Forest Ecology and Management 268 (2012) 49–56

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Ecology and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco

Multiple use forestry planning: Timber and Brazil nut management

in the community forests of Northern Bolivia
Peter Cronkleton ⇑, Manuel R. Guariguata, Marco A. Albornoz
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), P.O. Box 0113 BOCBD, 16000 Bogor, Indonesia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In Bolivia’s Northern Amazon, forests long used for the extraction of non-timber forest products (NTFPs)
Available online 23 May 2011 are now experiencing increased logging. The extraction of timber and economically important NTFPs
such as Brazil nuts (from the emergent forest tree Bertholletia excelsa) is occurring in the same forests
Keywords: and provides a clear opportunity to integrate management decisions and planning. Bolivia’s forestry leg-
Timber harvesting islation allows, in principle, the management of multiple forest resources. However, there is little evi-
Brazil nut dence that the opportunity has led to greater integration of management decisions and practice.
Community forestry
Actually, management of each resource is typically carried out by different stakeholders with resident
Non-timber forest products
Small-scale forestry
families responsible for Brazil nut gathering while logging companies carry out the timber harvest. This
paper analyzes community forest management plans in Northern Bolivia to examine whether community
residents participated in the development and implementation of the timber management plans, and the
extent to which proponents of timber management plans attempted to integrate Brazil nut management
into timber harvesting. The research draws on analysis of approved timber management plans for com-
munity forests and focus group interviews with residents in selected forest communities. Based on obser-
vations, the paper concludes that multiple-use management in these forests could be improved by
strengthening community level institutions by confirming their authority over timber management oper-
ations and by building capacity to oversee and monitor the extraction activities of loggers working on
their land.
Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction are incorporated into planning, harvesting and management can

Management for multiple uses including timber, non-timber
forest products (NTFPs) as well as cultural and environmental ser-
vices, can enhance the ecological, economic, and social functions of
tropical forests (Panayotou and Ashton, 1992; Kant, 2004). How-
ever, a variety of factors influence the viability of multiple forest
use particularly across the tropics. These include seasonality, man-
agement practices, types of forest products being managed, their
respective habitat requirements, and economic returns of com-
bined production (e.g., NTFP and timber) in relation to non-forest
uses (García-Fernández et al., 2008; Menton et al., 2009). The suc-
cess of multiple forest management as a viable land use type may
also depend on how local communities are able to adapt to the
managerial challenges of product diversification (Taylor, 2010).
From a spatial standpoint, multiple use of forests can be achieved
by spatially segregating uses for particular goods and services
(Zhang, 2005), or by harvesting different products from within
the same area (Bray et al., 2008). From a theoretical standpoint,
the tradeoffs that inevitably arise when multiple forest products
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: p.cronkleton@cgiar.org (P. Cronkleton).
be tackled through a continuum of actions which either directly
or indirectly benefit particular forest uses (Titus et al., 2006). On
the one hand, the yields of NTFPs can increase after selective har-
vesting of timber with no need on further management actions. On
the other hand, the deliberate application of good timber harvest-
ing practices to explicitly minimize collateral damage to NTFP-
bearing trees in the same forest ensures long-term forest produc-
tivity. Optimal outcomes from either end of the continuum may
in turn be influenced by the extent to which national policies allow
multiple forest management to be implemented in practice
(Cubbage et al., 2007). Across the forested tropics, conflicting insti-
tutional approaches, norms and regulations as well as incompati-
ble silvicultural prescriptions usually operate against multiple
forest use (e.g., Guariguata et al., 2010).
Bolivia’s 1996 forestry law and subsequent technical norms cre-
ated frameworks that could be conducive to multiple management
for timber and NTFPs (Pacheco et al., 2010). Specifically, Brazil nuts
are one of the most important commercialized NTFPs in Bolivia
(Stoian, 2000, 2004; Cámara Forestal, 2006) and elsewhere across
Amazonia (Peres et al., 2003). In the Bolivian Amazon, the extrac-
tion of Brazil nut (from the emergent forest tree, Bertholletia excel-
sa) and timber increasingly occurs in the same forest properties

0378-1127/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.04.035
50 P. Cronkleton et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 268 (2012) 49–56
(Guariguata et al., 2009; Soriano, 2010). Furthermore, Brazil nut
trees coexist over large forested areas with economically impor-
tant timber species across the Western Amazon (Myers et al.,
2000; Rockwell et al., 2007a; Guariguata et al., 2009). The Brazil
nut tree regenerates from seed only in large forest gaps (Kainer
et al., 1998; Myers et al., 2000) and they adapt well to the high-
light conditions characteristic of agricultural fields (Cotta et al.,
2008; Paiva et al., 2010). In addition, the livelihoods of Amazonian
smallholders in Northern Bolivia (and across the Western Amazon)
developed around a combination of the harvesting of Brazil nuts in
closed-canopy forests and swidden agriculture. Therefore, from the
perspective of timber management, harvesting of Brazil nuts can
be compatible. Reduced impact logging practices for timber (RIL;
Putz et al., 2008) can be extended to coexisting adult Brazil nut
trees through the application of directional felling and also by
marking pre-reproductive individuals before timber harvesting to
minimize collateral damage. The cutting of lianas could increase
fruit production in adult trees (Kainer et al., 2006), and further
minimize logging damage (Putz et al., 2008). In addition, the Brazil
nut tree is legally protected from felling in Bolivia as well as in
neighboring Brazil and Peru. It produces a woody fruit containing
edible seeds that are harvested from the forest floor during the
rainy season (from January to March) thus reducing labor short-
ages that could be caused by adding timber production to local
livelihoods as the logging season takes place during the dry
months of July through November. However, it is not clear that
the stakeholders proposing forest management plans have had
the motivation or incentives to take advantage of these opportuni-
ties to integrate forest use in Bolivia.
A key issue examined in this paper is whether existing policies
and norms provide guidance and frameworks to support concur-
rent management of both timber and Brazil nuts and whether local
forest communities have the capacity to oversee and control selec-
tive timber harvesting in their forests. In Bolivia’s Northern Ama-
zon, communities have developed customary systems to
sustainably manage NTFPs like Brazil nuts (Cronkleton et al.,
2010). As land title is a precondition for authorizing timber man-
agement, the titling of communal territories for rural producers
has increased opportunity for them to add timber management
Fig. 1. Rural communities with timber management plans selected for study in Pando, Bolivia. The light shading shows the 42 communities with approved timber
management plans from 2005 to 2009. The numbers correspond to the selected communities during this study (Table 1).
to their livelihood systems. We undertook this study to assess
whether existing forest policy aimed at promoting sustainable for-
est management in the Bolivian Amazon is achieving the integra-
tion of timber and Brazil nut harvesting. Specifically, we address
the following questions: (i) are community residents participating
in the development and implementation of timber management
plans in their Brazil nut rich forests? (ii) do formal timber manage-
ment plans acknowledge the pre-existing Brazil nut production
systems and adopt measures to avoid conflicts in resource use
and mitigate logging impacts? and (iii) are current norms for tim-
ber and Brazil nut harvesting compatible? We attempted to answer
these questions by reviewing approved timber management plans
and Brazil nut management plans, and by carrying out focus group
interviews with residents of rural communities where timber har-
vest has taken place across the Bolivian department of Pando
(Fig. 1).
2. Background
2.1. The Brazil nut and timber sectors in Northern Bolivia
Brazil nut production is an important component of Bolivia’s
forestry sector and is currently the foundation of the rural econ-
omy in Northern Bolivia (Pacheco et al., 2010) making the country
a leading producer of shelled Brazil nuts. In 2007 Bolivia’s export
production was estimated at 55,000 metric tons (FAOSTAT, 2011).
Approximately 80% of the country’s Brazil nut production comes
from the department of Pando (Cámara Forestal, 2006), where
there are between one to five adult Brazil nut trees per hectare
(Mostacedo et al., 2006). Between 2003 and 2009 international
Brazil nut prices increased dramatically, with local prices paid to
producers in Bolivia jumping from around US$6 per barrica (a
66 kg bag used as the traditional measure) during the 2002 harvest
to around US$35 per barrica in 2004, and remaining above US$25
since then (Cronkleton et al., 2009). From an ecological standpoint,
the harvesting of Brazil nuts is relatively benign. Although some
researchers have suggested that prolonged exploitation could af-
fect population structure and its capacity to regenerate from seed
 P. Cronkleton et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 268 (2012) 49–56 51

Table 1
Communities selected in the study in Pando, Bolivian Amazon. The table organizes the communities in geographical fashion in sequence from west (No. 1) to east (see Fig. 1).

Site Community Area Area of timber Year of approval of timber Number of annual timber Source of Brazil nut
number name (ha) management plan (ha) management plan harvests since approval technical management plan
assistance
1 Bioceanica 11,500 11,500 2005 5 Private No
2 Puerto Oro 12,583 12,583 2007 1 NGO Yes
3 San Antonio 6067 2839 2005 3 Private Yes
4 Nueva Unión 44,153 44,153 2009 1 Private No
5 Santa Rita 12,000 12,000 2007 2 Private No
6 Nuevo Belén 12,765 12,765 2007 1 NGO No
7 San Pedro 26,068 24,248 2007 4 NGO Yes
8 Los 11,766 11,577 2007 1 Private Yes
Mandarinos
9 Blanca Flor 35,866 32,006 2008 1 Private No
10 Loma Alta 25,313 16,300 2006 1 NGO Yes

(Peres et al., 2003; but see Wadt et al., 2008), Brazil nut tree pop-
ulations are considered resilient to long-term fruit collection due
to the long-lived nature of adult trees (Zuidema and Boot, 2002).
Historically, the Brazil nut sector was controlled by forest estate
owners called barraqueros. This traditional regional economic elite
has lost much of its power in recent years with economic down-
turns and the failure to formalize their forest property claims
(Cronkleton et al., 2009). Parallel to the decline of barraqueros,
communities have more recently expanded their control and rights
over the forests they use. These communities are the descendents
of families that originally migrated to the region to participate in
the rubber boom as laborers or are the descendents of barraqueros
families (Stoian and Henkemans, 2000). When world rubber prices
collapsed, these families expanded their production as agro-extrac-
tive systems including swidden agriculture and other forest prod-
ucts especially Brazil nuts. Their access to forest resources was
generally based on systems of tree tenure (Fortmann et al., 1985)
that recognized rights to individual trees and related infrastructure
maintained by families in units called castañales (Cronkleton et al.,
2010). Castañales can cover extensive areas but vary by size. One
community in Pando was found to have 38 castañales in a commu-
nal property with approximately 11,000 ha where the average cas-
tañal had 298 Brazil nut (adult) trees but the number ranged from
62 to 706 Brazil nut trees (Cronkleton et al., 2010). Pando’s agro-
extractive communities received strengthened property rights in
2004 when a presidential decree determined that at least 500 ha
per family should be titled communally as territories for commu-
nities. As a result approximately 1.9 million ha of forest lands
have been titled for 163 agro-extractive communities in Pando
(Cronkleton et al., 2009). These areas are held communally, but
the Brazil nut production system is based on traditional internal
governance systems that recognize individual access rights based
on household level production.
In contrast to Brazil nut extraction, timber harvesting at a com-
mercial scale is a more recent addition to Pando’s economy. Large
scale timber industries arrived in the region at the end of the 1990s
and were granted rights that were later turned into concessions
under the 1996 forestry law (Pacheco, 1998). The 1996 law also ex-
panded opportunities to engage in commercial timber production
to a wider range of stakeholders owning forest properties including
communities. As a result, titling of community land led to the
introduction of timber management plans into community forests.
A review of forestry statistics from the Pando office of the govern-
ment agency responsible for forest oversight, the ABT (Autoridad de
Fiscalización y Control Social de Bosque y Tierra), the agency which
replaced Bolivia’s Forest Superintendence in 2009, revealed that
there were 42 timber management plans approved for community
lands as of 2009 covering 570,774 ha; approximately 25% of all
communities in the department of Pando. All but one of these plans
have been approved since 2005.
Out of the 42 timber management plans for community forests
currently in Pando, 34 were drafted by timber companies. As we
discuss below, this is important because the non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) that draft timber management plans for
communities, usually are motivated by a development agenda
and attempt to build local capacity while loggers are generally
motivated by the possibility of gaining access to community tim-
ber. At the time of our review 26 communities had submitted at
least one annual timber harvest reports indicating that logging
had taken place. These records show that since 2005 these commu-
nities had produced a total of 150,377 m3 of timber through these
plans with annual harvest intensities averaging 3.92 m3/ha. Timber
harvesting is very selective; 60% of the volume coming from just
five species: Cedrelinga catenaeformis (mara macho), Cedrela sp. (ce-
dro), Cariniana decandra (enchoque), Dipteryx odorata (almendrillo)
and Apuleia leiocarpa (almendrillo amarillo).
2.2. Regulatory framework: Forestry technical guidelines for timber
and Brazil nut in Bolivia
As mentioned, Bolivia’s 1996 forestry law focused on the pro-
motion of sustainable timber management with emphasis on
industrial logging of concessions. However, the legislation accom-
modated a variety of forest uses. The forestry law extended man-
agement rights to a broader range of stakeholders, encouraged
the use of RIL practices for timber harvests under approved man-
agement plans, and acknowledged that NTFPs could be extracted
under ‘‘auxiliary contracts’’ (GOB, 1996). The principal technical
norm for timber management plans in areas larger than 200 ha
(MDS, 1998) allows proponents to accommodate multiple users
and products during the development of the management plan. Ta-
ble 2 illustrates sections of the norm that could be used to guide
multiple use management. For example, if NTFPs are identified in
the forest and there is interest in their management, then propo-
nents using this technical norm should describe the steps to be ta-
ken in developing an auxiliary management plan. At a minimum,
they should include: ‘an inventory; management system; treat-
ments to assure sustainability, growth and regeneration; harvest
levels; harvest methods; and efforts to monitor and evaluate im-
pacts.1 Although the norm opened this window of opportunity, there
were no specific guidelines for the management of NTFPs, nor were
there rules for adjusting timber harvesting operations within areas
where NTFPs were to be managed.
Bolivia’s Brazil nut sector has developed without a general pol-
icy to regulate management (Cronkleton and Pacheco, 2010). The
Brazil nut sector was not a priority of policy makers and the rela-
tively low impact of nut extraction did not make the development
1
Translation by the authors.
52 P. Cronkleton et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 268 (2012) 49–56
Table 2
Relevant section of the timber management plans prepared under the government
norm 248/98 (MDS, 1998) analyzed to identify intent of proponents for multiple
forest use (translated by the authors). Section numbers in the table correspond to
those in the original text of the norm.
Requirements listed in the norms
3.3.3. Describe actual land use
Describe actual land use including information about [forest] cover
3.4.1. Land use pressure and possible impact on management
Describe concisely the conflicting uses of land and forest resources by people
living in our around the managed forest
3.9.1. Harvest operations
Specify the activities prior to, during and after harvest to guarantee
operations that are efficient and cost effective and low impact for soils and
remaining vegetation
3.10. General rules for non-timber forest products
In the case the forest inventory identifies the possibility to manage this type
of resource and if there is interest to manage these, it is necessary to: (i)
develop a specific management plan for this end or amplify the timber
management plan. This specific plan will include at a minimum, an
inventory of the species, a management system, treatments to assure the
sustainability, growth and regeneration, levels of harvest, harvest methods
and a program to monitor, evaluate and for industrial processing; (ii)
according to relevant legislation the hunting or capture of wildlife is
totally prohibited and the management plan must specify actions to
implement and control this prohibition
3.12. Administration of the management unit.
The design of a strategy to monitor and evaluate management. The strategy
should include at least controls over: the efficiency of operations, the
productivity, environmental impacts and forest response to harvest
interventions
of norms an urgent matter. However, given the struggles to stake
claim to forest property in Northern Bolivia (Ruiz, 2005; de Jong
et al., 2006), there was a motivation for developing a legal instru-
ment to justify and validate Brazil nut management as a productive
land use of Northern forests (since Bolivian tenure law used socio-
economic use, Función economico-social or FES, as the criteria for
evaluating land claims). In particular, barraqueros could use official
recognition to justify their extensive forest holdings. This led to the
creation of the technical norms for the management of Brazil nuts,
approved in 2005 (MDS, 2005). For approval, these norms require
the forest owner to conduct a census of reproductive (P30 cm
DBH) Brazil nut trees on 10% of the area where nuts are to be har-
vested, and the establishment of ‘no take’ zones (cuadrantes de
seguridad) where nut harvest is not allowed in up to 6% of the cen-
sus area over a period of up to 5 years – in an attempt to ensure
regeneration from seed. The norms call for ‘‘visually identifying’’
Brazil nut trees to minimize their damage during timber harvest-
ing. However there are no requirements to define the local forest
users that have rights and responsibilities under the plan, to de-
scribe preexisting ‘customary’ norms such as rules for access to re-
sources (i.e., tree ownership), or to gather information or how trail
networks are laid out (between Brazil nut trees) to minimize log-
ging damage. Table 3 illustrates sections of the current norm that
are relevant for integrating timber and Brazil nut harvesting in
the same forest.
In sum, neither timber nor Brazil nut management plans explic-
itly require or contemplate multiple forest use and they can be ap-
proved independently. Timber management plans do not have to
consider the individual internal divisions used by residents to delin-
eate access to Brazil nut resources, for example, tree tenure systems
(Cronkleton et al., 2010). This is less of a problem in extensive barra-
cas where the barraquero family controls access rights (at least tradi-
tionally), or in concessions where a single industry controls
operations or else in private individual properties where a single
decision maker exists (e.g., Guariguata et al., 2009). However, in
communal properties, like those granted to Pando’s agro-extractive
communities, the internal access rights and arrangements of
decision makers are more complex. While community forests are
Table 3
Information requirements for preparing Brazil nut management plans (MDS, 2005).
Translated by the authors. Section numbers in the table correspond to those in the
original text of the norm.
Requirements listed in the norms
9.2.1. Census of Brazil nut trees
Census of Brazil nut adult trees (P30 cm DBH) over a minimum of 10% of the
area to be harvested
(i) Assessing crown position in the canopy (‘emergent’, ‘dominant’, ‘co-
dominant’)
(ii) Quantifying presence of lianas
9.2.2. Area destined for harvesting
Harvest area defined as that covered by Brazil nut stands (castañales; see text)
9.2.3. ‘No take’ zones
Establishing ‘no take’ zones (cuadrantes de seguridad) for nut harvesting in
areas with P1 adult tree/ha in 6% of the harvest area allocated equally
between 3 and 5 yr periods where no harvesting is allowed
9.2.4. Silvicultural treatments
If timber is to be extracted within the area destined for Brazil nut extraction,
identification of Brazil nut trees needs consideration to minimize impacts
of timber harvesting
9.2.8. Prohibitions
Hunting is prohibited in the area destined for Brazil nut collection
customary mosaics of individual access rights, these two norms treat
the forest as a single managed unit. By not recognizing the multiple
decision makers, management plans introduced under these norms
could potentially allow individual decisions to take precedent over
the group.
3. Methods
The research attempts to identify the extent to which efforts are
made to integrate management planning and practice of timber
and Brazil nut harvesting in community forests. Data collection
was conducted from August to October 2010 and consisted of a re-
view of approved timber management plans for selected commu-
nities in Pando followed by focus group interviews with
residents in these communities. A sample frame was compiled
from the files of the ABT of the 26 communities that had reported
annual timber harvests in Pando (out of 42 with approved timber
management plans). It was assumed that in all communities resi-
dent families were involved in Brazil nut extraction so both timber
and Brazil nuts harvests were taking place. For our sample we se-
lected 10 communities from the list (Table 1). We expected that
communities with both timber and Brazil nut management plans
would be more supportive of multiple use approaches. Therefore,
we purposely selected the four communities from the 26 where
Brazil nut management plans had been developed, two of them
where Brazil nut management plans had been approved and two
more where they had been completed but not submitted. For the
remainder of our sample, we randomly selected six from the 22
remaining communities. The 10 timber management plans se-
lected (Table 1) were approved between 2005 and 2009. Their size
ranged from approximately 3000–44,000 ha, with an average size
of 18,000 ha (the average area for all 42 community timber man-
agement plans across Pando is about 15,000 ha). Among the com-
munities, six have had only a single timber harvest; the others
ranged from two to five harvests.
3.1. Analysis of timber and Brazil nut management plans
We were particularly interested in several aspects of the timber
(Table 2) and Brazil nut management plans (Table 3) required by
the technical norms related to the treatment of other forest re-
sources and forest users. These aspects included: descriptions of
the communities’ existing resource use, acknowledgment of NTFP
 P. Cronkleton et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 268 (2012) 49–56
use, plans for NTFP management, and efforts to mitigate damage to
non-timber forest resources. We also wanted to gauge the extent
to which the community residents participated in the development
of the management plan. Community participation and control, if
present, should be manifest in the preparation of the plan and
the underlying forest inventory, in the development of annual
operating plans based on commercial timber harvests and in the
process of decision making and oversight of the timber harvest.
By reviewing specific aspects of the Brazil nut management plan
we were further interested in assessing the extent to which these
plans addressed integration of production of this valuable NTFP
with timber harvesting and also how these plans focused on
customary systems.
3.2. Group interviews
Focus group interviews were carried out in the 10 communities
selected. Each meeting was convened by local leaders who were
asked to invite adult residents to participate. Informants were in-
structed that they would remain anonymous; however, each par-
ticipant filled out a short questionnaire recording some of their
characteristics and asking them a series of multiple choice ques-
tions intended to gauge their perceptions of the timber manage-
ment plan to record variation among residents. Once the form
was completed, the meeting continued with semi-structured inter-
views using standardized open-ended questions addressing local
participation in the development of the timber management plan
and the implementation of the subsequent logging operations, as
well as the informants’ assessment of those activities. The selected
cases are distributed across Pando (Fig. 1) along major transporta-
tion corridors (all communities with timber management plans are
located along roads in Pando).
The focus group interviews drew on a cross-section of the resi-
dent population in each community. There were 112 participants
in the 10 selected communities with group size ranging from 8
to 15 participants (there are approximately 195 families in these
communities). The informants were mostly male (72%) and their
average age was 42 years. Most informants had spent significant
time in the community with an average of 16 years (range: 1–
57 years) and reported that their main source of income was Brazil
nut (91 individuals or 81%). The principal incomes reported by the
other 21 informants were spread over timber, agriculture, cattle,
and other sources. Most of these producers worked in their own
castañales. Only three of the informants reported that they did
not own a castañal. The size of castañales reported by informants
ranged from 20 to 500 Brazil nut trees.
4. Results and discussion
Because of the high economic value of Brazil nuts and their
importance for household economies in Pando, we expected that
when timber harvesting was introduced into agro-extractive com-
munities, integration under multiple use management would in-
clude evidence of: (1) active participation by community
members; (2) adjustment of the timber harvesting operation to
accommodate characteristics of Brazil nut management practices;
and (3) community awareness of the benefits of multiple forest
use. The section below presents the results of the review of timber
management plans and focus group interviews to address these
issues.
4.1. Extent of group participation
None of the 10 communities developed the management plans
on their own. Six of the selected communities developed their
53
plans with the help of timber companies while four developed
them with assistance from local NGOs. The informants reported
that in most cases the community members had a very limited role
in preparing the timber management plans. By law, the plans must
be prepared by a registered forester who is trained to follow set
formats but not necessarily to facilitate community involvement.
In only three communities (all assisted by NGOs) did residents play
an active role in carrying out the timber inventories for the man-
agement plan while in the other seven it was carried out by forest-
ers and work crews brought in from outside the community. As a
result, residents had less firsthand experience of what was being
planned and they did not have opportunities for wage labor; this
pattern continued for the more detailed pre-harvest annual timber
censuses. During timber harvest, communities reportedly played a
passive role in overseeing the logging operations. For the most
part, companies determined where and how to log. The comments
of some informants indicated that they understood the manage-
ment plan was owned by the logger and was not under their
control.
The technical norms for timber management require the propo-
nent to identify who holds the responsibility for monitoring the
harvest (Table 2). Seven management plans identified the logging
company as the responsible authority for monitoring and evalua-
tion. Only three of the 10 plans examined identified the commu-
nity or community organization as the responsible authority for
monitoring (each community was assisted by an NGO to develop
their management plan). However, the community groups did
not have decision making power and were purportedly organized
to record harvested timber volumes (nonetheless informants from
these two communities complained that they did know the total
harvested volumes). None of the communities had defined rules
or sanctions if Brazil nut resources were damaged. The indepen-
dent manner in which timber management planning and local
decision making takes place, risks generating conflicts between
community members and logging companies, and between partic-
ipating and non-participating families. Greater integration of man-
agement could lead to a more ‘complementary’ relationship
between community members and timber companies (Duchesne
and Wetzel, 2002).
4.2. Adjusting timber harvesting operations to integrate NTFP
resources
4.2.1. From the perspective of timber management plans
During the focus group interviews, 64 informants (57%) re-
ported that logging had taken place within their castañal at some
point. From our survey there is little evidence that any measures
were being taken to protect Brazil nut trees or mitigate logging im-
pacts. Although three communities included Brazil nut trees in
their annual timber census, there was no further evidence that
the annual timber harvesting plans included information on the
communities’ systems for defining resources access such as cus-
tomary ownership of trees and trail networks that connect the Bra-
zil nut trees.
There are no specific actions described to protect Brazil nut
trees in any of the timber management plans. When asked if mea-
sures were taken to protect Brazil nut trees almost half of infor-
mants did not know (46%) while just over a quarter (26%) said
no measures were taken. A majority of informants (58%) said that
vines had not been cut before harvesting trees (to minimize log-
ging damage). In addition, 67% did not know if directional felling
had been used while 18% said that the method had been used.
More than half of the informants also did not know if future crop
timber trees (and/or Brazil nut pre-reproductive trees) had been
marked prior to logging (54% did not know, and 23% said no). Dur-
ing focus group interviews in two communities, some informants
54 P. Cronkleton et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 268 (2012) 49–56
claimed that loggers were encouraged to use directional felling,
and in another, informants reported that they requested that the
company not harvest timber close to Brazil nut trees however, it
is not clear if these efforts were effective. As loggers probably have
limited understanding of the specific traditional mechanisms com-
munities used to manage Brazil nuts, they were less likely to adjust
harvesting operations particularly if communities were not partic-
ipating or were unable to influence the way timber is harvested.
The lack of knowledge about methods used in timber harvest could
also be indicative of low participation by residents. Without com-
munity participation, there seems to be little incentive for loggers
to take measures to protect Brazil nut trees during timber harvest-
ing (e.g., Guariguata et al., 2009).
4.2.2. From the perspective of Brazil nut management plans
The review of Brazil nut management plans did not provide evi-
dence that these plans addressed integration with timber harvest-
ing nor were there indications that these NTFP plans supported
customary production systems. In the five communities where Bra-
zil nut management plans had been prepared, the focus group
interviews included a few more questions on the topic. There were
a total of 54 informants from these communities. Of these, 37
(69%) participated in the elaboration of the Brazil nut management
plan, usually meaning that they had participated in the Brazil nut
tree census. About half (28% or 52%) reported that their castañal
was within the Brazil nut census area for the management plan.
In each case, the forester in charge insisted on standard census
method used for timber in which transects are cut in the forests
to identify Brazil nut trees, rather than using the trail networks
that connect the trees and local knowledge of which community
residents claimed rights over the trees. When asked if they had
benefited from the implementation of the management plan, most
said ‘‘no’’ (61%); although many had benefited from wage labor in
developing the plans. In general, informants lacked information
about Brazil nut management plans. For example, a clear majority
(76%) said that they did not know the purpose of the ‘no take zone’.
Yet some group interview respondents that did know objected that
this particular measure arguing that scatter hoarding rodents
would remove the seeds eventually (Peres and Baider, 1997) or else
these seeds would be stolen (Duchelle et al., 2011). All of these
plans were developed and financed by NGOs. There were no indi-
cations that communities were interested in developing these
plans on their own. Interestingly, in three cases communities had
received assistance to develop Brazil nut management plans yet
they had not submitted them because they feared that enforce-
ment from the government would increase and add costs (this in-
cludes one community where we had not originally identified the
Brazil nut management plan). Although Brazil nut norms call for
minimizing logging damage to Brazil nut trees by ‘‘visual identifi-
cation’’ (Table 3), informants were split on the question of whether
or not Brazil nut (adult) trees had been damaged during the last
harvest; with 49% saying ‘‘yes’’ and 51% saying ‘‘no’’.
4.3. Community awareness on multiple use
It could be expected that communities would take a more pro-
active role if they believed logging was threatening their stand of
Brazil nut trees. Some informants reported that logging damage
to Brazil nut trees could create problems during nut harvest. For
example, canopy debris brought down by felling of neighboring
timber and understory re-growth would impede their search for
nuts on the forest floor. Asked whether logging and Brazil nut
extraction was compatible, responses were inconclusive. Among
informants, 29% agreed that the activities were compatible, 35%
thought they were not and 36% did not know. In addition, although
it is explicitly prohibited within approved forest management
plans, 80% of the informants thought that hunting was still permit-
ted within the management area. They appear to have limited
information about how logging is done or how multiple use could
be different. To date, however, most of these communities have
experienced only one timber harvesting episode so they have not
had time to evaluate the impact of logging. The fact that they have
accepted logging (under relatively unfavorable conditions, given
their lack of control) indicates that they do not see this activity
as a threat. Otherwise if they felt their livelihoods were threatened
stronger negative reactions would be likely. For example, the
threat to property rights of forest dependent people in the region
in the last decade had provoked collective resistance to defend
their rights in Bolivia (Ruiz, 2005; Cronkleton and Pacheco, 2010)
as well as in neighboring countries (Schmink and Wood, 1992).
5. Conclusions
Community forest lands in Pando have become the new logging
frontier in Bolivia’s Northern Amazon. Titling of community lands
has made them a prime target of small and medium logging com-
panies that lack other properties where they can legally harvest
wood. This is demonstrated by the rapid expansion of timber man-
agement plans for community forests, after the year 2004 when ti-
tling began. Existing forest policies in Bolivia could allow multiple
use management yet our analysis suggests that there is little inte-
gration in planning or practice. Overall, our results illustrate the
weakness of management strategies that rely solely on policy
and regulatory frameworks to affect change in management
behavior if proponents are not motivated by self interest to adopt
improved methods. Technical norms alone are unlikely to change
behavior if oversight and control by the government is weak due
to a lack of political will and resources; and if local stakeholders
are not empowered with information and capacity to defend their
rights. Furthermore, it is potentially problematic that the technical
norms for both timber and Brazil nut analyzed here explicitly pro-
hibit key activities of agro-extractive livelihoods, for example
swidden agriculture and hunting; such prohibitions run counter
to a much needed inclusive vision for small scale forest use in
the context of formal norms and regulations (Michon et al.,
2007), including the Western Amazon (Rockwell et al., 2007b).
From a biophysical standpoint, management of timber and Bra-
zil nut seems compatible under the relatively low harvesting inten-
sities currently found in Pando (3–5 m3/ha) and if RIL norms are
implemented so that damage to Brazil nut trees is minimized
(Guariguata et al., 2009). Yet where Brazil nut management plans
were being developed, most of the requirements seem inadequate
for promoting integrated management with timber. First, these
plans are not generating information that is useful for local manag-
ers who generally know where Brazil nut trees are, but struggle to
defend access, mitigate conflict and avoid deforestation or fire. Sec-
ond, the light-demanding attributes of the Brazil nut tree (Kainer
et al., 1998; Cotta et al., 2008; Myers et al., 2000) implies that at-
tempts at ensuring regeneration from seed under closed canopy
may not work in the long term, as the Brazil nut technical norms
currently propose by gazeting ‘no take’ zones which in turn, im-
pose a substantial opportunity cost to harvesters. Existing norms
for Brazil nut management need refinement and full consideration
of timber extraction activities in order to promote integration. The
norms are disengaged in the sense that there is no way the state
could enforce the requirements in the norm if they wanted to (un-
like timber, where the system has clearly defined processes for
requesting authorizations to receive certificates of origin, and sev-
eral points during transport and processing where these certifi-
cates are verified).
 P. Cronkleton et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 268 (2012) 49–56
Based on these observations, how could multiple-use forest
management systems in the Bolivian Amazon be improved? On
the one hand, community level institutions should be strength-
ened. The government’s forest oversight agency (ABT) should ver-
ify that management organizations exist and that members know
their rights. These groups should authorize operations and deci-
sions the same way that foresters must sign off on timber manage-
ment plans and annual harvesting plans. The ABT should also
clarify the role that community institutions play in oversight.
Training should be given to assist them in this role. For example,
local interest in learning methods for calculating timber volumes
could be combined with training for implementing RIL methods.
On the other hand, basic information about Brazil nut stands and
customary management norms and mechanisms needs to be con-
sidered in timber management plans along with a description of
measures that will be taken to avoid damage and mitigate impact
and possibly avoiding areas with high densities of Brazil nut trees.
To this end, the implementation of locally based monitoring and
evaluation systems may be needed (Guijt, 2007; Danielsen et al.,
2009). Stronger local management organizations would allow res-
idents with vested interests in maintaining the forest to exert more
influence than they currently do as individual residents (Richards,
1997; Cronkleton et al., 2008).
Acknowledgments
We thank the community participants in Pando, Bolivia for their
involvement and willingness to provide the information used in
this research and the authorities at the ABT office in Cobija, Bolivia
for granting access to data on timber and Brazil nut management
plans in Pando. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their
comments on the manuscript.
References
Bray, D.B., Duran, E., Ramos, V.H., Mas, J.-F., Velazquez, A., McNab, R.B., Barry, D.,
Radachowsky, J., 2008. Tropical deforestation, community forests, and
protected areas in the Maya Forest. Ecol. Soc. 13 (2), 56.
Cámara Forestal, 2006. Anuario estadístico sector forestal de Bolivia. Cámara
Forestal de Bolivia. Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia.
Cotta, J.N., Kainer, K.A., Wadt, L.H.O., Staudhammer, C.L., 2008. Shifting cultivation
effects on Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) regeneration. For. Ecol. Manag. 256,
28–35.
Cronkleton, P., Taylor, P., Barry, D., Stone-Jovicich, S., Schmink, M., 2008.
Environmental Governance and the Emergence of Forest-based Social
Movements. CIFOR Occasional Paper #49. CIFOR, Bogor.
Cronkleton, P., Pacheco, P., Ibarguen, R., Albornoz, M.A., 2009. Reformas en la
tenencia de la tierra y los bosques: la gestión comunal en las tierras bajas de
Bolivia. CIFOR/CEDLA, La Paz/Bolivia.
Cronkleton, P., Albornoz, M.A., Evans, K., Barnes, G., de Jong, W., 2010. Social
geomatics: participatory forest mapping to mediate resource conflict in the
Bolivian Amazon. Hum. Ecol. 38, 65–76.
Cronkleton, P., Pacheco, P., 2010. Changing Policy Trends in the Emergence of
Bolivia’s Brazil Nut Sector. In: Laird, S., McLain, R., Wynberg, R. (Eds.), Wild
Product Governance: Finding Policies that Work for Non-Timber Forest
Products. Earthscan, London, pp. 15–52.
Cubbage, F., Harou, P., Sills, E., 2007. Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional
forest management. For. Pol. Econ. 9, 833–851.
Danielsen, F., Burgess, N., Balmford, A., Donald, P.F., Funder, M., Jones, J.P.G., Alviola,
P., Balete, D., Blomley, T., Brashares, J., Child, B., Enghoff, M., Fjeldsä, J., Holt, S.,
Hubertz, H., Jensen, A.E., Jensen, P.M., Massao, J., Mendoza, M.M., Ngaga, Y.,
Poulsen, M.K., Rueda, R., Sam, M., Skielboe, T., Stuart-Hill, G., Topp-Jorgensen, E.,
Yonten, D., 2009. Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a
characterization of approaches. Cons. Biol. 23, 31–42.
De Jong, W., Ruiz, S., Becker, M., 2006. Conflict and communal forest management in
Northern Bolivia. For. Pol. Econ. 8, 447–457.
Duchelle, A.E., Cronkleton, P., Kainer, K.A., Guanacoma, G., Gezan, S., 2011. Resource
theft in tropical forest communities: implications for non-timber management,
livelihoods, and conservation. Ecol. Soc. 16(1). [online] URL: <http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol116/iss1/art4/>.
Duchesne, L., Wetzel, S., 2002. Managing timber and non-timber forest product
resources in Canada’s forests: need for integration and research. For. Chron. 78,
837–842.
55
FAOSTAT, 2011. Food and agricultural commodities production. <http://
www.faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx> (accessed on line April 8, 2011).
Fortmann, L., Riddell, J., Brick, S., Bruce, J., Fraser, A., 1985. Trees and Tenure: An
Annotated Bibliography for Agroforesters and Others. Land Tenure Center,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
García-Fernández, C., Ruiz Pérez, M., Wunder, S., 2008. Is multiple-use forest
management widely implementable in the tropics? For. Ecol. Manag. 256,
1468–1476.
Guariguata, M.R., Licona, J.C., Mostacedo, B., Cronkleton, P., 2009. Damage to Brazil
nut trees (Bertholletia excelsa) during selective timber harvesting in Northern
Bolivia. For. Ecol. Manag. 258, 788–793.
Guariguata, M.R., García-Fernández, C., Sheil, D., Nasi, R., Herrero-Jáuregui, C.,
Cronkleton, P., Ingram, V., 2010. Compatibility of timber and non-timber forest
product management in natural tropical forests: perspectives, challenges, and
opportunities. For. Ecol. Manag. 259, 237–245.
Guijt, I., 2007. Strengthening learning in adaptive collaborative management: the
potential of monitoring. In: Guijt, I. (Ed.), Negotiated Learning: Collaborative
Monitoring in Forest Resource Management. Resources for the Future and
Center for International Forestry Research, Washington, DC, pp. 3–22.
GOB, 1996. Nueva ley forestal. No. 1700 del 12 de Julio de 1996. Government of
Bolivia, La Paz.
Kainer, K.A., Duryea, M.L., de Macedo, N.C., Williams, K., 1998. Brazil nut seedling
establishment and autecology in extractive reserves of Acre. Brazil. Ecol. Appl. 8,
397–410.
Kainer, K.A., Wadt, L.H.O., Gomes-Silva, D.A.P., Capanu, M., 2006. Liana loads and
their association with Bertholletia excelsa fruit and nut production, diameter
growth and crown attributes. J. Trop. Ecol. 22, 147–154.
Kant, S., 2004. Economics of sustainable forest management. For. Pol. Econ. 6, 197–
203.
MDS, 1998. Normas técnicas para la elaboración de instrumentos de manejo forestal
en propiedades privadas o concesiones con superficies mayores a 200 hectáreas.
Res. Min. No. 248/98. Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente, La
Paz, Bolivia.
MDS, 2005. Norma técnica para elaboración de planes de manejo de castaña
(Bertholletia excelsa Humb & Bonpl.), Resolución Ministerial N 077/2005.
Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible Viceministerio de Recursos Naturales y
Medio Ambiente. La Paz, Bolivia.
Menton, M., Merry, F.D., Lawrence, A., Brown, N., 2009. Company-community
logging contracts in Amazonian settlements: impacts of livelihoods and NTFP
harvests. Ecol. Soc. 14 (1), 39 [online] URL: <http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
vol14/iss1/art39/>.
Michon, G., De Foresta, H., Levang, P., Verdeaux, F., 2007. Domestic forests: a new
paradigm for integrating local communities’ forestry into tropical forest science.
Ecol. Soc. 12(2), 1. [online] URL: <http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/
iss2/ art1>.
Mostacedo, B., Balcazar, J., Montero, J.C., 2006. Tipos de bosque, diversidad y
composición florística en la Amazonia sudoeste de Bolivia. Ecología en Bolivia
41, 99–116.
Myers, G., Newton, A.C., Melgarejo, O., 2000. The influence of canopy gap size on
natural regeneration of Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) in Bolivia. For. Ecol.
Manag. 127, 119–128.
Pacheco, P., 1998. Pando: Barraqueros, madereros y conflictos por el uso de los
recursos forestales. In: Pacheco, P., Kaimowitz, D. (Eds.), Municipios y Gestión
Forestal en el Trópico Boliviano, Bosques y Sociedades 3. CIFOR/CEDLA/TIERRA/
BOLFOR, CID/Plural Editores, La Paz, Bolivia.
Pacheco, P., de Jong, W., Johnson, J., 2010. The evolution of the timber sector in
lowland Bolivia: examining the influence of three disparate policy approaches.
For. Pol. Econ. 12, 271–276.
Paiva, P.M., Carneiro Guedes, M., Funi, C., 2010. Brazil nut conservation through
shifting cultivation. For. Ecol. Manag. 261, 508–514.
Panayotou, T., Ashton, P.S., 1992. Not by Timber Alone: Economics and Ecology for
Sustaining Tropical Forests. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Peres, C.A., Baider, C., 1997. Seed dispersal, spatial distribution and population
structure of Brazilnut trees (Bertholletia excelsa) in southeastern Amazonia. J.
Trop. Ecol. 13, 595–616.
Peres, C.A., Baider, C., Zuideman, P.A., Wadt, L.H.O., Kainer, K.A., Gomes-Silva, D.A.P.,
Salamão, R.P., Simões, L.L., Francisiosi, E.R.N., Valverde, F.C., Gribel, R., Shepard
Jr, G.H., Kanashiro, M., Coventry, P., Yu, D.W., Watkinson, A.R., Freckleton, R.P.,
2003. Demographic threats to the sustainability of Brazil nut exploitation.
Science 302, 2112–2114.
Putz, F.E., Sist, P., Fredericksen, T., Dykstra, D., 2008. Reduced-impact logging:
challenges and opportunities. For. Ecol. Manag. 256, 1427–1433.
Richards, M., 1997. Common property resource institutions and forest management
in Latin America. Dev. Change. 28, 95–117.
Rockwell, C.A., Kainer, K.A., Staudhammer, C.L., Baraloto, C., 2007a. Future crop tree
damage in a certified community forest in southwestern Amazonia. For. Ecol.
Manag. 242, 108–118.
Rockwell, C., Kainer, K.A., Marcondes, N., Baraloto, C., 2007b. Ecological limitations
of reduced-impact logging at the smallholder scale. For. Ecol. Manag. 238, 365–
374.
Ruiz, S., 2005. Rentismo, conflicto y bosques en el norte amazónico boliviano CIFOR.
Santa Cruz, Bolivia.
Schmink, M., Wood, C.H., 1992. Contested Frontiers in Amazonia. Columbia
University Press, New York.
56 P. Cronkleton et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 268 (2012) 49–56
Soriano, M., 2010. The growing dilemma of timber harvesting in Brazil nut rich
community forests in Northern Bolivia: effects on natural regeneration and
forest disturbance. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.
Stoian, D., 2000. Shifts in forest production extraction: the post-rubber era in the
Bolivian Amazon. Int. Tree Crops J. 10, 277–297.
Stoian, D., 2004. Cosechando lo que cae: La economía de la castaña (Bertholletia
excelsa H.B.K.) en la Amazonia boliviana. In: Alexiades, N., Shanley, P. (Eds.),
Productos forestales, medios de subsistencia y conservación, vol. 3. América
Latina, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, pp. 89–116.
Stoian, D., Henkemans, A., 2000. Between extractivism and peasant agriculture:
differentiation of rural settlement in the Bolivian Amazon. Int. Tree Crops J. 10,
299–319.
Taylor, P.L., 2010. Conservation, community and culture? New organizational
challenges of community forest concessions in the Maya Biosphere Reserve of
Guatemala. J. Rural Stud. 26, 173–184.
Titus, B., Kerns, B., Cocksedge, W., Winder, R., Pilz, D., Kauffman, G., Smith, R.,
Cameron, S., Freed, J., Ballard, H., 2006. Compatible management: a
comprehensive overview of inactive to active tools and examples from North
America. In: Cocksledge, W. (Comp.), Incorporating Non-timber Forest Products
into Sustainable Forest Management: an Overview for Forest Managers. Royal
Roads University, Victoria, Canada, pp. 49–72.
Wadt, L.H.O., Kainer, K.A., Staudhammer, C.L., Serrano, R.O.P., 2008. Sustainable
forest use in Brazilian extractive reserves: natural regeneration of Brazil nut in
exploited populations. Biol. Cons. 141, 332–346.
Zhang, Y., 2005. Multiple-use forestry vs. forestland-use specialization revisited.
For. Pol. Econ. 7, 143–156.
Zuidema, P., Boot, R., 2002. Demography of the Brazil nut tree (Bertholletia excelsa)
in the Bolivian Amazon: impact of seed extraction on recruitment and
population dynamics. J. Trop. Ecol. 18, 1–31.