bijelo Polje 8.9% 88.9% 2.2% Zabljak 6.3% 93.8% Forest area Up to 5ha 1.9% 15.9% 77.6% 4.7% From 6 to 10ha 4.8% 9.5% 85.7% From 11 to 20ha 15.8% 47.4% 36.8% From 21 to 50ha 25.0% 41.7% 33.3%

Over 51ha 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% Age of Up to 18 100.0% respondent From 19 to 25 25.0% 75.0% From 26 to 35 16.7% 12.5% 70.8% From 36 to 45 3.6% 30.4% 64.3% 1.8%

From 46 to 55 8.2% 22.4% 67.3% 2.0%

From 56 to 65 11.5% 15.4% 61.5% 11.5% Over 66 3.8% 19.2% 73.1% 3.8% Main purposes of Selling to 88.9% 11.1% wood cutting companies Selling to 5.1% 39.2% 53.2% 2.5% individuals For household 9.4% 86.5% 4.2% needs

Actual timber and firewood production in 2007 (average) Note: If production is < 100 m³ Number Minimum Maximum Mean Timbers (m³) 65 1.0 100.0 28.06 Firewood (m³) 114 2.0 100.0 29.9

Actual timber and firewood production in 2007 (average) Note: If production is > 100 m³ Number Minimum Maximum Mean Timbers (m³) 8 120.0 600.0 277.5 Firewood (m³) 5 200.0 400.0 240.0

Planned timber and firewood production in 2008 (average) Note: If total planned production is < 100 m³ Number Minimum Maximum Mean Timbers (m³) 52 1.0 100.0 31.3 Firewood (m³) 107 2.0 100.0 28.02

Planned timber and firewood production in 2008 (average) Note: If total planned production is > 100 m³ Number Minimum Maximum Mean Timbers (m³) 5 200.0 550.0 320.0 Firewood (m³) 4 150.0 450.0 135.4

How important is firewood for you? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Very important 171 57.4 90.0 Not so important 13 4.4 6.8 Not important 6 2.0 3.2 Total 190 63.8 100.0

57

How important is firewood for you/crosstabs Very important Not so important Not important Urban/Rural Urban 84.6% 7.7% 7.7% Rural 92.5% 6.7% 0.7% Municipality Kolasin 100.0% Plav 75.0% 20.8% 4.2% Andrijevica 70.0% 20.0% 10.0% Rozaje 76.5% 23.5%

Mojkovac 100.0%

Berane 94.4% 2.8% 2.8%

Pljevlja 95.0% 5.0% Bijelo Polje 100.0% Zabljak 93.8% 6.3% Forest area Up to 5ha 93.5% 3.7% 2.8% From 6 to 10ha 100.0% From 11 to 20ha 85.0% 15.0% From 21 to 50ha 66.7% 25.0% 8.3%

Over 51ha 80.0% 20.0% Age of respondent Up to 18 100.0% From 19 to 25 75.0% 25.0% From 26 to 35 91.7% 8.3% From 36 to 45 92.9% 5.4% 1.8%

From 46 to 55 87.5% 6.3% 6.3%

From 56 to 65 85.2% 7.4% 7.4% Over 66 93.1% 6.9%

Do you regard revenue from firewood to be sustainable source of income? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes, forever 31 10.4 16.3 Yes, for the next 10 years 32 10.7 16.8 No, in 10 years it will be 38 12.8 20.0 less than today No 89 29.9 46.8 Total 190 63.8 100.0

Do you regard revenue from firewood to be sustainable source of income/crosstabs Yes, for ever Yes, for next 10 No, in 10 years it No years is less than today Urban/Rural Urban 7.7% 28.2% 30.8% 33.3% Rural 20.1% 15.7% 17.9% 46.3% Municipality Kolasin 66.7% 33.3% Plav 16.7% 45.8% 33.3% 4.2% Andrijevica 10.0% 50.0% 40.0% Rozaje 5.9% 5.9% 29.4% 58.8%

Mojkovac 11.1% 22.2% 66.7%

Berane 13.9% 13.9% 19.4% 52.8% Pljevlja 40.0% 60.0% Bijelo Polje 17.4% 17.4% 19.6% 45.7% Zabljak 100.0% Forest area Up to 5ha 14.0% 11.2% 15.9% 58.9% From 6 to 10ha 9.1% 9.1% 22.7% 59.1% From 11 to 20ha 25.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% From 21 to 50ha 29.2% 37.5% 25.0% 8.3%

Over 51ha 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% Age of Up to 18 100.0% respondent From 19 to 25 50.0% 50.0% From 26 to 35 12.5% 37.5% 25.0% 25.0% From 36 to 45 16.4% 12.7% 20.0% 50.9%

From 46 to 55 14.3% 10.2% 26.5% 49.0%

From 56 to 65 21.4% 21.4% 17.9% 39.3%

Over 66 21.4% 10.7% 10.7% 57.1% How important is Very important 18.3% 17.8% 16.6% 47.3% firewood for A little important 15.4% 46.2% 38.5% you? Not that important 50.0% 50.0%

58

Are you introduced with current legislation of the forestry sector? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes, sufficiently 82 27.5 27.7 No, I want to but there is 67 22.5 22.6 no information No, I want to know more 120 40.3 40.5 I don't want to know 27 9.1 9.1 Total 296 99.3 100.0

Are you introduced with current legislation of the forestry sector/crosstabs Yes, sufficiently No, I want to but No, I want to i don't want to there is no know more know information Urban/Rural Urban 27.6% 34.2% 28.9% 9.2% Rural 25.4% 18.8% 47.7% 8.1% Municipality Kolasin 14.3% 33.3% 42.9% 9.5% Plav 29.4% 20.6% 32.4% 17.6% Andrijevica 15.8% 47.4% 31.6% 5.3% Rozaje 50.0% 15.4% 30.8% 3.8%

Mojkovac 66.7% 33.3%

Berane 7.1% 21.4% 62.5% 8.9% Pljevlja 16.7% 33.3% 25.0% 25.0% Bijelo Polje 19.4% 23.6% 48.6% 8.3% Zabljak 89.5% 5.3% 5.3% Forest area Up to 5ha 34.4% 17.2% 40.1% 8.3% From 6 to 10ha 14.0% 30.2% 46.5% 9.3% From 11 to 20ha 25.0% 31.3% 34.4% 9.4% From 21 to 50ha 25.0% 25.0% 38.9% 11.1%

Over 51ha 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% Age of Up to 18 100.0% respondent From 19 to 25 28.6% 28.6% 42.9% From 26 to 35 22.0% 24.4% 48.8% 4.9% From 36 to 45 22.5% 19.7% 52.1% 5.6%

From 46 to 55 35.9% 28.2% 30.8% 5.1%

From 56 to 65 29.8% 14.0% 42.1% 14.0%

Over 66 20.0% 27.5% 30.0% 22.5%

What kind of services do you received from the Forestry Directorate? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 800 100% 268.4% Cutting permits 226 28.2% 75.8% Transport documents 184 23.0% 61.7% Advice 192 24.0% 64.4% Seedlings 179 22.3% 60.0% Other 19 2.3% 6.3%

Recommendations in order to be better informed Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 333 100% All the households PFO Training programs 29 8.7% 5.7% 9.7% Seminars 196 58.8% 38.7% 65.7% Workshops 59 17.7% 11.6% 19.7% Other 49 14.7% 9.6% 16.4%

Main problems in forestry sector – Open question Main problems in forestry sector Frequency Forestry Directorate need better control over the forest 1 Illegal wood cutting in state forests 1 Lack of information regarding forest management 1 Lack of information and experts in area of forestry 1 Lack of knowledge 1 Lack of forestry protection and subventions in this area 1 Illegal cutting 2 Ill egal cutting 1 Problems with permissions for wood cutting 1 Lack of knowledge and effectiveness 1 Long-term concessions 1 Low life standard 1 Illegal cutting 1 Several problems 1 Infrastructure 1

59

Bad forest management and problems within Forestry D irectorate 1 Low prices of forest products 1 Illegal cutting 2 Illegal cutting 2 Illegal cutting 2 Illegal cutting 3 Illegal cutting 4 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting 1 Low prices of NTFPs 1 Problems with permission for wood cutting 1 Bad relation man-forest 1 Bad policy in this sector 3 Bad policy in Forestry Directorate 1 Low production of wood 1 Lack of information 1 Lack of information, low quality of life, lack of regulation 1 Bad policy 1 Bad legislation 1 Bad legislation and lack of information between population 1 Bad regulation and illegal cutting 3 Bad regulation of Forestry Directorate 1 Lack of technology, illegal cutting 1 Lack of market 1 Bad forest roads 1 Bad forest roads 1 Lack of investment 1 Lack of information and forestry protection 1 Lack of employees 1 Lack of employees and interest for this sector 1 Lack of interest for this sector 1 There are no such problems 1 Corruption 1 Lack of forestry management 1 Problems how to get permissions for wood cutting 1 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting 1 Problems with forest management 1 Don’t know 3 Lack of legislative 1 Don’t know 4 Don’t know 1 Don’t know 1 Inefficiency of Forestry Directorate 1 Illegal cutting 1 Lack of employees that should monitor wood cutting 1 Lack of technology 1 Transportation problems 1 Insufficient number of foresters 1 Lack of interest for the forest 1 Lack of information 1 Lack of control and illegal cutting 6 Lack of legislative 1 Lack of stimulations related to better development of this sector 1 Lack of information 1 Lack of information between population 1 Lack of interest, legislative and technology 1 Insufficient forest protection 1 Lack of forest protection 1 Lack of forest protection, illegal cutting 1 Lack of forest protection, bad forest roads 1 Insufficient forestation 1 Lack of knowledge about forests 1 Illegal cutting 5 Inefficient administration, bad forest roads 1 Problems with administration, lack of motivation between employees in this sector 1 Lack of efficiency 1 Lack of information 1 Lack of information about new legislation 1 Lack of information about forestry 1 Lack of information, illegal cutting and fire 1 Insufficiently used forest potential 1

60

Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting 2 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal and unplanned cutting 1 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting and usage of forest 1 Illegal cutting and forest destroying 1 Illegal cutting, long waiting for permissions to cut 2 Illegal cutting, bad legislative and technology 1 Illegal cutting and lack of technology 1 Illegal cutting and fire 1 There are no problems 1 There are no problems 1 No rules in this sector 2 No rules in this sector 1 There are no problems 1 Lack of roads 1 Lack of roads 1 Lack of forestation 1 Illegal cutting, transportation problems and problems with export 1 Undeveloped market 1 Problems with forest management and forestation 1 Lack of forest roads 1 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting 3 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting 1 Lack of planned cutting 1 Lack of planned cutting 1 Lack of respect of natural resources 1 Lack of confidence between population 1 Lack of forest management and illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting and undeveloped market 1 Irregularities in process of approving wood cutting 1 Lack of forest roads 1 Irrational usage of natural resources 1 Irrational usage of natural resources 1 Irrational usage of natural resources 1 Insufficient recuperation of forest 1 Illegal cutting and insufficient forest protection 1 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting 2 Illegal cutting and lack of knowledge in area of forestation 2 Unplanned usage of natural resources 1 Concessions 1 Illegal cu tting 1 Lack of interest and lack of legislative 1 Lack of interest for this sector 1 Illegal and uncontrolled cutting 1 Lack of fire protection 1 Lack of forest protection 1 Lack of knowledge regarding quality of forest 1 Lack of knowledge regarding forest management 1 Low prices 1 Low prices of wood 2 Low prices, illegal cutting 1 There are no problems 1 Problems with product selling 1 Organizational problems 1 Inefficient procedure for cutting permission 1 Problems with selling and low prices of NTFPs 1 Problems to get cutting permissions 1 There are no problems 1 Costs of permissions to cut, low prices of timber 1 Lots of problems 1 Illegal cutting 1 Fire 1 Illegal cutting, lack of control over it 1 Illegal cutting 1

61

Illeg al cutting 1 Illegal cutting 1 Access to forest 1 Transportation problems, low income and too much work to do 1 Permanent problems 1 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting and forest devastation 1 Local roads 2 Regulation 1 Restitution 3 Management in responsible bodies 1 Management in responsible bodies 2 Management in responsible bodies 1 Management in responsible bodies 1 Illegal cutting 2 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting and transport 1 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting and lack of control 1 Bad national plan of forestry 1 Local roads 1 Low regeneration of forests 1 Lack of information 1 Lack of information and stimulation 1 Lack of control 1 Lack of control 1 Low wood selling 1 Low forest protection 1 Low protection and problems with local roads 2 Low forest protection 6 Local roads 3 Low forest protection and illegal cutting 1 Lack of investment into this sector 1 Slow restitution process 1 Lack of investment into this sector 1 Illegal cutting 1 Everything 1 Everything that was done is irregular 1 Technical problems 8 Technical problems 1 Technical problems and employees 1 Technical problems 1 Problems how to get permissions to cut 4 Lack of market 1 Lack of market 1 Slow restitution process 1 Lack of seed 1 Lack of donations for PFOs 1 Lack of market 1 Lack of job 1 Illegal cutting 1 Forestry Directorate did not managed well over forest management 1 Forest management is in very bad position 1 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting 2 Illegal cutting 1 Illegal cutting 1 Low living standard 1 Government does not have control over illegal cutting 1 Management in responsible bodies 1 Lack of information between population 1 Pollution 1 Legislation 1 Lack of technology and legislation 1 Lack of forest protection 1 Lack of forest protection 1 Total 285

62

Who helps you solve problems? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 320 100% 107.3% Relatives 86 26.8% 28.8% Government 10 3.1% 3.3% Forestry Directorate 43 13.4% 14.4% NGO 6 1.8% 2.0% Donor 0 0% 0% Someone else 1 0.3% 0.3% Nobody 112 35% 37.5% I don't need any help 62 19.3% 20.8%

Who should solve the problem? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 419 100% 140.6% Government 149 35.5% 50 Forestry Directorate 218 52.0% 73.1% Family 10 2.3% 3.3% NGO 18 4.2% 6.0% I don't know 23 5.4% 7.7% Other 1 0.2% 0.3%

Are you a member of a Private Forest Owners Association? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes 11 3.7 3.7 No 227 76.2 76.7 No, there is no PFOA in this 44 14.8 14.9 area I don’t know 14 4.7 4.7 Total 296 99.3 100.0

If there an association of PFO, what services would be useful for you? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 852 100% 168.3% Getting cutting permits 163 19.1% 32.2% Making forest management plan 184 21.5% 36.3% Fire management 146 17.1% 28.8% Influence on national plans and policies 79 9.2% 15.6% Selling forest products 89 10.4% 17.5% Restitution 47 5.5% 9.2% Land registration 54 6.3% 10.6% Training in forest management 67 7.8% 13.2% Other 23 2.6% 4.5% How much are you willing to pay annually for these services? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Less than 2 euro/year 64 12.6 14.4 Between 2 and 5 euro/year 92 18.2 20.7 Between 5 and 10 71 14.0 16.0 euro/year Between 10 and 20 28 5.5 6.3 euro/year Above 20 euro/year 30 5.9 6.7 Somebody else should pay 160 31.6 36.0 for this costs Total 445 87.9 100.0

How much are you willing pay annually for these services/crosstabs Less than 2 Between 2 Between 5 Between 10 Above 20 Somebody euro/year and 5 and 10 and 20 euro/year else should euro/year euro/year euro/year pay for this costs Urban/Rural Urban 9.0% 26.1% 16.2% 8.1% 15.3% 25.2% Rural 15.4% 17.7% 17.4% 5.7% 4.0% 39.8% Municipality Kolasin 3.0% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% 24.2% Plav 3.0% 24.2% 39.4% 21.2% 12.1% Andrijevica 11.1% 27.8% 22.2% 33.3% 5.6% Rozaje 14.3% 34.3% 25.7% 2.9% 2.9% 20.0%

Mojkovac 16.7% 22.2% 5.6% 5.6% 50.0%

Berane 10.7% 15.5% 21.4% 3.6% 7.1% 41.7%

Pljevlja 26.7% 6.7% 6.7% 5.0% 3.3% 51.7% Bijelo Polje 20.7% 24.0% 10.7% 44.6% Zabljak 5.3% 52.6% 5.3% 5.3% 31.6%

63

Forest area Up to 5ha 13.0% 24.0% 16.2% 5.2% 4.5% 37.0% From 6 to 4.8% 21.4% 16.7% 9.5% 16.7% 31.0% 10ha From 11 to 9.4% 25.0% 34.4% 15.6% 6.3% 9.4% 20ha From 21 to 19.4% 30.6% 22.2% 16.7% 11.1% 50ha Over 51ha 16.7% 33.3% 33.3% 16.7% Do you own Yes 11.0% 22.9% 19.2% 8.6% 8.2% 30.1% forestland? No 20.9% 16.3% 9.8% 2.0% 3.9% 47.1%

Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting? Frequency Percent Valid percent Yes, just for household purposes 315 15.9 29.7 Yes, for processing 272 13.7 25.7 No 408 20.6 38.6 No, but have plans 63 3.2 5.9 Total 1,058 53.4 100

Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting/crosstabs Yes, just for Yes, for No No, but have household purposes processing plans Urban/Rural Urban 35.1% 32.4% 29.7% 2.7% Rural 19.6% 35.7% 44.6% Municipality Kolasin 38.1% 19.0% 42.9% Plav 9.1% 72.7% 18.2% Andrijevica 75.0% 25.0% Rozaje 25.0% 25.0% 50.0%

Mojkovac 16.7% 66.7% 16.7%

Berane 17.9% 39.3% 39.3% 3.6%

Pljevlja 31.6% 42.1% 26.3% Bijelo Polje 40.6% 25.0% 34.4% Zabljak 53.8% 46.2% Do you own Yes 21.4% 39.8% 37.9% 1.0% forestland? No 25.9% 38.9% 35.2% Gender Male 23.1% 38.1% 38.8% Female 18.8% 37.5% 37.5% 6.3%

To what extent does your household rely on this money? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Does not rely at all 280 14.1 63.2 Rely somehow 72 3.6 16.3 Rely 51 2.6 11.5 Pretty much rely 18 0.9 4.1 Totally rely 22 1.1 5.0 Total 443 22.3 100.0

To what extent does your household rely on this money/crosstabs 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Urban/Rural Urban 57.6% 18.2% 9.1% 15.2% Rural 57.9% 19.5% 16.5% 2.3% 3.8% Municipality Kolasin 55.6% 33.3% 11.1% Plav 36.4% 63.6% Andrijevica 60.0% 40.0% Rozaje 41.7% 58.3% Mojkovac 80.0% 20.0% Berane 80.0% 6.7% 13.3% Pljevlja 50.0% 14.0% 34.0% 2.0% Bijelo Polje 42.3% 7.7% 25.0% 5.8% 19.2% Zabljak 57.1% 42.9% Do you own Yes 47.7% 22.0% 19.3% 2.8% 8.3% forestland? No 60.8% 16.5% 20.3% 1.3% 1.3% Is your Yes, just for 69.7% 21.2% 9.1% household household aware of purposes NTFPs Yes, for 50.8% 23.0% 21.3% 1.6% 3.3% collecting? processing No 100.0%

64

Do you collect NTFPs? Note: Question was answered by head of the household. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes 226 11.4 59.3 Yes, but stopped 16 0.8 4.2 No 119 6.1 31.2 No, but have intention 20 1.1 5.3 Total 381 19.2 100

Respondent’s role in NTFPs

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Collector 400 20.2 93.9 Middleman 17 0.9 3.9 Processor 7 0.4 1.6 Processor and exporter 2 0.1 0.5 Total 426 21.5 100

You collect NTFP because it is… Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 541 100% 88.4% Tradition in your family 113 20.9% 18.5% You have stabile sources of income from this activity 59 10.9% 9.6% This is the way to supplement household budget 241 44.5% 39.4% You earn your pocket money or money for the school 103 19.1% 16.8% This is a main activity in your family 6 1.1% 0.9% Something else 19 3.5% 3.1%

During which seasons do you collect NTFPs? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 573 100% 93.6% Winter 1 0.2% 0.2% Spring 93 16.2% 15.2% Fall 110 19.2% 18.0% Summer 369 64.4% 60.3

Which NTFP do you collect? 672 100% 109.8% Mushrooms 348 51.8% 56.9% Forest fruits 209 31.1% 34.2% Medical plants 113 16.8% 18.5% Other 2 0.3% 0.3%

How long have you collected NTFPs? Frequency Percent Valid Percent More than 20 years 63 3.2 13.2 Between 10 and 20 years 83 4.2 17.4 Between 3 and 10 years 199 10.1 41.8 Recently 131 6.6 27.5 Total 476 24.0 100

How long have you collected NTFPs/crosstabs Between 3 and 10 Between 10 and 20 More than 20 Recently years years years Up to 18 100.0% From 19 to 25 66.7% 33.3% From 26 to 35 41.7% 25.0% 25.0% 8.3% From 36 to 45 44.4% 19.4% 27.8% 8.3% From 46 to 55 43.9% 19.5% 14.6% 22.0% From 56 to 65 40.0% 27.5% 17.5% 15.0% Over 66 37.5% 25.0% 31.3% 6.3%

Where do you sell the NTFPs you collect? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 527 100% 86.1% Other 3 0.6% 0.5% To processor 16 3.1% 2.6% On a improvised place during the season 48 9.1% 7.8% Directly to customer 52 9.8%3 8.5% On a local market 56 10.6% 9.2% I don't sell the products 73 13.8% 11.9% To middleman 279 52.9% 45.6%

65

How much did you sell in 2007? (average) Note: If total amount of sold NTFPs is < 100kg Number Minimum Maximum Mean Mushrooms 41 30.0 100.0 72.8 Forest fruits 13 10.0 100.0 80.0 Medical plants 1 25.0 25.0 25.01

How much did you sell in 2007? (in average) Note: If total amount of sold NTFPs is > 100kg Number Minimum Maximum Mean Mushrooms 24 100.0 500.0 123.1 Forest fruits 11 150.00 400.0 252.7 Medical plants 1 500.0 500.0 500.0

How do you spend revenues from NTFPs? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 465 100% 79.2% It is a supplement for household budget 273 58.7% 44.7% It is used for financing school expenditures 91 19.6% 14.9% It is a pocket money 79 16.9% 12.9% Other 22 4.7% 3.6%

Do you regard revenues from NTFPs to be sustainable source of income? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes 125 6.3 28.2 No 319 16.1 71.8 Total 444 22.4 100

Do you regard revenues from NTFPs to be sustainable source of income/crosstabs Yes No Urban/Rural Urban 25.8% 74.2% Rural 26.7% 73.3% Municipality Kolasin 50.0% 50.0% Plav 6.3% 93.8% Andrijevica 40.0% 60.0% Rozaje 38.5% 61.5% Mojkovac 16.7% 83.3% Berane 6.7% 93.3% Pljevlja 75.0% 25.0% Bijelo Polje 10.3% 89.7% Zabljak 100.0% Do you own forestland? Yes 22.3% 77.7% No 30.5% 69.5% Is your household aware of Yes. just for household 8.7% 91.3% NTFPs collecting? purposes Yes. for processing 16.0% 84.0% In which measure does 1.00 4.9% 95.1% your household rely on this 2.00 45.2% 54.8% money? 3.00 36.7% 63.3% 4.00 100.0%

Have you ever taken part in a training program related to NTFPs collection? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes 14 0.7 3.1 No 441 22. 3 96.9 Total 455 22.9 100

Have you ever taken part in a training program related to NTFPs collection/crosstabs Yes No Urban/Rural Urban 2.9% 97.1% Rural 1.0% 99.0% Municipality Kolasin 100.0% Plav 100.0% Andrijevica 100.0% Rozaje 100.0% Mojkovac 100.0% Berane 6.3% 93.8% Pljevlja 5.6% 94.4% Bijelo Polje 100.0% Zabljak 100.0% Do you own forestland? Yes 1.0% 99.0%

66

No 1.8% 98.2% Is your household aware of Yes. just for household 7.7% 92.3% NTFPs collecting? purposes Yes. for processing 100.0% In which measure does 1.00 2.3% 97.7% your household rely on this 2.00 100.0% money? 3.00 3.7% 96.3% 4.00 100.0%

Are you a member of an association of NTFP collectors? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes 13 0.7 1.5 No 627 31.6 71.7 No, there is none in this area 221 11.1 25.3 I don't know 14 0.7 1.6 Total 875 44.1 100.0

If there were an association of collectors what services would be useful to you? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 1.348 100% 229.6% NTFPs points of sale 361 26.8% 59.1% Cooling together 157 11.6% 25.7% Quality control 273 20.3% 44.7% Information about collecting 315 23.4% 51.6% Information on quality 201 14.9% 32.9% Other 41 3.1% 6.7%

Is any household member engaged as a middleman in NTFPs? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes 29 1.5 2.7 Yes, but stopped 10 0.5 0.9 No 949 47.9 88.7 No, but planning 82 4.2 7.6 Total 1,070 53.9 100

Who do you resell medical plants to? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 20 100% 83.3% Domestic NTFPs processor 2 10% 8.3% Foreign NTFPs processor 6 30% 25.0% Other middleman 10 50% 41.7% Other 2 10% 8.3%

How much did you sell in 2007 in average? (kg) Number Minimum Maximum Mean Mushrooms 15 80 3.000 805.3 Forest fruits 7 25 4.000 934.3 Medical plants 6 50 170 103.3 Other 1 500 500 500

What was the average price per kg? Number Minimum Maximum Mean Mushrooms 13 1.7 6 3.9 Forest fruits 5 3 7 4 Medical plants 5 5 12 8.6

Do you think the price is fair? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes 2 0.1 9.1 No 14 0.7 63.6 Don`t know 6 0.3 27.3 Total 22 1.1 100

Do this prices increase over time? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Yes 9 0.5 39.11 No 2 0.1 8.7 Sometimes 11 0.6 47.8 Never 1 0.1 4.3 Total 23 1.2 100

67

What is the main barrier for NTFPs collection? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 56 100% 233.3% Lack of knowledge 6 10.7% 25 Lack of collectors 10 17.8% 41.6% Lack of training programs relating to collecting procedure 2 3.5% 8.3% Low prices 18 32.1% 75 Lack of motivation between collectors 11 19.6% 45.8% Lack of natural resources 3 5.3% 12.5 Lack of processors and exporters 6 10.7% 25

Trends in wood cutting and sales in last 3 years Frequency Percent Valid Percent Increasing 96 4.8 23.9 Stable 256 12.9 63.7 Decreasing 50 2.5 12.4 Total 402 20.3 100

Trends in wood cutting and sales in last 3 year/crosstabs Increasing Stable Decreasing Urban/Rural Urban 28.0% 68.0% 4.0% Rural 21.7% 56.7% 21.7% Municipality Kolasin 23.1% 76.9% Plav 50.0% 50.0% Andrijevica 50.0% 50.0% Rozaje 40.0% 50.0% 10.0% Mojkovac 100.0% Berane 25.0% 62.5% 12.5% Pljevlja 38.9% 50.0% 11.1% Bijelo Polje 11.5% 65.4% 23.1% Zabljak 100.0% Do you own Yes 24.1% 62.1% 13.8% forestland? No 25.0% 59.4% 15.6%

Trends in NTFPs collection in the last 3 years Frequency Percent Valid Percent Increasing 79 4.0 18.2 Stable 208 10.5 47.9 Decreasing 147 7.4 33.9 Total 434 21.9 100.0

Trends in NTFPs collection in the last 3 years/crosstabs Increasing Stable Decreasing Urban/Rural Urban 18.2% 51.5% 30.3% Rural 13.1% 46.4% 40.5% Municipality Kolasin 7.7% 53.8% 38.5% Plav 58.3% 41.7% Andrijevica 25.0% 75.0% Rozaje 8.3% 33.3% 58.3% Mojkovac 75.0% 25.0% Berane 19.0% 52.4% 28.6% Pljevlja 26.3% 47.4% 26.3% Bijelo Polje 18.8% 37.5% 43.8% Zabljak 66.7% 33.3% Do you own Yes 13.6% 47.7% 38.6% forestland? No 11.6% 53.5% 34.9% Is your household Yes. just for household 16.1% 29.0% 54.8% aware of NTFPs purposes collecting? Yes. for processing 14.8% 64.8% 20.4% No 10.5% 44.7% 44.7% No. but have plans 100.0% In which measure 1.00 15.7% 54.9% 29.4% does your household 2.00 5.3% 47.4% 47.4% rely on this money? 3.00 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% 4.00 100.0% 5.00 100.0% Do you regard NTFP Yes 30.0% 50.0% 20.0% money as a No 61.1% 38.9% sustainable source of income?

68

ANNEX 2

QUESTIONNAIRES

69

QUESTIONNAIRE NO 1 – QUALITATIVE SURVEY

I General information about NTFPs processor

Name and surname:

Function of interviewed person

Name of the company

Year of establishing

Contact details:

telephone contact: internet address: e-mail:

II Sourcing

1. What product exactly do you collect/buy?

• Mushrooms • Forest fruits • Medical plants • Other

2. Exact origin/village/municipality where NTFPs are collected (if known)

3. Amounts that are processed

• Last season: • Maximum in recent years: • Minimum in recent years:

4. Price. price fluctuations (within year. between years )

5. Who determines prices?

6. Usual mode of payment

7. Contracts. [is the trade based on contracts. and what type. verbal. written…?]

70

III Processing

8. What type of processing/value adding are you doing?

9. Is the processing done by hand or by machines?

10. Recent innovations

11. N° of staff (permanent/seasonal)

12. Storage facilities

13. Packaging

14. Quality losses. Causes and impacts?

IV Destination: Customers and purchasers

15. Which exact product are you selling ((trade) name and specification of the product)?

16. Destination: to where are you selling it (client. region/country)?

17. What type of customers do you have (company. exporters. end users…)?

18. Different qualities for different customers?

19. Who are the ultimate consumers of your products?

20. Amounts sold: a) last year. b) the maximum ever sold in a year and c) the minimum

21. Units (in which the product is being traded)

22. Price. price fluctuation (within year. between years)

23. How is the price being determined?

24. Mode of payment

25. Contracts (type of contracts. done ahead of the harvest or upon delivery)?

26. Are you a member of any type of cooperation/association/cooperative? Which?

27. What type of benefit do you get from being part of this cooperation / association?

28. Certification and relevance for the respective player? Reasons for being certified (or: not being certified)?

V Threats/opportunities

• Threats:

• Opportunities:

QUESTIONNAIRE NO 2 – QUANTITATIVE SURVEY

NTFPs SURVEY

Name and Surname of surveyor ______

U/R ______

Date ______

Municipality ______

Settlement ______

Address ______

Phone number ______

Household head (respondent’s name and surname) ______

Number of household members’ ______72

Part 1 Demographic characteristics No 1 2 3 4 5 Household Age Gender Highest completed Respondent’s occupation What was yours primary activity members level of education in the past month?

Name and 1. Male 1. Currently attending 1. Agriculture. forestry and 1. Working/helping to earn income surname 2. primary school water supply 2. Job searching Female 2. Currently attending 2. Fishing 3. Attending school secondary school 3. Mining and quarrying 4. Housekeeping 3. Currently attending 4. Electricity. gas and water 5. Retired university supply 6. Stay at home 4. Primary school 5. Construction 7. Sick/disabled 5. Secondary school - 3 6. Wholesale and retail trade 8. Other, specify years 7. Hotels and restaurants 6. Secondary school –4 8. Transport. storage and years communication 7. College 9. Financial intermediation 8. BA degree 10. Real estate activities. 9. MSc degree renting 10. PhD 11. Public administration and social insurance 12. Education 13. Health and social work 14. Other community. social and personal services 15. Households with employed persons 16. Extra-territorial organizations and bodes 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

73

Part 2 Private forest owners

No 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Do you Area Type of the Who owns Type of How did you Why do you own forest? How own forest the forest? ownership obtain the forest? often do forestland? documents you visit your forest?

1. Yes ha 1. Conifers 1. Myself 1. Full 1. Inheritance 1. Pass on to children or 1. Never 2. No 2.Broadleave 2. Spouse documents 2. Purchase other 2. Monthly 3. Both types 3. Family 2. Only 3. Other. specify 2. To enjoy scenery and 3. Almost member descriptive privacy four times 4. Other cadastre 3. Long-term financial per year 3. In process of investment 4. Almost restitution 4. For hunting and fishing twice 4. Something 5. For timber production times per else. specify 6. As part of my family year heritage 5.Annually 7. To collect NTFPs 8. Fore recreation other than hunting and fishing 9. For grazing livestock 10. To collect firewood 11. Other, specify 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

74

No 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Do you Is there a What do you Do you have What do you How How do Main Do you have sell forest think about experience think about often do you get purposes for contracts with forest management forest with the forest you cut permits wood cutting any companies products? plan for your certification? forest certification? your to cut in the area of forest? certification? wood? the wood wood processing? you want?

1. Yes. 1. Yes 1. 1. Yes. I have 1. If it helped 1. All 1. For as 1. Selling to 1. Yes. contract firewood 2. No. but it is Certification certification protect the year much as companies deliveries 2. Yes. no problem will improve 2. Yes. have environment (monthly) I want. 2. Selling to 2. No. I sell when timbers 3. No and this forest proper 2. If it 2. All without individuals I have wood to 3. Yes. is big problem management information improved year (five much 3. For sale NTFPs 4. I don’t 2. 3.No. Go to wildlife habitat times or problems household 3. No. don’t selling 4. Yes. all know Certification question 3. If it made less) 2. needs to wood 5. No will increase 4. No. I think my forest 3. Difficult. 4. Other. companies my profits in that is not more healthy Seasonal but I am specify 4. Other. specify tree farming useful Go to 4. If my wood (winter) allowed ______3. question products could 4. to cut Certification be sold for a Seasonal 3. will satisfy higher price (spring) Terrible. consumers 5. If it gained 5. Never permit is that their me access to done that in woos additional before adequate purchases are wood markets supporting not normally good forestry available 4. 6. If it saved Certification me money by will lessen the reducing the need for likelihood of forestry future regulation regulation 5. Certification will give me recognition for the good forestry that I am already practicing 6. Certification will be necessary for timber growers to compete in the international market

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

75

No 23 24 25 26 27 28 Annual production Annual production How Do you regard Are you introduced with What kind of services do in 2007 in 2008 important revenue from current legislation of the you received from the is firewood to be forestry sector? Forestry Directorate? firewood sustainable Evaluate services 1-3 for you? source of income?

1. Very 1. Yes. for ever 1. Yes. sufficiently 1. Cutting permits Timbers______m3 Timbers______m3 important 2. Yes. for next 10 2. No. I want to but there is 2. Transport documents Firewoods______m3 Firewoods______m3 2. A little years no information 3. Advice important 3. No. in 10 years 3. No. I want to know more 4. Seedlings 3. Not that it is less than 4.i don’t want to know 5. Other, specify important today 4. Not in all important

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

76

No 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Recommendation Main Who helps you in Who should Are you a If there is How much in order to be problems solving the solve the member of association of are you better informed in problems? problem? a Private PFO. What willing pay forestry Forest services annually for sector Owners would be this services Specify Association useful for you? 1. Training 1. Relatives and 1.Government 1.Yes 1. Getting 1.Less than 2 programs friends 2. Forest 2.No cutting permits euro/year 2. Seminars 2. Government Directorate 3.No. there is 2.Making forest 2. Between 2 3. Workshops 3. Forest Directorate 3. Family none in this management and 5 4. Other 4. NGO 4. NGO area plan euro/year 5. Donor 5. I don’t know 4.I don’t 3 Fire 3. Between 5 6. Nobody 6. Other. specify know management and 10 7. I don’t need any 4. Influence euro/year help national plans 4. Between 8. Other. specify and policies 10 and 20 5. Selling forest euro/year products 5. Above 20 6. Restitution euro/year 7. Land 6. Somebody registration else should 8.Training in pay for this forest costs management Other. specify

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

77

Part 3 NTPFs (Collecting of mushrooms. forest fruits and medical plants)

3.1. NTFPs Collectors No 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Is your In which Who is Are you Respondent’s You collect During Which NTFP you collect household measure collecting collecting role in NTFP which aware of does your NTFPs NTFPs NTFPs? because it seasons you NTFPs household from the Question is… collect collecting rely on this household addressed to NTFPs money? Mark with respondent 1- Not so the 1 much members 5-Totally who collecting NTFP 1. Yes. just 1. Yes. go to 1. Collector 1. Tradition 1. Summer 1.Mushroom for question 40 2.Middleman in your 2. Spring 2. Forest fruits household 2. Yes. but 3. Processor family 3. Fall 3. Medical plants purposes stopped 4. Processor 2. You have 4. Winter 4. Other, specify 2. Yes. for 3. No and exporter stabile processing 4. No. but have sources of 3. No . go intention income from to this activity question 2.3.4 go to 3. This is 50 question 52 the way to 4. No, but supplement have plans . household go to budget question 4. You earn 50 your pocket money or money for the school 5. This is a main activity in your family 6.Something else (specify)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

78

No 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52. Since NTFP How much you sold How do Do you Were Are you a If there is What when that you in 2007 you spend regard you member of association of improve you are collect In kg the NTFPs NTFP involved an collectors. ments involved you sell money money as in some associatio What services could you in NTFP a training n of NTFP would be useful suggest collectio sustainabl program collectors for you? about n? e source of related develop income? to NTFPs of NTFP collectin sector g 1. More 1.Directly 1.Mushroom______1. It is a 1. Yes 1. Yes 1.Yes 1. Selling than 20 to 2.Forest supplement 2. No 2. No 2.No together NTFP years customer fruits______for 3.No. there 2. Cooling 2.Betwee 2. On a 3. Medical household is none in together n 10 and local plants______budget this area 3.Quality control 20 years market 4. Other, specify 2. It is used 4.I don’t 4. Information 3.Betwee 3. On a for financing know about collecting n 3 and improvise school 5. Information on 10 years d place expenditure quality 4.Recentl during the s 6. Other,specify y season 3. It is a 4. To pocket middlema money n 4. Other 5. To processor 6. I don’t sell the products 7. Other 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

79

3.1. NTFPs Middleman No 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Is any W To whom you How What Do you Do this What is Are you a If there is What HHS ho resell medical much was the think prices the main member association of impro membe is plant you sold price per the increas barrier of an collectors. veme r en in 2007 kg price is e over regarding associati What services nts engage ga In kg fair time? NTFPs on of would be could d as ge Last five NTFP useful for you? you middle d years collector sugge man in as s st NTFPs mi about dd devel le op of m NTFP an secto ? r

1. Yes 1. NTFPs 1.Mushroo 1.Mushroo 1.Yes 1. Yes 1. Lack of 1.Yes 1. Selling 2. Yes. processor, which? m m 2.No 2. No knowledge 2.No together NTFP but 2. Foreign 2.Forest 2.Forest 3.Don’t 3.Somet 2. Lack of 3.No. 2. Cooling stopped processors fruits fruits know imes collectors there is together 3. No. which country 3. Medical 3. Medical 4. Never 3. Lack of none in 3.Quality control go to 3. Other plants plants training this area 4. Information questio middleman 4. Other, 4. Other, programs 4.I don’t about collecting n54 4. Other, specify specify specify relating to know 5. Information on 4. No. collecting quality but procedure 6. Other, specify planning 4. Low . prices 5. Lack of 2.3.4 motivation go to between questio collectors n 61 6. Lack of natural resources 7. Lack of processors and exporters 8.Somethi ng else 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

80

Part 4 Household income

No 62 63 64 65 66 67 What is the main Average HHS Average HHS income from forest Trends in wood Trends in NTFPs source of monthly income products cutting and collecting in last 3 household income? HHS income during Annual. in € selling in last 3 year Max 3 answers previous year three years is… 1. Wage 1. Up to 300 1. 1. Increasing 1. Increasing 2. Pension euro Constantly 2. Stable 2. Stable 3.Agricultural 2. From 300 increasing 3. Decreasing 3. Decreasing pension to 600 euro 2. Mostly 4. Social assistance 3. From 600 the same- 5. Revenues from to 800 euro stabile

property 5. From 800 3. Wood Mushrooms

6. Revenues from to 1.000 Constantly Forest fruits agriculture euro decreasing Medical plants 7. Revenues from 6. More than other sources 1.000 euro