Local Development Based on Non-Timber Forest Products: Evidence from a Mapping of Initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon since Rio 1992

Abstract

Over recent decades, the sustainable use of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) has offered the promise of reconciling the dilemma between forest conservation and economic development, generating income for local populations. Accordingly, since the 1990s, manifold initiatives, often supported by international donors, have been investing in developing such NTFP value chains. Specifically in the Brazilian context, initiatives have proliferated as a response to the challenges of the largest remaining tropical forest ecosystem—the Amazon region and its inhabitants. Have they worked? What do we know about their impact? To provide for the first time an adequate basis for a more systematic analysis of the impact of NTFP initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon, this article presents a mapping of current and past initiatives supporting NTFP extractivism. The mapping drew on databases of funding organizations and interviews with key informants. The analysis revealed a large number of initiatives (nearly 200) strongly clustered in some areas, like around Belém, along major roads such as the BR 364, and along the Juruá rivers, concentrated on a few products with relatively high commercial value, mostly implemented by civil society organizations and targeting traditional peoples and communities. As interventions for NTFP development, the initiatives offered capacity building, financial support, and facilitate market access. With regard to the latter, the initiatives varied considerably. The vast majority promoted products, while a much smaller number engaged in company partnerships or government procurement. Despite the large number of initiatives, there is insufficient knowledge to gauge the impacts of different strategies of local resources and their users. A clear understanding of the effects of NTFP-based development initiatives and how impacts are generated is essential to seize the potential of the bioeconomy for achieving sustainable development for the Brazilian Amazon.

1. Introduction

The term non-timber forest product (NTFP) refers to all biological forest products other than timber [1]. Since the seminal work of Peters et al. [2], NTFPs have been credited with the potential to reconcile the dilemma between forest conservation and economic development by generating sustainable income for local populations [3]. More recently, the concept of bioeconomy has highlighted the opportunity to achieve scaled sustainable development based on NTFP-related value chains through innovative use of technology and markets [4] as well as through the establishment of fair partnerships between producers, traders, industries, and consumers [5].

Since the 1990s, manifold initiatives, often supported by international donors, have invested in such NTFP-based development initiatives in tropical forest regions [6]. This applies especially to the Brazilian Amazon, the focus of this study, where the NTFP approach is particularly relevant because its forest ecosystems not only host a wide range of NTFPs but are also home to nearly 180 ethnic groups and thousands of traditional communities [7]. These play a fundamental role in protecting forests from the ever-advancing agricultural frontier, gold miners, mining, and hydroelectric companies [8]. As the Amazon approaches a tipping point, these initiatives have gained a sense of urgency. This is reflected in current bioeconomy policies that aim to bring these initiatives to a scale commensurate with the scale of the challenges they face [9].

Despite some impressive success stories [10], the overall result of the hundreds of NTFP-based initiatives implemented over the last 30 years has been rather mixed [11]. To effectively use and scale the potential of such NTFP initiatives to achieve local development and forest conservation in the Amazon region, this study aims at a better understanding of what impact such interventions have had and how they have worked. Our endeavor has three specific objectives: (i) to map the initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon in terms of their spatial distribution, products, target groups, and implementing organizations; (ii) to describe the strategies of the initiatives to achieve their goals; and (iii) to analyze the impacts of the initiatives. To achieve these objectives, we exploited the databases of four major organizations supporting NTFP initiatives in the region—the Amazon Fund, Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ), and Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rainforests (PPG-7)—and complemented the results with 30 interviews with key informants including NTFP experts from government, civil society organizations, companies, international cooperation agencies, and academia.

The next section briefly summarizes the features and interventions, as well as expectations regarding the impacts of NTFP-based development initiatives as a basis to orient the subsequent analysis. Section 3 presents the methodology including details of the data sources consulted. Then, Section 4 describes the interventions found, the strategies they used, and the generated impacts. Finally, Section 5 discusses the potential and limitations for development based on NTFPs and provides recommendations.

2. Features of NTFP-Based Development Initiatives, Their Interventions, and Impacts

NTFP-based development initiatives are spread across the globe, but with a strong concentration in tropical rainforests located in the Americas, Africa, and Asia [12]. The literature on Brazil strongly focuses on the highly diverse Amazon forests. Here, the initiatives described are mostly located far from urban centers but close to roads or rivers [13]. Since there is a correlation between the presence of roads and deforestation, it is expected that NTPF initiatives closer to roads suffer greater pressure from the outside, eventually becoming islands of preserved forests [14].

The ultimate target groups of NTFP initiatives in the Amazon are traditional peoples and communities [15], which are defined in the Brazilian legislation as: “...culturally differentiated groups that recognize themselves as such, have their forms of social organization, occupy and use territories and natural resources as a condition for their cultural, social, religious, ancestral and economic reproduction, using knowledge, innovations, and practices generated and transmitted by tradition” [16,17]. This focus is based on three fundamental motivations: the fact that large forest areas in the Amazon region belong to these communities, whether their rights are recognized or not [18], the assumption that they have extensive knowledge about forests [19], and the need to urgently create income for the communities that have historically been marginalized and are living in severe poverty [20].

Like elsewhere, NTFP initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon region have been strongly supported by a phalanx of civil society organizations (CSOs), companies, international cooperation, and the government [15,21]. These can provide financial or technical support or both [22]. Even those that focus on providing capital are actively involved in mobilizing and organizing partnerships and raising additional funds [23]. In particular, CSOs boomed in the 1990s with the increasing involvement of international donors after the Rio Summit in 1992 [15,24,25].

NTFP initiatives are categorized according to the species harvested or the use of the extracted products, such as food, medicine, or cosmetics [26]. Initiatives may focus on a specific species or a group of species or promote a whole range of species or products. In many cases, commercial aspects play a decisive role in the choice of products, but initiatives may also prioritize environmental or cultural value [27]. Despite the proliferation of discourses on the commercial potential of Amazonian biodiversity [28], the vast majority of NTFP studies have focused on only six species, namely: Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa), açaí (Euterpe oleracea and Euterpe precatoria), cacao (Theobroma cacao), rubber (Hevea spp.), and andiroba (Carapa guianensis). Brazil nut and açaí alone account for 73% of the studies [11].

2.1. Types of Intervention Adopted by NTFP-Based Development Initiatives

To achieve their goal of reconciling conservation and development, NTFP-based initiatives intervene at different stages along the value chain, such as production, processing, and marketing [29], providing three main types of support: capacity building, financial support, and improvement of market access [30,31].

Capacity building is broadly defined as “the process of developing and strengthening the skills, instincts, abilities, processes and resources that organizations and communities need to survive, adapt, and thrive in a fast-changing world” [32]. More specifically, in the context of NTFPs, this type of intervention aims to strengthen local capacities for the proper and sustainable management of forests for the harvesting of NTFPs, their marketing, and social organization [33]. In Brazil, the term “technical assistance and rural extension” (ATER) is used, which is defined in Law 12.188/2010 as “non-formal educational services of a continuous nature in the rural environment that promote the processes of management, production, improvement and commercialization of agricultural and non-agricultural activities and services, including agro-extractive, forestry and handicraft activities” [34]. Technical assistance is provided through training offered by civil society organizations, public institutions, and companies [35]. Through workshops and courses, techniques are taught to improve productivity and product quality. In addition to production, technicians provide training to improve commercial aspects (e.g., market analysis and ways to access public institutional purchasing policies) and to expand the organizational capacity of associations and cooperatives (e.g., accounting and management training) [36].

A second type of intervention is associated with financial support. NTFP initiatives may invest in production infrastructure for the processing and transformation of raw NTFPs into new products with higher added value, to allow higher local participation in value creation [37]. Examples include the construction of small-scale processing plants, the purchase of machinery and equipment, the construction of storage buildings, and the provision of boats or vehicles [38]. Mostly, these investments are given as grants, so that the communities incur no costs for their establishment. More recently, hybrid financing mechanisms combining credit, equity, and donations have also been used [39]. The need for financial resources to overcome bottlenecks in value chains is widely recognized, whether in terms of production infrastructure, transportation, or even working capital for local organizations. Given the scarcity of resources for donations, new social actors have sought to facilitate access to subsidized credit for organizations that are still unable to access credit from commercial banks [40].

Accessing attractive markets for NTFPs is an essential prerequisite to achieve financial sustainability. The specific interventions by an initiative in this regard may vary considerably depending on aspects such as the distance to markets, the characteristics of the NTFP and derived products, or the status and maturity of the targeted market [41]. Overall, interventions seek to reduce the numbers of links in value chains, bringing producers and consumers closer together [42]. One strategy to this end is to aim at end markets and eliminate intermediaries. One possibility for more incipient initiatives is to focus on local markets (such as street markets, restaurants, and local supermarkets). More mature initiatives may target regional, national, and international markets through actions such as certification or the creation of collective brands, focusing on niche markets that value social and environmental sustainability aspects [29].

Particularly in Brazil, public markets like the Food Acquisition Program (PAA) and the National School Feeding Program (PNAE), as well as policies such as the minimum price guarantee policy for socio–biodiversity products (PGPM-Bio), can also be an important part of NTFP-based approaches [43]. They may provide less mature community organizations and value chains easier access to markets and a minimum price for the products they sell [44]. More mature initiatives can also influence prices in certain markets by verticalizing value chains—in other words, by controlling all links in the chain, from production to marketing—or even through partnerships for direct sales to companies [45]. Partnerships between companies and communities are another way to access markets. To reduce complexity and to take advantage of economies of scale, such marketing interventions tend to concentrate on one specific NTFP and may even rely on one single trader or buyer [21,46].

2.2. Expectations of Impact

The main expectation of NTFP-based development initiatives is to increase the income of local resource users from sustainably managed natural forests. This, in turn, reduces the incentive to switch to non-sustainable land uses at the expense of forests, while consolidating and strengthening the livelihoods of the families and communities, thereby also providing a long-term perspective, especially for local youth. The communities are also able to become more resilient against external threats so that they can continue and even better fulfill their important function of preserving their forests and their cultures [6]. Unfortunately, however, only a few studies have attempted to generate hard evidence to prove these expectations [11]. More research is clearly and urgently needed to buttress the underlying theory of change [47].

The literature points to a number of factors that, taken together, are conducive to the generation of sustainable income. While this alone is not sufficient to promote income growth, it is expected that individual and collective capacity building will provide the necessary foundation to achieve this outcome in the long term [48,49]. Mechanisms for accessing new markets, whether through government procurement [43] or company–community partnerships [21], are also expected to have positive income effects. A drawback is the discontinuity of public policies, especially with regard to government procurement and the provision of technical assistance [50]. There has also been criticism of some unintended consequences of interventions. In particular, larger investments, such as the establishment of factories, can lead to greater dependence on continued external support [51,52]. The lack of adequate infrastructure for transporting NTFPs is another factor that contributes to perpetuating dependence on external resources and threatens the sustainability of incomes [53].

In addition to income, the initiatives aim at positive socio–cultural effects. The participation of local producers in government food security programs, for example, has the potential to revive cultural links with traditional local foods and promote healthy diets. School feeding programs, in particular, provide a means of ensuring quality food and education on healthy nutrition for children and adolescents [50]. A risk that faces initiatives, especially those involving partnerships with companies, is that they reduce the time available for socio–cultural activities, as well as the availability of the NTFPs themselves, which are often used in ceremonies and traditional medicine [21,52]. A specialization in one NTFP as a cash crop may also reduce families’ interest in food production, which in turn increases the risk of food insecurity [42]. Another aspect is the intergenerational transfer of knowledge to ensure the continuity of NTFP-harvesting activities. The harvesting of products often depends on long periods in the forest, which may conflict with the school year. Balancing the transmission of traditional knowledge with formal education in schools is one of the current challenges facing the initiatives, with an impact on the establishment of stable livelihoods [54].

The existence of appropriate governance systems is another factor that has been identified as influencing the outcomes of interventions [33]. The existence of local organizations and institutions contributes to increased social capital and resilience to external shocks (crises, pandemics, and fires) and leads to forest conservation [55]. In particular, the establishment of local organizations is relevant for effective marketing of NTFPs, access to public policies, and community monitoring of forests [56,57]. The legal establishment of protected areas and secure tenure rights are also considered relevant factors associated with greater forest conservation, helping to create more favorable conditions for NTFP extraction. Based on an extensive literature review, Seymour et al. [58] conclude that there is evidence that strengthened tenure rights at the community level are associated with greater forest conservation. Regarding the Brazilian Amazon, Rosenfeld et. al. [11] point out that 70% of studies that have analyzed the impact of NTFP-based development in protected areas have reported positive forest conservation outcomes.

3. Methodology

To better understand the rationale and reality of NTFP-based development initiatives, including their interventions and impacts, this study examines initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon that promote NTFP harvest in natural forests., i.e., collection of products in standing large natural forests. It does not consider initiatives that promote the outright cultivation of NTFPs inside or outside forests. This research was conducted in three phases: first, the identification of relevant initiatives; second, their categorization based on descriptive features and types of intervention; and third, the analysis of the initiatives in terms of impacts.

3.1. Identification of NTFP-Based Development Initiatives

In Brazil, as in most parts of the tropics, NTFP-based development initiatives are primarily financed and supported by international donors [24,25]. We therefore started to identify relevant programs for analysis by scanning the publicly available databases of four of the most active financing and supporting international entities in the region, namely the Amazon Fund, the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rainforests (PPG-7), the Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA), and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) (

Table 1. Research steps and sources to identify NTFP-based development initiatives in Brazil for further analysis.

Research Step	Step 1: Select Programs	Step 2: Identify Initiatives	Reference
Organization/ Mechanism	Number of Programs	Number of Communities Addressed (Initiatives)
Amazon Fund	61	136	https://tinyurl.com/35dcb8d5 (accessed on 10 October 2022)
PPG-7	2	2	https://tinyurl.com/ybkr5zvy (accessed on 10 October 2022)
CLUA	9	25	https://tinyurl.com/2n7a63c4 (accessed on 10 October 2022)
GIZ	3	23	https://tinyurl.com/5f6k7885 (accessed on 10 October 2022)
Interviews	12	12
Total	87	198

). We took into account the project portfolios available on the Amazon Fund website of programs with approved funding between 2009 and 2019, particularly considering those on the “sustainable production” axis, one of the four axes from which the fund implements its actions. For PPG-7, we considered the programs under the sub-program demonstration projects (PDAs) that were implemented between 1994 and 2009, filtering those related to the Amazon region and forest products. This resulted in only two initiatives, because most of the listed projects were dedicated to agroforestry or training for services (e.g., tourism) or were implemented in the Atlantic Forest. Regarding CLUA, we reviewed grants for the ‘Brazil Initiative’ awarded between 2010 and 2017, and, for GIZ, we considered the programs listed on the website for initiatives developed in Brazil. In these two cases, we read the titles and descriptions of all initiatives to select those that explicitly promoted NTFP extractivism in primary forests in the Amazon. Most of the programs promoted by CLUA were related to advocacy and claiming of rights, while only a small number were related to productive activities. Similarly, in the GIZ database, several programs were dedicated to sustainable infrastructure. Among those devoted to biodiversity and climate, several focused on environmental regularization, governance, and management of protected areas. Eventually, we found only nine NTFP initiatives in the CLUA database and only three mentioned by GIZ.

We then conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 NTFP experts (

Table 2. Institutional affiliation of key informants approached.

Type of Entity	Entities	Number
Civil society organizations	Cooperativa Agroextrativista do Mapiá e Médio Purus (Cooperar), Fundação Amazônia Sustentável (FAS), Instituto Conexões Sustentáveis (Conexsus), Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia (Imazon), Instituto Peabiru, Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM), Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), Operação Amazônia Nativa (OPAN), Projeto Reca, Projeto Saúde e Alegria (PSA), SOS Amazônia, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)	19
Companies	100% Amazônia, Belterra, Bemol, Natura, Symrise	5
Government	Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), Brazilian Ministry of the Environment, Acre State Technology Foundation (Funtac)/Natex.	3
Academia	Federal University of South and Southeast Pará (UNIFESSPA) and University of São Paulo (USP)	2
International cooperation	Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)	3

) to double-check the relevance of the initiatives found in the databases and possibly add new ones.

The consulted experts were nominated by interviewees because of their recognized competence on the topic, following a snowball approach. The selection of experts interviewed reflected the importance of civil society organizations in this field but also included individuals from companies, government, academia, and international cooperation agencies. Two interviewees belonged to two different types of entities. Among the interviewees, 17 were men and 13 women. All interviewees were asked what they considered to be the most relevant NTFP-based development initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon. The interviewees were also encouraged to comment on the challenges and achievements of all initiatives previously identified. Naturally, the experts provided more in-depth information on those initiatives in which they were directly involved and that had been implemented more recently. Most initiatives found in the databases were also mentioned in the interviews, but 12 new interventions were added. The total of 87 initiatives ranged from comprehensive programs and projects involving dozens of different sites to one-off cases limited to only one specific community.

Finally, we investigated how many and which communities the initiatives identified had been working with. Scanning reports by implementing agencies and donors, magazines and newspaper articles, visual presentations, and publicly available videos as well as the information provided by interviewees, we identified a total of 198 communities reached by the initiatives.

3.2. Categorization of NTFP-Based Development Initiatives

Based on the information from the sources presented above, the 87 NTFP initiatives identified were categorized regarding general features and the interventions they carried out in the 198 communities addressed (

Table 3. Categories for the classification of the activities of the 87 identified NTFP-based development programs in 198 communities.

Category	Sub-Category	Classes
General features	Spatial distribution	States comprising the legal Amazon
		Proximity to cities
	Products	NTFP species
		Combination of different NTFPs
	Target groups	Traditional peoples and communities
		Rural settlers
	Implementing organization	Civil society organizations
		Companies
		Government
		International cooperation agencies
Interventions	Capacity building	Production
		Commercialization
		Business management
	Financial support	Financial support
		No financial support
	Market access	Product promotion (commercial markets)
		Government procurement
		Company–community partnerships

).

Each community addressed by the NTFP initiatives identified was assigned to one of the nine states of the legal Amazon. In addition, the distance to the nearest city with a population of more than 300,000 inhabitants (according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics [59]) was calculated using Google Maps. Communities with less than 100 km distance were categorized as “near”, and those with larger distances as “far”. In terms of products, we roughly differentiated between communities that concentrated on one single NTFP and those that worked with more than one. The four species andiroba (Carapa guianensis), copaiba (Copaifera langsdorffii), breu branco (Protium heptaphyllum), and murumuru (Astrocaryum murumuru) were summarized in the product group “oils and resins”.

Two target groups were distinguished: traditional peoples and communities on the one side, and rural settlers on the other. We used the term traditional peoples and communities following the definitions in the Brazilian legislation [16,17]. Based on the descriptions of the initiatives, we distinguished between three sub-groups: (i) traditional communities of extractivists and ribeirinhos (communities living near rivers, usually combining extractive activities with fishing), (ii) indigenous peoples (referring to the original populations of the Amazon region), and (iii) quilombola communities (an “ethnic–racial group with a presumption of black ancestry related to resistance to the historical oppression suffered”) [60]. The term “rural settler” was used to refer to families that had settled in the region since the 1960s, either within or outside governmental programs.

Following the definitions presented in the review section, we distinguished four categories of implementing organizations: Civil society organizations (CSOs), companies, government agencies, and international cooperation.

We further classified the initiatives following the principal features of the operational intervention they applied, namely capacity building, financial support, and market access. Regarding capacity building, we distinguished three general contents: production, commercialization, and business management. Capacity building for production refers to technical knowledge on sustainable management of the species and the forest, as well as the storing and processing of the NTFPs. Capacity building for commercialization involves the transfer of knowledge on characteristics of markets and commercialization processes. Capacity building in business management includes the managerial, legal, and financial know-how required for the creation and running of local organizations such as associations and cooperatives, including participatory processes, administration, and bookkeeping. We also explored whether the interventions provided financial support for the construction of productive infrastructure or the purchase of equipment. Regarding market access, we considered three modes of intervention: (1) the targeting of commercial markets, which may be local (street markets, restaurants and local supermarkets), regional, national or international, for example, through measures such as certification or the creation of collective brands; (2) fostering access to public procurement; and (3) the establishment of partnerships for marketing with companies.

3.3. Analysis of NTFP-Based Development Initiatives in Terms of Impacts

Among the sources used to identify the impacts of the initiatives, only the Amazon Fund provided on its website the results of external evaluations for each initiative. Therefore, we only took these into account when assessing outcomes. More specifically, we considered the five reports available on the Fund’s website included on the “sustainable productive” axis [29,48,61,62]. These reports covered seven NTFP-based development programs working with 55 communities. These were classified as outlined above before qualitatively exploring the impacts. In addition to the information provided on the web-side, we also used gray literature, especially independent evaluations conducted of the Amazon Fund, as well as relevant insights gained in the expert interviews.

4. Results

This section first provides an overview of NTFP-based development initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon, followed by details about their interventions. Finally, we report the findings on the observed local impacts of the initiatives.

4.1. A Map of the Universe of NTFP-Based Development Initiatives

In total, the databases, websites, and interviews referred to 198 NTFP-based development initiatives widely spread across the nine states of the legal Amazon. Most of them were concentrated in the two states Pará (38%) and Amazonas (22%), followed by Acre (16%), Mato Grosso (11%), Amapá (4%), and Rondônia (3%). Only a few initiatives were reported for Roraima, Tocantins, and Maranhão (all with only 2%) (Figure 1).

Some NTPF initiatives were concentrated in remote forest contexts along the large Amazonian rivers, such as Amazonas, Juruá, Negro, Purus, Tapajós, Xingu, and Tocantins, but, many of them were located in contested agricultural frontiers along the major roads, especially the BR-364, between Rio Branco and Mâncio Lima in Acre, and the Transamazon Highway between Altamira and Itaituba in Pará, where pressure on forest conversion has been high. Most of the communities targeted were located far from urban centers. Less than 20% of the communities were closer than 100 km to cities such as Manaus, Belém, Rio Branco, Santarem, Macapá, and Boa Vista.

4.1.1. Products

Of the nearly 200 initiatives analyzed, 42% focused on one single product, whereas the majority (58%) addressed a combination of NTFPs. However, even this latter group of interventions hardly reflected the vast diversity of NTFPs in Amazonian forests. All initiatives together considered only 11 NTFPs, with a strong focus on Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) and the group of oleaginous plants (Carapa guianensis, Copaifera langsdorffii, Protium heptaphyllum, and Astrocaryum murumuru) (Figure 2A).

The other species supported by the initiatives were rubber (Hevea spp.) (11%), açaí (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) (9%), cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum) (8%), babaçu (Attale speciosa) (6%), cacao (Theobroma cacao), honey (both at 3%), cumaru (Dipteryx odorata) (2%), jaborandi (Pilocarpus microphyllus), and guaraná (Paulinia cupana), the latter two with merely one initiative each.

4.1.2. Target Group

All initiatives mapped supported traditional peoples and communities. In total, 80% of the interventions involved traditional communities of extractivists and ribeirinhos. Indigenous peoples were the target group of 17% of interventions, whereas only 3% worked with quilombola communities. With regard to the low latter value, however, it must be taken into account that quilombola communities may have been included under the traditional category but not explicitly reported. Only one intervention was with rural settlers (Nova Cintra in Acre).

4.1.3. Implementing Organization

The vast majority of initiatives (74%) were implemented by civil society organizations (CSOs). While a total of 29 different CSOs were involved, almost half of all NTFP interventions (43%) were implemented by only five CSOs: Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas (IPÊ), Fundação Amazonas Sustentável (FAS), Conservation International of Brazil (CI-Brazil), and SOS Amazônia. Five companies also implemented NTFP initiatives: Natura, Symrise, Michelin, Walmart, and 100% Amazônia. The German GIZ was actively involved in interventions in 9% of the communities, typically through partnerships with civil society organizations and companies. Only 2% of the interventions were implemented by government agencies, the Chamber of Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Acre Technology Foundation (Funtac).

4.2. Interventions

The analyzed NTFP-based development initiatives employed a very similar range of interventions and instruments, but also showed some specificities (Figure 3). All initiatives carried out at least two interventions: capacity building and measures to improve access to NTFP markets. The provision of financial support was also a very common component of the interventions (95% of the cases). In the following, we present details about these interventions.

4.2.1. Capacity Building

The initiatives analyzed mostly provided training in business management (96%) and the production and processing of products (89%), as well as marketing (61%). The experts interviewed broadly agreed on the importance of capacity building in these three areas, but highlighted the challenges associated with each.

In terms of capacity building in business management, activities such as workshops and seminars were reported, generally carried out by civil society organizations. The activities were aimed at a broad group (the whole community) or a more specific one (managers of associations and cooperatives). Workshops for the general public focused on the importance of community participation in the management of local organizations and were held less frequently (once or twice a year). Activities aimed at managers of local organizations were more frequent and focused on project management, financial, and legal aspects. The experts emphasized the importance of overcoming local producers’ lack of knowledge on legal issues and accounting procedures as an essential prerequisite for the proper functioning of producer associations and cooperatives. They also highlighted the importance of strengthening the collaborative skills of local leaders to facilitate the active involvement of members of the associations and cooperatives in planning and decision-making activities.

Training in the production and processing of products was provided through staff of the technical assistance and rural extension (ATER) scheme. Projects included dozens of visits to each community, focusing on good resource management practices, processing, storage, and transportation of the respective NTFP products. The preparation of workshops involved diagnoses, ethnomaps, graphic materials, books, and pamphlets for local resource users. Some initiatives reported annual meetings and exchanges between different communities. The challenges varied greatly in terms of the different NTFPs. In the açaí value chain, for example, there has been a lack of technical assistance on how to properly manage açaí palms so that their production has a low environmental impact. Given the reported cases of overharvesting, training should not only focus on increasing productivity but also include ways to reconcile açaí production with preserving local biodiversity. In the case of Brazil nuts, traditional technical assistance was also seen as insufficient to promote health and safety, particularly in monitoring aflatoxin contamination. Given the risks and challenges posed by this toxin, experts pointed to the need to adopt good collection and storage practices, as well as product quality procedures and controls.

In terms of promotion of market access, they reported activities such as seminars on the characteristics of local, regional, national, and international markets, defining product quality standards, developing business plans for harvest and marketing, and identifying potential customers to send product samples to. Although market access was seen as central to the success of the interventions, respondents did not seem to believe that this gap could be filled by training. Rather, the solution would be to promote products and establish partnerships with potential customers.

4.2.2. Promotion of Market Access

All initiatives analyzed included actions to promote commercialization, but strongly differed in their specific approach. The majority of interventions (93%) focused on promoting NTFP products in commercial markets by reducing the number of intermediaries between extractivists and final consumers. Interventions targeted local markets (such as street markets, restaurants, and local supermarkets), as well as regional, national, and international markets. For local markets, activities supported by civil society organizations included identifying potential buyers and facilitating the transportation of local products. Initiatives eyeing regional and international markets focused on promoting certification and creating collective brands. To do this, implementing organizations reported that they first had to identify local organizations that could meet certification requirements for European and North American markets. This was followed by visits to NTFP producers and specific workshops on certification and fair trade.

Around a quarter (28%) of the initiatives supported the establishment of partnerships with companies. To facilitate business partnerships, implementing organizations reported conducting activities such as meetings with companies with partnership potential and developing a guide to negotiation criteria between traditional communities and companies. They also set up databases designed to better organize and target new business contacts with information on potential markets and the production available from extractive communities. Typically, this intervention was applied in communities showing a higher degree of economic maturity through experience gained by local associations and cooperatives. Such maturity facilitated the negotiations with companies. Often, the companies had already worked with the community, some even providing technical assistance. These initiatives typically focused on oils or resins for industrial production.

One in eight initiatives (12%) reached out to institutional markets, particularly the Food Acquisition Program (PAA) and the National School Feeding Program (PNAE). The role of the implementing organizations in facilitating access to the latter public policy was usually to carry out a diagnosis of local production and to meet with representatives of the municipalities responsible for purchasing food for school meals. The aim of these meetings was to better understand the demand for specific products and to help raise awareness of the importance of buying locally. The next step was to help communities organize production by planning the products and quantities that could be marketed throughout the year. This intervention was more common in communities with little marketing experience and far from urban centers. In line with the procurement policies, the initiatives focused on food, often to supply local schools, which required the consideration of perishable NTFPs.

4.2.3. Financial Support

Nearly all supporting organizations (95% of cases) provide finance for the production and processing of NTFPs; however, they had widely differing objectives and volumes. Typical small-scale investments reported included the purchase of boat engines or the construction of sheds for the storage of NTFPs. By providing extractivists with greater time flexibility, they also expected to increase their bargaining power to obtain higher prices and income from their sales.

Larger investments were made in the construction of processing plants and the purchase of machinery to transform raw NTFPs into processed products with higher added value for the extractivists. Activities reported to this effect included establishment of vegetable oil extraction plants, construction of processing and drying units for various NTFPs, and the acquisition of fruit pulpers and freezers for fruit pulp.

4.3. Reported Impacts

Below, we describe the impact of three types of interventions that were highlighted in the literature and by interviewees: institutional markets, partnership with companies, and financial support.

4.3.1. Institutional Markets

Although we have previously referred to government procurement as a market access strategy, i.e., a means to an end, some initiatives reported access to public policies as a result of the intervention. For example, the evaluators of the “Arapaima: Redes Produtivas” project reported that as a result of the intervention they were able to access the minimum price guarantee policy for socio–biodiversity products (PGPM-Bio), which offered a subsidy if sales are proven to be below the minimum price set by the federal government. The project was implemented by Operação Amazônia Nativa (Opan) and 75% of the beneficiaries were indigenous. Similar results were reported for the “Pequenos Projetos Ecossociais na Amazônia” project, implemented by the Instituto Sociedade, População e Natureza (ISPN). Among the results, the evaluators reported that “there has been greater access to government procurement programs (PNAE and PAA, among others) and progress in the organizational development of initiatives involving indigenous, quilombolas, family farmers and settlers”. The relationship between institutional strengthening and access to public policy was reported in both directions. Sometimes, strengthening local organizations was credited with enabling access to policy, conversely, access to policy resulted in strengthened local relationships.

In addition to providing a secure source of income for the local producers, the use of local production through public policies strengthened cultural ties within the community and contributed to a healthy local diet. The strengthening of intergenerational cultural ties was reported to be a result of the need to inventory existing local products for the institutional market. For example, one community reported that after the inventory was completed, they resumed the production of açaí coffee, which had been abandoned for years. Also, the possibility of serving fresh food in school meals has contributed to better nutrition for children and adolescents.

Interventions with a higher level of maturity reported a decrease in sales in institutional markets during the project period. This was the case in both the project implemented by Instituto Socioambiental (ISA) and the project “Sentinelas da Floresta”, implemented by the Cooperativa dos Agricultores do Vale do Amanhecer (Coopavam). Neither intended to abandon institutional markets; on the contrary, access to these markets was part of the strategy. Part of this result can be attributed to the broader context of weakening public policies, especially in the period after 2019, which coincided with the external evaluations. Experts cited bureaucratic obstacles and weakening public policies as reasons for the low uptake of this incentive. The latter explanation highlights the fragility of these interventions in the long term, as they rely on the political will of governments. However, the decline in government procurement could also have been due to commercial alternatives accessible for more mature interventions (e.g., partnerships with companies, certification, or the creation of collective brands).

4.3.2. Partnerships with Companies

Initiatives in more mature contexts reported that partnerships had contributed to an increase in local prices paid for NTFPs. In the case of the “Sociobiodiversidade Produtiva no Xingu” project, implemented by the Instituto Socioambiental (ISA), the evaluators highlighted “the project’s contribution to changing the history of ridiculous prices practiced by middlemen in the Terra do Meio region and the importance of negotiating directly with purchasing companies for fairer remuneration of forest products”. In this case, the partnership between communities and companies took place through the Origens Brasil initiative, a network led by civil society organizations that facilitates activities between extractivists and companies. During the project, the number of commercial partnerships in this arrangement grew from two to six, contributing to an overall increase in NTFP prices in the region.

The interviewed experts found this incentive promising, whether in the form of a bilateral relationship between the company and the community or via the establishment of extended commercialization networks (such as Origens Brasil). They also expressed concerns, however, even in the case of companies widely recognized for working based on fair and equitable relationships. They highlighted the issues of power asymmetry, short-term vision, and the challenge of adapting business paradigms and practices to the reality of local producers. One frequently cited example is the payment period typically used by companies. For businesses, the standard payment period for suppliers can be up to 120 days, which is incompatible with the needs of extractivists who require a more agile cash flow. Although this is a one-off example and an issue reported as having been overcome in some partnerships, these cases expose the fragility of the business model due to incompatibility between companies’ requirements and local capacities and interests.

4.3.3. Financial Support

Small-scale financial support for the purchase of equipment has had a positive impact in several ways. The purchase of motors for boats and vehicles and the construction of small storage structures have accelerated the transportation of NTFPs and reduced waste. As a result, the volume and price of marketed production have increased. The increase in volume has been a direct result of the reduction in production losses caused by poor storage and transportation conditions. The unit price has also increased as a result of the improved quality of the product and the possibility of marketing it under better conditions, such as during the off-season.

The impact of more substantial investments has been mixed. Among the interviewees, there were both skeptical and optimistic reports regarding this type of intervention. Although some of the cases reported have been successful, maintaining small-scale industries in locations that are generally far from urban centers generates huge operating costs and, consequently, depends on a constant flow of external resources. The challenges range from the resources needed to maintain the equipment—spare parts and technicians take a long time to arrive from the cities—to the often unreliable energy supply. There is also a mismatch between the volumes harvested and the production potential of the industries. Sometimes the communities in which the processing plants are located are not able to provide enough NTFPs to meet the existing production potential. Economies of scale could be obtained with the use of more inputs, but the agro-industries are located far away, with difficult access to other potential suppliers. For these reasons, several experts expressed serious concerns about the long-term viability of such interventions.

5. Discussion

To more effectively use and scale the potential of NTFPs to achieve local development and forest conservation in the Amazon region, this article aimed at understanding the strategies and distilling the lessons learned from the numerous NTFP-based development initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon. By scanning databases of four funding organizations and conducting interviews with 30 experts, nearly 200 NTFP initiatives implemented over more than 30 years were mapped. The initiatives were strongly clustered in some areas (like around Belém, along major roads such as the BR 364, and along the Juruá rivers), products (Brazil nuts and oils and resins), and target groups (traditional peoples and communities). Almost all strategies were implemented by civil society organizations (CSOs) and invested in capacity building, offered financial support, and promoted market access. The specific interventions for the latter varied considerably. The vast majority of CSO-led strategies invested in the sale of NTFPs in commercial markets, while the few initiatives involving government agencies targeted institutional markets. These findings suggest the existence of major inconsistencies between the narrative and the practice of NTFP-based development and raise questions about its economic viability.

When interpreting the results, some limitations must be taken into account. For example, the consideration of a wider range of literature might have provided further insights, even if the most important organizations active in the field were taken into account. There are certainly many other initiatives that are not documented in the analyzed material and whose analysis would have allowed further insights to be gained. The selection of interviewees focused on representatives of civil society organizations, reflecting their importance, whereas only a few interviewees from business, academia, the federal government, and subnational institutions were consulted. With regard to the relevance of value chains within the NTFP-based approach for local development and forest conservation, a more intensive survey of these stakeholder groups might have resulted in a different weighting of arguments and perspectives. Another limitation was the lack of the study’s own field data and thus, the dependence on secondary sources and the subjective statements of the interviewees. Finally, conceptual difficulties must also be mentioned in connection with the terms used and the defined categories, which led to a lack of clarity. Overall, however, it can be assumed that the sources of information consulted provided a good and representative picture of the overall situation.

5.1. Diversity Ignored?

Our findings suggest that NTFP-based initiatives have focused on the production and commercialization of a very limited number of species, with a large proportion actually focusing on one single product. This implies that the initiatives, in contrast to the common narrative, tend to largely ignore biological diversity and the cultural traditions of local resource users. Such a mono-species approach sharply contrasts with the ancient practices of activity among human cultures in the Amazon region over the last 12,000 years to harvest NTFPs in all their diversity [63]. Studies show that for cooking, indigenous populations in the Amazon use up to 270 items derived from 85 different tree species. Even non-indigenous groups use up to 30 forest products [9,64,65]. In contrast, the nearly 200 initiatives analyzed in our study between them used NTFPs from only 14 species. The approach applied by the initiatives also contradicts the economic principle of reducing production and market risks for poor local resource users by combining different NTFPs [11].

Even more problematic from the cultural perspective is that all initiatives essentially followed classic economic approaches by integrating local producers into value chains based on specialization and aggregation in order to meet the requirements of markets. This tendency is also visible in the so-called value-chain approach that has dominated recent efforts to promote a bioeconomy [17]. Although understandable from an economic point of view, such a market perspective aiming at increasing productivity, quality, and scale of production poses a risk to environmental and social sustainability as it is incompatible with indigenous and traditional production systems [9]. It induces the expansion, intensification, and even domestication of production and establishes dependencies and downstream price pressure typical for commodities [66]. This phenomenon has been well described by Homma [67], who notes that commercially promising forest products that were initially gathered through extractivism in natural forests tend to be managed or even domesticated in intensive cultivation outside the forest. Currently, this phenomenon can be observed with açaí and cacao, which are increasingly being grown in intensive systems outside forests due to their great commercial success in international markets. These systems jeopardize biodiversity and can cause environmental damage through irrigation and the use of fertilizers and pesticides, while also weakening cultural identity and social ties. Ultimately, they can exclude traditional extractivist communities from markets [48,68].

To avoid possible destructive dynamics of NTFP-based initiatives, authors have called for more explicit valuing of the knowledge of traditional peoples and communities [7]. According to Krenak [69], this means putting less emphasis on end products and value chains, and more on the constitution of local processes and competences. In this sense, Bergamo et al. [66] advocate setting up an inclusive bioeconomy grounded in the strengthening of the millennia-old cultural and economic practices of Amazonian populations. A governance model fitting this search picture was described by Straatmann [42] for the Terra do Meio region in Pará. Based on multisectoral networks and cooperation, this model better takes into account local interests and specificities. It relies on exchange and marketing points, known as cantinas, to which extractivists take their products and exchange them for money or basic necessities such as machetes, boots, toothbrushes, and food that they do not produce. A cantina is also a place to exchange information and discuss strategies for defending the territory and accessing public policies. Another exemplary initiative that leverages the marketing of a variety of NTFPs is Origens Brasil, a “network formed by producers from indigenous and traditional populations, companies, support institutions, and community organizations works to ensure ethical business relationships with transparency and traceability” [70]. In this case, the NTFPs produced are marketed to companies. In addition to facilitating contacts between producers and companies, the network organizes the supply of the products, guaranteeing the quality and quantities required by its customers.

5.2. Doubts Regarding Economic and Social Sustainability

Serious concerns regarding the long-term economic viability of NTFP-based initiatives were expressed in the interviews. The experts asserted an incompatibility between the pure market approaches applied by the initiatives and the capacities and interests of the local resource users. This diagnosis has been confirmed by several studies [3,71,72,73,74,75,76]. Due to this incompatibility, many NTFP producers depend on continuous external support to survive [52,77,78]. This perpetuates the power discrepancies and paternalism historically associated with extractivist communities and smallholders in the Amazon [79]. Indeed, agro-industries established in forested areas are rarely competitive without ongoing subsidies, due to high transportation and maintenance costs [51]. Too seldom have initiatives attempted to develop local, low-cost technical solutions based on traditional know-how that could be handled locally. Most of the machines and spare parts come from other regions of Brazil and require costly external servicing for maintenance. Also, the choice of market for interventions to improve access implies risking all eggs being put into one basket. Regarding institutional markets, there is a strong dependency on the underlying programs and policies. The events during Bolsonaro’s presidency have impressively demonstrated their fragility [29,48,50]. However, the stability of commercial markets also depends on factors that are difficult to control, most notably price stability and the goodwill of partner firms, both of which are highly sensitive to external influences beyond the control of local communities [37].

At the same time, the NTFP initiatives analyzed have attempted to overcome relationships of dependency and invested in creating local capacity and ownership. Most importantly, this has included building local technical, communication, and governance capacities, which are recognized as essential for creating autonomy and freedom of choice [80]. However, it is questionable to what degree such interventions can be successful, considering the historical gaps in education, qualification, and technical assistance. The Amazon region has the lowest level of schooling in Brazil [81], and it is not surprising that the training offered, especially in the area of business management, has been consistently perceived as insufficient [35].

Investments made to overcome the precarious infrastructural situation of remote forest communities. New production facilities, by contrast, offer new economic as well as social opportunities to communities [53]. These investments do effectively attack the still widespread “aviamento”, a system of debt bondage, in which the extractivist remains constantly in debt to a middleman due to the imposition of unfavorable terms of trade [46,82]. They also facilitate access to social and commercial services, such as schools, hospitals, state agencies, banks, and many more. Against this background, some authors [78] have argued that the main benefit of NTFPs and other development initiatives for local communities is their capacity to overcome social isolation and marginalization, affording the opportunity for broader social interaction and participation.

6. Final Considerations

Over the past decades, there has been a proliferation of development initiatives based on NTFPs in the Amazon. The nearly 200 mapped in the current study come nowhere near to ‘covering the ground’ of this vast region, but they allow some important insights. All have relied on essentially similar sets of interventions: capacity building, promotion of market access, and financial support. The current review found that overall, evidence regarding the impacts of the initiatives and the effectiveness of their intervention models is scarce. Some NTFP initiatives have made important contributions to local development and forest conservation. There are some major concerns, however, because the market-oriented approaches they have applied largely ignore biological and cultural diversity. They do so because of economic considerations, yet they offer limited economic viability, often creating dependence on external support in the process. Finding a balance between market requirements and local capacities and interests is crucial [46,83].

With this in mind, future NTFP-based initiatives, including those proliferating in the current wave of bioeconomic projects, should obey some key principles. In particular, these include the recognition and valorization of the value of biological and cultural diversity. There are some examples that successfully demonstrate how this could look in practice. Most importantly, they avoid optimization of the value chain from merely a market perspective. Instead, they invest in understanding existing realities, capacities, and diversity, they seek incremental improvements rather than drastic changes, and they focus on improving local capacities rather than replacing forms of social organization. Importantly, they promote new forms of marketing and partnerships with the private sector that balance economic demands with local interests. Access to institutional markets and payments for environmental services can play a positive role here, reducing commercial pressures and providing the time needed for locally driven development that uses local knowledge and capacities and low-cost innovations under local control.

Most important, however, is that such initiatives grounded in local capacities and interests continue for the time necessary, which is perhaps the most difficult aspect in these times of short-lived projects and the desire for quick results. It may be helpful to consider that income generation from the use of NTFPs should not be the goal of such initiatives, but rather an important step among many in providing forest-user communities with a perspective for self-determined development that allows them to live in, with, and from the forest. To ensure this and to avoid undesirable developments, it will be necessary to assess the effects of development initiatives in greater detail, more critically, and over the long term in order to distill the lessons learned.