Changing Resource Management Paradigms, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, and Non-Timber Forest Products

NTFP Conference Proceedings

Changing Resource Management Paradigms, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, and Non-timber Forest Products

Iain J. Davidson-Hunt1 and Fikret Berkes2

Abstract.—We begin this paper by exploring the shift now occurring in the science that provides the theoretical basis for resource management practice. The concepts of traditional ecological knowledge and traditional management systems are presented next to provide the background for an examination of resilient landscapes that emerge through the work and play of humans. These examples of traditional ecological knowledge and traditional management systems suggest that it is important to focus on managing ecological processes, instead of products, and to use integrated ecosystem management. Traditional knowledge is often discussed by resource management agencies as a source of information to be incorporated into management practice; in this paper we go further and explore traditional knowledge as an arena of dialogue between resource managers and harvesters. To enter into this dialogue will require mutual respect among managers and users for each others’ knowledge and practice. Such a dialogue could move forest management paradigms beyond our current view of “timber or parks” and toward one of truly integrated use.

INTRODUCTION “We commit ourselves to apply our knowledge and expertise to fulfill our vision by, “Adopting sustainable development in where applicable: Improving our under- forestry has meant broadening our standing of forest ecological processes, and overarching goal, from sustained yields to enhancing our capacity to manage forests healthy forest ecosystems...Our goal is to in a way that will maintain the biological maintain and enhance the long-term health diversity, productivity and resilience of of our forest ecosystems for the benefit of these ecosystems” (Canadian Council of all living things, both nationally and glo- Forest Ministers 1998b: 1). bally, while providing environmental, economic, social and cultural opportunities for “It seems obvious that the common proce- the benefit of present and future genera- dure of incorporating TK [traditional knowl- tions” (Canadian Council of Forest Minis- edge] into environmental management is ters 1998a: ix-xii, emphasis added). one that serves neither the interests of Aboriginal peoples nor the dominant culture. The full contributions of Aboriginal people and their knowledge to managing for 1 Ph.D. student, Natural Resources Institute, sustainable use will not be realized if TK University of Manitoba, and member, The Taiga continues to be treated as just some other Institute for Land, Culture and Economy, Suite category of information to be inserted into, A, 150 Main Street South, Kenora, Ontario, or merged with, western scientific knowl- Canada, P9N 1S9; e-mail: edge to further the agenda of environmental [email protected]. managers. Rather, they will be realized 2 Professor, Natural Resources Institute, Uni- when we begin to shift focus towards versity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, applying those management philosophies Canada, R3T 2N2; e-mail: and systems that give TK its full meaning, [email protected]. merit, and efficacy” (Stevenson 1998). 78 A shift is occurring in how Canadians think concepts of traditional ecological knowledge forests should be managed. As the Canadian and traditional management systems are Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM 1998a) presented next, to provide the background for noted, we are beginning to view our forests as an examination of resilient landscapes that ecosystems that provide timber, medicinal emerge through the work and play of humans. plants, foods, craft materials, and recreational These examples of traditional ecological knowl- opportunities. We are also beginning to realize edge and traditional management systems that the long-term health of forest ecosystems suggest that it is important to focus on manag- and the well-being of people should be comple- ing ecological processes, instead of products, mentary, rather than opposing, goals. A and to utilize integrated ecosystem manage- healthy forest ecosystem is one that supports ment. Traditional knowledge is often discussed more than just logging activities. There may be by resource management agencies as a source people felling trees and others picking medici- of information to be incorporated into manage- nal herbs or shooting the rapids in a canoe. It ment practice; in this paper we go further and is also time to move beyond the idea that a explore traditional knowledge as an arena of healthy forest ecosystem is one in which there dialogue between resource managers and are no people. Healthy forest ecosystems are harvesters. Such a dialogue will require mutual places where people live, work, and play, as respect among managers and users for each well as visit. others’ knowledge and practice; it could move forest management paradigms beyond our The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers current view of “timber or parks” and toward (1997, 1998a) have worked toward an ecosys- one of truly integrated use. tem vision by outlining a set of criteria and indicators that provide forest management agencies with the tangible means to integrate CHANGING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT economic, social, cultural, and ecological PARADIGMS values in forest management. However, the chasm between the vision of a healthy forest Institutions and practices of science and ecosystem as a vibrant place of activity and its traditional ecological knowledge are often vision as a “silent cathedral” may not be tra- presented as independent and bounded realms versed by such an approach. It will also require of knowledge that are free from any mutual the ability of resource managers to imagine a influence. The evolving thinking on science and healthy forest ecosystem as one that reconciles traditional ecological knowledge is that bound- industrial landscapes with conservation land- aries between knowledge systems are less rigid scapes. than previously thought, and the interchange between science and traditional knowledge It is not difficult to imagine that economic more frequent (Agrawal 1995, Usher 2000). activity and conservation can overlap within Both of us have made such observations in our the same landscape. This is a vision that many work both in the Canadian North and interna- harvesters find acceptable as the manner in tionally. We have noted, for example, the which the relationship between humans and sophistication of Latin American Aboriginal the environment should be structured. Tradi- people in the way they manage forest succes- tional ecological knowledge and traditional sion, and the use of diverse landscapes in knowledge management systems start from the forested mountain environments in the West- premise that there is no separation between the ern Himalaya (Berkes et al. 1998b). We learned landscapes in which people live and play and from the knowledge of Cree fisherfolk to de- those in which they work. As resource manage- velop a healthy respect and interest in the ment paradigms shift toward integrated ecosys- linkages between the knowledge of harvesters tem management, it appears that there is a and resource managers. Collaborative projects convergence between this new kind of resource with the eastern James Bay Cree fishers management and traditional ecological knowl- through the 1970s and the 1980s provided new edge, opening a new opportunity for dialogue insights that influenced the way we do ecology. and mutual learning. Twenty-five years after he first started working This paper begins by exploring the shift occur- with the Cree, Berkes reflected, “Somewhat to ring in the science that provides the theoretical my surprise, I found myself comfortable with basis for resource management practice. The the Cree view of nature, even though, by virtue 79 NTFP Conference Proceedings of my Western education and scientific train- managed for sustained yield, then the machine ing, I was heavily influenced to resist it” (forest) as a whole could be sustained. But, as (Berkes 1999: xiv). For the Cree, land was a many resource managers know, this is not a portfolio of resources that sustained life, and good assumption, and there are many resource landscape itself was full of life, spirit, and management disaster stories to prove it mystery. Such a “sacred ecology” was very (Gunderson et al. 1995). different from the conventional positivist concept of cut-and-dried, predictable ecosys- The emerging scientific paradigm tells a very tems consisting merely of lifeless, mechanical different story about ecosystems and resource processes that could be “managed” by techni- management. If the old ecology can be charac- cians. terized as a science of the parts, the new ecology can be thought of as the science of the The Cree helped Berkes realize that, “although integration of the parts (Holling et al. 1998). ecology is a science, its greater and overriding This new ecology suggests that ecosystems wisdom is universal. That wisdom can be must be understood as integrated and holistic approached mathematically, experimentally, or entities that are nested across scales. Ecosys- it can be danced or told as myth. It is in Aus- tems cannot be understood by breaking them tralian aborigines’ ‘dreamtime’ and in Gary into parts but must be understood as a func- Snyder’s poetry... The science of ecology did not tional and structural whole that exists due to discuss such views, but Siu, Leopold, McHarg, the relationship among the parts. Ecosystems and later Bateson mentally prepared me to be in this view are characterized by multiple receptive to a traditional ecology that did” equilibria; non-linear processes; surprises (Berkes 1999: xv). At the same time, many (perceived reality departing qualitatively from other ecologists and scientists were widening expectation, in the sense of Holling 1986); their radius of intellectual search and coming threshold effects; and system flips. to similar conclusions. Partly as a reflection of this, by the 1990s, there were major changes in Following the emerging paradigm, the ecosys- the way ecosystems were viewed by ecologists. tem cannot be broken down into discreet resource categories because of the linkages The old ecology could be characterized as among ecosystem components. Uncertainty emerging from the mathematics of Newton, the becomes a key property of resource manage- philosophy of Descartes, and the scientific ment due to the unpredictable, non-linear, and method of Bacon. The paradigm that emerged uncontrollable nature of the systems being from such foundations was mechanistic and managed. Finally, there is a recognition that reductionistic. This framework led to the idea people, policies, and politics are as much a part that an ecosystem was an entity that operated of an ecosystem as are timber, fish, and wild- like a machine. Like any other machine, it life. This new view of ecosystems has been could be disassembled and the parts identified; moving into mainstream thinking, as evi- the whole machine could then be understood denced, for example, by the Ecological Society by revealing the mechanisms by which the of America guidelines for ecosystem manage- parts interacted (Holling et al. 1998). ment (ESA 1995) and the adoption of ecosystem integrity management objectives by Parks The use of these theoretical foundations and Canada. frameworks resulted in an ecosystem concept characterized by equilibrium, predictability, These developments have led to a flux in linear processes, and controllability. Resource resource management, as current practices are management used this ecosystem view, to- no longer supported by the current scientific gether with similar models from economics, to thinking. The new resource management will suggest that resources could be broken down “require policies and actions that not only into discrete categories such as timber, water, satisfy social objectives but, at the same time, and soil. Each discrete category, such as also achieve continually modified understand- timber, could then be managed independently ing of the evolving conditions and provide of the others, using maximum sustained yield flexibility for adaptation to surprises. Science, and maximum economic yield models, and policy, and management then become inextri- constructing supply-demand curves for each cably linked” (Holling et al. 1998: 347). It could component of the ecosystem. The unstated also be said that science, policy, management, assumption was that if each part could be and people will need to be more closely linked 80 in the new resource management models. Also very significant, the new concept of a knowledge of taxonomies, spatial and temporal multiequilibrium, non-linear, unpredictable cycles, and behaviors. Land and resource ecosystem appears to be reducing the distance management systems use such knowledge to between science and traditional ecological develop appropriate practices, tools, and knowledge. There is a convergence between techniques for a local environment. Traditional science and traditional knowledge, as science resource management systems also require begins to perceive humans as part of a world appropriate institutions that allow interdepen- that contains a large degree of uncertainty, dent harvesters to coordinate activities, cooper- complexity, and unpredictability. Resource ate in tasks, devise rules for social restraint, management is beginning to realize the need and enforce those rules. Finally, the world view “to utilise the self-organizing capabilities of (ethics, religion, values) allows resource har- natural ecosystems to design harmonious vesters to weave their perceptions of the envi- social and natural environments; that is, to try ronment into a coherent system of knowledge to integrate human production and consump- and practice. tion patterns, infrastructure and settlements with ecosystem processes...” (Berkes et al. Is traditional ecological knowledge relevant to 1995: 296). current resource management? The term “traditional” is considered by some to denote knowledge and practice that is old and un- TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE changing. However, there is not necessarily a contradiction between the terms tradition and The use of the term traditional ecological change; change is simply what is noted if knowledge or local knowledge is one way of tradition is sampled along a temporal spec- recognizing that resource harvesters possess trum. Tradition often changes by adaptive knowledge that they use to make decisions processes and incorporates trial-and-error about their resource harvesting practices. learning. Tradition further implies that there is Many resource harvesters depict their knowl- historical continuity in culture and in the edge as based upon the practical adaptation of system of knowledge. The term “tradition” has technique, technology, and institutions within often been used by resource harvesters to a local environment. We have been using a emphasize that their knowledge has been working definition of traditional ecological generated out of accumulated practical experi- knowledge as “a cumulative body of knowledge, ence. Often the term of choice of Aboriginal and practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive pro- other people close to the land, it refers to cesses and handed down through generations knowledge and practice generated out of the life by cultural transmission, about the relation- experiences of generations of harvesters them- ship of living beings (including humans) with selves. one another and their environments” (Berkes 1999: 8). TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE Even though there is no clear delineation IN PRACTICE—DISTURBANCE AND between traditional ecological knowledge and SUCCESSION science (Agrawal 1995), the recognition of traditional knowledge as a legitimate kind of Traditional ecological knowledge has not only knowledge is significant. It shows that the generated the proverbial “grist for the academic distinction between traditional ecological mill” but has also resulted in distinctive land- knowledge and science is not the absence or scapes found across the world. We can, for presence of management systems but the example, learn about forest reclamation in existence of different concepts of management. grassland ecosystems from the Kayapo people Traditional ecological knowledge may best be of Brazil. As shown in figure 1, the Kayapo use considered as a knowledge-practice-belief crumbled termite and ant nests and mulch to complex. Traditional knowledge may be initiate a process of forest succession that thought to consist of four mutually interrelated results in expanding forest islands in the spheres that are nested in one another: local grasslands (Posey 1985). The process begins by knowledge of plants and animals; land and planting useful crops into the prepared resource management systems; social institu- mounds (apete) for up to 3 years. Sweet pota- tions; and world view. Local knowledge of land, toes and yams may be harvested for up to 5 animals, plants, and landscapes can include years, and papaya and bananas may last as 81 NTFP Conference Proceedings

Figure 1.—Enhancing biodiversity through the creation of forest islands, apete, by the Kayapo Indians of Brazil. Through a number of devices the behavior promotes patchiness and heteroge- neity in the landscape in time and space. Source: adapted from Posey (1985). long as 7 to 10 years. Different fruit and nut management systems grade into what might be trees are seeded or transplanted to the apete so termed agroforestry systems of management. that the resultant forest acts as a source of An example is shown in figure 2, which depicts products for many years. The forest also con- the kebun-talun management system of West tinues to attract animals and birds who bring Java, Indonesia. The kebun-talun system new seeds into the forest or disperse them to sequentially combines agricultural crops with other areas of the grassland. The result of this tree crops by moving from a mixed garden of management practice is a grassland landscape annual crops (kebun) to a mixture of annual with interspersed forests. The knowledge of the crops and perennials (kebun-campuran) to a relationship between disturbance and forest mixed forest of trees and understory plants succession is one of the common traits of many (telun) (Christianty et al. 1986). This type of forest management systems based upon tradi- management practice leads to the classic patch tional ecological knowledge. mosaic or quilt landscape. However, the quilt has to be thought of not only as dispersed Systems of forest management that use the patches of kebun, kebun-campuran, and talun ecological processes of disturbance and forest over space but also as each patch shifting over succession in an intentional manner often rely time. As the fallow period continues to de- upon long fallow periods between intentional crease, the kebun-campuran system can move disturbances to allow for the conservation of toward a different ecological arrangement ecological processes such as nutrient cycles called a homegarden. and species recruitment. Useful plants are planted, transplanted, and harvested following The homegarden, such as the pekarangan in the initial disturbance and for many years West Java, is an intensification of the kebun- during the period of forest fallow. These useful talun in which the fallow period disappears plants can include food, medicines, and timber. altogether (Christianty et al. 1986). One way to If greater levels of production are required, think of this is to imagine one patch of the quilt then the forest management systems are often where the kebun-campuran-talun cycle oc- modified so that the fallow period may be curred. Instead of managing a variety of shortened or bypassed altogether. Succession patches, each at a different temporal stage of 82 Figure 2.—Successional stages of the kebun-talun system, West Java, Indonesia. Source: adapted from Christianty et al. (1986).

the kebun-talun cycle, a person may build a the market and home needs of the manager. As house on the patch and begin to manage it as a shown in figure 3, the diversity in the pekarangan. The pekarangan combines the pekarangan is greater than in any one stage of annual crop plants with perennial plants for the kebun-talun cycle. The loss of the temporal market and home consumption. Species from dimension of management is compensated for each stage of the kebun-talun cycle may be by the more intense management of vertical brought into the pekarangan depending upon space within one patch.

Figure 3.—A representative homegarden (pekarangan), West Java, Indonesia. Source: adapted from Christianty et al. (1986). 83 NTFP Conference Proceedings

A similar agroforestry system is the taungya of as in all others previously mentioned, a supple- Burma, shown in figure 4. In this system a mentary management objective is the creation patch of land is planted with both annual crops of edge habitat to increase the abundance of and perennial tree crops (Jordan 1986). In the forest animals and thus the chance of success- early years, before the canopy of the trees fully hunting such animals. The outcome of the closes, annual crops hold nutrients and pre- taungya management practices is a landscape vent erosion. After the canopy closes, it is that is less variable over time, but highly possible to plant understory crops, such as variable within a given patch of land, as the coffee or cacao, that take advantage of the system takes advantage of vertical space space and diffuse light that filters through the instead of horizontal space (canopy, understory canopy. The intensification of forest manage- shrubs and herbs). ment thus uses disturbance to create inten- sively managed patches of forest but abandons The previous four examples have demonstrated the fallow period. In this management system, that forest management based on traditional knowledge can vary from low to high intensity. All of these systems are based upon the use of disturbance and succession as a management tool to produce for the market, home consumption, and aesthetic pleasures. These systems appear to reflect practices that can also be useful for temperate forest ecosystem management and for ecological rehabilitation. Robinson and Handel (2000) point out, “Eco- logical restoration can be likened to accelerated succession, in part because it aims to pass over the early phases of community development, when recovery can be delayed by the effects of past degradation... Following severe habitat damage, the reclamation phase closely re- sembles primary succession, in which most organisms colonize from external source populations. Indeed, a common goal of ecological restoration is to initiate natural populations as dispersing immigrants” (Robinson and Handel 2000: 174). The experimental work of Robinson and Handel (2000) demonstrates that habitat islands can act as sources of seeds that can be spread to surrounding land by dispersal agents. This is similar to the practice of forest management in Canada whereby islands of vegetation are left scattered throughout clearcuts to act as a seed source and habitat for dispersal agents. The recognition of the linkages between disturbance, dispersal agents, and succession appears to be an area in which the distance between traditional ecological knowledge and science is indeed Figure 4.—Idealized taungya system of cultiva- shrinking and ripe for a process of mutual tion using coconut palms as the dominant learning. tree species. (A) Early stage—Coconut intercropped with annuals and short-term perennials. (B) Middle stage—Canopy cover does not allow understory layer. (C) Late stage—High canopy allows light penetration and production of understory crops such as coffee or cacao. Source: adapted from Jordan (1986). 84 TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE needs to focus on spatially bounded units of IN PRACTICE—ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT land or water, consider everything within this unit to be interlinked, and recognize that units One of the emerging approaches in forest are nested and linked from smaller to larger management practice is ecosystem-based scales. management (CCFM 1997, 1998a). Ecosystem- based management uses systems ecology Table 1 presents some of the applications of an theory, along with adaptive learning and prac- ecosystem view as seen in traditional knowl- tice. However, it is a management approach in edge and management systems. Science-based which theory and practice are at the early resource management may never embrace all of stages of development and can thus benefit the elements of such systems, such as their from insights provided by traditional ecological spiritual aspects. However, it is still possible knowledge. Only recently has it come to the that we can learn about ecosystem-based attention of ecologists that ecosystem-like management from these long-standing ex- concepts exist in the land wisdom of several amples of integrated resource management. Amerindian, Asia-Pacific, European, and African cultures (Berkes et al. 1998a). The tambak management system shown in figure 5 was used in Indonesia to establish One of the lessons from traditional knowledge mixed freshwater and seawater fish ponds in regarding ecosystem-based forest management delta ecosystems and associated lagoons is that we need to move from a view that sees (Costa-Pierce 1988). The paddy rice fields were humans as external managers of forest ecosys- used to produce both rice and fish during the tems to one that considers humans to be flooded period of rice production. The nutrient integral components of forest ecosystems. This rich wastes of the paddy rice—fish production shift in perspective allows us to recognize the system were allowed to flow downstream into dependence of all human societies on the life- polyculture ponds (tambak) where shrimps, support functions of the ecosystem and the crabs, fish, vegetables, and tree crops could be ways by which this may continue into the produced. The wastes of this system then future (Berkes et al. 1998a). An ecosystem- flowed into the flooded mangrove forests that based approach to forest management also enriched the coastal fisheries. The lesson of

Table 1.—Examples of traditional applications of the ecosystem view. Source: Berkes (1999)

System Country/region Reference

Watershed management of salmon rivers Amerindians of the Williams and Hunn (1982); and associated hunting and gathering Pacific Northwest Swezey and Heizer (1993) areas by tribal groups

Delta and lagoon management for fish South and Southeast Asia Johannes et al. (1983) culture (tambak in Java), and the integrated cultivation of rice and fish

Vanua (in Fiji), a named area of land Oceania, including Fiji, Ruddle and Akimichi (1984); and sea, seen as an integrated whole Solomon Islands, Baines (1989) with its human occupants ancient Hawaii

Family groups claiming individual The Ainu of northern Japan Watanabe (1973); watersheds (iworu) as their domain Ludwig (1994) for hunting, fishing, gathering

Integrated floodplain management (dina) Mali, Africa Moorehead (1989) in which resource areas are shared by social groups through reciprocal access arrangements

85 NTFP Conference Proceedings

Figure 5.—Traditional Indonesian coastal zone management. Source: adapted from Costa-Pierce (1988). this example is that by paying attention to (protected by taboo) at the top of the mountain ecosystem processes we can also generate for water catchment and erosion prevention; ecosystem products. The linking of the paddy- integrated farming zones in the uplands and pond-coastal lagoon to take advantage of coastal zone; coconut palms along the coastline nutrient wastes allowed the productivity of the to provide protection from storms and wind; entire system to increase by utilizing the and brackish water and seawater fish ponds. outputs of one system as an input to the other. The Hawaiian system no longer exists, but Other examples of integrated watershed man- similar systems of watershed management can agement can be found in the vanua system of be found in other Asia-Pacific cultures, includ- Fiji and the ahupua’a of ancient Hawaii (table ing Fiji and the Solomon Islands. The idea of 1). The ahupua’a system of Hawaii, shown in managing a watershed as a unit historically figure 6, included entire valleys and stretched appears in a number of different geographical from the top of a mountain down to the coast areas, from the ancient Swiss and Turks to the and shallow waters. Each watershed was peoples of the Far East (Berkes et al. 1998a). In managed by a chieftanship, a social group our studies, we have found elements of water- under the authority of the king. The idealized shed management in village resource areas in version of this system shown in figure 6 in- the Himalayas of northwest India in a temper- cluded the following elements: forest zone ate forest region. As shown in figure 7, each 86 Figure 6.—The ahupua’a system of ancient Hawaii. Source: adapted from Costa-Pierce (1987).

87 NTFP Conference Proceedings

Figure 7.—Management zones of two villages in the Himalayas of northwest India. Forest zone includes demarcated protected forest (DPF) and undemarcated protected forest (udf). Agricultural zones (A) are also shown. Source: Berkes et al. (1998b).

village of the Beas watershed was granted a purposes) for their livelihoods (Berkes et al. section of forest under the land settlement 1998b). during the period of British rule. These units integrated alpine pastures, highland forests, One of the lessons from these examples of forest meadows, upland agricultural land, and integrated watershed management is that it is irrigated agricultural land on the valley floor. possible to maintain both a productive and a Both the forest and the agricultural area diverse landscape through the integration of showed high biodiversity, in part because of the different types of land use. For modern re- diversity of different social groups with differ- source managers, this will require devising ent specializations (such as herding vs. agricul- management strategies that focus on ecosys- ture), and in part because the dominant village tem functions and process at the landscape agriculturalists used a variety of resources scale, while paying attention to increasing the (e.g., different kinds of wood for different diversity of products that can flow from a 88 management unit. Such approaches have in the holistic science that pays attention to non- fact been proposed for the sustainable manage- linear dynamics, complexity, uncertainty, and ment of tropical forest ecosystems (Lugo 1995). the location of human activities firmly within the ecological and social environment. We know It would be naive to suggest that the traditional something that we did not know 20 years ago: management systems such as those mentioned some traditional ecological knowledge is very above could be imported directly into the good science, and some traditional manage- variety of ecological and social contexts that ment systems are very good management make up the boreal and cold temperate forest systems. For example, the practices of the regions. What may be possible depends on the Kayapo are currently reflected in the pages of imagination and practice of the managers, the Journal of Ecological Applications (Robinson workers, harvesters, and inhabitants of these and Handel 2000), while the designs of ecosys- regions. For example, by recognizing the value tem-based management appear strikingly of both timber and non-timber forest products, similar to the landscapes created by Hawaiian we can increase the intensity and diversity of and Himalayan systems of forested watershed forest management, an idea consistent with management. some of the traditional systems discussed above, even though some of these examples Many traditional knowledge practices are also may at first seem rather exotic. At this rela- consistent with scientific trends toward ecosys- tively early stage of ecosystem-based forest tem-based management that focus on ecosys- management in the boreal and cold temperate tem processes, health, and resilience instead of forest regions, it is through such explorations maximum sustained yields of single species that we can begin to imagine what ecosystem- (Holling et al. 1998). It may not be possible to based forest management may look like “on the “manage” nature, but as Nancy Turner says, ground.” “you can keep it living” (Turner, this volume). “Keeping it living” in the boreal and cold tem- We can also learn from the principles developed perate forests depends upon paying attention by people who have investigated these systems. to ecological processes, such as disturbance Janis Alcorn, for example, has derived seven and succession, and integrated resources principles from traditional knowledge and management. management systems. These principles can provide guidance as we address the challenge The study of non-timber forest products has to focus on ecosystem processes while meeting run a parallel course to the study of traditional the productive needs of society. She recom- ecological knowledge and ecosystem-based mends that ecosystem-based management forest management. Non-timber forest product strategies (1) take advantage of native trees and studies of the past tended to focus more on native tree communities; (2) rely on native production than on managing ecosystem successional processes; (3) use natural envi- integrity and process. However, the study of ronmental variation; (4) incorporate numerous non-timber forest products provides an emerg- crops and native species; (5) be flexible; (6) ing arena of investigation in which ecology, spread risks by retaining diversity; and (7) traditional ecological knowledge, ecosystem- maintain reliable backup resources to meet based forest management, and production can needs should the regular livelihood sources fail be brought together. Many non-timber forest (Alcorn 1990). products are linked to the ecological processes of disturbance and succession. Although timber is also linked to these processes, a focus NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS AND on non-timber forest products provides the CHANGING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT means by which we may be able to reverse the PARADIGMS order of priority for forest management.

Traditional ecosystem knowledge and tradi- Ecosystem-based forest management means tional management systems have often been protecting the integrity, health, and resilience placed in opposition to science-based manage- of ecosystems. It does not focus primarily on ment systems. However, with the advent of the resources but rather on the sustainability of changing views on ecosystems, there appears ecosystem processes necessary to provide these to be an increasing convergence between resources. Only then can we evaluate the traditional ecological knowledge and some of products that emerge from these processes over 89 NTFP Conference Proceedings time and space. Timber, shrubs, herbs, mush- and mutual learning between scientists, re- rooms, animals, birds, and bacteria all have source managers, and traditional resource their own distributions in time and space harvesters/managers through the establish- relative to disturbance. For example, fireweed ment of cooperative research projects to answer (Epilobium angustifolium L.) occurs in the early research questions of mutual interest. How- years following a disturbance, ginseng (Panax ever, this will require scientists and resource quinquefolius L.) is found under mature forest managers who are not just interested in mining canopies, while highbush cranberry (Viburnum information from traditional harvesters/man- trilobum L.) often occurs along riverbanks agers but who are also willing to re-think the disturbed periodically by spring flooding. whole paradigm of resource management along Fireweed and ginseng have both been used as with traditional harvesters/managers: scien- medicines while highbush cranberry is an tists and resource managers who are able to edible berry. Ecosystem-based management envision the linkages between livelihoods and requires that we consider ecological processes ecosystems, and able to imagine healthy forest first and then link production to those pro- ecosystems as vibrant places where people live, cesses—not the other way around. work, play, and visit. The linkages between ecosystem studies, traditional ecological knowl- A shift in priority from product to process edge, ecosystem-based forest management, opens up a whole new set of research ques- livelihoods, and non-timber forest products tions. For instance, if we are interested in provide a new direction for research and appli- shortening the period between timber harvests, cation that will lead us toward the vision of the we need to consider both the ecological and Canadian Council of Forest Ministers to man- social implications of such a management age Canada’s forests as ecosystems. decision. In Indonesia the pekarangan reflects a similar decision to intensify forest management. One of the implications is that with LITERATURE CITED intensification comes the need to recognize private property rights. However, we need to be Agrawal, Arun. 1995. Dismantling the divide aware that this is not the only possible alterna- between indigenous and scientific knowl- tive. If intensification is an option but not a edge. Development and Change. 26(3): 413- requirement, then it may be possible to exam- 439. ine the ecological processes and the value of the products that flow from the ecological Alcorn, Janis. 1990. Indigenous agroforestry processes of a forest ecosystem. strategies meeting farmers’ needs. In: Anderson, A.B., ed. Alternatives to defores- What would such a multiple-species manage- tation. New York, NY: Columbia University ment system look like across the landscape Press. and over time? What are the production/ technological constraints for such a system of Baines, G.B.K. 1989. Traditional resource production? What is the distribution of prod- management in the Melanesian South ucts in space and time? What is the value of Pacific: a development dilemma. In: Berkes, these products? What institutional changes F., ed. Common property resources: ecology would be required? A focus on non-timber and community-based sustainable develop- forest products opens up a whole new set of ment. London: Belhaven: 273-295. questions that science and ecosystem-based forest management are only beginning to Berkes, Fikret. 1999. Sacred ecology: tradi- consider. These questions, however, have been tional ecological knowledge and resource considered within traditional ecological knowl- management. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and edge and traditional management systems. Francis.

The study of non-timber forest products opens Berkes, Fikret; Folke, Carl, eds. 1998. Linking up an area of research that can contribute to social and ecological systems: management ecosystem-based forest management through a practices and social mechanisms for build- focus on ecosystems and traditional ecological ing resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge knowledge. There is a potential for dialogue University Press. 459 p.

90 Berkes, Fikret; Kislalioglu, Mina; Folke, Carl; Gunderson L.H.; Holling, C.S.; Light, S.S., eds. Gadgil, Madhav. 1998a. Exploring the basic 1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal ecological unit: ecosystem-like concepts in of ecosystems and institutions. New York, traditional societies. Ecosystems. 1: 409- NY: Columbia University Press. 415. Holling, C.S. 1986. Resilience of ecosystem: Berkes, Fikret; Davidson-Hunt, Iain; local surprise and global change. In: Clark, Davidson-Hunt, Kerril. 1998b. Diversity of W.C.; Munn, R.E., eds. Sustainable devel- common property resource use and diver- opment of the biosphere. Cambridge: sity of social interests in the Western Indian Cambridge University Press: 292-317. Himalaya. Mountain Research and Develop- ment. 18(1): 19-33. Holling, Crawford S.; Berkes, Fikret; Folke, Carl. 1998. Science, sustainability and Berkes, Fikret; Folke, Carl; Gadgil, Madhav. resource management. In: Berkes, Fikret; 1995. Traditional ecological knowledge, Folke, Carl, eds. Linking social and ecologi- biodiversity, resilience and sustainability. cal systems: management practices and In: Perrings, C.A.; Mäler, K.-G.; Folke, C.; social mechanisms for building resilience. Holling, C.S.; Jansson, B.-O. Biodiversity Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: conservation: problems and policies. 342-362. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 281-300. Johannes, R.E.; Lasserre, P.; Nixon, S.W.; Pliya, J.; Ruddle, K. 1983. Traditional Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1997. knowledge and management of marine Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest coastal systems. Biology International, management in Canada. Tech. Rep. 1997. Special Issue 4. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada-Cana- dian Forest Service. Jordan, C.F. 1986. Local effects of tropical deforestation. In: Soulé, M., ed. Conserva- Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1998a. tion biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer: National forest strategy (1998-2003) — 410-426. sustainable forests: a Canadian commit- ment. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada- Ludwig, N.A. 1994. An Ainu homeland: an Canadian Forest Service. alternative solution for the Northern Terri- tories/Southern Kuriles imbroglio. Ocean Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1998b. and Coastal Management. 25: 1-29. Canada forest accord. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada-Canadian Forest Ser- Lugo, A. 1995. Management of tropical vice. biodiversity. Ecological Applications. 5: 956-961. Christianty, L.; Abdoellah, O.S.; Marten, G.G.; Iskandar, J. 1986. Traditional agroforestry Moorehead, R. 1989. Changes taking place in in West Java: the pekarangan (homegarden) common-property resource management in and kebun-talun (annual-perennial rota- the Inland Niger Delta of Mali. In: Berkes, tion) cropping systems. In: Marten, G.G., F., ed. Common property resources: ecology ed. Traditional Agriculture in Southeast and community-based sustainable develop- Asia. Boulder, CO: Westview: 132-158. ment. London: Belhaven: 256-272.

Costa-Pierce, B.A. 1987. Aquaculture in an- Posey, D.A. 1985. Indigenous management of cient Hawaii. BioScience. 37: 320-330. tropical forest ecosystems: the case of the Kayapo Indians of the Brazilian Amazon. Costa-Pierce, B.A. 1988. Traditional fisheries Agroforestry Systems. 3: 139-158. and dualism in Indonesia. Naga. 11(2): 34. Robinson, George R.; Handel, Steven N. 2000. ESA. 1995. The report of the ecological society Directing spatial patterns of recruitment of America committee on the scientific basis during an experimental urban woodland for ecosystem management. Ecological reclamation. Ecological Applications. 10(1): Society of America homepage. 174-188. 91 NTFP Conference Proceedings

Ruddle, K.; Akimichi, T., eds. 1984. Maritime L.; Zasada, J., eds. Forest communities in institutions in Western Pacific. Senri Ethno- the third millennium: linking research, logical Studies 17. Osaka, Japan: National business, and policy toward a sustainable Museum of Ethnology. non-timber forest product sector;1999 October 1-4; Kenora, Ontario. Gen Tech. Stevenson, Marc G. 1998. Traditional knowl- Rep. NC-217. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Depart- edge in environmental management? From ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, North commodity to process. Working Pap. 1998- Central Research Station. 14. Edmonton: Sustainable Forest Manage- ment Network. 15 p. Usher, Peter J. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment Swezey, S.L.; Heizer, R.F. 1993. Ritual manage- and management. Arctic. 53: 183-193.. ment of salmonid fish resources in Califor- nia. In: Blackburn, T.C.; Anderson, K., eds. Watanabe, H. 1973. The Ainu ecosystem, Before the wilderness: environmental environment and group structure. Seattle, management by native Californians. Menlo WA: University of Washington Press. Park, CA: Ballena Press: 299-327. Williams, N.M.; Hunn, E.S., eds. 1982. Re- Turner, Nancy. 2001. “Keeping it living”: tradi- source managers: North American and tional land and resource management of Australian hunter-gatherers. Washington, British Columbia First Peoples and implica- DC: American Association for the Advance- tions for management of non-timber forest ment of Science. products. In: Davidson-Hunt, I.; Duchesne,