Escola de Artes, Ciencias e Humanidades, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43055. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043055. Epub 2012 Aug 17.
This study evaluated whether processing non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and establishing trade partnerships between forest communities and companies enhance the outcomes of NTFP commercialization. In particular, we evaluated whether product processing, partnerships, or their combination was associated with a number of outcomes related to the well-being of forest inhabitants and forest conservation. We based our analyses on ethnographic and quantitative data (i.e., survey and systematic observations) gathered at seven communities from five societies of the Brazilian and Bolivian Amazon. Our results indicated that product processing and partnerships do not represent a silver bullet able to improve the results of NTFP commercialization in terms of well-being and conservation indicators. Compared with cases without interventions, households adopting partnerships but not product processing were most often associated with improved economic proxies of well-being (total income, NTFP income, food consumption and gender equality in income). In comparison, the combination of product processing and partnerships was associated with similar outcomes. Unexpectedly, product processing alone was associated with negative outcomes in the economic indicators of well-being. All of the investigated strategies were associated with less time spent in social and cultural activities. With respect to forest conservation, the strategies that included a partnership with or without processing produced similar results: while household deforestation tended to decrease, the hunting impact increased. Processing alone was also associated with higher levels of hunting, though it did not reduce deforestation. Our results indicate that establishing partnerships may enhance the outcomes of NTFP trade in terms of the financial outcomes of local communities, but practitioners need to use caution when adopting the processing strategy and they need to evaluate potential negative results for indicators of social and cultural activities. With respect to conservation, the three strategies are promising for reducing deforestation, but more pervasive impacts, such as hunting, might increase.
本研究评估了加工非木材森林产品（NTFPs）和建立森林社区与公司之间的贸易伙伴关系是否能提高 NTFP 商业化的成果。特别是，我们评估了产品加工、伙伴关系或它们的组合是否与与森林居民福祉和森林保护相关的一系列成果有关。我们的分析基于在巴西和玻利维亚亚马逊的五个社会的七个社区收集的民族志和定量数据（即调查和系统观察）。我们的研究结果表明，产品加工和伙伴关系并不能成为提高 NTFP 商业化在福祉和保护指标方面成果的灵丹妙药。与没有干预措施的情况相比，采用伙伴关系但不进行产品加工的家庭往往与改善福祉的经济指标（总收入、NTFP 收入、食品消费和收入性别平等）有关。相比之下，产品加工和伙伴关系的结合与类似的结果有关。出乎意料的是，仅产品加工与福祉经济指标的负面结果有关。所有调查的策略都与花在社会和文化活动上的时间减少有关。就森林保护而言，包括伙伴关系或不包括加工的策略产生了类似的结果：虽然家庭毁林趋势下降，但狩猎的影响增加了。仅加工也与更高水平的狩猎有关，尽管它没有减少毁林。我们的研究结果表明，建立伙伴关系可能会提高 NTFP 贸易的成果，就当地社区的财务成果而言，但从业者在采用加工策略时需要谨慎，并需要评估对社会和文化活动指标的潜在负面影响。就保护而言，这三种策略对于减少毁林是有希望的，但更普遍的影响，如狩猎，可能会增加。
