Printer Friendly

Legal and administrative regulation of palms and other NTFPs in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia.


The tropical Andes is one of the most biologically diverse regions on earth (Myers et al., 2000). Its forests provide countless non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and represents an important source of goods, services and employment for forest inhabitants and for humanity in general (Hiremath, 2004; Shone & Caviglia-Harris, 2006). Many NTFPs are used locally to meet nutritional, health, housing and clothing needs (e.g. Macia et al. 2011). Additionally, many NTFPs such as the Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa), vegetable ivory (Phytelephas aequatorialis) and palm heart (Euterpe precatoria and Bactris gasipaes), are commercialized at local, national and international markets. In addition to the economic and cultural importance of NTFPs, the sustainable extraction of NTFPs is increasingly regarded as an important component of forest conservation strategies (Nepstad & Schwartzman, 1992; Godoy et al., 2000; Hiremath, 2004; Bernal et al., 2011).

Tropical ecosystems are under serious threat mainly due to habitat destruction but also due to degradation via the overexploitation of natural resources including NTFPs (Hiremath, 2004; Bradshaw et al., 2009; FAO & ITTO, 2010; Montufar et al., 2011). Annual rates of deforestation have fluctuated from 0.1-1.7% in the period from 2000 to 2005 in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, corresponding to the loss of more than three million hectares of tropical forests (FAO, 2005). In response to such developments, global as well as local conservation concerns have motivated numerous policy initiatives, such as international regulations, statutory laws or incentive-based procedures to encourage a strengthening of forest governance and promote sustainable forest resources management. A variety of laws and regulations have been developed in the Andean region to control the extraction of, and trade in, natural forest products. The challenge to develop and implement a legal framework capable of regulating the extraction and trade of forest resources (timber as well as non-timber) is further magnified by the overall political volatile situation and the extensive informal economy (Kekic, 2010; Transparency International, 2010), of which a significant part has its origin in the forest region. For instance, Ecuador and Bolivia recently approved a new constitution (2008 and 2009, respectively), and laws and regulations are constantly being updated and modified in our study countries.

In order to develop an overview of the legal and administrative framework for regulating the extraction of and trade in NTFPs in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, we visited official web pages, governmental and nongovernmental institutions, and interviewed specialized lawyers and forestry experts. In total, we collected 334 statutory legal documents, official documents and publications on policies related to forests and forest products. Table 1 summarizes the number of documents collected per country according to their primary thematic focus. Close to half of the documents (163) relates to the extraction of NTFPs, while an additional tenth of the documents (38) primarily deals with trade in NTFPs. We focus on the statutory regulatory framework in our overview. Thus, the overview does not consider incentive-based systems or other, e.g. local community-based governance mechanisms.

The present paper describes the contents of existing legislation related to the extraction of, and trade in, NTFPs in the region as well as the institutions responsible for their implementation. The study starts with an examination of the definition of NTFPs applied in the four countries and particular attention is paid to the legal framework surrounding indigenous peoples' rights, traditional knowledge and access to genetic resources. The paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the existing regulatory framework country by country. Finally, as this paper forms part of the PALMS project (, we seek to highlight regulations and examples which refer directly to palm NTFPs. Palms also include species with solitary trunks whose timber is valuable for different industries (e.g. Iriartea deltoidea, Socratea exorrhiza, Ceroxylon spp.; Brokamp et al., 2011). Palm trunks extraction and trade are mostly under timber legal framework, usually clearer than NTFPs legislation and not subject of this review. Throughout this paper, the term NTFP refers to plant products obtained from natural forests and not from other wood lands or trees outside forests (cf. FAO, 2004). Names of institutions are in Spanish, the translation in English is provided in Appendix 1 together with a list of abbreviations. Full names of specific legislations and institutions are given just the first time they are mentioned in the text. Abbreviations used throughout the manuscript correspond to their full names in Spanish.

Overview of Legal Framework

In general, commercial extraction of NTFPs is regulated under the countries' Forestry Laws and their associated regulations (Table 2). Such legislation aims at regulating the activities of the public administration and individuals regarding the use, management, trade and conservation of forests and wild flora in order to achieve sustainable development.

In Colombia, Decree 2811 of 1974 (National Code on Renewable Natural Resources and Environmental Protection) is the equivalent to a Forestry Law; and Decree 1791 of 1996 (the regime of forest use) the equivalent to its regulation. Nonetheless, a new Forestry regime for NTFPs is under development. In Ecuador, the body of regulations is the Unified Text of Secondary Environmental Legislation of the Ministerio del Ambiente (TULAS), which is composed of nine books, among which the books III (about the forestry regime) and IV (about biodiversity) are those primarily concerned with NTFPs.

In Colombia and Ecuador, 20 years passed between the approval of the Forestry Laws to the finalization of the corresponding regulatory frameworks, while in Peru and Bolivia the approval of regulatory framework followed almost immediately upon the approval of the Forestry Laws (Table 2). In Colombia, however, partial regulation of the forestry law was provided earlier through various decrees including Decree 1715 of 1978 which regulated the protection of landscapes, Decree 2787 of 1980 which regulated aspects of forest plantations, and Law 99 of 1993 by which the Ministerio del Ambiente currently Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial (MAVDT), and the Corporaciones Autonomas Regionales (CARs) were created.

Since 2006 the use of NTFPs in Bolivia has been regulated by the Technical Standard for Sustainable Commercial Use of Non-Timber Forest Resources in Natural Forests and Forest Lands, making Bolivia the only country studied that has a specific regulation for the commercial use of these resources. In Ecuador, there is a proposal to standardize commercial extraction of NTFPs (MAE, 2008), while Colombia is close to publishing a standard to regulate NTFP extraction in the Southern Amazon region (Table 2).

Definition of NTFPs

Definitions of NTFPs vary across and within the regulations of the countries under study (Table 3). In all four countries the term NTFP refers to products of wild plants, other than wood, and similar elements of wild plants are considered as NTFPs in all countries. However, in Bolivia the concept is restricted to those products harvested without killing the plant; therefore, palm heart would not be considered NTFP in Bolivia, neither would ornamental plants taken from the forest (e.g. orchids).

In Ecuador, according to the TULAS, Book III, wild flora is included within NTFPs (Table 3). This introduces a conflict of jurisdiction between departments of the Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador (MAE): it is established that the Direccion Nacional Forestal (DNF) is in charge of the administration and control of forest products other than timber, while the Direccion Nacional de Biodiversidad (DNB) is in charge of the administration and control of wildlife (Ministerial Agreement 175). Currently, officials from the DNB interpret the Forestry Law definition of NTFP as referring to timber sub-products, and consider everything else as wildlife, which is therefore subject to their jurisdiction (O. Arango, pers. comm.). These conflicting responsibilities make the legal procedure for the extraction of and trade in NTFPs unclear.

In Colombia there is also a component of inconsistency in the administration of natural resources: the definition of wild flora is vague while it is defined as the set of species and plant individuals that have not been planted or improved by man (Decree 1791). However, commercial plantations of native species are still considered by MAVDT as "flora silvestre" in the legal sense (Rodriguez, 2004), although these plantations are not "wild" anymore and plants there are subject to an altogether different set of requirements with respect to conservation and sustainability.

A parallel and similarly inconsistent and confusing situation prevails in Peru, where the same native plants produced from plantations are considered as subject to forestry laws (requiring management plans and annual plans of operations, and export permits for exportation). In other departments these are treated as agricultural produce requiring only phytosanitary inspection for exportation (M. Weigend, pers. comm.).

Governmental Institutions Responsible and Their Mandates

The Colombian MAVDT and the CARs constitute the most stable and least complex institutional framework for environmental governance in the region (Appendix 2). CARs are territorial units corresponding to either uniform ecosystem or a geopolitical, biogeographical or hydrographical unit. They have administrative and financial autonomy (Art. 23, Law 99). However, CARs' autonomy has caused conflicts due to different criteria being used to regulate harvesting of NTFPs at regional and national scales. Such conflicts also arise between CARs that manage the same type of resource (Rodriguez, 2004). Furthermore, some studies agree that there is not enough coordination between the work plans of CARs and the MAVDT (Fandino-Orozco & Palacios-Lozano, 2006).

Institutional reform is frequent in the region, introducing uncertainty regarding the responsibilities and authority of individual institutions and the procedures for legal extraction and commercialization of NTFPs. Thus, in Peru the Direccion General Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre (DGFFS) partially replaced the functions of the Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA), which disappeared in late 2008 (c.f. Art. 3, Forestry Law). However, some of the functions of the former INRENA were transferred to regional governments (e.g. control of forestry activities; Supreme Decree 011-2007-AG) and others to the recently created Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM; e.g. administration of Protected Areas, Legislative Decree 1013).

Many institutional changes have occurred in recent years in Bolivia. Up until 2009, the Sistema de Regulacion de Recursos Naturales Renovables (SIRENARE) and the Superintendencia Forestal (SF) as part of SIRENARE were the institutions responsible for regulating, controlling and monitoring the sustainable use of renewable natural resources (Art. 21, Forestry Law). However, early in 2009 the SF was merged with the Superintendencia Agraria (SA), and superseded by the Autoridad de Fiscalizacion y Control Social de Bosques y Tierra (ABT), which is an autonomous and decentralized entity with functions similar to those of the former SF and SA (Appendix 2). The ABT was part of the Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial (Supreme Decree 0071), however, early in 2010 it was transferred to the Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua (MMAyA, Supreme Decree 429). In this ministry the Direccion General de Gestion y Desarrollo Forestal (DGGDF) is also in charge of forestry aspects of NTFP administration (Appendix 2). Both the ABT and the DGGDF have their operational centre in the Amazonian city of Santa Cruz (L. Goitia, pers. comm.). It is not clear, either for officials of these institutions or for the users of forest resources how the functions of the ABT are related to, or complemented by, the functions of the DGGDF (L. Goitia, pers. comm.). In both Peru and Bolivia, the legal texts have not been updated after the re-organization and hence the Forestry Laws refer to institutions no longer in existence.

Finally, in Ecuador, there is a conflict of functions between the departments of biodiversity (DNB) and forestry (DNF) of the MAE (cf. function # 3 of DNB and # 1 of DNF, Appendix 2). Both instances have overlapped functions, sometimes with different treatment for NTFP and both act as regulators and controllers of forestry activities. This also introduces a contradiction in public administration as it is desirable that executive entities be separated from control bodies (Anazco et al., 2010).

Most of the legal enabling documents (e.g. permits) for NTFPs extraction and trade can be issued by local and regional offices of the environmental authorities (Appendix 2). However, there are still some types of document that require approval at the main office in Lima, Santa Cruz, or Bogota (e.g. export permits in Peru can only be approved by the Director General Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre in Lima).

Procedures and Requirements for Commercial Extraction

There are different procedures for the legal harvest of NTFPs for commercial purposes from public and private lands (Table 4). In general, a management plan documenting biological sustainability of resource extraction has to be presented and fees have to be paid for an extraction permit to be granted.

Particularly in the case of NTFPs, it is also important to consider national laws regulating the extraction of natural resources by local communities for subsistence. NTFPs harvest for subsistence does not require any permit in Ecuador (Art. 99, TULAS III), Peru (Art. 152, Supreme Decree 014-2001-AG) and Bolivia (Art. 32, Forestry Law); in Colombia it requires a permit, but the permit does not require sustainability studies nor the payment of fees (Arts. 19-26, Decree 1791, Art. 220, Decree 2811). However, there is no clear separation between subsistence use and commercial use, since a considerable proportion of local industries depend on raw materials from local markets and local providers. These in turn obtain the raw materials from peasants or local communities collecting small quantities under the "'subsistence" regulation (Bernal et al., 2011). Thus, NTFPs supposedly collected for subsistence enter the informal and then the formal market. This kind of "small" trade has a considerable impact on the illegal trade and renders the implementation of the regulations extremely difficult (M.T. Becerra, pers. comm.). Due to the informal nature of the first steps of this trade it is very difficult to quantify the overall impact of this process, but it certainly is a major obstacle to conservation and sustainability efforts.

Enabling Documents--Enabling documents in Colombia and Peru differ depending on i) the type of application, ii) the type of applicant, iii) the nature and size of the area to be exploited and iv) the proposed period of exploitation. For instance, in Colombia permits are issued directly, while concessions are obtained only through competitive bidding (Art. 217, Decree 2811). The procedures stipulated for forest exploitation by associations apply for community enterprises and user associations with limited financial means (Art. 36, Decree 1791). The validity of permits depends on the nature of the resource to be harvested and its abundance, however, with a maximum validity of 10 years (Art. 34, Decree 1791; Art. 55, Decree 2811). The validity of concessions depends on the nature and duration of the economic activity for which a concession is granted, requiring those activities to be both economically profitable and socially beneficial (Art.35, Decree 1791). Applications must be submitted to the respective CAR which decides on the approval of the application (Art. 61, Decree 1791). In Peru, concessions are renewable, may be granted for a period up to 40 years, on areas of up to 10,000 ha (Art. 112, Supreme Decree 014-2001-AG) and are approved by Resolution of the M1NAG (Art. 10, Forestry Law). Permits are granted on private lands, secondary forests and forest plantations, while consents are issued in Coastal Dry Forests and for forestry nurseries (Art. 11, Forestry Law). It is possible to harvest NTFPs in concessions granted for ecotourism and conservation by incorporating this activity into the overall management plans (Arts. 118 and 123, Supreme Decree 014-2001-AG). Similarly, harvesting of NTFPs may be undertaken in plant associations and forest reserves used for timber harvest through consents and permits (Arts. 142-147, Supreme Decree 014-2001-AG). In Bolivia, concessions are renewable and granted for a period up to 40 years, and subsidiary contracts may be signed for forest products not stipulated in the first concession contract (Art. 29, Forestry Law).

In Ecuador it is unclear which of the following authorizations are required in any specific case, the two options are either a wildlife patent granted by the DNB or a NTFP harvesting license issued by the DNF (Table 4). The DNB patent is annual and obtained from the MAE's Direcciones Provinciales (DP) (former Distritos Regionales) (Art. 126, TULAS IV) whereas the DNF's NTFP harvesting licenses are issued by the MAE's Oficinas Tecnicas (OT) upon the presentation of favorable results of the studies by the Forestry Regent. Forestry Regents are forest engineers in charge of conducting forest inventories for the government, but hired by the applicant (Art. 9, Ministerial Agreement 139).

In Peru the requirements, costs and deadlines of any administrative procedure regarding NTFPs harvest, marketing and management, in accordance to the Forestry Law and its Regulation, have been detailed in the Consolidated Texts of Administrative Procedures (TUPA) since the 1990s (Law 27444).

Extraction Fees--Extraction fees are not clearly established for every NTFP in Peru and Bolivia. Fees paid for harvesting NTFPs in Peru, set in the Supreme Resolution 010-2003-AG, depend on resource value before processing. Nevertheless, fees have been established mainly for export products and not for products marketed at national scales (B. Millan, pers. comm.). Variations in fees in Bolivia arise because the general extraction fee of USD 0.3/ha has been considered as too high in the case of products of low density in the forest or of low market value. The Decree 27024 allowed the possibility for the ABT (formerly SF) to set adjusted and fixed extraction fees for the most frequently used products in each region (Araujo-Murakami, 2006).

In Ecuador, extraction fees for harvesting licenses are not specified in any regulation (Table 4), but there is a plan to establish extraction fees in the "Proposal for a Standard for NTFPs" (MAE, 2008), which, by the time of this publication, is still under consideration. In Colombia there is an institutional discrepancy concerning exploitation fees for NTFP, which are set by the MAVDT and CARs (Art. 31, Law 99): some CARs have decided to charge only the fee for evaluation and monitoring services necessary to get transportation permits but do not charge exploitation fees (C. Torres, pers. comm., c.f. section F).

Management Plans--In all four countries, management plans are the basic requirement to legally harvest NTFPs. Colombian regulations do not mention them explicitly, but NTFP harvest applications should include information equivalent to that required for management plans in the other countries (Table 4). In Ecuador the application to get a Wildlife patent must include a business management plan as well as a management plan for each one of the species to be harvested (MAE 2009). Harvesting licenses also require management plans and harvesting programs (Art. 4, Ministerial Agreement 139). There is, however, no clear regulation as to what type of data and analyses these management plans should include, apart from the fact that they have to follow specific technical standards (Art. 4, Ministerial Agreement 139). In 2005, Foundation Ecociencia (NGO) designed guidelines for NTFPs harvesting plans (Cuesta-Camacho et al., 2005). Although these have not been officially implemented, they have been used by the Bio trade program in Ecuador (Sanchez & Arguello, 2008). A management plan to harvest fruits of Oenocarpus bataua in the Amazonia developed by Foundation Chankuap (NGO), is one of the few examples of approved management plans of NTFPs that has lead to the issuance of a Wildlife patent (Alarcon & Garcia, 2006). Finally, the "Proposal for a Standard for NTFPs" (MAE, 2008) clearly specifies the required contents of management plans. It is expected that these guidelines will be adopted once this standard is approved.

The management plan is considered a dynamic and flexible tool in Peru. It consists of two elements: First, the General Forest Management Plan which provides the overall framework for strategic planning and long-term business projection. This plan should be elaborated with respect to the entire duration of the concession. Second, an Annual Plan of Operation should be developed as a tool for operational planning for one year. Management plans have been developed for palms such as Mauritia flexuosa, Phytelephas macrocarpa and Euterpe precatoria in the Peruvian Amazonia. These plans have been elaborated and approved with the financial and technical support of NGOs and research institutes (e.g. Comite de Manejo de Palmeras "Veinte de enero" & ProNaturaleza, 2005; ProNaturaleza & Amazon Ivory EIRL, 2005; Alvarez & Rojas 2007; Rojas & Alvarez, 2007). The General Forest Management Plan and the Annual Plan of Operation are also required in Bolivia. The Technical Standard for NTFPs sets procedures for developing these documents (Table 4). This standard presents examples of methods already used to develop management plans for the extraction of palm species such as Asai (Euterpe precatoria), Jatata (Geonoma deversa), Motacu (Attalea phalerata), Cusi (Attalea speciosa), and Sunka (Parajubaea sunkha).

Finally, Colombia and Ecuador have released regulations to protect species under some degree of threat that deal with NTFPs commercial harvest. In Ecuador Resolution 050 has been instituted which recognizes Red Books of Endangered Species for birds (Granizo, 2002), mammals (Tirira, 2001) and endemic plants in Ecuador (Valencia et al., 2000) as official documents (Art. 1); prohibiting the capture, hunting, sale and transportation of live specimens, elements and products of species listed in these books (Art. 3). Resolution 050 has lead to a more specific regulation to control the harvest of leaves of Ceroxylon for ceremonial purposes (Memorandum 001674-08 SCN/DNBAPVS/MA; P. Galiano, pers. comm.). In the same way, in Colombia the use of Ceroxylon leaves is controlled by law (Law 61) and the wholesale destruction of natural populations appears to have been terminated (Galeano & Bernal, 2010). In Ecuador harvest control has also lead to an increase in the black market of palm leaves (R. Montufar, pers. comm.), and to the replacement of palm stands with income-producing crops or pasture (G. Toapanta, pers. comm.).

Commercial Extraction in Protected Areas

In all countries harvesting of NTFPs is allowed in some categories of protected areas with the approval of the authorities of the Sistemas Nacionales de Areas Protegidas (Table 4). In all cases, extraction systems must guarantee long term harvesting, i.e., biological sustainability. In Colombia, forest exploitation is permitted inside the seven Reservas Forestales established in the 2nd Law of 1959 (Art. 207, Decree 2811; Salazar et al., 2008) and in forestry areas declared as protected forest or protected-productive forest. In protected forest areas, only fruits from secondary forest can be harvested (Arts. 204 and 205, Decree 2811). Commercial extraction of NTFPs is not allowed in the Sistema de Parques Nacionales (Art. 30, Decree 622).

Protected areas of direct use in Peru are Reservas Nacionales, Reservas del Paisaje, Refugios de Vida Silvestre, Reservas Comunales, Bosques Protectores, Reservas de Caza and Areas de Conservacion Regional (Art. 21, Law 26834). NTFP extraction is promoted in Tierras de Proteccion Forestal according to the organization of the Patrimonio Nacional Forestal (Art. 8, Forestry Law). In Ecuador, there is only one case of authorized harvest in a Bosque Protector (i.e. fruits of Bursera graveolens to extract oil in Zapotillo, Loja; R Galiano, pets. comm.).

Transportation Within the Country

Transportation of NTFPs within national territories from the source of extraction to sites of processing, industrialization and marketing requires a transportation permit and, in Bolivia, a certificate of origin (Table 5). These documents are granted only when the NTFPs to be transported have been harvested legally, and transporters using the national road network are required to hold such a permit. Transport documents are issued by the respective CARs in Colombia, by OT in Ecuador, by ATFFS in Peru, and by DTD in Bolivia.

The fees for transportation permits in Colombia (Table 5) are considered high compared to the volumes and commercial value of the NTFPs which are typically transported. These fees have been established based on the transportation of bulk products such as timber and not transportation of NTFPs, which are usually transported in much smaller quantities, but more frequently (C. Torres, pers. comm.).

Processing and National Trade

Raw material processing centers are classified as: (i) Pre-processing, the products of which are subject to further processing. These processes include: cleaning, sorting, crushing, chopping, peeling, preservation treatment, storage and packaging of forest products; concentration of gums and resins; coagulation, rolling, drying of latex and similar substances; preparation and weaving of reeds, rushes, and similar products; fermentation, maceration or other similar chemical or biological processing of forest products (Art. 300, Supreme Decree 014-2001-AG). (ii) Further processing, during which products are processed up to a finished sales product (Art. 160, TULAS III).

Both, NTFP processing and trading enterprises must organize and record their operations in a logbook, and submit periodic reports in order to be legally recognized (Table 5). These official logbooks of operations (or supply and raw materials processing programs, in the case of Bolivia) should specify the raw material sources, amounts or volumes processed and/or traded, and the type of the material processed or traded, which must come from managed forests. Logbooks must also include records of transportation permits. The data must be available at any time to the environmental authority. Reports are more frequently required in Bolivia.

Additionally, in Colombia (cf. Resolution 454), industrial products based on natural resources with medicinal qualities must be registered in the Agencia de Control y Registro del Ministerio de Salud (Art. 7, Law 86) which costs USD 500 for emission, inspections, and control (Art. 8, Law 86). Furthermore, natural products companies must implement the use of good manufacturing practices as established by the Ministerio de Proteccion Social through the Instituto Nacional de Vigilancia de Medicamentos y Alimentos (INVIMA) to assure the quality of the products according to hygienic technical and production site standards (Arts. 5-7, Law 063). Natural products that do not require a prescription for their pharmacological activity can be traded freely (Art. 11, Law 63).

In Ecuador, forest industries should pay a fee to obtain an operating permit that has to be renewed every 2 years (Arts. 163 and 164, TULAS III; G. Galindo, pers. comm.; Table 5). Marketing of NTFPs in Ecuador is subject to sanitary registration in the case of processed foods or additives, medicines in general, processed natural products, drugs, medical supplies or devices, natural and homeopathic medical products, cosmetics, hygiene products and perfumes, and domestic, industrial or agricultural pesticides (Art. 100, Supreme Decree 188). Natural products for medicinal uses are classified in three marketing categories (A, B, C; Ministerial Agreement 1281). The first two include products for which documentation from experimental clinical and preclinical pharmacological and toxicological studies are required, and in addition they should be included in Sanitary Registries. In most cases their costs are unaffordable for small-scale producers (CORPEI, 2005). The third category, C, refers to natural resource products for medicinal use which have not undergone chemical transformations, but only physical. These require a marketing permit issued by Direcciones Provinciales de Salud. To obtain such a permit, a certificate of quality control of raw materials and finished products is required (granted by an accredited university in the country), as well as a certificate of botanic authentication of the plant species (granted by a botanical expert of an accredited university in the country). However, these category C permits are not accepted in all outlets, in particular the major supermarket chains and pharmacies (CORPEI, 2005).

In Peru, the DGFFS (formerly INRENA) authorizes the operation of companies processing, storage, and marketing NTFPs (Art. 314, Supreme Decree 014-2001-AG). The Direccion General de Medicamentos, Insumos y Drogas (DIGEMID), as part of the Ministerio de Salud, issues sanitarian registrations to pharmaceutical products allowing their processing and national trade. Medicinal products that are commercialized with no reference to therapeutic, diagnostic or preventive properties can be traded freely (Art. 63, Law 26842).

In Bolivia, enterprises must be registered in the ABT (formerly SF) (Art. 67, Supreme Decree 24453), and by the municipality to obtain an administrative license (Table 5). Companies producing food or food additives also require the approval from the Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agropecuaria e Inocuidad Alimentaria (SENASAG; L. Goitia, pers. comm.).


Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia share similar regulatory requirements for export of NTFPs (Table 6). The importance of the export certificates of origin must be highlighted when considering that, within the region, there are several economic agreements which facilitate or influence the trade of products (Table 5).

Each country posses a guiding law regarding foreign trade (Table 5) that establishes general criteria of export policy and tries to promote national products on the international market. Restrictions are imposed on the trade in products from wild flora and fauna in danger of extinction or to protect and conserve the genetic resources related to the biodiversity of the countries.

Regulations regarding NTFP trade are also embedded in international conventions signed by the countries, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2010), the Treaty of Amazon Cooperation (TCA, 1978), and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 1973). Export of any specimen of CITES species requires an export permit issued by the national administrative authority in each country after consulting the scientific authority. All four countries have ratified CITES and the administrative authority is usually the Ministry of the Environment (Table 5). No Andean palm species are included in the CITES Appendices.

To sell products obtained from native plants abroad, an export permit is commonly required (Table 5). Documentation which confirms the legal harvest of the specimens and products to be exported must be submitted to obtain it. In Colombia, the Direccion General de Ecosistemas from the MAVDT grants export permits for specimens (non-processed raw material) and for pre-processed NTFPs (Arts. 4 and 5, Resolution 1367). In the case of processed products, the CARs issue an export certificate to enterprises that meet the same requirements as those required for national trade enterprises (Resolution 454). It is not clear to the authorities which of the above two export enabling documents apply for products such as handicrafts, as some consider them as pre-processed products, while others consider them to be processed products (Rodriguez, 2004). Definitions are unclear and lead to different interpretations of the law by authorities. To promote national industry, natural products do not require phytosanitary inspection to be exported (Art. 8, Law 063) in Colombia.

In Ecuador ambiguity prevails, since the Forestry Law establishes that the export of specimens of wild flora and products derived from them is allowed only for scientific and educational purposes (Art. 48), while according to the TULAS III, commercial NTFP export is allowed if authorized by the MAE and the Ministerio de Comercio Exterior, Industrializacion, Pesca y Competitividad (now Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Comercio e Integracion -MRECI) based on preliminary technical studies performed (Art. 127). Besides, the MRECI certifies the origin of all exported goods (Art. 22, Decree 3431). Certificates of origin can be also issued by local Camaras de Comercio and FEDEXPOR, depending on the format required by international agreements (CORPEI, 2005). The TULAS IV establishes that the MAE allows commercial export of specimens of wild flora, their derivatives and elements, if they are harvested from areas subjected to in situ management programs or from cultivation. Export quotas are defined by MAE in terms of production capacity of these centers and programs (Arts. 27-30). The DP and the Ministerio de la Produccion issue export permits that are presented to custom authorities (G. Galindo pets. comm.).

Export of unprocessed forest products is prohibited in Peru (Forestry Law, Art. 22.2). This disposition is being implemented gradually as many non-processed NTFPs are still exported in Bio trade programs (Rondon, 2005). The DGFFS (formerly INRENA) grants export permits for wild flora. These permits do not apply to varietal improvement activities, research and development of biotechnology and industrial applications, or the granting of property rights over genetic resources (Art. 316, Supreme Decree 014-2001-AG). Specific requirements to obtain export permits include a request addressed to the Director General Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre in Lima, the products' identification and primary processing certificate signed by a professional or an entity registered in the DGFFS, and the payment of a handling fee (Table 5).

The Bolivian Forestry Law and its Regulation do not explicitly address exports of NTFPs, but only mention the export of timber briefly. The NTFP standard does not include specifications about it either. In practice, the ABT issues export permits that are checked by the customs authorities (L. Goitia, pers. comm.).

Control and Monitoring

Extraction, transportation, processing and trade of NTFPs at the national level are controlled by officials of the local environmental institutions and governments (Table 7). Independent audits of concessions must be carried out every 5 years by accredited companies in Bolivia. International trade is controlled by institutions such as the national customs systems and phytosanitary national offices. Export control in Colombia is facilitated by the fact that only 10 Colombian sea and fiver ports and airports are authorized for the international trade of NTFPs (Decree 1909). At the national and international levels, the police and the army play a supporting role (Table 7).

Ecuador's control system stands out due to the existence of the Verificacion Forestal which consists of nine forestry professionals that audit institutional operation of the MAE and its delegations (G. Galindo, pers. comm.), and the Sistema Informatico para la Administracion y Control Forestal (SAF) that registers all plans, programs, permits and licenses issued, as well as supervising the reports. The SAF exercises control over forest operations by denying transportation permits if harvesting programs do not meet sustainability standards (Arts. 31 and 32, Ministerial Agreement 139).


Sanctions vary between countries. They include fines, temporary loss of registrations, licenses, permits, contracts, closure of companies and confiscation of specimens, products or implements used in breaking the law. Fines in Bolivia are based on forestry patents and not on wages or tax units as in the other three countries (Table 7). The sanctions imposed depend on the seriousness or risk generated by the lack of compliance with the regulations, the damages produced, the culprit's background and previous contraventions. However, administrative and penal sanctions are more severe in Colombia (e.g. higher fines, longer imprisonment period) than in the other three countries. Penal Codes include crimes against natural resources with the exception of Bolivia, where no penal sanctions exist for these (Table 7). Colombia is the only country that defines the illegal use and trade of genetic resources as a crime.

Local and Indigenous Peoples' Rights

One subject that has gained momentum in international discussions is the traditional knowledge (TK) associated with forests resources, intellectual property rights to this knowledge and the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of such resources and knowledge (Finger & Schuler, 2004; Garcia et al., 2005; Ruiz Muller, 2006). The increasing attention paid to the issue of TK has evolved concurrently with the growth and expansion of indigenous and local communities' property rights (individual or collective) in the region (cf. Decree 2164, Constitution 1991, Colombia; Ministerial Agreement 265, Ecuador; Law 22175, Peru; Law 3545, Constitution 2009, Bolivia).

The increased recognition of indigenous peoples' rights has its legal basis in the Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal People in Independent Countries, adopted by the 76th General Conference of the International Labor Organisation (ILO), Geneva 1989, and more recently with reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). The Convention 169 recognizes a number of fights of indigenous and tribal peoples, among these the right to participate in the decision-making process, the right to be consulted, and the right to participate in a fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of the resources in their territories.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) reinforces the principles of Convention 169, concerning the right of indigenous peoples to participate and be consulted in the decision-making processes that concern them or affect their fights (Art. 18). Moreover, the UN declaration recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to manage their lands and resources according to their traditions, as well as the state's duty to ensure the legal recognition and protection of their territories and resources (Art. 26). It establishes the need for free and informed consent of indigenous peoples before approving any project affecting their lands or territories and resources (Art. 32).

Convention 169 and the UN declaration provide a framework for policies regarding natural resource use by indigenous communities, and also outsiders' use of resources in indigenous peoples' territories and TK in the study countries. Only Colombia has so far abstained from approving the UN declaration.

NTFP Commercial Extraction by Indigenous Communities--Indigenous communities have user's exclusive rights over NTFPs within their territories. Nevertheless, commercial extraction of NTFPs follows the official regulations described for each country (Tables 4 and 5), even though indigenous peoples' requests receive priority treatment and they receive technical advice from governments (Table 8). For example, in Peru, indigenous communities' requests receive priority treatment by governmental institutions and are supported to develop management plans and increase their commercial competitiveness (Arts. 1-4, Decree 052; Resolution 232-2006-INRENA). In Bolivia, the area to be commercially harvested by indigenous communities is subject to the payment of the minimum forestry patent. It is also established, that indigenous peoples shall receive preferential treatment with respect to the granting of concessions for the commercial extraction of areas rich in NTFPs like Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa), rubber (Hevea brasiliensis), or palm heart (Euterpe precatoria) (Arts. 20, 31-32, Forestry Law).

Some indigenous communities in Colombia argue that they have autonomy to manage their resources without being subject to Colombian state regulations (C. Torres, pers. comm.). This claim is made with reference to the Constitution of 1991 (Arts. 63 and 329) and Decree 2164 (Art. 22) which recognize indigenous territories as sovereign, with a collective title with the same guarantees as private property. Indigenous peoples govern their territory and manage it as autonomous organizations governed by their own regulatory systems through indigenous courts. The more recent Law 1152 of 2007, however, contradicts these articles, stating that the occupation and exploitation of indigenous peoples' territories should follow the requirements established by the MAVDT (Art. 121). In the same way, in Bolivia, although indigenous communities are subject to official regulations (i.e. must develop regulatory harvesting protocols and pay a forestry patent, Table 8), the new constitution guarantees the autonomy of indigenous communities, and self-governability exercised through indigenous peoples' rules and ways of organization (Arts. 2, 290-296).

Protection of Traditional Knowledge Traditional knowledge (TK) related to biodiversity includes ideas, judgments and reasoning, methodological processes, explicatory systems and technological procedures developed by different ethnic groups and local communities in their relationship with the biodiversity of their environment (Pardo et al., 2000). In 1992, the CBD recognized the contribution which TK can make to both the conservation and the sustainable use of biological diversity. The CBD establishes that countries must respect, preserve, and maintain TK, promote its wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from its utilization (Art. 8j).

In recognition of these obligations (and in response to the adoption of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights TRIPs-, which established rules for creating and protecting intellectual property that could be interpreted to contradict the agreements made under the CBD), the states that have ratified the CBD requested that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) would investigate the relationship between intellectual property rights, biodiversity and TK. Since 1998, the WIPO has organized workshops and consultations with indigenous and local communities to determine their position regarding intellectual property rights (WIPO, 2010). The WIPO's Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC-GRTKF) has elaborated a proposal for an International Agreement that has not been approved yet. Its approach investigates the use of existing or novel sui generis measures to protect TK against future, on-going misappropriation and misuse. Sui generis measures should be developed because intellectual property rights are not an appropriate mechanism to protect TK due to the collective and trans-generational nature of this knowledge (Garcia et al., 2005).

Within the study countries, Peru possesses the most explicit and specific legislation to protect TK. Law 27811, enacted to protect the collective knowledge of indigenous peoples and communities linked to biological resources, recognizes the right of indigenous communities to decide on the use of their collective knowledge. Any party interested in accessing collective TK must have obtained previous informed consent from the indigenous peoples' organizations involved (Art. 6). For industrial or commercial purposes, a license must be signed that assures the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge (Art. 7). This law also provides mechanisms to register collective TK at three levels: public, confidential and local. Registration of TK as public and confidential is managed by the Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Proteccion de la Propiedad Intelectual (INDECOPI; Art. 15). The Law 27811 has been criticized for being so protective of TK that it hinders the development of initiatives such as Bio trade enterprises (Rondon, 2005). More recently, Law 28216 has created a multidisciplinary national commission to manage the registry of biological resources and collective knowledge of Peruvian indigenous peoples, in order to protect them from bio-piracy.

The Law of Intellectual Property of Ecuador mentions the establishment of suigeneris systems of collective intellectual rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and the requirement to elaborate a specific law for the protection, application and valuation of such rights (Art. 377). Therefore, in 2009 a multidisciplinary group guided by the Instituto Ecuatoriano de Propiedad Intelectual (IEPI) developed a law project regarding the conservation and protection of collective knowledge of indigenous peoples, Afroecuadorian, and ancestral communities of Ecuador (IEPI, 2009). The document aims to promote the rescue, preservation, valuation, respect and protection of collective knowledge. However, this law project is not congruent with the Ecuadorian Constitution in that it proposes a previous informed consent from the indigenous peoples, while the Constitution only considers a previous informed consultation, rather than requiring previous informed consent (Arts. 57, 61, 398--however, it complies with Convention 169 and the 2007 UN declaration). The Bolivian Viceministerio de Ambiente, Biodiversidad, Cambios Climaticos, Gestion y Desarrollo Forestal (VABCCGDF) has also been working on a proposal for a law on the protection and collective rights of TK within the new constitution that recognizes the collective rights of indigenous peoples (Zapata-Ferrufino, 2009).

The Colombian Constitution establishes that it is the obligation of the Colombian state to protect cultural and ethnic diversity (Arts. 7 and 8) and to defend its nonmaterial patrimony (Arts. 70-72) which includes indigenous TK of biodiversity. Indigenous peoples in Colombia must be consulted in advance before the exploitation of any natural resources in their territories (Constitution 1991; Decree 1397). Consultation of indigenous and black communities is regulated by Decree 1320. A certification from the Ministerio del Interior of the presence of such communities, the culture which they belong to, their representation and geographic location must be submitted as part of the procedure. The Instituto Colombiano de la Reforma Agraria (INCORA) certifies the existence of the legally established territories (Decree 1320). Decree 309, which is a Regulation for Scientific Research on Biological Diversity, also refers to a prior consultation process with black and indigenous communities. Some initiatives from Colombian indigenous communities to protect their TK are noteworthy. These have the aim of strengthening the communities as a group and seek to establish rules for their relationship with nonindigenous people who wish to gain access to their TK. Among these initiatives is the protection of TK through customary law and the law of origin, internal protocols or regulations and livelihood plans (Garcia et al., 2005).

Palms are tangentially involved in this topic since most of the knowledge to harvest and processing commercial products is widely distributed in the region and cannot be associated to a particular ethnic group. TK protection regulations are particularly relevant for medicinal plant use which is poorly represented in palms (e.g. Ecuadorian palm species account just for 1.4% of all medicinal plants registered for the country (n=3118; de la Torre et al., 2008).

Access to Genetic Resources--Use of, and trade in, NTFPs also includes genetic resources (GR; including whole organisms, tissue samples, and DNA extracts; Schindel, 2010), their by-products and associated intangible components (e.g. TK). The use of palms' GR to develop commercial products, or to increase their quality and productivity, is subject to access to GR regulations (e.g. genetic characterization of individuals that bear more or larger fruits with higher oil content for cosmetic industry or biodiesel production). The regime of access to GR is based in the precepts of the CBD. These include i) the sovereign rights of states over their GR, which implies previous informed consent by the country providing genetic resources; ii) to create conditions to facilitate access to GR, which implies creating a proper institutional and legal framework which establishes mutually agreed conditions (contracts); and iii) the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the access to GR, including all parties involved in the access, such as the providing country and the people or communities, including indigenous peoples, providing any intangible components (scientific or TK) associated with the resources.

Therefore, regulations regarding access to GR in the four countries are closely related to the topic of TK protection. In Caracas, Venezuela on July 2nd, 1996, the Andean Community (CAN) expedited Decision 391 to regulate access to GR and its by-products. The decision aims at equitable sharing of benefits, recognition of associated TK, conservation of biological diversity, and strengthening of scientific, technological, institutional, and negotiating capacities related to genetic resources at the local, national and sub-regional levels. Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia adopted the Decision and the reference models of application forms and contracts included in Resolutions 414 and 415 from the Junta del Acuerdo de Cartagena, but to date only Bolivia and Peru have instituted Decision 391 (Table 9).

Bolivia was the first country to institute the CAN Decision 391 only 1 year after it was expedited (Table 9). Important provisions created by the Supreme Decree 24676 are the Sistema Nacional de Recursos Geneticos (SNRG) and the Cuerpo de Asesoramiento Tecnico (CAT) constituted by representatives of the Secretaria Nacional de Recursos Naturales y Medio Ambiente (SNRNyMA), Agricultura y Ganaderia, Asuntos Etnicos, Genero y Generacionales, Comercio e Industria, and Academia. The SNRG is supposed to help in the conservation, development and sustainable use of Bolivian GR through the implementation and execution of programs and projects. The CAT evaluates applications for access to GR. The SNRNyMA guarantees the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples as providers of TK associated to GR.

A Peruvian Regulation on Access to Genetic Resources was expedited shortly after the creation of the MINAM (Ministerial Resolution 087-2008). The regulation created a national mechanism for supervision and integrated follow-up of GR. Framework contracts for non-commercial purposes were also considered. The recognition of TK, innovations and practices is taken into account through a single article (Art. 6) that refers to the previously mentioned Law 27811 and Law 28216 (section K2). A vacuum in the regulation is that it does not establish the format of the necessary contracts. This is the reason why no contracts have yet been signed although 10 applications have been submitted (Table 9; E. Ruiz, pers. comm.). Complementarily, Peru has signed an Understanding Regarding Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge with the United States of America (2006), in which the importance of obtaining the previously informed consent from the respective authority for access to GR is recognized.

Colombia has not expedited a regulation relating to CAN Decision 391, but has regulated access to GR through the Ministerial Resolution 620, based on the CBD, CAN Decision 391, and Law 99. The norm requires the petitioner to be a researcher, student, private or juridical person involved in a research project and to have support of a scientific institution. Contracts of access to GR can be solicited for industrial application, commercial use, biological prospecting, or the study of biological diversity or academic (basic or applied) research. Most of the signed contracts involve basic research by academic institutions, but there are also contracts signed by private individuals for commercial purposes. For instance, there is a contract for the evaluation of the potential of the algae of the Colombian Caribbean as a source of fatty acid omega 3, i.e. research for potential commercial use. In summary, Colombia only transferred powers of Decision 391 to the National Authority and established an internal procedure to process applications for access to GR and its by-products. Although this is not considered a Regulation, it seems to be an effective system. For instance, in Colombia dozens of contracts have been subscribed (Table 9). In contrast, although Peru and Bolivia do have regulations in place, the procedure for implementing these regulations appears to be inadequate. In Peru, access to GR for commercial applications may be very difficult with national authorities not able to follow standard procedures. Thus, in one case the negotiations for access to GR for ornamental plants by an international plant breeder lasted for >3 years without results and were then abandoned by the applicant--in spite of the fact that the cornerstones had been unanimously agreed upon from the outset (M. Weigend, pers. comm.).

In Ecuador, there is a proposal for Regulation of Decision 391 that has not been approved yet, although it was elaborated 8 years ago by the MAE. Its publication has been recently declared as a priority to encourage scientific research in the country (R. de la Cruz, pers. comm.). The Ministerio Coordiandor de Patrimonio Natural y Cultural (MCPNC) and the Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales (IAEN) updated the proposal and prepared a final version in December 2010. An application for plant bio-prospection is waiting for the regulation to be approved (Table 9). An obstacle in the process is that the new Ecuadorian constitution prohibits any intellectual property over either GR or TK (Arts. 57.12, 322, 402). This is expected to impede the recognition of researchers' intellectual efforts and thus reduces the incentive for research. The aforementioned articles must be reinterpreted in the Constitutional Court before a regulation can be released in accordance with the precepts of CBD.

In parallel, the Ecuadorian government is pursuing preparation of a regional strategy for access to GR and for the prevention of bio-piracy under the framework of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). This strategy will present the position of UNASUR with respect to the International Regime on Access and Benefit Sharing (IRABS): the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (CBD, 2010); which will soon be released.

An important point to be defined by the UNASUR strategy, and by the Conference of the Parties of the CBD (COP-10) International Regime, is how to effectively treat access to GR which are used to develop commercial products as opposed to those GR which are used for non-commercial academic research. The challenge is to facilitate and encourage basic research, reduce governmental costs and ensure a fairer distribution of any commercial or intellectual benefits (Schindel, 2010).


NTFPs administration and related legislation are part of a complex system of various legal systems, the most important of which is "forestry legislation" in a wider sense. Forestry laws are primarily conceived to regulate the industrial use of timber and most forestry concessions are granted without any consideration of NTFPs. Therefore, NTFP extraction permits are granted through modifications to concession contracts signed for timber exploitation. As a consequence, NTFPs have been randomly extracted, discarded, wasted or destroyed in the field (Rondon, 2005). The specific nature of NTFP extraction is drastically different from those of timber harvest, as concerns the environmental impact, volumes and commercial values of the harvested good, the stakeholders and the value chains, and the overall economical importance of the harvested goods. With the legislation based essentially on issues of the timber harvest, both the local users and governmental officials find it difficult to identify and meet the specific legal requirements for sustainable use of NTFPs. Officials often have to interpret and modify provisions originally dictated for timber extraction, and these formal problems contribute to discouraging legal extraction and trade of NTFPs. Another very important factor complicating the implementation of NTFP policies and plans is that different institutions have been in charge of their administration and control alternately, leading to a loss of continuity and a lack of administrative competence of the relevant bodies.

Lack of clear institutional responsibilities, as well as frequent reforms in all the countries here studied have negatively affected both the regulations for NTFP extraction and trade themselves and the compliance with them. In the last few years, new governmental institutions have been created without clear definitions of their mandates and this has hampered rather than facilitated the sustainable use and management of NTFPs. Bolivia provides a good example. Bolivia has two different governmental institutions in charge of controlling extraction of and trade in NTFPs, but the mandates of these two entities are unclear, both within the central government offices in Santa Cruz, and across the country (section C, Table 4). The creation of new institutions, without proper preparations and distribution of responsibilities results in laws not being updated accordingly so they continue to refer to old institutions that no longer exist, such as the Forestry Laws of Peru and Bolivia. This becomes an obstacle to legal and sustainable use of NTFPs, for both government officials and NTFP users.

NTFPs related legislation is diverse, fragmented and unclear in the studied countries. Firstly, a considerable number of rules (Laws, Decrees, Resolutions) are in place which regulate directly, or indirectly, the extraction of, and trade in, NTFPs and it is not clear which of these rules are still in force. For example, before the creation of MAVDT and CARs in Colombia, Agreement 38 of 1973 was instituted. This agreement adopted the Statute of Wild Flora, which assigned powers to the Instituto de Desarrollo de los Recursos Naturales Renovables (INDERENA). INDERENA no longer exists and it is unclear which provisions of Agreement 38 of 1973 are still valid (Rodriguez, 2004). For this reason this rule was not included in Section A of this review.

Secondly, the requirements for legal exploitation of forest resources are formulated in different sets of regulations. A user wanting to follow the rules and trying to obtain permissions from relevant authorities can easily get lost in a complex of paperwork with few directions to follow. For example, if a user wants to extract NTFPs on protected lands, in an indigenous territory that would eventually involve genetic resources, food or medicine with the intention to transport, process and export the products, that person would be required to review and abide to at least one different set of regulations for each one of the above cases. There is little understanding of the overall legal system even in the authorities themselves and it is thus very difficult to obtain clear information about these regulations and specifications. It is challenging to understand and meet the complex and demanding regulation for urban people usually familiar with administrative and legal processes (indeed this was the case for the authors of the present review) and it must be terminally impossible for the bulk of the users living in rural communities.

Thirdly, sometimes the provisions of the relevant laws are contradictory. An example is the prohibition of the exportation of NTFPs under the Ecuadorian Forestry Law (Art. 48), but there is a provision for the legal exportation of NTFPs in the corresponding Regulation of the same law (Art. 27, TULAS III). In other cases, provisions are ambiguous and this lack of clarity makes it difficult to determine the scope, objective or application of a rule. As in the case of the incomplete definition of wild flora which causes ambiguity with respect to plantations of wild flora species by the MAVDT (section B); or the conflicting or overlapping mandates between departments of the Ecuadorian Ministerio del Ambiente due to the unclear definition of NTFPs in the legislation (sections B and C). The lack of clear definitions makes it necessary for the authorities and applicants to interpret the terms themselves, generating uncertainty when applying the law. Due to the mentioned blur in Ecuador, products such as palm timber are wrongly treated under NTFPs regulations (e.g. trunks of Iriartea deltoidea extensively harvested in Ecuador and sold for flower culture poles) what stress the urgent need of precise definitions in the laws. In general, what we have identified is a complex, contradictory and cumbersome regulatory framework that presents substantial difficulties for compliance. Due to the inherent lack of clarity and structure of the whole regulatory framework uncertainty of legal processes and requirements prevails throughout, equally affecting indigenous people or nationals wanting to legally harvest NTFPs, local or national commercial enterprises, foreign companies wanting to establish an export business, and often the administrators in the state authorities themselves.

Under current legislations it is not clear which legal documents are required for the formal extraction of and trade in NTFPs (Table 4). For example, in Colombia and Peru, it is unclear in which cases permits, authorizations, concessions or permits for associations apply, for how long they are valid, and who has the fight to apply for them. In Ecuador, due to the unclear definition of NTFPs, there is ambiguity with respect to which the documents are required for the commercial extraction of NTFPs, and as to which of the authorities authorizes that activity. It is also unclear upon which criteria environmental authorities base their decisions to grant or deny permit applications. In Ecuador and Bolivia, no written legislation specifies who issues export permits. This information was obtained only through interviews with officials and experts in the area. A counter example is the TUPA in Peru which provides facilities to users, even though, due to the institutional changes, it has to be constantly updated.

The scope and content of the management plans required for the legal extraction of NTFPs, as well as the systems for monitoring managed extractions, are not well specified in the legislation or the associated regulations. There is uncertainty regarding as to how biological sustainability is defined and evaluated. This void also contributes uncertainty for users and the environmental authority in relation to which information should be submitted by the applicant in order to comply with this requirement. However, Bolivia, due to its Standard for NTFPs, is the country which best specifies how to develop an inventory, and the management, harvesting, and monitoring systems for management plans. Conversely, guidelines appear to be vaguest in Ecuador. The management plans, whatever the details, are usually prepared by scientists (biologists) and are commissioned and paid for by the applicants who want to undertake NTFPs extraction. Rural inhabitants or small business owners will not be able to prepare an acceptable management plan by themselves (Rondon, 2005; G. Galindo, pers. comm.). The costs for the specialist are generally in the range of several hundreds or thousands of dollars. At least in Peru, the management plan has to be countersigned by a forest engineer (ingeniero forestal), no matter who actually prepared the management plan. The forest engineer is also paid for his signature (M. Weigend, pers. comm.). Overall, the average cost of a management plan is probably in the range of several thousand dollars. This cost is usually prohibitive for individual collectors and small enterprises, apart from the difficulty in even contacting and negotiating with a specialist who can write the management plan.

Additional costs arise from the fees of permits/concessions themselves, or forestry patents, the issuance of transport permits, the registration as business enterprises, and export permits. Irregularly costs are also incurred in audits or inspections and certificates or sanitary registries, which may be both difficult to obtain and expensive (CORPEI, 2005). Although there is a tendency to decentralize the functions of environmental authorities to their regional offices, including those relating to NTFPs, there are still issues that are only dealt with at the central offices, which of course implies further costs for the applicants (e.g. travel to the capital). Even in Colombia, which through the creation of CARs has gone furthest towards decentralized environmental governance, export permits can only be issued by the MAVDT. The situation is similar in Peru, where export permits can only be issued by the Director General Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre in Lima. In Bolivia, all procedures must be approved in the ABT and the DGGDF central offices in Santa Cruz (L. Goitia, pers. comm.).

Overall, laws and regulations for NTFPs extraction lead to high administrative costs, most of which have to be paid before the raw material can even be harvested, let alone be processed or sold. This expense in advance will often be impossible to cover for individuals and small enterprises. Moreover, all these costs have to be finally recouped with the sale of the product or raw material. Minor commercial enterprises will not usually be able to cover these costs. Legal harvest and trade in many NTFPs may therefore be commercially not viable, leading to a large informal or even illegal market and a penetration of the formal market by informally or illegally sourced raw material.

There are many institutions and measures that control and monitor forestry activities in the four countries (Table 7), however, they are difficult to implement. Institutions in charge have limited capacity to ensure the enforcement of existing legislation (operational, financial and technical; Posada, 2006). Laws assign responsibilities to the police, the army, and customs authorities, as supporting authorities. However, genuine collaboration between these institutions is rare. In Peru the INRENA categorically refused to organize the policing of concessions. In a particular case, where illegal harvesters entered an area where an NTFP-concession had been granted (for thousands of dollars) to a private, international company, INRENA refused to intervene on behalf of the concession holder. In this particular case, the Departamento de Mineria subsequently granted a mining concession to a different company for the area covered by the NTFP-harvesting concession. The NTFP-concession, while legally still valid for several years, became void because the mining company barred access to the territory (M. Weigend, pers. comm.). Thus, there is no legal security for the concession holder that the rights he obtains are protected or even respected by state authorities. In Colombia, the control of the logbooks required for the business operations of enterprises is characterized as "archaic", and frequent delays in official control visits to enterprises, and subsequent delays in their audit reports, lead to delays in processing permits applications. This constitutes a barrier to the development of this type of business (Rodriguez, 2006). The development of SAF in Ecuador represents a step forward, however, delays with respect to in situ control and in registering the audit reports by SAF are expected to cause delays in the processing of applications for operation patents or permits.

Discussions about the use of natural resources by indigenous communities and access to natural resources in their territories (including access to GR and TK) have received considerable attention in recent years. Some progress has been made in protecting indigenous peoples' rights by recognizing their right to participate, to be consulted in decision-making processes which concern them or affect their rights and the requirement to obtain their prior and informed consent. However, there are some conflicting rights, like the right to participate in a fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of natural resources in their territories and TK. The expectations with regard to the potential commercial benefits are often wildly exaggerated and it is unclear how the benefits have to be shared amongst stakeholders (S. Quinteros, pers. comm.). These issues often give rise to disagreements and/or conflicts between indigenous peoples on the one hand, and non-indigenous business and research interests on the other (Rondon, 2005; Schindel, 2010).

The situation of the NTFP-use by indigenous communities is also legally contentious, especially in cases where the raw materials enter the market rather than being used immediately for subsistence. On the one hand, indigenous peoples have full autonomy to manage their resources within their territories, while on the other hand, they are also obliged to follow the national legislation (Tables 5 and 6).


There is a variety of common legislative features which attempt to regulate the harvest and trade of NTFPs in the four Andean countries under review (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia), several of them pose serious obstacles to the sustainable and legal use of NTFPs. The large number of statutory regulations and prescriptions, control measures and sanctions is in stark contrast to the political uncertainty and weak law enforcement prevailing in these countries.

Possibly the single most important obstacle to legal NTFP harvest and trade is the inconsistency of legal norms, as observed in several instances such as the unresolved contradictions between national legislation vs. indigenous rights, internal contradictions of the laws and regulations, lack of clarity with regards to particular legal requirements or the responsibilities of individual authorities.

There is also little clarity with regards to the specific requirements of the management plans and the basic rules for ensuring biological sustainability. The creation of simple templates and guidelines for the preparation of management plans should therefore have priority. Overall, the complexity and high cost of the application processes discourages the legal extraction of NTFPs.

A wide range of issues will have to be addressed in order to promote legal NTFP harvest and trade in the future. The first step relates to the definition of NTFPs which is essential to the development of clear and accessible procedures for obtaining the legally required permits for the extraction, processing and trade of NTFPs. The task is not easy, given the enormous variety of NTFPs and parties involved in their harvest and trade.

The aim of this paper has been to inform and open debates about ways to improve the regulation for the extraction of and trade in NTFPs in the region by providing an overview of the current situation. We expect that further analyses of the implementation and enforcement of the existing legal and administrative framework in the region and an assessment of the ways in which the extraction and trade of NTFPs are regulated and implemented elsewhere, will provide the basis for the identification of options for improving the regulation and thus ensuring the sustainable use of NTFPs.
Appendix 1
Abbreviations (throughout the paper, the abbreviations used to refer
to specific legislations or institutions correspond to their full
names in Spanish. Full names of specific legislations and
institutions are given just the first time they are mentioned in the

Acronym English name Website

 Spanish name

ABT Authority of Audit and Social
 Forests and Lands Control of

 Autoridad de Fiscalizacion y
 Control Social de Bosques y

AGRO- Ecuadorian Phyto-sanitary http://www.agrocalidad.
CALIDAD National Office

 Agencia Ecuatoriana de
 Aseguramiento de la Calidad
 del Agro

ALADI Latin American Integration

 Asociacion Latinoamericana de

ALBA Bolivarian Alternative for the http://www.
 Peoples of America

 Alternativa Bolivariana Para
 Los Pueblos De Nuestra

ANB National Customs System of

 Aduana Nacional de Bolivia

ATFFS Forestry and Wild Fauna
 Technical Administrations dgffs/

 Administraciones Tecnicas
 Forestales y de Fauna

CAN Andean Community http://www.
 Comunidad Andina

CAR Regional Autonomous
 Corporations ?idcategoria=4343

 Corporaciones Autonomas

CARICOM Caribbean Community

 Comunidad del Caribe

CAT Technical Advisory Agency --

 Cuerpo de Asesoramiento

CBD Convention on Biological

 Convenio de Diversidad

CITES Convention on International
 Trade in Endangered Species of
 Wild Fauna and Flora

 Convencion sobre el Comercio
 Internacional de Especies
 Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora

COP-10 Tenth meeting of the
 Conference of the Parties to convention/cops.shtml
 the Convention on Biological

 Decima Reunion de la
 Conferencia de las Partes en
 el Convenio sobre la
 Diversidad Biologica

DGFFS General Directorate of
 Forestry and Wild Fauna dgffs/

 Direccion General Forestal y
 de Fauna Silvestre

DGGDF General Department of Forestry N/A
 Management and Development

 Direccion General de Gestion y
 Desarrolla Forestal

DIGEMID General Directorate of http://www.digemid.
 Medicines and Drugs

 Direccion General de
 Medicamentos, Insumos y

DIGESA General Directorate of http://www.digesa.
 Environmental Health

 Direccion General de Salud

DNB National Biodiversity http://www.arnbiente.

 Direccion Nacional de

DNF National Forestry Department http://www.ambiente.gob.

 Direccion Nacional Forestal

DP Provincial Department http://www.ambiente.gob.

 Direccion Provincial

DTD Departmental Technical

 Direcciones Tecnicas

DZ Zonal Department http://www.ambiente.gob.

 Direccion Zonal

FAO Food and Agriculture
 Organization of the United

 Organizacion de las Naciones
 Unidas para la Agricultura y
 la Alimentacion

FEDEXPOR Ecuadorian Federation of

 Federacion Ecuatoriana de

FTA Free Trade Agreement N/A

 Tratado de Libre Comercio

GR Genetic Resources N/A

 Recursos Geneticos

IAEN National Institute of Advanced

 Instituto de Altos Estudios

ICA Colombian Agrarian Institution

 Instituto Colombiano

IEPI Ecuadorian Institute of
 Intellectual Property

 Instituto Ecuatoriano de
 Propiedad Intelectual

IGC-GRTKF Intergovernmental Committee on
 Intellectual Property and
 Genetic Resources, Traditional
 Knowledge and Folklore

 Comite Intergubernantental
 sobre Propiedad Intelectual y
 Recursos Geneticos,
 Conocimientos Tradicionales y

ILO International Labour

 Organizacion Internacional del

INCORA Colombian Institute for http:/
 Agrarian Reform

 Instituto Colombiano de la
 Reforma Agraria

INDECOPI National Institute of http://www.indecopi.gob.
 Competence Defense and pe/
 Intellectual Property

 Instituto Nacional de Defensa
 de la Competencia y de la
 Proteccion de la Propiedad

INDERENA Institute of Renewable Natural N/A
 Resources Development

 Instituto de Desarrollo de los
 Recursos Naturales Renovables

INHMT National Institute of Hygiene
 and Tropical Medicine Leopoldo
 Izquieta Perez

 Instituto Nacional De Higiene
 Y Medicina Tropical Leopoldo
 Izquieta Perez

INIA National Institute of Agrarian

 Instituto Nacional de
 Innovacion Agraria

INRENA National Institute of Natural N/A
([dagger]) Resources Instituto Nacional
 de Recursos Naturales

INTERPOL International Criminal Police http://www.interpol.inu

 Organizacion Internacional de
 Policia Criminal

INVIMA National Institute of Food and
 Drug Monitoring Instituto portal/faces/index.jsp
 Nacional de Vigilancia de
 Medicamentos y Alimentos

IRABS International Regime on Access
 and Benefit Sharing abs/regime.shtml

 Regimen Internacional sobre
 el Acceso y Participacion en
 los Beneficios

MAE Ministry of the Environment of http://www.ambiente.gob.
 Ecuador cc

 Ministerio del Ambiente del

MAVDT Ministry of the Environment, http://www.minambiente.
 Housing and Territorial

 Ministerio de Ambiente,
 Vivienda y Desarrollo

MCPNC Coordinating Ministry of http://
 Natural and Cultural Heritage www.ministeriopatrimonio.
 Ministerio Coordinador de
 Patrimonio Natural y Cultural

MERCOSUR Southern Common Market
 Mercado Comun del Sur

MINAG Ministry of Agriculture

 Ministerio de Agricultura

MINAM Ministry of the Environment

 Ministerio del Ambiente

MMAyA Ministry of Environment and

 Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y

MRECI Ministry of Foreign Affairs
 and International Trade

 Ministerio de Relaciones
 Exteriores, Comercio e

MSP Public Health Ministry

 Ministerio de Salud Publica

NGO Non Governmental Organization N/A

 Organizacion No Gubernamental

NTFP Non Timber Forest Products N/A

 Productos Forestales No

OT Technical Offices -

 Oficinas Tecnicas

PAE Environmental and Ecological
 Police portal/page/portal/
 Policia Ambiental y Ecologica Direcciones_tipo_

PNP Peruvian National Police

 Policia Nacional del Peru
SA Agrarian Superintendence N/A
 Superintendencia Agraria

SAF Information System for http://
 Forestry Management and servicios.ambiente.

 Sistema Informatico para la
 Administracion y Control

SENASA National Service of Agrarian

 Servicio Nacional de Sanidad

SENASAG Service of Agricultural Health
 and Food Safety

 Servicio Nacional de Sanidad
 Agropecuaria e Inocuidad

SF Forestry Superintendence N/A
 Superintendencia Forestal

SGP Generalized System of N/A

 Sistema Generalizado de

SIRENARE Regulatory System for N/A
([dagger]) Renewable Natural Resources
 Sistema de Regulacion de
 Recursos Naturales Renovables

SNRG National System of Genetic N/A

 Sistema Nacional de Recursos

SNRNyMA Secretariat of Natural --
 Resources and Environment

 Secretaria Nacional de
 Recursos Naturales y Medio

TCA Treaty of Amazon Cooperation

 Tratado de Cooperacion

TCO Originary communitary lands N/A

 Tierras Comunitarias de Origen

TK Traditional Knowledge N/A

 Conocimiento tradicional

TRIPS World Trade Organization
 Agreement on Trade-Related english/tratop_e/trips_e/
 Aspects of Intellectual t_agm0_e.htm
 Property Rights

 Acuerdo sobre los aspectos de
 los derechos tie propiedad
 intelectual relacionados con
 el comercio de la Organizacion
 Mundial del Comercio

TULAS Unified Text of Secondary http://www.ambiente.gob.
 Environmental Legislation ec/

 Texto Unificado tie
 Legislacion Ambiental

TUPA Consolidated Text of N/A
 Administrative Procedures

 Texto Unico tie Procedimientos

UARG Unit of Access to Genetic http://www.ambiente.gob.
 Resources Unidad de Acceso a ec/contenido.php?
 Recursos Geneticos cd=198

UNASUR Southamerican Nations Union http://www.
 Union de Naciones sudamerica.htm

LOB Forestry Operational Units

 Unidades Operativas tie

VABCCGDF Viceministry of Environment, N/A
 Biodiversity, Climate Change
 and Forestry Management and

 Viceministerio de Ambiente,
 Biodivercidad, Cambios
 Climaticos, Gestion y
 Desarrollo Forestal

WIPO World Intellectual Property

 Organizacion Mundial de la
 Propiedad Intelectual

([dagger]) Does not exist anymore

Appendix 2
Governmental institutions responsible for regulating NTFP in the
study countries (see Appendix 1 for abbreviations and Appendices 3
and 4 for references; NS: not specified).

National Function Local
institutions institutions


MAVDT 1. To approve the statutes of each CAR. CAR -25
(1993) (a) 2. To set the fees for NTFP exploitation. across the
 3. To set the wild species and quotas of country
 permitted exploitation, on the basis of (1993)
 which CARS grant permits, concessions
 and authorizations.

MAE 1. To implement strategies related to MAE: DP- 24
(1996): biodiversity management and across the
DNB international Conventions and Treaties country
 related to Biodiversity like the CBD, the (2008 (b))
 Protocol of Cartagena and CITES. 2. To
 manage Protected Areas. 3. To control
 Units of wildlife management, wildlife
 trade and the Bin trade program. 4. To
 produce the Regulation for implementing
 Decision 391 of the CAN through the

MAE: DNF l. To regulate and control the MAE: DZ- 7
 production, management, utilization, across the
 ownership, mobilization, marketing and country (c)
 processing of forests raw materials. 2. (2008 (b))
 To manage forestry statistics of
 production. domestic and international
 trade of NTFP and commercial harvest

 MAE: OT- 42
 across the


MINAG l. To authorize commercial harvest and DGFFS:
(1996): grant export permits of NTFPs. 2. To ATFFS-19
DGFFS issue technical reports for declaring across the
 closed seasons for harvesting of wild country
 flora. 3. To guide forest zoning,
 inventory and valuation of forest
 resources. 4. To promote, support and
 assist regional governments' forestry
 management and

 Forestry Management Committees. 5. To
 manage the National Information System
 as well as the Forestry and Wildlife
 Control. 6. To grant certificates of
 origin of genetic resources of native
 species of flora and sign contracts for
 access to genetic resources.

MMAyA: 1. To grant forestry permits through ABT: DTD-7
ABT Integrated Management Plans for Forest (2009)
(2009) Resources and Land. 2. To approve plans
 and programs for supplying and
 processing raw forest materials. 3. To
 supervise compliance of legal
 requirements. 4. To apply sanctions. 5.
 To approve and monitor plans for
 organizing the use of land. 6. To conduct
 forestry inspections and audits. 7. To
 establish a public registry of permits,
 primary and secondary raw material
 processors, service and trading companies
 and machinery. 8. To cooperate in
 developing the National Forestry and
 Land Inventory.


National Function


MAVDT 1. To administrate and control renewable
(1993) (a) natural resources within their area of
 jurisdiction. 2. To determine the
 protected and production forest areas
 to be exploited. 3. To regulate
 harvesting of NTFPs such as palms,
 and to determine what should
 management plans include considering
 the social, economic, biotic, and
 abiotic conditions of each region. 4. To
 sign contracts with users associations,
 such as community enterprises, as well
 as ethnic communities to support
 organized exploitation, transformation
 processes and marketing of wild plant
MAE 1. To opine about management plans to
(1996): be approved. 2. To grant export permits
DNB for NTFPs. 3. To supervise wildlife
 management centers operations. 4. To
 coordinate and evaluate compliance of
 environmental policies, plans,
 programs and projects implemented
 together with the Subsecretarias de
 Planificacion Regional.

MAE: DNF 1. To opine about management plans to
 be approved. 2. To grant export permits
 for NTFP.

 1. To approve plans and programs for
 forest products exploitation after
 verifications in situ. 2. To address
 complaints for forest infringements 3.
 To implement forestry control. 4. To
 grant transportation permits for forest

MINAG 1. To approve commercial extraction of
(1996): forest resources.


MMAyA: 1. To design and implement policies and
ABT strategies of facilitation, control,
(2009) regulation and institutional
 management at the departmental level.
 2. To support and evaluate the UOBTs.

MMAyA: 1. To grant local permits and certificates
DGGDF of origin. 2. To control and supervise
(2010) forestry activities

(a) In parenthesis it is specified the year of creation
when available

(b) DP and DZ replaced the former Regional Districts

(c) Seven of the 24 DP are also DZ

Appendix 3
Legislation references of tables and Appendix 2.

 Colombia Ecuador

Table 3 Art. 1, Decree Art. 99, Forestry
 1791 Law; Art. 99
Table 4

Enabling Arts. 55, 216, Art. 101, TULAS III; Art.
document, 217, 220, 29, 126. TULAS IV; Art.
fee, Decree 2811; 4, 9 Norma 139; MAE
Management Arts. 6, 7, 2009
Plan 34-36, 61.
 Decree 1791;

In Protected Arts. 204, 205. Art. 170, TULAS III;
Areas (PA) 207, P. Galiano, pers.
 Decree 2811; corm.
 6, Decree 1791;
 Art. 30, Decree

Table 5

Mobilization Arts. 74-80, Arts. 8, 119, TULAS III,
 Decree Arts. 41, 53, 55,
 1791; Arts. 5, 8, Ministerial Agreement
 16 Resolution 139
 438; Arts. 1, 3,

Processing and Arts. 64-68, Art. 64, Forestry Law;
national Decree Arts.
trade 1791; C. Torres, 160, 163, 164, TULAS
 pers. comm. III; G. Galindo, pers.


Enabling Arts. 4 and 5, Arts. 27-30, TULAS IV;
document Resolution G.
 1367; Galindo pers. comm.
 Resolution 454

Fee C. Torres, pers. P. Galiano pers. comm.

Institution Resolution 1317 Art. 21, Decree 3431;
issuing CORPEI, 2005

Economic Decision 671; Decision 671; Bojanic,
agreements Bojanic, 2002; 2002; Perez-Ramirez,
 Perez- 2005

CITES Decree 1401; Art. 33, TULAS III; Art.
 Resolution 135, TULAS IV; Art. 7,
 573 Ministerial Agreement

Table 6 Ministerio de Corporacion Aduanera
 Comercio, Ecuatoriana, 2004
 Industria y
 Turismo de

Table 7

Control Arts. 31, 84- Arts. 43-45, Forestry Law;
entities 86, Decree Arts. 29, 31, 32,
 1791; Ministerial
 Decree Agreement 139; Art.
 1909 122,
 TULAS III; Arts. 31,
 TULAS VI; G. Galindo,
 pers. comm.

Administrative Law 1333 Arts. 23, 35. 78, 80, 82,
sanctions 91,
 94, Forestry Law; Art.
 TULAS III; Art. 31,
 Ministerial Agreement

Penal Arts. 328- Art. 437, Ecuadorian
sanctions 331, Penal Code 2010
 Law 599

Table 8 Art. 44, Arts. 37, 39, Forestry Law
 1791, Art.

 31, Law 99;
 Law 1152

Table 9

Access to GR Ministerial IEPI, 2009; R. de la Cruz,
 Resolution pers. comm.

Appendix Arts. 5, 23, Arts. 43, 73, 74 Forestry
Appendix 2 Law 99; Law;
 Arts. 38, Arts. 7, 9. Ministerial
 40-42, 62, Agreement 175;
 Decree Ministerial
 1791 Agreement 139; MAE,
 2011; G. Galindo, pers.

 Peru Bolivia

Table 3 Art. 300. Section 3,
 Supreme Decree Ministerial
 014-2001-AG Resolution 22
Table 4

Enabling Arts. 10-11, 15, 19, Arts. 8, 29, 32, 37,
document, Forestry Law; Arts. 58, Forestry Law;
fee, 59, 68-70, 112, Supreme Decree 27024;
Management Decree 014-2001-AG; section 7,
Plan Arts. 1, 2, Supreme Ministerial
 Resolution 010-2003-AG Resolution 22

In Protected Art. 8. Forestry Law; Arts. Section 6,
Areas (PA) 21, 23, 28, Law 26834 Ministerial
 Resolution 22;
 Arts. 23-25,
 Supreme Decree

Table 5

Mobilization DGFFS 2010; Rondon Arts. 8, 74, 95,
 2005; 1. Arce pers. Supreme Decree
 comm. 24453; Art. 31,
 Supreme Decree

Processing and Arts. 300-306, 314, Art. 27, Forestry
national Supreme Decree 014- Law; Arts. 67,
trade 2001-AG; Proc. 29 TUPA 72,
 Supreme Decree
 24453; L. Goitia
 pers. comm.


Enabling Art. 316, Supreme Decree L. Goitia, pers.
document 014 -2001-AG comm.

Fee Supreme Decree 014-2004- L. Goitia, pers.
 AG comm.

Institution Supreme Decree 010-97- L. Goitia, pers.
issuing SA; Supreme Decree comm.
sanitary 007-98-SA

Economic Decision 671; Bojanic, Decision 671;
agreements 2002; Perez-Ramirez, Bojanic, 2002;
 2005 Perez-Ramirez,

CITES Art. 268, Supreme Decree Art. 9, Supreme
 014-2001-AG; Supreme Decree 24453
 Decree 030-2005-AG

Table 6 Procedure 76, Decree 014- Sistema Boliviano
 2004-AG de Productividad
Table 7

Control Arts. 36-38, Forestry Law; Arts. 24, 25, 33,
entities Art. 354, Supreme 43
 Decree 45, Forestry
 14 Law;
 Arts. 89 and 90,
 Supreme Decree

Administrative Arts. 365-379, Supreme Art. 41, Forestry
sanctions Decree 014-2001-AG Law; Arts. 77,
 96, Supreme
 Decree 24453

Penal Arts. 306-310, Legislative --
sanctions Decree 635

Table 8 Art. 12, Forestry Law; Arts. Arts. 20, 31, 32,
 148, 151, Supreme Forestry Law;
 Decree section 7,

 014-2001-AG; Arts. 1 Ministerial
 and 4, Resolution 22
 Decree 052

Table 9

Access to GR Ministerial Resolution Supreme Decree
 087-2008; E. Ruiz 24676; Zapata
 pers. comm.). Ferrufino, 2006

Appendix Art. 3, Forestry Law; Arts. 29, 31,
Appendix 2 Supreme Decree
 Decree 011-2007-AG; 0071; L. Goitia,
 Legislative Decree 1013; pers. comm.
 DGFFS, 2010; B. Millon,
 pers. comm.

Appendix 4
Complete legislation references cited in tables and text.

Short name Full name Date


United Nations September 13, 2007
Declaration on
the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples

Decision 391 Regimen Comun sobre July 2nd, 1996
 Acceso a los Recursos

Resolutions 414, Adopcion del modelo
415 referencial de contrato
 de acceso a recursos

CBD Convention on Biological 1993

Convention 169 Convention 169 concerning July 27, 1989
 Indigenous and Tribal
 People in Independent
 Countries, adopted by the
 76th. General Conference
 of the ILO

CITES Convention on March 03 of 1973;
 International Trade in modified on June
 Endangered Species of 22 of 1979.
 Wild Fauna and Flora

TCA Tratado de Cooperacion July 3th, 1978
COLOMBIA Amazonica

CONSTITUTION Constitucion Politica de 1991
LAWS Colombia

2nd Sobre economia forestal December 16, 1959
 de la Nacion y
 conservacion de recursos
 naturales renovables

61 Por la cual se adopta la 1985
 palma de cera (Ceroxylom
 guindiaense) como arbol

7th Por la cual se dictan January 16, 1991
 normas generales a las
 cuales debe sijetarse el
 Gobierno Nacional para
 regular el comercio
 exterior del pais, se
 crea el Ministerio de
 Comercio Exterior, se
 determina la
 composicion y funciones
 del Consejo Superior de
 Comercio Exterior, se
 crean el Banco de
 Comercio Exterior y el
 Fondo de Modernizacion
 Economica, se confieren
 unas autorizaciones y se
 dictan otras

86 Por la cual se reglamenta June 3rd, 1993
 el uso e
 industrializacion de la
 Flora Medicinal

99 Por la cual se crea el December 22, 1993
 Ministerio del Ambiente,
 se reordena el Sector
 Publico encargado de la
 gestion y conservacion
 del medio ambiente y los
 recursos naturales
 renovables, se organiza
 el Sistema Nacional
 Ambiental -SINA y se
 dictan otras

599 Codigo Penal Colombiano July 24, 2000

1152 Por la cual se dicta el July 25, 2007
 Estatuto de Desarrollo
 Rural, se informa el
 Instituto Colombiano de
 Desarrollo Rural,
 Incoder, y se dictan
 otras disposiciones

063 Por la cual se promueve June 11, 2008
 el conocimiento,
 conservacion y uso
 sostenible de la
 biodiversidad, uso,
 industrializacion y
 comercializacion de los
 productos naturales y,
 suplementos dietarios que
 benefician la Salud y el
 Derecho Fundamental a la
 Vida y se dictan otras

1333 Por la cual se establece July 21, 2009
 el procedimiento
 sancionatorio ambiental y
 se dictan otras


309 Por el cual se reglamenta February 25, 2000
 la investigacion
 cientifica sobre
 diversidad biologica

622 Por el cual se March 16, 1977
 reglamentan parcialmente
 el Capitulo V, Titulo II,
 Parte XIII, Libro II del
 Decreto-Ley No 2811 de
 1974 sobre "Sistema de
 Parques Nacionales"; la
 Ley No 23 de 1973 y la
 Ley No 2 de 1959

1320 Por medio del cual se July 13, 1998
 reglamenta la consulta
 previa con las
 comunidades indigenas, y
 negras para la
 explotacion de los
 recursos naturales dentro
 de su territorio

1397 Por el cual se crea la August 8, 1996
 Comision Nacional de
 Territorios Indigenas y
 la Mesa Permanente de
 Concertacion con los
 pueblos y organizaciones
 Indigenas y se dictan
 otras disposiciones.

1401 Por el cual se designa la May 27, 1997
 Autoridad Administrativa
 de Colombia ante la
 Convencion sobre el
 Comercio Internacional de
 Especies Amenazadas de
 Fauna y Flora Silvestres
 -CITES-, y se determinan
 sus funciones

1715 Por el cual se reglamenta August 4, 1978
 parcialmente el Decreto
 Le y 2811 de 1974, la Ley
 23 de 1973 y el Decreto
 Ley 154 de 1976, en
 cuanto a proteccion del

1791 Por medio de la cual se October 4, 1996
 establece el regimen de
 aprovechamiento forestal

1909 Por el cual se modifica November 27, 1992
 la legislacion aduanera.
 derogado por el Decreto
 2685 de 1999

2164 Por el cual se reglamenta December 7, 1995
 parcialmente el Capitulo
 XIV de la Ley 160 de 1994
 en lo relacionado con la
 dotacion y titulacion de
 tierras a las comunidades
 indigenas para la
 ampliacion y saneamiento
 de los Resguardos
 Indigenas en el
 territorio nacional

2787 Por el cual se reglamenta October 21, 1980
 parcialmente el Decreto-
 Ley 2811 de 1974

Decree-Law Por el cual se dicta el December 18, 1974
 codigo Nacional de

2811 Recursos Naturales
 Renovables y de
 proteccion al medio


38 Acuerdo "Por el cual se September 10, 1973
 establece el Estatuto de
 Flora Silvestre del
 Instituto de Desarrollo
 de los Recursos Naturales
 Renovables-- INDERENA-

573 Por la cual se establece June 26, 1997
 el procedimiento de los
 permisos a que se refiere
 la Convencion sobre el
 Comercio Internacional de
 Especies Amenazadas de
 Fauna y Flora Silvestres,
 Cites, y se dictan otras

620 Por la cual se delegan July 7, 1997
 algunas funciones
 contenidas en la Decision
 391 de la Comision del
 Acuerda de Cartagena y se
 establece el
 procedimiento interno
 para tramitar las
 solicitudes de acceso a
 los recursos geneticos y
 sus productos derivados.
 Ministerio de Ambiente,
 Vivienda y Desarrollo

1367 Por la cual se establece December 29, 2000
 el procedimiento para las
 autorizaciones de
 importacion y exportacion
 de especimenes de la
 diversidad biologica que
 no se encuentran listadas
 en los apendices de la
 Convencion CITES

438 Por la cual se establece May 23, 2001
 el Salvoconducto unico
 Nacional para la
 movilizacion de
 especimenes de la
 diversidad biologica.

454 Por In cual se reglamenta June 1st, 2001
 la certificacion a la que
 alude el paragrafo
 primero del articulo 70.
 de la Resolucion numero
 1367 de 2000 del
 Ministerio del Medio

1029 Por la cual se fija el November 13, 2001
 calor de los servicios de
 evaluacion y seguimiento
 por la expedicion del
 Salvoconducto unico
 Nacional para la
 movilizacion de
 especimenes de la
 diversidad biologica y se
 dictan otras

1317 Por la cual se dictan May 31, 2007
 disposiciones para la
 importacion y exportacion
 productos vegetales,
 animales, sus productos y

0727 Estatuto de Flora July 19, 2010
 Aprovechamiento de
 productos forestales no
 maderables. CORPOAMAZONIA


CONSTITUTION Constitucion Politica del 2008


83 Ley de Propiedad May 19, 1998
 Intelectual, codificacion

147 Ley de Facilitacion de March 25, 1992
 las Exportaciones y del
 Transporte Acuatico

Forestry Law Ley Forestal y de August 24, 1981.
 Conservacion de Areas Codification:
 Naturales y Vida September 10,
 Silvestre 2004

Penal Code Reforma al Codigo Penal February, 2010
 del Ecuador


Executive Decree Reglamento a la Ley de June 12, 1992
3431 Facilitacion de
 Exportaciones y
 Transporte Acuatico

Executive Decree Text of Secondary December 16, 2002
3399 Environmental Legislation
 of the Ministry of the
 Environment Libro III:
 Del Regimen Forestal

 Libra IV: De la

 Libro VI: De la Calidad

Supreme Decree Codigo de la Salud February 4, 1971


Ministerial Procedimientos December 30, 2009
Agreement 139 administrativos para
 autorizar el
 aprovechamiento y corta
 de la madera

Ministerial Reforma al Libro I del November 19, 2008
Agreement 175 Texto Unificado de
 Legislacion Secundaria
 del Ministerio del
 Ambiente: Estatuto
 Organico de Gestion
 Organizacional por
 Procesos del Ministerio
 del Ambiente

Ministerial Procedimiento para la September 11, 2007
Agreement 265 Adjudicacion de Tierras
 del Patrimonio Forestal
 del Estado y Bosques y
 Vegetacion Protectores

Ministerial Normas y Procedimientos May 7, 1999
Agreement para el Registro y
1281 Control de Productos
 Naturales de Uso

Resolution 050 Por la cual se establecen August 19, 2002
 las listas guia de
 especies protegidas 2001



22175 Ley de Comunidades May 9, 1978
 Nativas t, de Desarrollo
 Agrario de las Regiones
 de Selva y Ceja de Selva.

26834 Lev de Areas Naturales June 30, 1997

26842 Lev General de Salud July 9, 1997

27308 Ley Forestal y de Fauna July 15, 2000

27811 Ley que establece el August 8, 2002
 regimen de proteccion de
 los conocimientos
 colectivos de los pueblos
 indigenas vinculados a
 los recursos biologicos

28216 Ley de Proteccion al April 30, 2004
 Acceso a la Diversidad
 Biologica Peruana y los
 Conocimientos Colectivos
 de los Pueblos Indigenas

27444 Ley del Procedimiento April 10, 2001
 Administrativo General


010-97-SA Aprueban "Reglamento para
 el Registro, Control y
 Vigilancia Sanitaria de
 Productos Farmaceuticos y

007-98-SA Aprueban "Reglamento September 24, 1998
 sobre Vigilancia y
 Control de Alimentos y

014-2001-AG Aprueban "Reglamento de April 6, 2001
 la Ley Forestal y de
 Fauna Silvestre"

052-2001-AG Declaran prioritaria y October 24, 2001
 autorizan atencion de
 solicitudes presentadas
 por las comunidades
 nativas de selva y ceja
 de selva para el
 aprovechamiento de
 recursos forestales en
 sus tierras

014-2004-AG Aprueban el Testo unico April 15, 2004
 de Procedimientos
 Administrativos del

 Entre ellos, el
 Procedimiento para la
 obtencion de permiso de
 exportacion de productos
 de llora silvestre con
 lines comerciales

030-2005-AG Aprueban "Reglamento para July 8, 2005
 la Implementacion de la
 Convencion sobre el
 Comercio Internacional de
 Especies Amenazadas de
 Fauna y Flora Silvestre
 (CITES) en el Peru"

011-2007-AG Aprueban transferencia de February 21, 2007
 facultades del INRENA a
 Gobiernos regionales que
 suscriban Acta de Entrega
 y Recepcion y modifican
 el Reglamento de la Ley
 Forestal y de Fauna

1013 Que aprueba la Ley de --
 creacion. organizacion y
 funciones del Ministerio
 del Ambiente


Resolution 232- Aprueban los terminos de --
2006-INRENA referencia de los planes
 de manejo forestal en
 bosques de comunidades
 nativas y/o campesinas
 confines de
 comercializacion a baja
 escala. mediar alta

Ministerial Reglamento de Acceso a December 31, 2008
Resolution 087- Recursos Geneticos


CONSTITUTION Constitucion Politica del January 2009

1700 Lev Forestal July 12, 1996

1489 Lev de exportaciones April 16, 1993

3545 Modijicacion de la Ley November 28, 2006
 1715 Reconduccion de la
 Reforma Agraria


0071 Crear las Autoridades de April 9, 2009
 Fiscalizacion y Control
 Social en los sectores
 de: Transportes y
 Telecomunicaciones; Agua
 Potable y Saneamiento
 Basico: Electricidad;
 Bosques y Tierra;
 Pensiones; y Empresas;
 determinar su estructura
 organizativa; definir
 competencias y

 Establecer el proceso de
 extincion de las
 generales y sectoriales,
 y reglamentar las
 transferencias de
 activos, pasivos,
 recursos humanos,
 recursos presupuestarios,
 procesos judiciales y
 administrativos, derechos
 y obligaciones.

 Regular el proceso de
 transferencia de las
 ficciones, atribuciones y
 competencias de la
 Superintendencia del
 Servicio Civil al
 Ministerio de Trabajo,
 Empleo y Prevision

 Establecer el cambio de
 denominacion de la
 Superintendencia General
 de Minas y las
 Regionales de Minas.

429 Que modifica la February 10, 2010
 estructura jerarquica de
 los Ministerios de
 Relaciones Exteriores, de
 Planificacion del
 Desarrollo, de Desarrollo
 Productivo y Economia
 Plural, de Medio Ambiente
 y Agua, de Educacion, de
 Desarrollo Rural y
 Tierras, y de Culturas,
 asi como las atribuciones
 de los Ministros en las
 citadas Carteras de
 Estado y del Ministro de
 Economia y Finanzas
 Publicas, establecidas en
 el Decreto Supremo No
 29894, de 7 de febrero de
 2009, de Organizacion del
 organo Ejecutivo.

24453 Reglamento General de la December 21, 1996
 Ley y Forestal, No. 1700,
 de 12 de julio de 1996

24781 Reglamento General de July 31, 1997
 Areas Protegidas

27024 Que reglamenta el inciso May 6, 2003
 e) del Paragrafo I del
 Articulo 34 y el
 Paragrafo I del Articulo
 36 de Articulo 34 y el
 Paragrafo 1 del Articulo
 36 de
la Ley No 1700 Ley,
 Forestal, y establece la
 Tarifa para la Regulacion


Ministerial Norma Tecnica para January 19, 2006
Resolution 22 Aprovechamiento Comercial
 Sostenible de Recursos
 Forestales No Maderables
 en Bosques y Tierras
 Forestales Naturales

Short name Publication


United Nations N/A
Declaration on
the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples

Decision 391 N/A

Resolutions 414, --


Convention 169 --


TCA --


2nd --

61 --

7th Diario Oficial 39631, de
 16 de enero de 1991

86 --

99 Diario Oficial 41146, de
 22 de diciembre de

599 Diario Oficial 44097, de
 24 de julio del 2000
1152 Diario Oficial 46700, de
 25 de julio de 2007

063 --

1333 Diario Oficial 47417, de
 21 de julio de 2009


309 Diario Oficial 43915, del
 1 de marzo de 2000

622 Diario Oficial de 5 de
 abril de 1977

1320 Diario Oficial 43340, de
 15 de julio de 1998

1397 Diario Oficial 42853, de
 12 de agosto de 1996

1401 --

1715 Diario Oficial de 8 de
 agosto de 1978

1791 Diario Oficial 42894, de
 8 de octubre de 1996

1909 Diario Oficial 40678, de
 27 de noviembre de

2164 Diario Oficial 42140, de 7
 de diciembre de 1995

2787 Diario Oficial 35633, de
 30 de octubre de 1980

Decree-Law Diario Oficial 34243, de
 27 de enero de 1975



38 --

573 --

620 --

1367 Diario Oficial 44089, de
 18 de julio de 2000

438 Diario Oficial 44449, de
 8 de junio de 2001

454 Diario Oficial 44453, de
 12 de junio de 2001

1029 Diario Oficial 44624, de
 23 de noviembre de

1317 Diario Oficial 46646, de 1
 de junio de 2007

0727 Not published yet


CONSTITUTION Publicacion Oficial de la

83 Registro Oficial,
 Suplemento 426, de 28

 de diciembre de 2006

147 Registro Oficial 901, de
 25 de marzo de 1992

Forestry Law Registro Oficial,
 Suplemento 418, de 10
 de septiembre de 2004

Penal Code --


Executive Decree Registro Oficial,
3431 Suplemento 956, de 12
 de junio de 1992

Executive Decree Registro Oficial 725 de
3399 16 de diciembre de

Supreme Decree Registro Oficial 158 de
188 8 de febrero dc 1971


Ministerial Registro Oficial,
Agreement 139 Suplemento 164, de 5
 de abril de 2010

Ministerial Registro Oficial,
Agreement 175 Suplemento 509, de 19
 de enero de 2009

Ministerial Registro Oficial 206, de 7
Agreement 265 de noviembre de 2007

Ministerial Registro Oficial 186, de 7
Agreement de mayo de 1999

Resolution 050 Registro Oficial 679, de
 8 de octubre de 2002



22175 El Peruano, de 10 de
 mayo de 1978

26834 El Peruano 6215, de 4 de
 julio de 1997

26842 El Peruano de 20, de julio
 de 1997

27308 El Peruano 7328, de 16
 de Julio de 2000

27811 El Peruano 8085, de 10
 de agosto de 2002

28216 El Peruano 8714, de 1 de
 mayo de 2004

27444 El Peruano 7597,
 Separata Especial, de 11
 de abril de 2001

010-97-SA El Peruano, de 24 de
 diciembre de 1997

007-98-SA El Peruano 6666, de 25 de
 septiembre de 1998

014-2001-AG El Peruano 7595, de 9 de
 abril de 2001

052-2001-AG El Peruano 7795, de 25
 de octubre de 2001

014-2004-AG El Peruano 8702, de 19
 de abril de 2004

030-2005-AG El Peruano 9154, de 10
 de julio de 2005

011-2007-AG El Peruano 9750, de 22
 de febrero de 2007

1013 El Peruano 372201, de 14
 de mayo de 2008


Resolution 232- El Peruano, 13 de
2006-INRENA septiembre de 2006

Ministerial El Peruano, 8 de febrero
Resolution 087- de 2009



1700 Gaceta Oficial, Edicion
 1944 de 12 de julio de

1489 Gaceta Oficial, Edicion
 1786 de 7 de mayo de

3545 Gaceta Oficial, Edicion
 93ESP de 28 de
 Noviembre de 2006


0071 Gaceta Oficial, Edicion
 119ESP de 14 de abril
 de 2009

429 Gaceta Oficial, Edicion
 106 NEC de 10 de
 febrero de 2010

24453 Gaceta Oficial, Edicion
 1971 de 15 de enero de

24781 Gaceta Oficial, Edicion
 2025 de 1 de agosto de

27024 Gaceta Oficial, Edicion
 2486 de9 de mayo de 2003


Ministerial --
Resolution 22

Acknowledgements We thank Fabian Bucheli, Rodrigo de la Cruz, Gloria Galeano, Gustavo Galindo, Luis Goitia, Miguel Machahua, Betty Millan, Monica Moraes, Narel Paniagua, and Maria Claudia Torres, for providing us important information and legal documents. Rodrigo Bernal, Maria Teresa Becerra, Henrik Balslev, Jim Smart, and Maximilian Weigend contributed with valuable comments to the manuscript. This review is part of the studies carried out by the European Union's FP7 Project 212631 PALMS (Palm harvest impacts in tropical forests) (

Literature Cited

Alarcon, D. & J. Garcia. 2006. Propuesta de plan de manejo para la ungurahua, Oenocarpus bataua, en las comunidades Achuar de Yutsuntsa y Makusar. Unpublished report. Programa de Manejo de la Biodiversidad y Biocomercio (PMBB--EcoCiencia, Quito.

AIvarez, J. & F. Rojas. 2007. Plan de manejo adaptativo de palmeras en la RNAM. Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruan--IIAP, Proyecto Diversidad Biologica de la Amazonia Peruan--BIODAMAZ, Iquitos.

Anazco, M., M. Morales, W. Palacios, E. Vega & A. Cuesta. 2010. Sector forestal ecuatoriano: propuestas para una gestion forestal sostenible. Serie Investigacion y Sistematizacion No. 8. Programa Regional ECOBONA-INTERCOOPERATION, Quito.

Araujo-Murakami, A. 2006. Avances en la reglamentacion y normativa de los productos forestales no maderables en Bolivia. Pp. 137-149. In: P. Ergueta, M. Otterbug & S. Estenssoro (eds.). Jatata: un recurso valioso para los habitantes del bosque tropical. MacArthur Foundation. Tropico-Asociacion Boliviana para la Conservacion, La Paz.

Bernal, R., C. Torres, N. Garcia, C. Isaza, J. Navarro, M. I. Vallejo, G. Galeano & H. Balslev. 2011. Palm management in South America. Botanical Review xx: xx-xx.

Bojanic, A. J. 2002. Marco legal y politicas relevantes para la comercializacion interna y de exportacion de productos no maderables en Bolivia. Comercializacion de productos forestales no maderables factores de exito y fracaso (DFID R7925). PNUMA UNEP-WCMC & ODI DFID-FRE Accessed 10-11-2010.

Bradshaw, C., N. Sodhi & B. W. Brook. 2009. Tropical turmoil: a biodiversity tragedy in progress. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 7(2): 79-87.

Brokamp, G., N. Valderrrama, M. Mittelbach, C. A. Grandez R. & M. Weigend. 2011. A review of the trade in palm products in Western Amazonia. Botanical Review xx: xx-xx.

CORPEI. 2005. Identificacion de incentivos inadecuados y barreras al desarrollo de mercados en materia de la biodiversidad al nivel subnacional y nacional. CAF, GEFF, PNUMA, Work report. Quito.

Comite de Manejo de Palmeras "Veinte de enero" & ProNaturaleza. 2005. Plan de Manejo Forestal de Mauritia flexuosa "aguaje" Reserva Nacional Pacaya Samiria. Iquitos.

Corporacion Aduanera Ecuatoriana. 2004. Procedimientos para exportar desde Ecuador. http://www. Accessed 08-11-2010.

Cuesta-Camacho, F., M. Moreano & M. Arguello. 2005. Lineamientos para la elaboracion de planes de aprovechamiento de productos forestales no maderables (PFNM). Technical report, EcoCiencia, DNBAPVS/Ministerio del Ambiente, Quito.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010. COP 10 Autcomes. outcomes/. Accessed 08-11-2010.

de la Torre, L., H. Navarrete, P. Muriel M., M. J. Macia & H. Baislev. 2008. Enciclopedia de las plantas utiles del Ecuador. Herbario QCA & Herbario AAU. Quito & Aarhus.

Direccion General Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre (DGFFS). 2010. Accessed 20-07-2009.

Fandino-Orozco, M. C. & M. T. Palacios-Lozano. 2006. Cansas subyacentes de perdidas de biodiversidad. A. Fallas de politica y falta de gobernabilidad. Tomo I. Pp. 227 233. In: M. E.

Chaves & M. Santamaria. Informe sobre el avance en el conocimiento y la infomacion de la biodiversidad 1998-2004. Instituto de lnvestigacion Alexander yon Humboldt. Bogota.

Finger, J. M. & P. Schuler. 2004. Poor people's knowledge. Promoting intellectual property in developing countries. World Bank, Washington.

Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO. 2004. Actualizacion de la Evaluacion de los Recursos Forestales Mundiales a 2005. Terminos y Definiciones (Version definitiva). Programa de evaluacion de los recursos forestales. Roma 2004. Work document 83/S, Rome.

-- 2005. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. Progress towards sustainable forest management.

FAO Forestry Paper 147, Rome. [online] URL:

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) & International Tropical Timber Organization OTTO). 2010. La observancia de la legislacion forestal y la gobernanza de los bosques en los paises tropicales. Una evaluacion region por region del estado de la observancia de la legislacion forestal y la gobernanza de los bosques en los paises tropicales, y mejoras recomendadas. FAO, Rome and ITTO, Yokohama.

Galeano, G. & R. Bernal. 2010. Palmas de Colombia. Guia de campo. Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota.

Garcia, P., E. Sanchez & J. Chaves. 2005. Conocimiento Tradicional y Biodiversidad. Materiales de trabajo para comunidades y organizaciones indigenas, Instituto de Investigacion Alexander yon Humboldt, Fundacion Tropenbos International Colombia, Bogota.

Godoy, R., D. Wilkie, H. Overman, A. Cubas, G. Cubas, J. Demmer, K. Mcsweeney & N. Brokaw. 2000. Valuation of consumption and sale of forest goods from a central American rain forest. Nature 406: 62-53.

Granizo, T. 2002. Libro Rojo de aves del Ecuador. Simbioe, Quito.

Hiremath, A. J. 2004. The ecological consequences of managing forests for non-timber products. Conservation & Society 2:211-216.

Instituto Ecuatoriano de Propiedad Intelectual (IEPI). 2009. Proyecto de Ley de conservacion y proteccion de los conocimientus colectivos, los saberes ancestrales y las expresiones culturales tradicionales de las nacionalidades y pueblos indigenas, pueblo montubio, afroecuatoriano, y de las comunas y comunidades ancestrales del Ecuador. Unidad de Recursos Geneticos, Conocimientos Tradicionales y Expresiones Culturales. Quito.

Kekic, L. 2010. The state of the state. The Economist: The World in 2011. 25-year Special Edition: 90.

Macia, M. J., P. J. Armesilla, R. Camara-Leret, N. Paniagua-Zambrana, S. Villalba, H. Balslev & M. Pardo-de-Santayana. 2011. Palm Uses in North-western South America: a Quantitative Review. Botanical Review xx: xx-xx.

Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador (MAE). 2008. Propuesta de norma para los productos forestales diferentes de la madera (PFDM) del Ecuador. Direccion Nacional Forestal, Quito.

--. 2009. Instructivo para obtencion de patente de manejo de vida silvestre para Centros de Tenencia y Manejo de Vida Silvestre (Flora). Work document. Quito.

--. 2011. Nomina de Oficinas Tecnicas. Work document. Quito.

Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial de Colombia (MAVDT). 2010. Registro Publico de Acceso a Recursos Geneticos, Direccion de Licencias, Permisos y Tramites Ambientales. Republica de Colombia. catID=138. Accessed: 29-08-2010.

Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y Turismo de Colombia. 2004. Guia para exportar en Colombia. Centro de Informacion y Servicios de Comercio Exterior--ZEIKY, Bogota.

Montufar, R., F. Anthelme, J-C. Pintaud & H. Balslev. 2011. Disturbance and resilience of palm populations and communities in tropical American forests. Botanical Review xx: xx-xx.

Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca & J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.

Nepstad, D. C. & S. Schwartzman (eds). 1992. Non-Timber Products from Tropical Forests: Evaluation of a Conservation and Development Strategy. Bronx, NY. New York Botanical Garden, New York.

Pardo, F., A. M. Hernandez & A. Ramos. 2000. Algunas consideraciones sobre la experiencia de Colombia en materia de proteccion de los conocimientos tradicionales, acceso y distribucion de beneficios y de derechos de propiedad intelectual. UNCTAD, Geneva.

Perez-Ramirez, G. 2005. Alborada Bolivariana. Aporte al progreso de integracion latinoamericana y del Caribe, Ediciones La Tierra, Quito.

Posada, Ch. J. 2006. Identificacion de refomas legales y regulatorias, las cuales podrian ser seleccionadas para ser propuestas para consideracion a nivel nacional y regional. Volumen II, CAF, IAvH, Bogota.

ProNaturaleza & Amazon Ivory EIRL. 2005. Plan de Manejo de Phytelephas macrocarpa "Yarina'" en el Area de Influencia de la Comunidad de Arequipa Cuenca Yanayacu Pucate. Reserva Nacional Pacaya Samiria, Iquitos.

Rodriguez, L. 2004. Diagnostico de barreras normativas de: Guadua, Flores y Follajes Tropicales (Heliconias), Zoocria (Mariposas, Coleopteros y Venenos de Ofidios) y productos no maderables para artesanias (Werregue, Palma de Iraka y Tagua) y Apoyo en la Reglamentacion del Sello Ecologico. Plan Nacional de Mercados Verdes. Bogota.

Rodriguez, J. C. 2006. Identificacion de incentivos inadecuados y barreras de mercado en materia de biodiversidad a nivel nacional y subnacional. Volumen I CAF, IAvH, Bogota.

Rojas, F. & J. Alvarez. 2007. Plan de Manejo Adaptativo para el Aprovechamiento Comunal de Chambira Astrocaryum chambira en las Comunidades de la RNAM. Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peman--IIAP, Proyecto Diversidad Biologica de la Amazonia Pemana--BIODAMAZ, Iquitos.

Rondon, C. 2005. Identificacion de incentivos inadecuados y barreras al desarrollo de mercados en materia de la biodiversidad al nivel subnacional y nacional. CONAM-CAF-GEF, Lima.

Ruiz Muller, M. 2006. La Proteccion Juridica de los Conocimientos Tradicionales: Algunos Avarices Politicos y Normativos en America Latina. UICN, SPDA, Lima.

Salazar, H. F., A. Sarmiento & U. Murcia. 2008. Areas protegidas, resguardos indigenas y zonas de reserva forestal de ley 2a de 1959 de Colombia en el ambito de Raisg. Amazonia 2009. Areas Protegidas y Territorios Indigenas [notas para o mapa].

Sanchez, N. & M. Arguello. 2008. Estado del arte del Biocomercio en Ecuador. Technical report, EcoCiencia, Quito.

Schindel, D. 2010. Biology without borders. Nature 467: 779-78l.

Shone, B. & J. L. Caviglia-Harris. 2006. Quantifying and comparing the value of non-timber forest products in the Amazon. Ecological Economics 58: 249-267.

Sistema Boliviano de Productividad y Competitividad. 2008. Guia Nacional de Tramites. Como exportar, Accessed 08-11-2010.

Transparency International. 2010. Accessed 15-07-2010.

Tirira, D. 2001. Libro Rojo de los Mamiferos del Ecuador. Serie Libros Rojos del Ecuador 1. Publicacion Especial sobre los mamiferos del Ecuador 4, SIMBIOE, EcoCiencia, Ministerio del Ambiente y UICN, Quito.

Valencia, R., N., Pitman, S. Leon-Yanez & P.M. Jorgensen (eds.). 2000. Libro Rojo de las Plantas Endemicas de Ecuador. Herbario QCA, Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador, Quito

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 2010. Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources and Traditional Cultural Expressions/Folklore. Accessed 08-11-2010.

Zapata-Ferrufino, B. 2006. Botanica Economica de los Andes Centrales. Pp: 521-532. In: M. Moraes R., B. Ollgaard, L. P. Kvist, F. Borchsenius & H. Balslev (eds.).. Universidad Mayor de San Andres, La Paz.

-- 2009. La diversidad biologica, los derechos colectivos de los pueblos indigenas sobre su conocimiento tradicional y la propiedad intelectual. VMABCC-Proyecto UNEP/GEF, La Paz.

DOI 10.1007/s 12229-011-9066-z

Lucia de la Torre (1,3) * Renato Valencia (1,3) * Carolina Altamirano (1) * Helle Munk Ravnborg (2)

(1) Herbario QCA, Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador, Av. 12 de Octubre 1076 y Roca, Quito, Ecuador

(2) Danish Institute for International Studies, Strandgade 56, DK-1401 Copenhagen K, Denmark

(3) Author for Correspondence; e-mail:, e-mail:
Table 1 Number of Legislations Compiled for the Study Countries
per Topic and Country

Topic Colombia Ecuador Peru Bolivia

Use of NTFP 33 29 65 30
Trade 8 6 13 5
Indigenous rights 4 3 3 5
Access to genetic resources 3 5 2
Intellectual property rights 3 2 8 3
Land use 2 9 11 7
General 6 16 18 8
Total 56 68 123 60

Topic Andes Global Total

Use of NTFP 4 2 163
Trade 2 4 38
Indigenous rights 1 16
Access to genetic resources 3 13
Intellectual property rights 4 2 22
Land use 29
General 4 1 53
Total 17 10 334

Table 2 Basic Regulatory Framework Governing the Commercial
Extraction of NTFP in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia

 Colombia Ecuador

Forestry Decree 2811, National Forestry, Wildlife and
Law Code on Renewable Natural Areas
 Natural Resources and Conservation Law
 Protection of Colombia

Year of 1974 1981 [Coding: 2004]

Regulation Decree 1791 that Unified Text of
 Regulates Forestry Secondary
 Exploitation Environmental

Year of 1996 2002

NTFP in process of publication in process of
specific (Corpoamazonia NTFP approval
regulation Standard, Resolution

Year of --

 Peru Bolivia

Forestry Forestry and Forestry Law 1700
Law Wildlife
 Law 27308

Year of 2000, 1996
release modifications

Regulation Supreme Supreme Decree
 Decree 014, 24453, General
 Regulation to Regulation to the
 the Forestry Forestry Law
 and Wildlife

Year of 2001 1996

NTFP none Ministerial Resolution 22,
specific Technical Standard for
regulation Sustainable Commercial Use
 of NTF Resources in Natural
 Forests and Forest Lands

Year of -- 2006

Table 3 Definition of Non Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) in
Regulations of the Study Countries (see Appendices 3 and 4
for References)

 Colombia Ecuador

Nomenclature Products of Wild Different than Timber Forest
 Flora Products

Descriptors Gums, resins, Forestry Law: bark, gains,
 latex, lacquer, resins, latex, essential oils,
 fruits, barks, fruits and seeds TULAS
 strains, seeds III: bark, gums, resins,
 and flowers latex, essential oils, fruits
 and seeds, vines, roots,
 other elements of the wild
 flora, fuel wood and

(a) Use that does not cause the death of the harvested individual


Nomenclature Non-Timber Forest

Descriptors Roots, stems, leaves, flowers,
 fruits, seed pods, resins,
 gums, resins, latex and
 similar substances
 extracted from forest
 species, medicinal and
 ornamental forest plants,
 reeds, rushes

(a) Use that does not cause the death of the harvested individual


Nomenclature NTFPs

Descriptors Non-consumptive use (a)
 such as ecotourism,
 generation, seeds,
 fruits and resins

(a) Use that does not cause the death of the harvested individual

Table 4 Legal Framework for NTFPs Extraction (see Appendices 3
and 4 for References; NS: not Specified)

 Colombia Ecuador

Enablingdocument Concessions, Wildlife patent, NTFP
in public areas Associations, Harvesting license

Enablingdocument Consent Special licence
in private areas

Name of NTFP harvesting Commercial patent or
extraction fee rights NTFP harvesting

Ammount of fee < 30%, of the initial Patent: S 200,
(USD) cost of the product harvesting rights:
 to the nearest NS
 market from the
 extraction site

Management Plan/ Taxonomy, quantity Taxonomy, ecology,
Application- (number, weight or conservation status,
basic volume) based on distribution,
information previous studies, propagation, natural
 harvest system, regeneration,
 processing, transport, silvicultural
 marketing and final management,
 destination of the sources of supply,
 products to be monitoring
 harvested methodology

In Protected Allowed in Reset, as Allowed depending on
Areas (PA) Forestales and the management
 protected forest or category of the PA
 protected-productive (not clear in which
 forest categories, one case
 in a Bosque

 Peru Bolivia

Enablingdocument Concessions, Consents, Concessions and
in public areas Permits subsidiary

Enablingdocument Permit Consent
in private areas

Name of NTFP harvesting rights Forestry patent
extraction fee

Ammount of fee Varies according to Two categories: a. $
(USD) species, product, unit, 0.3/ha, b. fixed
 and zone (e.g. $ patents (e.g. S
 0.0001/leaf of 0,0015/kg fruits of
 Lepidocaryum spp. to Attalea spp. $ 1/trunk
 $ 0.13/kg fruits of of Copernicia alba)
 Bactris gasipaes in
 the Amazonia).
 Concessions: 1
 UIT (a)/20 ha, 150%
 higher in Tierras de
 Proteccion Forestal

Management Plan/ Status of the forest, its Inventory,
Application- current and potential management,
basic productivity, harvesting,
information sustainable extraction silvicultural, and
 systems, monitoring systems
 replenishment by
 silvicultural practices,
 monitoring and
 assessment programs

In Protected Allowed in PA of direct Allowed in Reservas de
Areas (PA) use within the area of Vida Silvestre
 direct use, and in Nacionales o
 Tierras de Proteccion Departamentales and
 Forestal Areas Naturales de
 Manglo Integrado,
 and under the zoning,
 management plan
 and special
 legislation for each

(a) Tax units. The Economics Ministry establishes the amount of tax
units at the beginning of each year. In 2010 it was approximately $
450. UITs are used also to calculate public salaries or fines (B.
Millan, pers. Comm)

Table 5 Legal Framework of Mobilization, Processing, National and
International Trade of NTFPs (see Appendix 1 for Abbreviations and
Appendices 3 and 4 for References; NS: not Specified)

 Colombia Ecuador

Enabling Transportation Transportation permit
document permit

Spanish Salvoconducto Guia de Circvlacion
name Unico Nacional

Fee (USD) 1.46 daily minimum $1
 wages (aprox.
 $ 15.5 in 2010)

Validity 8 days (30 days 72 h
 in the case of long


Legal 1. Registered 1. National Forestry
requirements book of Office registration;
for business operations; 2. operation patent:
enterprises 2. annual report 3. book of operations;
 4. annual report

Fee (USD) None $50


Exclusive Export permit or Wildlife export
enabling Export certificate license, Export
document permit for wild
 flora (DP)

Fee (USD) None None

Institution ICA Agrocalidad (plant
issuing products in their
sanitary primary state);
certificates INHMT (medicines,
 drugs, cosmetics,
 hygienic products,
 processed food
 and additives)

Framework Colombian Foreign Export and Water
regulation Trade Law Transport Facilitation
 (7th Law) Law

Economic CAN (b), CAN, CAN-
agreements CARICOM (c), MERCOSUR, ALADI,
 CAN- ALBA (e)
 (Venezuela and
 Mexico) FTA

CITES, 1981 1975


 Peru Bolivia

Enabling Transportation permit Certificate of origin

Spanish Guia de Transporte Certificado de origen
name Forestal

Fee (USD) $3.5 $10

Validity 1 day (by air freight), NS
 3-4 weeks (by land)


Legal 1. Book of operations; l. National Forestry
requirements 2. annual report Office registration;
for business 2. administrative
enterprises license; 3. supply
 and raw materials
 processing programs;
 4. certificate of
 5. quarterly report

Fee (USD) 2% UIT (a) $ 500-750 depending
 on the how big is the

Exclusive Export permit for Export permit for
enabling wild flora (DGFFS), wild flora (ABT)
document procedure fee

Fee (USD) 5% LIT (a) $20
 for species
 CITES, 3% UIT for
 species not included
 in the CITES

issuing (food and beverages),
sanitary DIGEMID
certificates (pharmaceutical

Framework Legislative Decree Bolivian Export Law
regulation 668 1489

Economic CAN, CAN- CAN, CAN
 SGP (f),
 FTA Mexico

CITES, 1975 1991

CITES MINAM: Viceministerio MMAyA: Direccion
national de Desarrollo General de
authority Estrategico de los Biodiversidad y
 Recursos Naturales Areas Protegidas

(a) Tax units. The Economics Ministry establishes the amount of tax
units at the beginning of each year. In 2010 it was approximately $
450. UITs are used also to calculate public salaries or fines (B.
Millan, pers. Comm)

(b) Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia

(c) Caribbean countries

(d) Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay

(e) Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia

(f) USA, EU, Japan, Canada

Table 6 Common Requirements for Export Enterprises (see Appendices
3 and 4 for References)

Requirement Description

Exporter registry Document that certifies to be
 registered as an exporter of
 forest products

Commercial invoice Document that determines the
 value of exported merchandise

Packing-list List of packages, boxes, bags,
 and weight of the merchandise
 to be exported

Statement of export It consists of an affidavit of
 the value of the merchandise.
 Its acceptance, verification
 and approval by the Customs,
 allows and legalizes the
 export operation

Transportation document It is issued by the carrier
 contracted to carry the

Sanitary certificates They are issued by the
 competent authority certifying
 that the merchandise to be
 exported is in good sanitary
 condition and that its use
 does not jeopardize human
 health or is likely to spread
 phyto or zoosanitary diseases
 (e.g. Phyto or zoo sanitary
 certificates, Food safety
 certificate in the case of
 export of food products made
 from raw materials from
 organic agents, Chemical
 certificate in the case of
 tanning or dyeing extracts,
 pigments, resins, perfumery,
 toiletries and cosmetics).

Certificate of origin Document that proves that the
(other than the Forestry merchandise to be exported is
CO) from a given country. It IS
 toed to be eligible for tariff
 preferences granted by various
 agreements with different

Departure certificate It is issued by the National
 Customs, after carrying out
 random checks and if
 everything is in order.

Table 7 Control Entities and Sanctions for Breaking the Law of Use
and Trade of NTFP (see Appendix 1 for Abbreviations and Appendices 3
and 4 for References)

 Colombia Ecuador

Control CARS, environmental Fixed or mobile
entities (a) authorities of large checkpoints-forestry
 urban centers and guards (police, army),
 local authorities (PAE, DNF forestry verifi-
 army) cation and regency,
 DP, OT, SAF, Customs
 Authority, Civil Avia
 tion, Phytosanitary
 National Office, Na-
 tional Post Office,

Administrative 1. Fines up to the 1. Fines 1-10 and 500-
sanctions- equivalent to 5000 1000 general mini-
 monthly minimum mum living wages; 2.
 wages per day; 2. confiscation of prod-
 suspension of ucts; 3. suspension of
 registration, license or licenses, contracts or
 permit; 3. temporary of issuing transport
 or permanent closure permits for not com-
 of business; 4. repeal pliance of harvesting
 or revocation of the programs; 3. cancel-
 permit or concession; lation of the registra-
 5. confiscation of tion on the National
 specimens, products, Forestry Office or ex-
 subproducts or port license in case of
 implements used in recurrence of viola-
 breaking the law; 6. tions
 community work

Penal 1. Imprisonment (2- 1. Imprisonment (1-
sanctions 5 years); 2. fines up to 3 years), may be
 10000 general doubled in the case of
 minimum living endangered species or
 wages which may if the act is committed
 increase if the in the period of seed
 infraction is production or growth
 committed by an alien and reproduction of
 in national territory species

 Peru Bolivia

Control DGFFS-ATFFS, Prefectures,
entities (a) regional and local Municipalities, ABT
 governments, citizens DTD-forestry check
 in general, (PNP, points and audits,
 army) ANB, shipping
 abroad offices

Administrative 1. Fines 0.1 >600 Tax 1. Written reprimands;
sanctions- Units; 2. confiscation 2. progressive fines
 of specimens or up to 100% of the
 products transported, forestry patent; 3.
 processed or sold revoke and
 without official cancellation of
 documentation; 3. harvesting rights; 4.
 confiscation of tools, closure of
 equipment, establishments; 5.
 machinery, vehicles or confiscation of
 immobilization of products and means
 vehicles or boats used of perpetration for
 in breaking the law; illegal use,
 4. temporary transportation,
 suspension up to processing and trade
 30 days in cases of of NTFP
 repeated offense
 punishable by a fine;
 5. closure of
 processing centres,
 shops and warehouses
 of forest products; 6.
 revocation of permit
 or license

Penal 1. Imprisonment (1- Not considered
sanctions 3 years); 2. fines
 which may be
 doubled in the case of
 endangered species

(a) In parenthesis are the entities that support control activities
in coordination with the main institutions in charge.

Table 8 Legal Dispositions for NTFP Commercial Extraction by
Indigenous and Afroamerican Communities in Their Territories (see
Appendices 3 and 4 for References)

Colombia Ecuador

1. User's exclusive right 1. User's exclusive right
within their territories; 2. within their territories;
subject to official 2. subject to official
regulations; 3. specific regulation: 3. technical
treatment dependent on each advice
group: 4. technical advice

Peru Bolivia

1. User's exclusive tight 1. User's exclusive right
within their territories; 2. within their territories;
subject to official 2. subject to official
regulations; 3. technical regulations; 3. priority
advice; 4. priority treatment treatment

Table 9 Basic Regulatory Framework of Protection of Traditional
Knowledge (TK) and Access to Genetic Resources (GR) in the Study
Countries (see Appendix 1 for Abbreviations and Appendices 3 and 4
for References)

 Colombia Ecuador

Protection of l. Decree 309 Project of Law
TK 2. Decree 1320

Date of release 1. 25/02/2000 N/A
 2. 13/07/1998

Access to GR Ministerial Proposal of Regulation
regulations Resolution 620

Date of release 7/7/1997 N/A


Associated Ministerio del Interior IEPI, MRECI. Ministerio
institutions Ministerio de Comercio de Agricultura.
 Exterior Ministerio de Ganaderia
 Agricultura, Research Acuacultura e Pesca,
 centers MCPNC, IAEN

Special cases Basic Research N/A

Implementation 76 applications: 1 research application
cases 64 subscribed (flora)
 contracts most
 of them for research

 Peru Bolivia

Protection of 1. Law 27811 Project of Law
TK 2. Law 28216

Date of release I. 24/07/2002 N/A

Access to GR Ministerial Supreme Decree 24676
regulations Resolution

Date of release 31/12/2008 21/6/1997


Associated INDECOPI, Prefectures, Cuerpo
institutions MINAG, de Asesoramiento
 Ministerio de Tecnico
 la Produccion,

Special cases Ex-situ conservation Ex-situ conservation
considered centers, Protected centers, Protected
 Areas, Basic Areas, TCO

Implementation 10 research 9 evaluated applications
cases applications (7 commercial,
 (9 fauna, 1 flora) 2 research):
 2 commercial
 subscribed contracts
COPYRIGHT 2011 New York Botanical Garden
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:de la Torre, Lucia; Valencia, Renato; Altamirano, Carolina; Ravnborg, Helle Munk
Publication:The Botanical Review
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:0DEVE
Date:Dec 1, 2011
Previous Article:Responses of [N.sub.2]O flux from forest soils to land use change in subtropical China.
Next Article:Palm harvest impacts in north-western South America.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters