Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses

Crnogorskih serdara, Lamela C 1-2

81000 Podgorica, Montenegro

Phone/Fax: (00 382 20) 634 338, 634 329

E-mail: issp@cg.yu, Web site: www.isspm.org

Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) Survey SUB-SECTOR ANALYSIS (SSA)

FINAL REPORT

July 2008

2

Foreword

In cooperation with SNV, the Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses realized a

project-survey on non-timber forest products (NTFPs) in Montenegro, including all important

subjects involved in the value chain (collectors, middlemen, NTFP processors and exporters).

The NTFP sector in Montenegro is still undeveloped but considering the wealth of NTFP

natural resources, especially mushrooms, wild fruits and medicinal plants, it has great

potential. With this presumption and data gathered from field work (survey), this report

shows the main findings, which have been grouped in two separate analyses.

The first part of the report contains the results and analysis of the first survey-field work

conducted among the households in the northern municipalities. The survey was conducted

on a pre-determined representative sample and was focused on three groups of people that

may be part of the NTFP value chain. It was conducted among private forest owners, as well

as those who deal with NTFPs as collectors and middlemen. The first part of this report

contains a quantitative analysis of data derived from the survey. The second part of the

report addresses individual processing companies that process and export NTFPs. This

qualitative analysis is based on individual meetings and discussions with major NTFPs

processors in Montenegro. Another important part of this report contains the main findings

and conclusions based on a focus group organized between NTFP processors who had

previously been interviewed.

Based on the produced analyses, this report gives an overall picture of the NTFP sector in

Montenegro and addresses the most important questions about its future development. It

takes a close look at the main threats and opportunities identified through the quantitative

and qualitative research.

The annexes in the last part of this report includes all of the SPSS outputs related to

quantitative analysis of private forest owners, collectors and middlemen, as well as the two

types of the questionnaires that were used in the survey for the purposes of quantitative and

qualitative analysis.

3

ISSP TEAM

Msci Jadranka Kaludjerovic, ISSP program director

Milica Dakovic, project coordinator

Msci Ana Krsmanovic, ISSP analyst

Milika Mirkovic, ISSP researcher

Mirza Muleskovic, ISSP researcher

Vojin Golubovic, ISSP researcher

Marina Glendza, ISSP researcher

Jadranka Milacic, ISSP researcher

4

CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction and Objectives

6

Chapter 2: The Methodology 7 2.1. The sample 7 2.2. Questionnaire 9 2.3. Data collection, processing and analysis 9 2.4. Qualitative Analysis

9

Chapter 3: Main findings 11 3.1. Quantitative analysis on NTFPs survey 11

3.1.1. General information about the households 11

3.1.2. Private forest owners (PFO) 14

3.1.3. NTFP Collectors and middlemen 22

3.1.4. Household income 28

3.2. Qualitative research - NTFPs Processors and Exporters 30 3.2.1. Introduction 30

3.2.2. Summary 31

FOCUS GROUP WITH NTFP PROCESSORS

35

Chapter 4: Interpretation and analysis of the main findings 37 4.1. Private forest owners 37 4.2. NTFPs collectors 38 4.3. NTFPs middlemen 38 4.4. NTFPs processors and exporters 39 4.5. Recommendations with regards to program design

41

ANNEX 1 SPSS OUTPUTS

44

ANNEX 2 QUESTIONNAIRES 69

5

Tables

Table 1 Sample stratification

Table 2 Urban sample stratification Table 3 Rural sample stratification

Table 4 List of the NTFPs processors Table 5 Urban/rural sample structure of municipalities

Table 6 Level of satisfaction with the services that PFO received from the Forestry

Directorate Table 7 Table 8

How much did you sell in 2007? (average) Do you regard NTFP money as a sustainable source of income?/crosstab

Table 9 How much did you (middlemen) sell in 2007 (kg)? Table 10 Average price of sold NTFPs from middlemen

Table 11 Average HHS income from forest products Table 12 List of the NTFPs processors

Graphs

Graph 1 What was your primary activity in the past month?

Graph 2 Do you own forest?

Graph 3 Size of Private Forests Graph 4 Type of ownership documents

Graph 5 How did you obtain your forest? Graph 6 Main reasons of ownership

Graph 7 How often do you visit your forest?

Graph 8 What do you think about forest certification? Graph 9 Reasons why you should consider certifying of your forestland

Graph 10 Do you get permits for wood cutting? Graph 11 Main purposes of wood cutting

Graph 12 Is firewood a sustainable source of income? Graph 13 What kind of services you received from Forestry Directorate? Graph 14 Who helps you solve these problems?

Graph 15 Who should solve the problems of the forestry sector?

Graph 16 If there is an association of PFO, what services should be useful for you?

Graph 17 How much are you willing to pay annually for these services? Graph 18 Does your household collect NTFPs?

Graph 19 To what extent does your household rely on this revenue? Graph 20 Do you (head of the household) collect NTFPs?

Graph 21 Why do you collect NTFPs?

Graph 22 What NTFPs do you collect? Graph 23 Where do you sell your NTFPs?

Graph 24 Do you regard NTFP revenues to a sustainable source of income? Graph 25 If there were associations of collectors, what services would be useful to you?

Graph 26 What improvements would you suggest for the development of the NTFP sector? Graph 27 Where do you sell medicinal plants?

Graph 28 Do you think the price is fair? Graph 29 What is the main barrier for the NTFPs sector?

Graph 30 If there was an association of collectors, what services would be useful to you?

Graph 31 What is your main source of household income? Graph 32 Trends in NTFPs collecting within the last three years

Acronyms

NTFPs Non Timber Forest Products

PFO Private Forest Owner

HHS Household

6

Chapter 1: Introduction and Objectives

Gathering information and data is necessary to create a sound analysis of the development

of the non-timber forestry sector, and to subsequently design a detailed intervention

programme that has appropriate objectives, a well-targeted set of indicators, and sound

monitoring.

The objectives of this sub-sector analysis are:

To obtain relevant data on actors, factor, interactions and relationships in the

sustainable exploitation of NTFP in the study area, and with a specific social focus on

the dimensions of poverty and social inclusion;

To establish facts about the relative importance of various NTFPs in household

economies (possibly by categorising households by level of income/set of NTFPs);

To identify organisational and institutional issues affecting NTFP collection;

To make relevant recommendations for an SNV programme of interventions,

including objectives, main activities, possible results and indicators for measuring

success.

Engaging the NTPF value chain as a whole is a critical factor to the further improvement and

development of this sector. Thus, this project has involved all necessary actors: Private

Forest Owners (PFOs), collectors of NTPFs, middlemen (or suppliers) and NTPFs processors

and exporters. In order to meet the objectives of this analysis, the ISSP conducted a

quantitative survey about PFOs, collectors and middlemen in the NTFP process. The survey

was directed at 500 households from the northern municipalities, which includes 1,980

individuals (household members). The survey results provided information on PFOs and the

engagement of households in NTPFs. A qualitative analysis was conducted among NTFPs

processors and exporters in northern Montenegro. This analysis is based on set of individual

interviews with NTFPs processors and one focus group session involving all NTPF processors

who were previously interviewed. The interviews and the focus group were conducted using

a single standardized questionnaire. The NTPFs processors greatly contributed to the process

in helping understand the current problems, challenges and overall state of the sector.

7

Chapter 2: The Methodology

2.1. The sample

The sample used for the NTFPs Survey is made up of a three-stage stratified sample on the

basis of regional, municipal and urban/rural divides (30%:70%) in accordance with the total

population. The sample is based on 500 households from municipalities in the northern part

of Montenegro.

Table 1 Sample stratification

MUNICIPALITY TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS URBAN RURAL

Andrijevica 20 6 14

Berane 92 28 64

Bijelo Polje 122 36 85

Kolasin 46 14 32

Mojkovac 26 8 18

Plav 36 11 25

Pljevlja 80 24 56

Rozaje 58 17 41

Zabljak 20 6 15

TOTAL 500 150 350

The urban divide is determined by previously defined urban municipalities in which surveyors

randomly picked those households that are possibly involved in NTFPs collection or are

private forest owners.

Surveyors were followed lists of given streets in the urban parts of municipalities. In these

streets they randomly choose the first house/apartment and continued with surveying in

each fifth house/apartment in targeted street. After they choose household, surveyors asked

two ‘test’ questions - Is some household member private forest owner (PFO) or NTFPs

collector or middlemen? If the answer on each of these questions was positive, surveyors

started with surveying of that household, making an interview with the head of the

household and fulfilling the questionnaire.

In case when answer on previously defined question is negative, surveyor skip that

household and continue to search another fifth household from that street looking to find

other that are possibly involved into PFO or NFTPs. Surveyors were obliged to stick to the

street previously defined within the sample.

8

Table 2 Urban sample stratification

STREET Andrijevica Branka Deletica

Berane 29 Novembra

Njegosev trg

Miljana Tomicica

Bijelo Polje

29 Novembra

Rakonje

Kolasin Mojkovacka

Mojkovac Ljubomira Bakoca

Plav Ulica Slobode

Pljevlja

Manastirska

Trsova

Velimira Jakica

Rozaje

Rifata Burdzevica

Jaha Kurtagica

Zabljak Njegoseva

The rural divide is based on the size of the population in each rural unit in a targeted

municipalities and their share in the total population of each municipality. Based on that and

the fact that share of rural parts of municipalities will be dominant in the sample (70%) in

comparison to urban parts, rural areas of municipalities from the north were defined by the

settlements in each of municipality1. The most important issue regarding the settlement that

will be part of the sample is number of population in it and proportion of population in each

municipality. Based on that 28 settlements were defined and they were a basis for further

fieldwork. In these settlements surveyors started fieldwork on the same principle/method

previously defined for surveying in urban areas.

Table 3 Rural sample stratification RURAL Andrijevica

Tresnjevo

Slatina

Berane

Donje Luge

Dolac

Budimlja

Beran Selo

Buce

Bijelo Polje

Zaton

Godijevo

Kukulje

Gubavac

Grab

Godusa

Kolasin

Drijenak

Breza

Bare Kraljske

Mojkovac

Polja

Proscenje

Plav

Vusanje

Vojno selo

Pljevlja

Zidovici

Komine

Sula

Gradac

Rozaje

Kalace

Donja Lovnica

Zabljak Njegovudja

1 Census 2003, Monstat.

9

In regards to the methodology used in the data processing it is important to stress that the

quantitative analysis is based on the analysis of two target groups. The standard household

information gathered is based on answers that were given in all 500 households (by the

heads of the household). Other parts of the questionnaire, which collected data from NTPFs

collectors and middlemen, are based on answers from 1,980 individual respondents

(household members) from those 500 targeted households from the sample.

2.2. Questionnaire

The questionnaire used in the quantitative survey contained 67 different questions grouped

into five separate sections: General household information; PFOs; NTPF collectors; NTFP

middlemen and household revenues.

2.3. Data collection, processing and analysis

The ISSP recruited 20 (twenty) surveyors to collect data. The surveyors conducted fieldwork

through direct interviews with households in the targeted northern municipalities, which are

considered as urban, or in northern settlements, which are considered as rural. An ISSP

team of experts was involved in data processing. Data analysis was based on the previously

created SPSS data base which was a basis for further quantitative analysis of the results.

2.4. Qualitative Analysis

The qualitative research was done by ISSP experts who conducted individual interviews with

13 (thirteen) NTPF processors and exporters. Firstly, there’s no standardized and unified

database of NTFP processors in Montenegro. Because of that problem, ISSP created

database of NTFP processors from different small data bases of other organizations and

instiutions and put it together. That initial database contained up to 20 NTFP processors. All

of them were firstly contacted by phone and 13 of them wanted to participate in this survey.

The rest of them were absent or there was a problem to contact and find them (not correct

phone numbers, don’t answer, etc.). These interviews were based on unified questionnaire

which was consisted of the twenty-five previously defined questions grouped into five

sections:

1. General information about NTFP processors;

2. Sourcing; 3. Processing; 4. Destination: customers and processors;

5. Threats and opportunities.

10

Table 4 List of the NTFPs processors

Municipality NTFPs processor/Company NTPFs they are processing

1. Berane Zemljoradnicka zadruga Vrbica – Adrovic Avdul

Medical plants

2. Bijelo Polje “Vrganj” – Petar Zivkovic Mushrooms

3. Bijelo Polje Ramiza Ibrizovic Medical plants

4. Bijelo Polje “Eko-Meduza” – Jelica Vujicic Mushrooms, forest fruits, medical plants

5. Bijelo Polje Interfood – Spasoje Ilic Mushrooms

6. Kolasin Predrag Puletic Mushrooms, forest fruits

7. Kolasin Radosav Puletic Mushrooms, forest fruits

8. Mojkovac Flores – Veselin Vucinic Medical plants

9. Mojkovac Pam – Miroslav Palevic Mushrooms, forest fruits

10. Pljevlja RM Commerce – Dejan Loncar Mushrooms

11. Pljevlja NVO “Proizvodnja cajeva Boljanic” – Dragica Rovcanin

Medical plants

12. Rozaje Asir Klica Mushrooms, forest fruits

13. Rozaje Agroprodukt – Sefkija Nurkovic Mushrooms, forest fruits, medical plants

To gather more information about the NTPF sector the ISSP put together a focus group

made up of NTFP processors who had been previously interviewed. Nine NTFP processors

and exporters have been participating on the focus group. The focus group session was also

based on the same questionnaire used during individual interviews with NTFPs processors.

Focus group session was another step forward in looking for questions and answers related

to development of NTFPs sector in Montenegro. Direct interaction between NTFPs processors

was very useful for completion of this analysis, especially related to existing problems and

also recommendations and further steps related to this sector.

11

Chapter 3: Main findings

3.1. Quantitative analysis on NTFPs survey

3.1.1. General information about the households

The sample is based on 500 households from municipalities in the northern part of

Montenegro. The sample used for the NTFPs Survey is made up of a three-stage stratified

sample on the basis of regional, municipal and urban/rural divides (30%:70%) in

accordance with the total population.

Table 5 Urban/rural sample structure of municipalities MUNICIPALITY URBAN % RURAL %

Kolasin 38.4 61.5

Plav 23.3 76.6

Andrijevica 26.3 73.6

Rozaje 21.6 78.3

Mojkovac 16.6 83.3

Berane 30.8 69.1

Pljevlja 26.3 73.6

Bijelo Polje 29.0 70.9

Zabljak 100

Age structure

The age structure of the respondents is given in intervals. The largest group of respondents

(27.5%) is between 46 and 55 years old; 25.7% are 35 to 46 years old, while 18.8% are 56

to 65 years old.

Gender

From the total number of heads of households, 89.1% are male and 10.9% are female.

Among the average of 89.1% male respondents, 92% are from rural areas; 92.2% are

between the ages of 26 and 35. Among the average of 10.9% female respondents, 18.2%

are between the ages of 18 and 25; 17.6% are from urban areas, while 21.3% of the female

respondents are from municipality of Berane.

12

Education

From the total number of respondents, 98% indicated what their level of education is. From

that number, 36.9% indicated they completed secondary school (four years), 25.4% had

some secondary school (three years) and 15.3% completed only primary school. Only

11.7% of respondents have a university education. Out of average of those who completed

secondary school, 42.3% of respondents are from urban areas and 31% are between the

ages of 36 and 45 years; 43.5% of those living in Mojkovac have completed secondary

school.

Occupation

From the total number of respondents, 92.7% indicated what their occupation is. From that

number, 30.9% are employed in agriculture, forestry and in the water supply industry,

20.9% work in other organizations and bodies, while 8.3% work in public administration and

social insurance. Out of the 30.9% who are employed in agriculture, forestry and the water

supply industry, 36% are from rural areas. These sectors account for the employment of

43.2% of respondents living in Pljevlja.

Graph 1 What was your primary activity in the past month?

58.9%

22.6%

11.3%

3.0%

1.4%

1.4%

1.4%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Working/helping to earn income

Stay at home

Job searching

Other

Housekeeping

Retired

Sick/disabled

Out of average of those who are currently employed, or are helping the household earn

income, 69.5% are from urban areas; 73.7% of those living Andrijevica are employed, while

91.4% of the employed have higher education.

PRIVATE FOREST OWNERS

14

3.1.2. Private forest owners (PFO)

Note: This part of analysis is based not just on 500 households as main respondents (head of the household).

Do you own forestland?

Out of the total number of sample households (500), 98% answered this question. From

that number, in 60.1% of these households, one household member is a private forest

owner. This means that 60.1% of households from the sample own forest and 39.9% of

households do not own forest.

Graph 2 Do you own forest?

Yes60%

No40%

Out of average of those households with a private forest owner, 60.5% respondents live in a

rural area. 97.1% of those living in Plav are PFOs. On the other hand, 42% of respondents

live in an urban area and 68.8% of those living in Pljevlja are PFOs.

Size of Private Forests

Out of the 60.5% of respondents who are private forest owners, most have a forest of up to

5 ha (57.2%).

Graph 3 Size of Private Forests

57.2%

15.6%

11.6%

13.0%

2.5%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Up to 5ha

From 6 to 10ha

From 11 to 20ha

From 21 to 50ha

Over 51ha

15

Out of the PFOs with less than 5 ha, 57.3% live in rural areas. 87.5% of the respondents

from Mojkovac have forestland less than 5 ha, as do 100% of the respondents from Zabljak.

Type of the forest

From the total number of PFOs in the sample, 38.9% have mostly broadleave forests, 33.2%

have mixed forests and 27.9% have mostly coniferous forests.

Forest ownership

A large majority of the heads of households are also owners of forestland (85.1%), while in

10.5% of cases it is another family member.

Graph 4 Type of ownership documents

55.8%

42.5%

1.4%

0.3%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Full documentation

Only those from cadastre

In process of restitution

Something else

Graph 5 How did you obtain your forest?

95.2%

3.8%

1.0%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Inheritance

Purchased

Other

Graph 6 Main reasons of ownership

66.1%

31.2%

25.8%

15.8%

12.8%

10.1%

7.4%

6.0%

4.7%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Pass on to children or other

Part of my family heritage

To collect firewood

Long-term investment

For timber production

For grazing livestock

To collect NTFPs

For recreation, hunting and fishing

For hunting and fishing

Graph 7 How often do you visit your forest?

27.3%

27.3%

23.2%

20.2%

2.0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Monthly

Almost four times per year

Almost twice times per year

Annually

Never

16

Do you sell forest products?

From the total number of households, 30% do not sell any forest products, 16.8% sell

firewood, while 10% sell NTFPs. If we only consider households with a PFO, 50.3% do not

sell forest products, 28.2% is sell firewood, while 16.7% sell NTFPs.

Do you have a forest management plan for your forest?

From the average number of households that have a PFO, 50.5% do not have a forest

management plan while 24.9% do; 8.4% of respondents are of the opinion that the lack of

forest management plans is a great problem; 23.2% households from rural areas have

forest management plans; 66.7% of households from Mojkovac and Pljevlja do have plans.

On the other hand, 67.1% of households from urban areas do not have forest management

plans. 78.9% households from Andrijevica do not have plans.

Graph 8 What do you think about forest certification?

47.3%

33.2%

21.1%

20.8%

18.5%

17.1%

4.0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

It will improve forest management

It will improve fores management

It will reduce need for forestry regulation

It will satisfy consumers of wood

It will improve competitiveness of the local wood producers

It will increase profit in tree farming

Other

Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

Do you have experience with getting forest certification?

Out of the total number of households with PFOs, 71.5% do not have any experience with

acquiring forest certification, 19.3% have received important information, while 4.1% do not

believe it to be important.

17

Among of the households that do not have experience with the forest certification, 71.6%

are from rural areas; 87.5% of households from Bijelo Polje do not have such experience.

Graph 9 Reasons why you should consider certifying of your forestland

52%

50.7%

25.5%

14.8%

11.4%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

If it would make my forest more healthy

If it would help to protect the environment

If my wood products could be sold for a higher price

If it would improve wildlife

If it would give me access to wood markets that are not normally available

How often do you cut your wood?

From the total number of those that are PFOs, 36.7% do their wood cutting during the

season (spring), 35.7% have never cut their wood and 16.5% do their wood cutting during

the winter and 10.1% do their wood cutting more than five times a year. Out of the average

of those households that do wood cutting during the spring, 38.9% are from rural areas;

66.7% of the households from Pljevlja do their wood cutting in the spring.

Graph 10 Do you get permits for wood

cutting?

65.1%

20.8%

14.1%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Without any problems

Difficult, but I am allowed to cut

Permits are inadequate

Graph 11 Main purposes of wood cutting

52.9%

42.3%

4.8%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

For household needs

Selling to individuals

Selling to companies

18

Out of the 4.8% of households that sell their wood to companies, 88.9% have contract

deliveries.

How important is firewood for you?

From the total number of households that have a PFO, 63.8% answered to this question.

From that number, 90% indicated that firewood is very important, 6.8% said it is not so

important and 3.2% said it is not important at all. From the average of 92.5% households

from rural areas indicated that firewood is very important, out of which 93.5% own up to

5ha of forest. 95% of households from Pljevlja indicated that firewood is very important.

Graph 12 Is firewood a sustainable source of income?

46.8%

20.0%

16.8%

16.3%

0 10 20 30 40 50

No

No, in next ten years it would be worse

Yes, in next ten years it would be better

Yes, always

Are you aware of current forestry sector legislation?

From the total number of sample households, 58.9% provided an answer to this question.

From that number, 40.3% are not well aware and want to know more about legislation of

the forestry sector. On the other side, there are 27.5% those that think that they are

sufficiently informed and 22.8% need more information but cannot have it.

Graph 13 What kind of services you received from Forestry Directorate?

44.7%

37.9%

36.4%

35.6%

4.0%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Cutting permits

Advice

Transport documents

Seedlings

Other

Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

19

Table 6 Level of satisfaction with the services that PFO received from the Forestry Directorate LEVEL OF SATISFACTION (1-THE BEST, 3-THE WORST) THE BEST REGULAR THE WORST Cutting permits 38% 22.6% 39.4%

Advice 45.3% 25.5% 29.2%

Transport documents 31.5% 25% 43.5%

Seedlings 61.7% 20.6% 17.8%

Households have indicated that the best ways to get better informed of the forestry sector

would be: seminars (38.7%); workshops (11.6%) and training programs (5.7%).

The forestry sector is, based on the perception of respondents, faced with many problems.

These problems include: illegal cutting and wood stealing, lack of control, lack of

information, outdated technologies, as well as lack of knowledge of regulations, which

should form the basis for the future protection of forests in Montenegro.

Graph 14 Who helps you solve these problems?

22.3%

17.0%

12.3%

8.7%

2.0%

1.2%

0.2%

0.0%

0 5 10 15 20 25

Nobody

Relatives

I don't need any help

Forest Directorate

Government

NGO

Someone else

Donor

Graph 15 Who should solve the problems of the

forestry sector?

63.8%

46.0%

8.5%

4.3%

3.4%

0.2%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Forestry Directorate

Government

I don't know

NGO

Family

Other

Are you a member of a Private Forest Owners Association?

From the total number of households from the sample 92.5% answered to this question.

From that number 78.4% are not members of any Private Forest Owners Association, 16%

has opinion that there are not present any associations in their area (municipalities), while

2.4% are members of some associations.

20

Graph 16 If there is an association of PFO, what services should be useful for you?

36.4%

32.2%

28.9%

17.6%

15.6%

13.2%

10.7%

4.5%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Making forest management plan

Getting cutting permits

Fire management

Selling forest products

Influence on national plans and policies

Training in forest management

Land registration

Other

How much are you willing to pay annually for these services (association of PFO)?

From the total number of respondents that answered to this question, 36.2% is not willing to

pay any money for these services; 20.8% is willing to pay between 2 and 5 euros while

15.6% are willing to pay between 5 and 10 euros.

Graph 17 How much are you willing to pay annually for these services?

36.2%

20.8%

15.6%

14.5%

6.6%

6.3%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Somebody else should pay this

Between 2 and 5 euro/year

Between 5 and 10 euro/year

Less than 2 euro/year

Above 20 euro/year

Between 10 and 20 euro/year

NON TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS

22

3.1.3. NTFP Collectors and middlemen Note: This part of analysis is based not just on 500 households as main respondents but contains 1,983 answers of each household member.

Does your household collect NTFPs?

From the total number of households, 38.6% do not collect NTFPs, while 29.8% do for

household purposes.

Graph 18 Does your household collect NTFPs?

38.6%

29.8%

25.7%

6.0%

0 10 20 30 40 50

No

Yes, just for household purposes

Yes, for processing

No, but have intention

To what extent does your household rely on this revenue?

Out of the total number of households that gave an answer to this question, 63.2% stated

that they do not rely on revenue from NTFPs very much while 4.97% of households rely

totally on the revenue. The average rate of this measure is 1.7 (in a range from 1 to 5,

where 1-‘Does not relly at all’ and 5-‘totally relly’).

Graph 19 To what extent does your household rely on this revenue?

63.2%

16.2%

11.5%

4.0%

4.9%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1

2

3

4

5

23

Do you collect NTFPs?

From the total number of individuals in the households, 612 collect NTFPs, which represents

30.8% out of 1,980 respondent household members. On the other side, if we analyze just

506 respondents (head of the household), 59.3% of the household heads collect NTFPs,

while 31.2% of household heads do not collect NTFPs.

Graph 20 Do you (head of the household) collect NTFPs?

59.3%

31.2%

5.2%

4.2%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Yes

No

No, but have intention

Yes, but stopped

Respondent’s role in NTFPs

From the total number of individuals who are involved in NTFPs collection, 93.9% are

collectors, 4% are middlemen and 1.6% is processors.

Why do you collect NTFPs?

For 39.4% of individuals collecting NTFPs is the way to supplement the household budget.

For 18.5% of individuals collecting of NTFPs is a part of family tradition.

Graph 21 Why do you collect NTFPs?

39.4%

18.5%

16.8%

9.6%

3.1%

1.0%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Supplement for household budget

Family tradition

Pocket money

Stabile source of income

Something else

The main activity in our family

24

During which seasons do you collect NTFPs? The largest number of collectors collects NTFPs during the summer (60.3%), then during the

fall (18%), spring (15.2%) and winter (0.2%). From the total number of collectors, 56.9%

pick mushrooms, 34.2% pick forest fruits and 18.5% pick medicinal plants.

Graph 22 What NTFPs do you collect?

51.8%

31.1%

16.8%

0.3%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Mushrooms

Forest fruits

Medical plants

Other

How long have you been collecting NTFPs?

The largest share of collectors have been collecting NTFPs between 3 and 10 years (41.8%),

27.5% of collectors have recently started to pick NTFPs, 17.4% have been collecting

between 10 and 20 years, while 13.2% of collectors have been collecting NTFPs for more

than 20 years.

Where do you sell your NTFPs?

Respondents had the opportunity to provide multiple answers. From the total number of

collectors, 45.6% sell NTFPs to suppliers, 11.9% do not sell their products, 7.8% of

collectors sell their products in improvised settings while 2.6% of collectors sell directly to

processors.

Graph 23 Where do you sell your NTFPs?

45.6%

11.9%

9.2%

8.5%

7.8%

2.6%

0.5%

0 10 20 30 40 50

To middleman

I don't sell the products

On a local market

Directly to customer

On a improvised place during the season

To processor

Other

25

Table 7 How much did you sell in 2007? (average) Note: If total amount of sold NTFPs is < 100kg per year and based on number of those HHS that are collecting NTFPs.

Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Mushrooms 41 30.0 100.0 72.8

Forest fruits 13 10.0 100.0 80.0

Medical plants 1 25.0 25.0 25.01

The average amount of sold quantity of mushrooms was 72.8kg in 2007, 80.0kg of forest

fruits and 25.0kg of medicinal plants.

How do you spend revenues from NTFPs?

Respondents had the opportunity to provide multiple answers. Out of the total number of

answers, 44.7% indicated that collectors use their revenues as supplements to their budget

while 14.8% used the funds to finance school expenditures, while 12.9% of households

consider it to be pocket money.

Do you consider NTFP revenues to be a sustainable source of income?

From the total number of collectors, 71.8% do not regard these revenues as a sustainable

source of income, while 28.2% do regard money as a sustainable source of income.

Graph 24 Do you regard NTFP revenues to a sustainable source of income?

Yes28%

No72%

Only 3.1% of the total number of collectors took part in a training program for NTFPs

collection while 96.9% of collectors never have.

Table 8 Do you regard NTFP money as a sustainable source of income?/crosstab

No Yes

Male 76,3% 23,7%

Female 60,0% 40,0%

26

Are you a member of an association of NTFP collectors?

From the total number of collectors only 1.5% are members of an association of NTFP

collectors while 71.7% are not members of such associations. For 25.3% of collectors an

association of NTFP collectors does not exist in their region.

Graph 25 If there were associations of

collectors, what services would be useful to you?

59.1%

51.6%

44.7%

32.9%

25.7%

6.7%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Selling together NTFP

Information about collecting

Quality control

Information on quality

Cooling together

Other

Graph 26 What improvements would you suggest

for the development of the NTFP sector?

41.9%

15.5%

11%

10.2%

8.8%

8.2%

4.4%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Bigger prices

Points of sale

Information and education

Environment protection

Don't know

Reduction of illegal cutting

Selling together

From the total number of HHS members, 88.7% are not suppliers of NTFPs, 2.7% are

engaged as suppliers of NTFPs, while 0.9% used to be suppliers but stopped.

Who acts as a middleman in the household?

Out of the total number of household members, only 1.2% acts as middlemen.

Graph 27 Where do you sell medicinal plants?

41.7%

25%

8.3%

8.3%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Other middlemen

Foreign processors

NTFPs processor

Other

Table 9 How much did you (middlemen) sell in 2007 (kg)? Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Wild mushrooms 15 80 3,000 805.3

Forest fruits 7 25 4,000 934.2

Medical plants 6 50 170 103.3

Other 1 500 500 500

27

The average amount of wild mushrooms sold in 2007 was 805.3kg. The average amount of

forest fruits sold was 934.2kg and average amount of medicinal plants sold was 103.3kg.

Average price of wild mushrooms per kg in 2007 was 3.9 euro/kg, 4 euro/kg of forest fruits

and 8.6 euro/kg for medical plants.

Table 10 Average price of sold NTFPs from middlemen Number Minimum Maximum Mean Mushrooms 13 1.7 6 3.9

Forest fruits 5 3 7 4

Medical plants 5 5 12 8.6

Graph 28 Do you think the price is fair?

Yes9%

No64%

Don`t know27%

From the total number of suppliers, 47.8% noticed that prices increased occasionally in the

last five years and 39.1% think that the prices have increased in the last five years.

Graph 29 What is the main barrier for the NTFPs sector?

75%

45.8%

41.7%

25%

25%

12.5%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Low prices

Lack of motivation between collectors

Lack of collectors

Lack of processors and exporters

Lack of knowledge

Lack of natural resources

28

Are you a member of an association of NTFP collectors?

From the total number of collectors only 0.8% are members of an association of NTFP

collectors, 70.1% are not members of an association of NTFP collectors. For 25.9% of

collectors, an association of NTFP collectors does not exist in their region.

Graph 30 If there was an association of collectors, what services would be useful to you?

74.3%

56.6%

51.9%

39.9%

22.1%

6.1%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Selling together NTFPs

Information about collecting

Quality control

Information on quality

Cooling together

Other

Out of the total number of collectors, 41.9% indicated that higher prices would improve the

NTFP sector, while 11% believe that more information and training would help improve this

sector.

3.1.4. Household income

Graph 31 What is your main source of household income?

69.5%

29.3%

22.4%

18.6%

13.9%

2.2%

1.6%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Wages

Pension

Revenues from agriculture

Revenues from other sources

Revenues from property

Social assistance

Agricultural pension

29

The average monthly household income for 42.5% of households is up to 300 euros, 37.5%

of households have an average monthly income is between 300 and 600 euros and 11.1%

between 600 and 800 euro.

HHS income in the last three years

Average households income has been mostly stabile for 72.5% of households. For 17% of

households average income has been constantly decreasing while for 10.5% of households

the average income in last 3 years has been constantly increasing.

Average HHS income from forest products

The average HHS income from wood is about 853.2€ and 454€ from wild mushrooms. The

average annual HHS income from forest fruits is 434.6€ while the average annual income

from medicinal plants was 248.7€.

Table 11 Average HHS income from forest products Forest Products Average HHS income in € Wood 853.2

Medicinal plants 248.7

Forest fruits 434.6

Mushrooms 454.7

Trends in NTFPs collecting within the last 3 years

From the total number of households, 48% have the opinion that NTFPs collection during

last three years has been stable, 18% believe they are increasing and 34% of households

thinks that trends in NTFPs collecting in last three years have decreased.

Graph 32 Trends in NTFPs collecting within the last three years

36.1%

20%24.1%

61.9% 60%

75.9%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Decreasing Stable Increasing

Urban Rural

In comparison to the average of 48% households which think that trends in NTFPs collecting

in last 3 years are stable, the same stands for 80% from rural area and 20% from urban

area. From the total number of households who have opinion that trends in NTFPs collecting

in last 3 years are increasing, 24.1% stands from those from rural area.

30

3.2. Qualitative research - NTFPs Processors and Exporters

3.2.1. Introduction

The Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses (ISSP) has conducted an evaluation of the

NTFPs sector in the northern region of Montenegro. The questionnaire was prepared by SNV

and the ISSP. Interviews were conducted with thirteen NTFPs processors who were involved

in the NTFP sector. Interviews were conducted with processors from different municipalities

of the northern region.

A survey among NTFPs processors was conducted in order to identify the main threats and

opportunities in the NTFP sector and to give recommendations on how to promote and

improve this sector. The qualitative analysis is based on meetings with the main processors

and exporters of wild mushrooms, medical plants and forest fruits in Montenegro.

Table 12 List of the NTFPs processors Municipality NTFPs processor/Company NTPFs they are

processing

1. Berane Zemljoradnicka zadruga Vrbica – Adrovic Avdul

Medical plants

2. Bijelo Polje “Vrganj” – Petar Zivkovic Mushrooms

3. Bijelo Polje Ramiza Ibrizovic Medical plants

4. Bijelo Polje “Eko-Meduza” – Jelica Vujicic Mushrooms, forest fruits, medical plants

5. Bijelo Polje Interfood – Spasoje Ilic Mushrooms

6. Kolasin Predrag Puletic Mushrooms, forest fruits

7. Kolasin Radosav Puletic Mushrooms, forest fruits

8. Mojkovac Flores – Veselin Vucinic Medical plants

9. Mojkovac Pam – Miroslav Palevic Mushrooms, forest fruits

10. Pljevlja RM Commerce – Dejan Loncar Mushrooms

11. Pljevlja NVO “Proizvodnja cajeva Boljanic” – Dragica Rovcanin

Medical plants

12. Rozaje Asir Klica Mushrooms, forest fruits

13. Rozaje Agroprodukt – Sefkija Nurkovic Mushrooms, forest fruits, medical plants

The ISSP summarized the results based on the conducted interviews. The final results are

presented in this report.

31

3.2.2. Summary

Sourcing

The prices of wild mushrooms vary from year to year and from season to season: in the

spring the price of wild mushrooms is 2 €/kg, while in the autumn the price is much bigger:

4-5 €/kg. Prices vary between seasons because of the quality of the mushrooms. Namely,

wild mushrooms picked during autumn are of higher quality than those picked in the spring.

In 2008 we expected an increase in prices because of high demand. Prices should be around

2.5€/kg for the mushrooms. The price of wild mushrooms is 2-3€/kg at the beginning of a

season, and later increase to 6-10€/kg.

The prices of medical plants also vary from year to year. In 2007 they were: juniper – 0.70

€/kg and hazelnut – 0.50€/kg to 0.60€/kg, dock – 2.50€/kg, marigold – 3.30€/kg, ehinacea

– 3.30 €/kg. There is always a deviation of around 15% or 20% from these prices. The main

reason for the price variation is the present of other suppliers from neighboring countries

who offer a higher quality or offer products with lower prices. However, the prices of final

products do not vary. Prices are standardized and deviation from year to year is +10%.

The supplier's price of blueberries is 1.80 – 2.00 €/kg while the consumer market price is

2.5 €/kg. The supplier's price of strawberries is 3 €/kg, while the consumer market price is

3.5 – 3.8 €/kg. An additional problem contributing to the fluctuation of prices is the

undeveloped and standardized market of this sector.

Prices depend on supply and demand. Montenegro is a small market if we compare it with

the East (China, Romania and Bulgaria) or Western Europe, so it cannot influence the prices

of NTFPs, especially wild mushrooms. China is the biggest exporter of wild mushrooms in

spite of their lower quality. Foreign companies from Italy buy wild mushrooms from

Montenegro, which are high in quality, and combine them with lower quality wild mushrooms

from China, and then sell to foreign markets.

32

Processing

There are several ways of processing wild mushrooms: cutting, cooking, drying and freezing.

In large part wild mushrooms are processed manually, which is what is demanded by the

markets. There are some machines for cutting, a cylinder and ladle for cooking and drying.

Some processors use mills. All of these operations are done before the making of the final

product, and are thus a semi-final product. For the final product, all companies in

Montenegro have to have a certified cooler with the HASAP standard.

Medical plants are all processed manually, since any mechanical processing could negatively

impact medicinal value of plants. The main phases of processing medical plants are: cutting,

drying and packing. After selecting the best medical plants, producers then wash the plants

and percolate them into compress. Forest fruits are usually are sold fresh, without

processing.

There are few companies in Montenegro that produce final NTFPs products. There is one for

medical plants in Mojkovac, one for forest fruits and mushrooms in Bijelo Polje, and one in

Rozaje for medical plants, mushrooms and forest fruits. The company in Bijelo Polje has a

large capacity for refining wild mushrooms, forest fruits and medical plants at the industrial

level. All processing in the company is done by large, modern machinery.

Wild mushroom production (champignons and shiitake) is based on the farming method.

Champignons are sold both fresh and marinated. For example, one company from Rozaje

produces essential oils as final products. These products are used in pharmacy, cosmetic and

medical industry. For these products we use medical plants. Also, they mill juniper and

forest fruits.

In general machinery is old and has a low production capacity. The machines do not comply

with appropriate standards. Some processors are planning to increase capacity, purchase

the required HASAP standard cooler for producing the final products. The main problem is

the lack of financial resources.

There are some hints of entrepreneurship. One company recently purchased an electronic

machine for cleaning and calibrating blueberries and other forest fruits.

33

Other owners, however, feel that all old machines do the same job as new machines. In

reality new machines have greater capacitates. Turnover of NTFP processors are limited by

availability of raw materials, which in turn depends on the climate.

Packaging for NTPFs is designed to preserve the quality of the products. Mushrooms are

packaged in PVC bags when dealing with larger quantities of the products. Beside bags,

products are also packed in wood boxes. Raw mushrooms are packed in wood and paper

boxes. Final products are packed in metal, glass and plastic packaging (barrels, plastic jars).

Medical plants are packed in small bottles, barrels and bags. Forest fruits are packed in

packages-foils, while frozen fruits are packaged in cardboard boxes.

Destination: Buyers of NTFPs

Most products were sold to companies abroad. It is important to note that semi-final

products are mostly exported to Serbia. The companies from Serbia that purchase semi-final

products from Montenegro include Interfood from Cacak and the PAMS Company from

Belgrade, particularly in the export of wild mushrooms. Semi-final products are also

exported to Italy and Macedonia.

Final products, largely juices and preserves, are mostly exported to EU countries, including

Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary and France. There is also registered export to Canada. The

producers of different types of salves and immune system enhancers also sell their products

to different customers abroad. Producers of teas mainly find their market in Montenegro.

Most purchasers of NTFPs produced in Montenegro are companies from abroad.

Some companies from Serbia buy semi-final products and then package and sell them as

final products. Moreover, the buyers of final products such as preserves ad juices are usually

foreign companies and hotels. The main customers of tea are found in domestic markets.

Besides foreign companies, the main purchasers of mushrooms are local pizzerias.

34

Threats

• Unmanaged market;

• Outdated technology of NTFP processing

machinery;

• Inability of producers to process final

products due to lack of certification and

standardized machinery;

• Export disincentives;

• Low nutrition in the consumption of

NTFPs;

• Export of semi-final, not to final

products;

• Costs of concessions;

• Neglectful using of medical plants;

• Problems with financial resources;

• Existence of unfair competition;

• Lack of motivation for NTFPs collectors;

• Few points of sale;

• Lack of public education about the

benefits of NTFPs;

• Small capacities.

Opportunities

• Possibility for creating a Montenegrin

brand in this sector;

• Advantages in comparison to other

countries that produce NTFPs;

• These products does not need lot of time

to be produced;

• Possibility of making profit for collectors

and producers;

• Tremendous natural forest resources

(woods, herbs, wild mushrooms, fruits,

etc.);

• Subsequent development of the Northern

region of Montenegro;

• Expansion of production to final products;

• Plant species that exist exclusively in

Montenegro.

Montenegro has immense potential to develop the NTFPs sector. Currently resources are not

being used and the market is underdeveloped. Therefore, action must be taken to foster the

development of this sector.

The government should become more involved. Also, there is a need for an Agro bank

market in Montenegro. While there is great potential, the aforementioned obstacles must

first be overcome.

35

FOCUS GROUP WITH NTFP PROCESSORS

Bijelo Polje, June 27th 2008

On June 27th 2008, the ISSP organized a focus group in Bijelo Polje with NTFPs processors

and exporters. The focus group was attended by nine representatives of NTFPs processors

that deal with three types of products: medicinal plants, mushrooms and forest fruits.

During the two hour discussion the processors provided important information about the

sector as well as useful suggestions for its development.

Photo 1 & 2 Focus group with NTFP processors in Bijelo Polje

At the very beginning the participants pointed out the importance of medicinal plants in

Montenegro. Some of the most important species include: marigold, hazelnut, thyme,

juniper, nettle. It is important to mention that a large part of reselling is done in the

southern and central parts of Montenegro, rather than in the northern part. The participants

pointed out that the important forest fruits for processing are blueberries, barberries,

strawberries and wild apples and pears. For example, Berane has the capacity to produce

wild apple and pear vinegar. Besides that, there is an ongoing preparation for the production

of blueberry wine.

Montenegro has only a few companies that have the capacity to produce final products made

from medicinal plants, forest fruits and mushrooms. Other producers process them using

very old equipment that insufficient capacities. The most important final products are tea,

essential oils, preserves, juices, pate and dried or fresh mushrooms. The basic problem is

that all of these products are sold as semi final products. Most of the NTFPs processors

36

agree that producing the final product (mushrooms) is not profitable. For example, I class

mushrooms from northern Montenegro would not be profitably used to produce pate.

Most of the processed and semi-processed products are exported to Serbia, BIH and Kosovo.

There are some exports to Western Europe, but in very small quantities. The most important

international market is in Serbia. Products exported from Montenegro are later exported

from Serbia as final products. After Montenegro's independence, Montenegro introduced

export duties that have significantly increased the cost of export. For example, to export tea

NTFP processors must pay approximately 300 euro in taxes. As a result, every export valued

less than 2,000 euro is not profitable. That results in a 50% decrease in sales.

Few NTFP processors have any kind certification. Only one mushroom processor meets the

HASAP standard for production and export. Some processors have certificates from the

Biotechnological Institute in Podgorica. This fact is important in the context of EU

integration. The EU will require NTFP processors to get appropriate certification. NTFP

processors from Montenegro, however, do not feel that exports need to meet standards or

should require certification. At the same time, Western European states have established

standards to protect their domestic producers. On the other hand, if there is sufficient

demand for mushrooms, certification should not pose a barrier to free export.

Problems for NTFP processors:

• Difficulties in reselling medicinal plants

because of high costs;

• Lack of knowledge about medicinal plant

collection, which can endanger the

sector;

• Medicinal plant processing does not have

many opportunities for future

development and profit;

• Illegal middlemen.

Recommendations:

• Seminars and training about the

importance of NTFPs;

• Organized plantation of medicinal plants;

• Bank system that would support the

sector;

• A developed network of NTFPs processors

and middlemen that can further network

with other NTFP processors abroad;

• Opening of distilleries;

• Introduction of standards for pricing.

37

Chapter 4: Interpretation and analysis of the main findings

Project ‘NTFPs Survey’ is consisted of quanititative and qualitative analysis which included all

NTFPs subjects involved into NTFPs value chain. Quantitative analysis is conducted on the

total sample of 500 households which accomplish precondition that are private forest owners

(PFO) or involved in NTFPs collecting and reselling.

On the other side, qualitative analysis is focused on 13 NTFP processors and exporters that

are separately interviewed about NTFP sector in Montenegro. These subjects were also

involved and participated in one focus group that was organized for the purposes of

qualitative analysis.

4.1. Private forest owners

Regarding total sample of 500 households 60% of respondents are private forest owners

(PFO). In comparison to the average of those that are PFO, 60.5% lives in rural parts of

municipalities from the north.

Most common PFO are respondents themselves (head of household) in 85.1% cases.

Majority of PFO (57.2%) owns forest area up to 5ha and among majority of them has

broadleave type of forest.

50.5% of PFO still does not have forest management plan.

If we consider total number of PFO from the sample 35.7% never done wood cutting.

Among those which are cutting wood, majority do that just for household purposes.

PFO are not still introduced with existing legislative in forestry which seems that 40.3%

of PFO need more information regarding to this topic.

PFO has opinion that presentation of better knowing and understanding of forest

management should be duty of Association for forests in the future.

38

4.2. NTFPs collectors

From the total number of households (500) 29.8% of them are NTFPs collectors and they

often do that job fur household purposes.

If we consider total number of household members (1,980), from that number 30.8%

are NTFPs collectors.

NTFP collecting seems not to be permanent source of household income for 63.2% of

households, while in 5% of household NTFPs collecting represents permanent source of

income.

For majority of the households that are dealing with NTFPs, for most of them (39.4%)

NTFPs collecting represents supplement for household budget.

Households from the north mostly collect mushrooms (51.8%), forest fruits (31.1%) and

medical plants (16.8%).

Majority of households that are collecting NTFPs sell them to middlemen (45.6%).

97% of collectors are not members of any Association of NTFP collectors.

The most common recommendation from NTFP collectors in order to improve NTFP

sector is based on three important suggestions:

� Open points of sale;

� More information about collecting process;

� Better quality control.

4.3. NTFPs middlemen

From the total number of individuals from the sample only 1.2% recognized themselves

as middlemen in NTFPs process. If we consider number of households from the sample

then in 4% of them head of the household is middlemen as well.

Most of middlemen sell previously collected NTFPs to other middlemen.

Middlemen are not members of any Association of NTFPs collectors. Their most common

suggestion related to future development of NTFPs sector in Montenegro is addressed to

opening of points of sale.

39

4.4. NTFPs processors and exporters

Nevertheless Montenegro has a great potential for NTFPs sector development, this sector is

still not enough developed and promoted. If we consider main threats that NTFPs processors

and exporters are facing with it could be concluded that something need to be done which

will make better situation in this field.

There are few companies in Montenegro that produce final NTFPs products. There is one for

medical plants in Mojkovac, one for forest fruits and mushrooms in Bijelo Polje, and one in

Rozaje for medical plants, mushrooms and forest fruits. The company in Bijelo Polje has a

large capacity for refining wild mushrooms, forest fruits and medical plants at the industrial

level. All processing in the company is done by large, modern machinery.

Based on information given from NTFPs processors, NTFPs sector is facing with lots of

challenges:

Unmanaged market – It seems that this sector is still not enough recognized as future

potential chance for development of the north. Market is still undeveloped.

Outdated technology of NTFP processing machinery – Producing of NTFPs needs modern

and new technology. Especially in those cases of final product production. Qualitative

surveys showed that majority of NTFPs processors are using old technologies for

production of NTFP semi-final products.

Inability of producers to process final products due to lack of certification and

standardized machinery – Certification and lack of information regarding to this is one of

the major problems for NTFP processors, as well. This is one of the preconditions for

production of final products in this sector. Most of NTFP processors and exporters from

Montenegro are producing semi-final products and exporting them to other countries in

which they become final products.

A problem with financial resources – One of the major problems that NTFPs are faced

with is lack of financial resources which will help NTFPs processors to develop better

capacities in order to increase production. Special loan arrangements from banks, for

small NTFP producers, under favourable conditions and interest rates should increase

interest for developing of this sector.

40

Lack of motivation between NTFPs collectors – Another challenge which NTFP processors

are faced with is lack of motivation between NTFPs collectors. They are or too old to

continue NTFPs collecting or underpriced for their job.

Few points of sale – Almost all subjects in value chain related to NTFPs are unified in

premiss that NTFP sector should face with positive changes if there’s exist organized

points of sale in all municipalities from the north. It should facilitate process for NTFPs

collectors, middlemen and processors.

Low nutrition in the consumption of NTFPs – Population in Montenegro does not have

tradition of using NTFPs (especially myshrooms) in everyday consumption. Lack of

information about nutrition values as well as ‘traditional’ national cuisine that does not

involve these products resulted in low consumption of NTFPs between the populations.

More information regarding that should improve existing situation and promote NTFPs as

valuable nutrition source.

Lack of public education about the benefits of NTFPs – NTFPs processors and exporters

have a common attitude that population in Montengro is not enough informed about

benefits that NTFPs can have for Montenegrin economy and its population.

41

4.5. Recommendations with regards to program design

NTFPs sector need to be recognized firstly as a profitable business among all the subjects

involved in this process (collectors, middlemen and processors)! Based on that, NTFP sector

in Montenegro need to be developed as attractive and profitable for all NTFP subjects from

the value chain. Maybe one of the most important challenge for start-up among NTFP

processors is financial resources for business starting or improvement of existing capacities.

It is evident that Montenegro has great natural resources of different high quality NTFP

products. According to that, NTFPs sector can be used for promotion and export of natural

products from Montenegro. Nevertheless NTFP sector is still undeveloped and

underestimated it represent sector that can be valuable contributor and catalyst of economic

growth of the northern region in Montenegro. NTFP sector has a great chance to be

developed and its development can bring new Montenegrin brand for variety of NTFP

products. Making efforts to produce final NTFP products and export those under brand ‘Made

in Montenegro’ can give valuable contribution for Montenegrin economy and development of

the north. Montenegro has great natural resources of high quality mushrooms, forest fruits

as well as medical plants that exists exlusively in Montenegro.

For that process NTFP processors need to be introduced and implement HASAP standards.

Another task that is directly connected to this process is education. Better knowledge about

forest management among PFO or better knowledge about NTFP collecting and processing

should positively influence all subjects in this value chain. Lack of knowledge and

information on all levels in area of PFO or NTFPs is still evident and future steps regarding

this problem need to be considered in the future. Seminars and training programs related to

forest management plans, NTFP collecting and reselling are very important for future

development of this sector. Participants in this process should develop and strengthen

network of PFO and NTFPs processors and middlemen in the future.

On the other side, Governmental bodies need to assure legal and institutional framework

which should be a basis for development of this sector. That should assure a framework for

further open market competitiveness of different subjects in this sector. Standardization in

all aspects of this sector should be a solid starting point for its further development.

ANNEX 1

SPSS OUTPUTS

44

Urban/Rural Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Urban 131 25.9 27.9

Rural 339 67.0 72.1

Total 470 92.9 100.0

Municipality/crosstabs Municipality Urban Rural

Kolasin 38.5% 61.5%

Plav 23.3% 76.7%

Andrijevica 26.3% 73.7%

Rozaje 21.6% 78.4%

Mojkovac 16.7% 83.3%

Berane 30.9% 69.1%

Pljevlja 26.3% 73.7%

Bijelo Polje 29.0% 71.0%

Zabljak 100.0%

Age of respondent Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Up to 18 1 0.2 0.2

From 19 to 25 11 2.2 2.2

From 26 to 35 64 12.6 12.7

From 36 to 45 130 25.7 25.7

From 46 to 55 139 27.5 27.5

From 56 to 65 95 18.8 18.8

More than 66 65 12.8 12.9

Total 505 99.8 100.0

Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Male 450 88.9 89.1

Female 55 10.9 10.9

Total 505 99.8 100.0

Gender/crosstabs Male Female

Urban/Rural

Urban 82.4% 17.6%

Rural 92.0% 8.0%

Municipality

Kolasin 92.3% 7.7%

Plav 97.1% 2.9%

Andrijevica 100.0%

Rozaje 88.9% 11.1%

Mojkovac 95.8% 4.2%

Berane 78.7% 21.3%

Pljevlja 88.3% 11.7%

Bijelo Polje 90.3% 9.7%

Zabljak 94.7% 5.3%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19 to 25 81.8% 18.2%

From 26 to 35 92.2% 7.8%

From 36 to 45 88.5% 11.5%

From 46 to 55 89.9% 10.1%

From 56 to 65 89.5% 10.5%

Over 66 86.2% 13.8%

Highest completed level of education Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Currently attending primary school 2 0.4 0.4

Currently attending University 11 2.2 2.2

Primary school 76 15.0 15.3

Secondary school - 3 years 126 24.9 25.4

Secondary school -4 years 183 36.2 36.9

College 38 7.5 7.7

BA 58 11.5 11.7

MSci 1 0.2 0.2

PhD 1 0.2 0.2

Total 496 98.0 100.0

45

Highest completed level of education/crosstabs

Currently attendin

g primary school

Currently attending universit

y

Primary school

Secondary school - 3 years

Secondary school -4

years

College BA MSc PhD

Urban/Rural

Urban 4.6% 6.9% 16.9% 42.3% 8.5% 20.8%

Rural 0.6% 1.5% 17.2% 29.2% 34.3% 7.8% 8.7

%

0.3

%

0.3

%

Municipality

Kolasin 2.6% 12.8% 7.7% 38.5% 15.4% 23.1

%

Plav 2.9% 14.3% 25.7% 22.9% 34.3

%

Andrijevic

a

31.6% 31.6% 36.8

%

Rozaje 2.7% 5.4% 10.8% 29.7% 27.0% 8.1% 13.5

%

2.7

%

Mojkovac 21.7% 43.5% 30.4% 4.3%

Berane 1.1% 4.3% 25.5% 48.9% 7.4% 12.8%

Pljevlja 26.7% 30.7% 41.3% 1.3%

Bijelo

Polje

5.7% 20.5% 33.6% 31.1% 3.3% 5.7

%

Zabljak 42.1% 10.5% 47.4%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19

to 25

45.5% 9.1% 27.3% 18.2%

From 26 to 35

1.6% 4.8% 17.5% 55.6% 9.5% 11.1%

From 36

to 45

4.7% 31.0% 42.6% 7.0% 14.7

%

From 46

to 55

1.5% 5.9% 25.0% 41.9% 9.6% 14.7

%

0.7

%

0.7

%

From 56

to 65

1.1% 3.2% 24.5% 29.8% 25.5% 6.4% 9.6

%

Over 66 1.6% 58.1% 19.4% 12.9% 3.2% 4.8

%

Respondent's occupation Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Agriculture, forestry and water supply

145 28.7 30.9

Fishing 1 0.2 0.2

Mining and quarrying 3 0.6 0.6

Electricity, gas and water supply

15 3.0 3.2

Construction 25 4.9 5.3

Wholesale and retail trade 22 4.3 4.7

Hotels and restaurants 12 2.4 2.6

Transport, storage and communication

19 3.8 4.1

Financial intermediation 4 0.8 0.9

Real estate activities, renting

5 1.0 1.1

Public administration and social insurance

39 7.7 8.3

Education 24 4.7 5.1

Health and social work 15 3.0 3.2

Other community, social and personal services

36 7.1 7.7

Households with employed persons

5 1.0 1.1

Extra-territorial organizations and bodes

98 19.4 20.9

Other 1 0.2 0.2

Total 469 92.7 100.0

46

Respondent's occupation/crosstabs

Agriculture, forestry and water supply

Electricity, gas and water supply

Construction

Transport, storage and communicati

on

Public administrati

on and social

insurance

Education

Extra-territorial organizations and bodes

Urban/ rural

Urban 12.6% 5.0% 8.4% 7.6% 9.2% 8.4% 25.2%

Rural 36.0% 2.9% 4.5% 2.9% 7.0% 4.1% 19.4%

Municipality

Kolasin 13.2% 15.8% 2.6% 5.3% 5.3% 21.1%

Plav 28.6% 5.7% 8.6% 5.7% 20.0% 5.7%

Andrijevi

ca

15.8% 10.5% 10.5% 5.3% 21.1% 10.5%

Rozaje 30.3% 3.0% 6.1% 12.1% 9.1% 15.2%

Mojkovac 31.8% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 45.5%

Berane 20.7% 1.1% 4.6% 3.4% 2.3% 9.2% 32.2%

Pljevlja 43.2% 2.7% 4.1% 6.8% 25.7%

Bijelo

Polje

43.0% 2.6% 8.8% 6.1% 8.8% 3.5% 8.8%

Zabljak 21.1% 5.3% 68.4%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19

to 25

9.1%

From 26

to 35

14.5% 3.2% 11.3% 4.8% 12.9% 1.6% 14.5%

From 36

to 45

21.4% 4.0% 6.3% 3.2% 7.9% 7.9% 26.2%

From 46

to 55

20.2% 5.4% 5.4% 6.2% 7.8% 6.2% 24.8%

From 56

to 65

49.4% 1.2% 3.6% 4.8% 9.6% 6.0% 14.5%

Over 66 73.7% 3.5% 19.3%

Education level

Currently

attending

primary

school

50.0%

Currently

attending

universit

y

44.4% 11.1%

Primary

school

64.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 19.2%

Secondar

y school

- 3 years

44.6% 0.9% 6.3% 3.6% .9% 22.3%

Secondar

y school

-4 years

21.6% 2.9% 5.8% 5.8% 8.8% 1.8% 28.1%

College 5.6% 5.6% 11.1% 8.3% 16.7% 11.1% 16.7%

BA 3.4% 12.1% 3.4% 1.7% 24.1% 29.3% 5.2%

MSci 100.0%

PhD

What was yours primary activity in the past month? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

504 99.6% 100%

Working/helping to earn income

297 58.7% 58.9%

Job searching 57 11.3% 11.3%

Housekeeping 7 1.4% 1.4%

Retired 7 1.4% 1.4%

Stay at home 114 22.5% 22.6%

Sick/disabled 7 1.4% 1.4%

Other 15 3.0% 3.0%

47

What is the main source of household income?

Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 795 100% 157.4%

Agricultural pension 8 1.0% 1.6%

Social assistance 11 1.3% 2.2%

Revenues from property 70 8.8% 13.9%

Revenues from other sources 94 11.8% 18.6%

Revenues from agriculture 113 14.2% 22.4%

Pension 148 18.6% 29.3%

Wages 351 44.1% 69.5%

Average monthly household income Frequency Percent Valid Percent

More than 1,000 euro 11 0.5 2.2

From 800 to 1,000 euro 33 1.6 6.7

From 600 to 800 euro 55 2.7 11.1

From 300 to 600 euro 186 9.4 37.5

Up to 300 euro 211 10.64 42.5

Total 496 25.1 100

Household income during previous three years is… Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Constantly increasing 51 2.6 10.5

Mostly the same-stabile 353 17.8 72.5

Constantly decreasing 83 4.2 17.1

Total 487 24.6 100

Household income during previous three years is/crosstabs Constantly increasing Mostly the same-

stabile Constantly decreasing

U/R Urban 9.4% 75.0% 15.6%

Rural 9.5% 76.8% 13.7%

Municipality Kolasin 21.4% 64.3% 14.3%

Plav 66.7% 33.3%

Andrijevica 75.0% 25.0%

Rozaje 25.0% 66.7% 8.3%

Mojkovac 100.0%

Berane 4.0% 76.0% 20.0%

Pljevlja 5.6% 83.3% 11.1%

Bijelo Polje 9.4% 81.3% 9.4%

Zabljak 62.5% 37.5%

Do you own forestland?

Yes 7.4% 75.5% 17.0%

No 11.1% 80.0% 8.9%

Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting?

Yes, just for household purposes

6.3% 84.4% 9.4%

Yes, for processing 5.5% 76.4% 18.2%

No 15.2% 69.6% 15.2%

In which measure does your household rely on this money?

1.00 8.0% 72.0% 20.0%

2.00 89.5% 10.5%

3.00 6.7% 86.7% 6.7%

4.00 100.0%

5.00 100.0%

Do you regard NTFP money as a sustainable source of income?

Yes 10.0% 90.0%

No 84.2% 15.8%

Average annual household income from forest products (euro) Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Wood 134 2.0 5,000.0 853.2

Medical plants 43 0.0 1,000.0 248.7

Forest fruits 116 20.0 10,000.0 434.6

Mushrooms 201 0.0 15,000.0 454.7

Do you own forestland? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes 298 58.9 60.1

No 198 39.1 39.9

Total 496 98.0 100.0

48

Do you own forestland/crosstabs

Yes No

Urban/Rural

Urban 58.0% 42.0%

Rural 60.5% 39.5%

Municipality

Kolasin 56.8% 43.2%

Plav 97.1% 2.9%

Andrijevica 100.0%

Rozaje 73.0% 27.0%

Mojkovac 37.5% 62.5%

Berane 63.3% 36.7%

Pljevlja 31.2% 68.8%

Bijelo Polje 58.1% 41.9%

Zabljak 100.0%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19 to 25 63.6% 36.4%

From 26 to 35 66.1% 33.9%

From 36 to 45 56.7% 43.3%

From 46 to 55 57.8% 42.2%

From 56 to 65 61.1% 38.9%

Over 66 62.5% 37.5%

Education level

Currently attending primary

school

100.0%

Currently attending university 81.8% 18.2%

Primary school 60.5% 39.5%

Secondary school - 3 years 52.5% 47.5%

Secondary school -4 years 55.8% 44.2%

College 73.0% 27.0%

BA degree 75.9% 24.1%

MSc degree 100.0%

PhD 100.0%

Respondent's occupation

Agriculture, forestry and water

supply

59.7% 40.3%

Mining and quarrying 100.0%

Electricity, gas and water

supply

60.0% 40.0%

Construction 80.0% 20.0%

Wholesale and retail trade 68.2% 31.8%

Hotels and restaurants 41.7% 58.3%

Transport, storage and

communication

57.9% 42.1%

Financial intermediation 25.0% 75.0%

Real estate activities, renting 40.0% 60.0%

Public administration and

social insurance

66.7% 33.3%

Education 70.8% 29.2%

Health and social work 66.7% 33.3%

Other community, social and

personal services

63.9% 36.1%

Households with employed

persons

80.0% 20.0%

Extra-territorial organizations

and bodes

46.7% 53.3%

Other 100.0%

What was yours primary activity during the past month?

Working/helping to earn

income

62.7% 37.3%

Job searching 48.2% 51.8%

Housekeeping 71.4% 28.6%

Retired 33.3% 66.7%

Stay at home 59.6% 40.4%

Sick/disabled 42.9% 57.1%

Other 69.2% 30.8%

49

Size of forestland/crosstabs

Up to 5ha From 6 to 10ha

From 11 to 20ha

From 21 to 50ha

Over 51ha

Urban/Rural

Urban 55.2% 14.9% 14.9% 13.4% 1.5%

Rural 57.3% 16.7% 10.4% 12.5% 3.1%

Municipality

Kolasin 52.4% 38.1% 9.5%

Plav 2.9% 5.9% 41.2% 44.1% 5.9%

Andrijevica 5.3% 26.3% 57.9% 10.5%

Rozaje 76.9% 11.5% 7.7% 3.8%

Mojkovac 87.5% 12.5%

Berane 79.2% 13.2% 5.7% 1.9%

Pljevlja 50.0% 20.0% 5.0% 20.0% 5.0%

Bijelo Polje 69.4% 24.2% 3.2% 1.6% 1.6%

Zabljak 100.0%

Type of the forest Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Conifers 83 27.9 27.9

Broadleaves 116 38.9 38.9

Both types 99 33.2 33.2

Total 298 100.0 100.0

Type of the forest/crosstabs

Coniferous Broadleaves Both types

Urban/Rural

Urban 15.8% 35.5% 48.7%

Rural 26.6% 44.2% 29.1%

Municipality

Kolasin 4.8% 28.6% 66.7%

Plav 23.5% 41.2% 35.3%

Andrijevica 15.8% 15.8% 68.4%

Rozaje 63.0% 37.0%

Mojkovac 11.1% 88.9%

Berane 8.8% 54.4% 36.8%

Pljevlja 70.8% 8.3% 20.8%

Bijelo Polje 6.9% 68.1% 25.0%

Zabljak 94.7% 5.3%

Forest area

Up to 5ha 29.1% 43.7% 27.2%

From 6 to 10ha 20.9% 39.5% 39.5%

From 11 to 20ha 21.9% 34.4% 43.8%

From 21 to 50ha 33.3% 16.7% 50.0%

Over 51ha 14.3% 28.6% 57.1%

Who owns the forest?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Myself 252 84.6 85.1

Spouse 4 1.3 1.4

Family member 31 10.4 10.5

Other 9 3.0 3.0

Total 296 99.3 100.0

Type of ownership documents Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Full documents 164 55.0 55.8

Only documents from cadastre 125 41.9 42.5

In process of restitution 4 1.3 1.4

Something else 1 0.3 0.3

Total 294 98.7 100.0

50

Type of ownership documents/crosstabs

Full documents Only documents from cadastre

In process of restitution

Something else

Urban/Rural

Urban 71.1% 27.6% 1.3%

Rural 49.2% 48.7% 1.5% 0.5%

Municipality

Kolasin 90.5% 9.5%

Plav 30.3% 69.7%

Andrijevica 21.1% 73.7% 5.3%

Rozaje 66.7% 25.9% 7.4%

Mojkovac 88.9% 11.1%

Berane 41.1% 55.4% 1.8% 1.8%

Pljevlja 54.2% 45.8%

Bijelo Polje 56.9% 43.1%

Zabljak 94.1% 5.9%

Size of forest

Up to 5ha 63.2% 36.1% 0.6%

From 6 to 10ha 48.8% 48.8% 2.3%

From 11 to 20ha 56.3% 43.8%

From 21 to 50ha 37.1% 60.0% 2.9%

Over 51ha 14.3% 71.4% 14.3%

How did you obtain the forest? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Inheritance 275 92.3 95.2

Purchase 11 3.7 3.8

Other 3 1.0 1.0

Total 289 97.0 100.0

How did you obtain the forest/crosstabs

Inheritance Purchase Other

Urban/Rural

Urban 94.7% 2.6% 2.6%

Rural 94.7% 4.7% 0.5%

Municipality

Kolasin 100.0%

Plav 87.5% 12.5%

Andrijevica 94.7% 5.3%

Rozaje 81.5% 11.1% 7.4%

Mojkovac 100.0%

Berane 100.0%

Pljevlja 100.0%

Bijelo Polje 95.4% 4.6%

Zabljak 100.0%

Size of forest

Up to 5ha 98.1% 1.3% 0.6%

From 6 to 10ha 95.1% 4.9%

From 11 to 20ha 87.1% 6.5% 6.5%

From 21 to 50ha 88.6% 11.4%

Over 51ha 100.0%

Why do you own forest? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

594 100% 199.3%

Pass on to children or other 197 33.1% 66.1%

To enjoy scenery and privacy 58 9.7% 19.4%

Long-term financial investment 47 7.9% 15.7%

For hunting and fishing 14 2.3% 4.6%

For timber production 38 6.3% 12.7%

As part of my family heritage 93 15.6% 31.2%

To collect NTFPs 22 3.7% 7.3%

Fore recreation other than hunting and fishing 18 3.0% 6.0%

For grazing livestock 30 5.0% 10.0%

To collect firewood 77 12.9% 25.8%

How often do you visit your forest? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Never 6 2.0 2.0

Monthly 81 27.2 27.3

Almost four times per year 81 27.2 27.3

Almost twice a year 69 23.2 23.2

Annually 60 20.1 20.2

Total 297 99.7 100.0

51

How often do you visit your forest/crosstabs

Never Monthly Almost four times per year

Almost twice a year

Annually

Urban/Rural

Urban 1.3% 18.4% 31.6% 21.1% 27.6%

Rural 2.5% 28.1% 25.6% 25.1% 18.6%

Municipality

Kolasin 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 42.9%

Plav 2.9% 11.8% 26.5% 44.1% 14.7%

Andrijevica 5.3% 47.4% 21.1% 26.3%

Rozaje 33.3% 37.0% 11.1% 18.5%

Mojkovac 44.4% 44.4% 11.1%

Berane 5.3% 24.6% 29.8% 22.8% 17.5%

Pljevlja 66.7% 4.2% 12.5% 16.7%

Bijelo Polje 1.4% 22.2% 25.0% 25.0% 26.4%

Zabljak 5.6% 33.3% 22.2% 38.9%

Forest area

Up to 5ha 2.5% 28.7% 28.7% 21.0% 19.1%

From 6 to 10ha 32.6% 30.2% 16.3% 20.9%

From 11 to

20ha

3.1% 28.1% 21.9% 31.3% 15.6%

From 21 to

50ha

11.1% 30.6% 30.6% 27.8%

Over 51ha 42.9% 42.9% 14.3%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19 to 25 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9%

From 26 to 35 4.9% 22.0% 26.8% 19.5% 26.8%

From 36 to 45 2.8% 25.0% 23.6% 29.2% 19.4%

From 46 to 55 1.3% 32.5% 22.1% 22.1% 22.1%

From 56 to 65 1.7% 27.6% 41.4% 15.5% 13.8%

Over 66 25.0% 27.5% 30.0% 17.5%

Education level

Currently

attending

primary school

50.0% 50.0%

Currently

attending

university

11.1% 22.2% 33.3% 33.3%

Primary school 35.6% 22.2% 15.6% 26.7%

Secondary

school - 3 years

1.6% 29.7% 32.8% 25.0% 10.9%

Secondary

school -4 years

5.0% 32.7% 16.8% 26.7% 18.8%

College 11.1% 44.4% 33.3% 11.1%

BA degree 13.6% 38.6% 15.9% 31.8%

MSc degree 100.0%

PhD 100.0%

Respondent's occupation

Agriculture,

forestry and

water supply

2.4% 35.3% 29.4% 22.4% 10.6%

Mining and

quarrying

33.3% 66.7%

Electricity, gas

and water

supply

33.3% 44.4% 22.2%

Construction 25.0% 25.0% 15.0% 35.0%

Wholesale and

retail trade

33.3% 6.7% 26.7% 33.3%

Hotels and

restaurants

20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0%

Transport,

storage and

communication

9.1% 36.4% 45.5% 9.1%

Financial

intermediation

100.0%

Real estate

activities,

renting

50.0% 50.0%

Public

administration

and social

insurance

19.2% 30.8% 26.9% 23.1%

Education 5.9% 58.8% 11.8% 23.5%

Health and 10.0% 30.0% 10.0% 50.0%

52

social work

Other

community,

social and

personal

services

4.3% 34.8% 17.4% 17.4% 26.1%

Households with

employed

persons

50.0% 50.0%

Extra-territorial

organizations

and bodes

7.0% 25.6% 23.3% 32.6% 11.6%

What was yours primary activity during the past month?

Working/helping

to earn income

2.7% 23.1% 28.0% 23.6% 22.5%

Job searching 37.0% 25.9% 25.9% 11.1%

Housekeeping 40.0% 20.0% 40.0%

Retired 100.0%

Stay at home 1.5% 29.4% 27.9% 22.1% 19.1%

Sick/disabled 33.3% 66.7%

Other 55.6% 22.2% 11.1% 11.1%

Do you sell forest products? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

All the households Only PFO

336 100% 67.2% 112.7%

Yes, firewood 84 25% 16.8% 28.1%

Yes, timbers 48 14.2% 9.6% 16.1%

Yes, NTFPs 50 14.8% 10% 16.7%

Yes, all 4 1.1% 0.8% 1.3%

No 150 44.6% 30% 50.3%

Is there a forest management plan for your forest? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes 74 24.8 24.9

No, but it is not a problem 150 50.3 50.5

No, and this is big problem 25 8.4 8.4

I don't know 48 16.1 16.2

Total 297 99.7 100.0

Is there a forest management plan for your forest/crosstabs

Yes No, but it is not a problem

No, and this is a big problem

I don't know

Urban/Rural

Urban 14.5% 67.1% 6.6% 11.8%

Rural 23.2% 48.0% 9.6% 19.2%

Municipality

Kolasin 4.8% 42.9% 19.0% 33.3%

Plav 11.8% 70.6% 8.8% 8.8%

Andrijevica 5.3% 78.9% 15.8%

Rozaje 11.1% 59.3% 14.8% 14.8%

Mojkovac 66.7% 22.2% 11.1%

Berane 24.6% 38.6% 1.8% 35.1%

Pljevlja 66.7% 25.0% 4.2% 4.2%

Bijelo Polje 5.6% 68.1% 9.7% 16.7%

Zabljak 94.4% 5.6%

Forest area

Up to 5ha 26.8% 45.9% 9.6% 17.8%

From 6 to 10ha 25.6% 46.5% 27.9%

From 11 to 20ha 18.8% 65.6% 15.6%

From 21 to 50ha 25.0% 58.3% 11.1% 5.6%

Over 51ha 14.3% 57.1% 14.3% 14.3%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19 to 25 42.9% 42.9% 14.3%

From 26 to 35 26.8% 56.1% 9.8% 7.3%

From 36 to 45 26.8% 53.5% 11.3% 8.5%

From 46 to 55 20.5% 53.8% 7.7% 17.9%

From 56 to 65 19.0% 44.8% 10.3% 25.9%

Over 66 30.0% 45.0% 2.5% 22.5%

53

What do you think about forest certification?

Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

483 100% 162.1%

Certification will improve forest management 141 29.1% 47.3%

Certification will increase my profit 51 10.5% 17.1%

Certification will satisfy consumers of wood 62 12.8% 20.8%

Certification will reduce need for forestry regulation 63 13.0% 21.1%

Certification will give me recognition for the good forestry 99 20.4% 33.2%

Certification will improve competitiveness of a local wood producers 55 11.3% 18.4%

Other 12 2.4% 4.0%

Do you have experience with the forest certification? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes, I have certification 15 5.0 5.1

Yes, I have proper information 57 19.1 19.3

No 211 70.8 71.5

No, I think that is not useful 12 4.0 4.1

Total 295 99.0 100.0

Do you have experience with forest certification/crosstabs

Yes, I have certification

Yes, I have proper

information

No No, I think that is not useful

Urban/Rural

Urban 6.7% 25.3% 68.0%

Rural 5.1% 17.3% 71.6% 6.1%

Municipality

Kolasin 4.8% 95.2%

Plav 6.1% 30.3% 51.5% 12.1%

Andrijevica 47.4% 47.4% 5.3%

Rozaje 3.7% 25.9% 59.3% 11.1%

Mojkovac 11.1% 22.2% 44.4% 22.2%

Berane 1.8% 12.5% 85.7%

Pljevlja 12.5% 41.7% 45.8%

Bijelo Polje 1.4% 9.7% 87.5% 1.4%

Zabljak 11.1% 5.6% 83.3%

Forest area

Up to 5ha 5.8% 11.5% 79.5% 3.2%

From 6 to 10ha 18.6% 79.1% 2.3%

From 11 to 20ha 3.1% 40.6% 50.0% 6.3%

From 21 to 50ha 8.6% 40.0% 42.9% 8.6%

Over 51ha 28.6% 42.9% 28.6%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19 to 25 100.0%

From 26 to 35 4.9% 24.4% 63.4% 7.3%

From 36 to 45 5.6% 25.4% 64.8% 4.2%

From 46 to 55 5.1% 23.1% 69.2% 2.6%

From 56 to 65 5.2% 12.1% 77.6% 5.2%

Over 66 5.3% 10.5% 81.6% 2.6%

Is there a forest management plan for your forest?

Yes 13.7% 27.4% 56.2% 2.7%

No, but it is no

problem

1.4% 18.9% 77.0% 2.7%

No and this is big problem

8.0% 36.0% 52.0% 4.0%

I don't know 89.6% 10.4%

Why would you consider certifying of your forestland? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

460 100% 154.3%

If it would help to protect the environment 151 32.8% 50.6%

If it would improve wildlife 44 9.5% 14.7%

If it would make my forest more healthy 155 33.6% 52.0%

If my wood products could be sold for a higher price 76 16.5% 25.5%

If it would give me access to wood markets that are not normally available 34 7.3% 11.4%

How often do you cut your wood? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

All year (monthly) 3 1.0 1.0

All year (five times or less) 30 10.1 10.1

Seasonal (winter) 49 16.4 16.5

Seasonal (spring) 109 36.6 36.7

Never done that before 106 35.6 35.7

Total 297 99.7 100.0

54

How often do you cut your wood/crosstabs

All year (monthly)

All year (five times or

less)

Seasonal (winter)

Seasonal (spring)

Never done that before

Urban/Rural

Urban 9.2% 15.8% 26.3% 48.7%

Rural 1.5% 10.6% 17.2% 38.9% 31.8%

Municipality

Kolasin 4.8% 9.5% 85.7%

Plav 29.4% 5.9% 35.3% 29.4%

Andrijevica 21.1% 31.6% 47.4%

Rozaje 3.7% 11.1% 18.5% 29.6% 37.0%

Mojkovac 77.8% 22.2%

Berane 8.8% 22.8% 33.3% 35.1%

Pljevlja 4.2% 4.2% 8.3% 66.7% 16.7%

Bijelo Polje 1.4% 4.2% 18.1% 41.7% 34.7%

Zabljak 16.7% 77.8% 5.6%

Forest area

Up to 5ha 0.6% 6.4% 22.3% 40.1% 30.6%

From 6 to 10ha 2.3% 7.0% 7.0% 34.9% 48.8%

From 11 to

20ha

9.4% 12.5% 37.5% 40.6%

From 21 to

50ha

27.8% 5.6% 33.3% 33.3%

Over 51ha 57.1% 14.3% 28.6%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19 to 25 28.6% 28.6% 42.9%

From 26 to 35 9.8% 19.5% 29.3% 41.5%

From 36 to 45 2.8% 8.3% 12.5% 54.2% 22.2%

From 46 to 55 1.3% 15.4% 16.7% 28.2% 38.5%

From 56 to 65 10.3% 19.0% 19.0% 51.7%

Over 66 5.1% 12.8% 56.4% 25.6%

Is there a forest management plan for your forest?

Yes 1.4% 12.3% 17.8% 43.8% 24.7%

No, but it is no

problem

1.3% 8.7% 16.0% 38.7% 35.3%

No and this is

big problem

8.0% 44.0% 48.0%

I don't know 12.5% 22.9% 16.7% 47.9%

How do you get permits to cut the wood you want? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

For as much as I want, without much problems

125 41.9 65.1

Difficult, but I am allowed to cut

40 13.4 20.8

Terrible, permit is in adequate

27 9.1 14.1

Total 192 64.4 100.0

How do you get permits to cut the wood you want/crosstabs

For as much as I want, without much

problems

Difficult, but I am allowed to cut

Terrible, permit is inadequate

Urban/Rural

Urban 59.0% 23.1% 17.9%

Rural 65.4% 22.1% 12.5%

Municipality

Kolasin 100.0%

Plav 37.5% 20.8% 41.7%

Andrijevica 60.0% 40.0%

Rozaje 38.9% 38.9% 22.2%

Mojkovac 88.9% 11.1%

Berane 81.1% 18.9%

Pljevlja 80.0% 10.0% 10.0%

Bijelo Polje 63.8% 23.4% 12.8%

Zabljak 100.0%

Forest area

Up to 5ha 76.4% 18.2% 5.5%

From 6 to 10ha 54.5% 27.3% 18.2%

From 11 to 20ha 47.4% 26.3% 26.3%

From 21 to 50ha 37.5% 20.8% 41.7%

Over 51ha 80.0% 20.0%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19 to 25 60.0% 40.0%

55

From 26 to 35 70.8% 8.3% 20.8%

From 36 to 45 58.9% 30.4% 10.7%

From 46 to 55 62.5% 27.1% 10.4%

From 56 to 65 64.3% 17.9% 17.9%

Over 66 75.9% 10.3% 13.8%

Is there a forest management plan for your forest?

Yes 85.5% 9.1% 5.5%

No, but it is no problem 55.1% 24.5% 20.4%

No and this is big

problem

46.2% 38.5% 15.4%

I don't know 68.0% 24.0% 8.0%

How often do you cut your wood?

All year (monthly) 66.7% 33.3%

All year (five times or

less)

53.3% 30.0% 16.7%

Seasonal (winter) 75.5% 16.3% 8.2%

Seasonal (spring) 64.2% 20.2% 15.6%

Never done that before 100.0%

Main purposes for wood cutting Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Selling to companies 9 3.0 4.8

Selling to individuals 80 26.8 42.3

For household needs 100 33.6 52.9

Total 189 63.4 100.0

Main purposes for wood cutting/crosstabs

Selling to companies Selling to individuals For household needs

Urban/Rural

Urban 10.3% 35.9% 53.8%

Rural 3.7% 46.3% 50.0%

Municipality

Kolasin 66.7% 33.3%

Plav 13.6% 77.3% 9.1%

Andrijevica 20.0% 70.0% 10.0%

Rozaje 5.6% 38.9% 55.6%

Mojkovac 11.1% 11.1% 77.8%

Berane 2.7% 51.4% 45.9%

Pljevlja 50.0% 50.0%

Bijelo Polje 29.8% 70.2%

Zabljak 100.0%

Forest area

Up to 5ha 0.9% 31.2% 67.9%

From 6 to 10ha 59.1% 40.9%

From 11 to 20ha 16.7% 66.7% 16.7%

From 21 to 50ha 13.0% 78.3% 8.7%

Over 51ha 40.0% 40.0% 20.0%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19 to 25 20.0% 80.0%

From 26 to 35 8.7% 39.1% 52.2%

From 36 to 45 1.8% 45.5% 52.7%

From 46 to 55 10.4% 35.4% 54.2%

From 56 to 65 3.6% 50.0% 46.4%

Over 66 50.0% 50.0%

Do you have contracts with any companies in the area of wood processing? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes, contract deliveries 14 4.7 7.5

No, I sell when I have wood to sale

41 13.8 21.9

No, don't selling to wood companies

126 42.3 67.4

Other 6 2.0 3.2

Total 187 62.8 100.0

56

Do you have contracts with any companies in the area of wood processing/crosstabs

Yes, contract deliveries

No, I sell when I have wood to

sale

No, don't sell to wood companies

Other

Urban/Rural

Urban 13.2% 23.7% 63.2%

Rural 6.7% 22.4% 67.9% 3.0%

Municipality

Kolasin 33.3% 66.7%

Plav 21.7% 56.5% 21.7%

Andrijevica 20.0% 50.0% 30.0%

Rozaje 11.8% 29.4% 47.1% 11.8%

Mojkovac 12.5% 87.5%

Berane 2.7% 10.8% 83.8% 2.7%

Pljevlja 25.0% 65.0% 10.0%

Bijelo Polje 8.9% 88.9% 2.2%

Zabljak 6.3% 93.8%

Forest area

Up to 5ha 1.9% 15.9% 77.6% 4.7%

From 6 to 10ha 4.8% 9.5% 85.7%

From 11 to 20ha 15.8% 47.4% 36.8%

From 21 to 50ha 25.0% 41.7% 33.3%

Over 51ha 40.0% 40.0% 20.0%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19 to 25 25.0% 75.0%

From 26 to 35 16.7% 12.5% 70.8%

From 36 to 45 3.6% 30.4% 64.3% 1.8%

From 46 to 55 8.2% 22.4% 67.3% 2.0%

From 56 to 65 11.5% 15.4% 61.5% 11.5%

Over 66 3.8% 19.2% 73.1% 3.8%

Main purposes of wood cutting

Selling to

companies

88.9% 11.1%

Selling to

individuals

5.1% 39.2% 53.2% 2.5%

For household

needs

9.4% 86.5% 4.2%

Actual timber and firewood production in 2007 (average) Note: If production is < 100 m³

Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Timbers (m³) 65 1.0 100.0 28.06

Firewood (m³) 114 2.0 100.0 29.9

Actual timber and firewood production in 2007 (average) Note: If production is > 100 m³

Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Timbers (m³) 8 120.0 600.0 277.5

Firewood (m³) 5 200.0 400.0 240.0

Planned timber and firewood production in 2008 (average) Note: If total planned production is < 100 m³

Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Timbers (m³) 52 1.0 100.0 31.3

Firewood (m³) 107 2.0 100.0 28.02

Planned timber and firewood production in 2008 (average) Note: If total planned production is > 100 m³

Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Timbers (m³) 5 200.0 550.0 320.0

Firewood (m³) 4 150.0 450.0 135.4

How important is firewood for you? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Very important 171 57.4 90.0

Not so important 13 4.4 6.8

Not important 6 2.0 3.2

Total 190 63.8 100.0

57

How important is firewood for you/crosstabs

Very important Not so important Not important

Urban/Rural

Urban 84.6% 7.7% 7.7%

Rural 92.5% 6.7% 0.7%

Municipality

Kolasin 100.0%

Plav 75.0% 20.8% 4.2%

Andrijevica 70.0% 20.0% 10.0%

Rozaje 76.5% 23.5%

Mojkovac 100.0%

Berane 94.4% 2.8% 2.8%

Pljevlja 95.0% 5.0%

Bijelo Polje 100.0%

Zabljak 93.8% 6.3%

Forest area

Up to 5ha 93.5% 3.7% 2.8%

From 6 to 10ha 100.0%

From 11 to 20ha 85.0% 15.0%

From 21 to 50ha 66.7% 25.0% 8.3%

Over 51ha 80.0% 20.0%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19 to 25 75.0% 25.0%

From 26 to 35 91.7% 8.3%

From 36 to 45 92.9% 5.4% 1.8%

From 46 to 55 87.5% 6.3% 6.3%

From 56 to 65 85.2% 7.4% 7.4%

Over 66 93.1% 6.9%

Do you regard revenue from firewood to be sustainable source of income? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes, forever 31 10.4 16.3

Yes, for the next 10 years 32 10.7 16.8

No, in 10 years it will be less than today

38 12.8 20.0

No 89 29.9 46.8

Total 190 63.8 100.0

Do you regard revenue from firewood to be sustainable source of income/crosstabs

Yes, for ever Yes, for next 10 years

No, in 10 years it is less than today

No

Urban/Rural

Urban 7.7% 28.2% 30.8% 33.3%

Rural 20.1% 15.7% 17.9% 46.3%

Municipality

Kolasin 66.7% 33.3%

Plav 16.7% 45.8% 33.3% 4.2%

Andrijevica 10.0% 50.0% 40.0%

Rozaje 5.9% 5.9% 29.4% 58.8%

Mojkovac 11.1% 22.2% 66.7%

Berane 13.9% 13.9% 19.4% 52.8%

Pljevlja 40.0% 60.0%

Bijelo Polje 17.4% 17.4% 19.6% 45.7%

Zabljak 100.0%

Forest area

Up to 5ha 14.0% 11.2% 15.9% 58.9%

From 6 to 10ha 9.1% 9.1% 22.7% 59.1%

From 11 to 20ha 25.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0%

From 21 to 50ha 29.2% 37.5% 25.0% 8.3%

Over 51ha 20.0% 20.0% 60.0%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19 to 25 50.0% 50.0%

From 26 to 35 12.5% 37.5% 25.0% 25.0%

From 36 to 45 16.4% 12.7% 20.0% 50.9%

From 46 to 55 14.3% 10.2% 26.5% 49.0%

From 56 to 65 21.4% 21.4% 17.9% 39.3%

Over 66 21.4% 10.7% 10.7% 57.1%

How important is firewood for you?

Very important 18.3% 17.8% 16.6% 47.3%

A little important 15.4% 46.2% 38.5%

Not that important 50.0% 50.0%

58

Are you introduced with current legislation of the forestry sector? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes, sufficiently 82 27.5 27.7

No, I want to but there is no information

67 22.5 22.6

No, I want to know more 120 40.3 40.5

I don't want to know 27 9.1 9.1

Total 296 99.3 100.0

Are you introduced with current legislation of the forestry sector/crosstabs

Yes, sufficiently No, I want to but there is no information

No, I want to know more

i don't want to know

Urban/Rural

Urban 27.6% 34.2% 28.9% 9.2%

Rural 25.4% 18.8% 47.7% 8.1%

Municipality

Kolasin 14.3% 33.3% 42.9% 9.5%

Plav 29.4% 20.6% 32.4% 17.6%

Andrijevica 15.8% 47.4% 31.6% 5.3%

Rozaje 50.0% 15.4% 30.8% 3.8%

Mojkovac 66.7% 33.3%

Berane 7.1% 21.4% 62.5% 8.9%

Pljevlja 16.7% 33.3% 25.0% 25.0%

Bijelo Polje 19.4% 23.6% 48.6% 8.3%

Zabljak 89.5% 5.3% 5.3%

Forest area

Up to 5ha 34.4% 17.2% 40.1% 8.3%

From 6 to 10ha 14.0% 30.2% 46.5% 9.3%

From 11 to 20ha 25.0% 31.3% 34.4% 9.4%

From 21 to 50ha 25.0% 25.0% 38.9% 11.1%

Over 51ha 28.6% 42.9% 28.6%

Age of respondent

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19 to 25 28.6% 28.6% 42.9%

From 26 to 35 22.0% 24.4% 48.8% 4.9%

From 36 to 45 22.5% 19.7% 52.1% 5.6%

From 46 to 55 35.9% 28.2% 30.8% 5.1%

From 56 to 65 29.8% 14.0% 42.1% 14.0%

Over 66 20.0% 27.5% 30.0% 22.5%

What kind of services do you received from the Forestry Directorate? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

800 100% 268.4%

Cutting permits 226 28.2% 75.8%

Transport documents 184 23.0% 61.7%

Advice 192 24.0% 64.4%

Seedlings 179 22.3% 60.0%

Other 19 2.3% 6.3%

Recommendations in order to be better informed Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

333 100% All the households PFO

Training programs 29 8.7% 5.7% 9.7%

Seminars 196 58.8% 38.7% 65.7%

Workshops 59 17.7% 11.6% 19.7%

Other 49 14.7% 9.6% 16.4%

Main problems in forestry sector – Open question Main problems in forestry sector Frequency

Forestry Directorate need better control over the forest 1

Illegal wood cutting in state forests 1

Lack of information regarding forest management 1

Lack of information and experts in area of forestry 1

Lack of knowledge 1

Lack of forestry protection and subventions in this area 1

Illegal cutting 2

Illegal cutting 1

Problems with permissions for wood cutting 1

Lack of knowledge and effectiveness 1

Long-term concessions 1

Low life standard 1

Illegal cutting 1

Several problems 1

Infrastructure 1

59

Bad forest management and problems within Forestry Directorate 1

Low prices of forest products 1

Illegal cutting 2

Illegal cutting 2

Illegal cutting 2

Illegal cutting 3

Illegal cutting 4

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting 1

Low prices of NTFPs 1

Problems with permission for wood cutting 1

Bad relation man-forest 1

Bad policy in this sector 3

Bad policy in Forestry Directorate 1

Low production of wood 1

Lack of information 1

Lack of information, low quality of life, lack of regulation 1

Bad policy 1

Bad legislation 1

Bad legislation and lack of information between population 1

Bad regulation and illegal cutting 3

Bad regulation of Forestry Directorate 1

Lack of technology, illegal cutting 1

Lack of market 1

Bad forest roads 1

Bad forest roads 1

Lack of investment 1

Lack of information and forestry protection 1

Lack of employees 1

Lack of employees and interest for this sector 1

Lack of interest for this sector 1

There are no such problems 1

Corruption 1

Lack of forestry management 1

Problems how to get permissions for wood cutting 1

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting 1

Problems with forest management 1

Don’t know 3

Lack of legislative 1

Don’t know 4

Don’t know 1

Don’t know 1

Inefficiency of Forestry Directorate 1

Illegal cutting 1

Lack of employees that should monitor wood cutting 1

Lack of technology 1

Transportation problems 1

Insufficient number of foresters 1

Lack of interest for the forest 1

Lack of information 1

Lack of control and illegal cutting 6

Lack of legislative 1

Lack of stimulations related to better development of this sector 1

Lack of information 1

Lack of information between population 1

Lack of interest, legislative and technology 1

Insufficient forest protection 1

Lack of forest protection 1

Lack of forest protection, illegal cutting 1

Lack of forest protection, bad forest roads 1

Insufficient forestation 1

Lack of knowledge about forests 1

Illegal cutting 5

Inefficient administration, bad forest roads 1

Problems with administration, lack of motivation between employees in this sector 1

Lack of efficiency 1

Lack of information 1

Lack of information about new legislation 1

Lack of information about forestry 1

Lack of information, illegal cutting and fire 1

Insufficiently used forest potential 1

60

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting 2

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal and unplanned cutting 1

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting and usage of forest 1

Illegal cutting and forest destroying 1

Illegal cutting, long waiting for permissions to cut 2

Illegal cutting, bad legislative and technology 1

Illegal cutting and lack of technology 1

Illegal cutting and fire 1

There are no problems 1

There are no problems 1

No rules in this sector 2

No rules in this sector 1

There are no problems 1

Lack of roads 1

Lack of roads 1

Lack of forestation 1

Illegal cutting, transportation problems and problems with export 1

Undeveloped market 1

Problems with forest management and forestation 1

Lack of forest roads 1

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting 3

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting 1

Lack of planned cutting 1

Lack of planned cutting 1

Lack of respect of natural resources 1

Lack of confidence between population 1

Lack of forest management and illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting and undeveloped market 1

Irregularities in process of approving wood cutting 1

Lack of forest roads 1

Irrational usage of natural resources 1

Irrational usage of natural resources 1

Irrational usage of natural resources 1

Insufficient recuperation of forest 1

Illegal cutting and insufficient forest protection 1

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting 2

Illegal cutting and lack of knowledge in area of forestation 2

Unplanned usage of natural resources 1

Concessions 1

Illegal cutting 1

Lack of interest and lack of legislative 1

Lack of interest for this sector 1

Illegal and uncontrolled cutting 1

Lack of fire protection 1

Lack of forest protection 1

Lack of knowledge regarding quality of forest 1

Lack of knowledge regarding forest management 1

Low prices 1

Low prices of wood 2

Low prices, illegal cutting 1

There are no problems 1

Problems with product selling 1

Organizational problems 1

Inefficient procedure for cutting permission 1

Problems with selling and low prices of NTFPs 1

Problems to get cutting permissions 1

There are no problems 1

Costs of permissions to cut, low prices of timber 1

Lots of problems 1

Illegal cutting 1

Fire 1

Illegal cutting, lack of control over it 1

Illegal cutting 1

61

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting 1

Access to forest 1

Transportation problems, low income and too much work to do 1

Permanent problems 1

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting and forest devastation 1

Local roads 2

Regulation 1

Restitution 3

Management in responsible bodies 1

Management in responsible bodies 2

Management in responsible bodies 1

Management in responsible bodies 1

Illegal cutting 2

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting and transport 1

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting and lack of control 1

Bad national plan of forestry 1

Local roads 1

Low regeneration of forests 1

Lack of information 1

Lack of information and stimulation 1

Lack of control 1

Lack of control 1

Low wood selling 1

Low forest protection 1

Low protection and problems with local roads 2

Low forest protection 6

Local roads 3

Low forest protection and illegal cutting 1

Lack of investment into this sector 1

Slow restitution process 1

Lack of investment into this sector 1

Illegal cutting 1

Everything 1

Everything that was done is irregular 1

Technical problems 8

Technical problems 1

Technical problems and employees 1

Technical problems 1

Problems how to get permissions to cut 4

Lack of market 1

Lack of market 1

Slow restitution process 1

Lack of seed 1

Lack of donations for PFOs 1

Lack of market 1

Lack of job 1

Illegal cutting 1

Forestry Directorate did not managed well over forest management 1

Forest management is in very bad position 1

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting 2

Illegal cutting 1

Illegal cutting 1

Low living standard 1

Government does not have control over illegal cutting 1

Management in responsible bodies 1

Lack of information between population 1

Pollution 1

Legislation 1

Lack of technology and legislation 1

Lack of forest protection 1

Lack of forest protection 1

Total 285

62

Who helps you solve problems?

Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

320 100% 107.3%

Relatives 86 26.8% 28.8%

Government 10 3.1% 3.3%

Forestry Directorate 43 13.4% 14.4%

NGO 6 1.8% 2.0%

Donor 0 0% 0%

Someone else 1 0.3% 0.3%

Nobody 112 35% 37.5%

I don't need any help 62 19.3% 20.8%

Who should solve the problem? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

419 100% 140.6%

Government 149 35.5% 50

Forestry Directorate 218 52.0% 73.1%

Family 10 2.3% 3.3%

NGO 18 4.2% 6.0%

I don't know 23 5.4% 7.7%

Other 1 0.2% 0.3%

Are you a member of a Private Forest Owners Association? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes 11 3.7 3.7

No 227 76.2 76.7

No, there is no PFOA in this area

44 14.8 14.9

I don’t know 14 4.7 4.7

Total 296 99.3 100.0

If there an association of PFO, what services would be useful for you? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

852 100% 168.3%

Getting cutting permits 163 19.1% 32.2%

Making forest management plan 184 21.5% 36.3%

Fire management 146 17.1% 28.8%

Influence on national plans and policies 79 9.2% 15.6%

Selling forest products 89 10.4% 17.5%

Restitution 47 5.5% 9.2%

Land registration 54 6.3% 10.6%

Training in forest management 67 7.8% 13.2%

Other 23 2.6% 4.5%

How much are you willing to pay annually for these services? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Less than 2 euro/year 64 12.6 14.4

Between 2 and 5 euro/year 92 18.2 20.7

Between 5 and 10 euro/year

71 14.0 16.0

Between 10 and 20 euro/year

28 5.5 6.3

Above 20 euro/year 30 5.9 6.7

Somebody else should pay for this costs

160 31.6 36.0

Total 445 87.9 100.0

How much are you willing pay annually for these services/crosstabs

Less than 2 euro/year

Between 2 and 5

euro/year

Between 5 and 10

euro/year

Between 10 and 20

euro/year

Above 20 euro/year

Somebody else should pay for this

costs

Urban/Rural

Urban 9.0% 26.1% 16.2% 8.1% 15.3% 25.2%

Rural 15.4% 17.7% 17.4% 5.7% 4.0% 39.8%

Municipality

Kolasin 3.0% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% 24.2%

Plav 3.0% 24.2% 39.4% 21.2% 12.1%

Andrijevica 11.1% 27.8% 22.2% 33.3% 5.6%

Rozaje 14.3% 34.3% 25.7% 2.9% 2.9% 20.0%

Mojkovac 16.7% 22.2% 5.6% 5.6% 50.0%

Berane 10.7% 15.5% 21.4% 3.6% 7.1% 41.7%

Pljevlja 26.7% 6.7% 6.7% 5.0% 3.3% 51.7%

Bijelo Polje 20.7% 24.0% 10.7% 44.6%

Zabljak 5.3% 52.6% 5.3% 5.3% 31.6%

63

Forest area

Up to 5ha 13.0% 24.0% 16.2% 5.2% 4.5% 37.0%

From 6 to

10ha

4.8% 21.4% 16.7% 9.5% 16.7% 31.0%

From 11 to

20ha

9.4% 25.0% 34.4% 15.6% 6.3% 9.4%

From 21 to

50ha

19.4% 30.6% 22.2% 16.7% 11.1%

Over 51ha 16.7% 33.3% 33.3% 16.7%

Do you own forestland?

Yes 11.0% 22.9% 19.2% 8.6% 8.2% 30.1%

No 20.9% 16.3% 9.8% 2.0% 3.9% 47.1%

Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting? Frequency Percent Valid percent

Yes, just for household purposes 315 15.9 29.7

Yes, for processing 272 13.7 25.7

No 408 20.6 38.6

No, but have plans 63 3.2 5.9

Total 1,058 53.4 100

Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting/crosstabs Yes, just for

household purposes Yes, for

processing No No, but have

plans

Urban/Rural Urban 35.1% 32.4% 29.7% 2.7%

Rural 19.6% 35.7% 44.6%

Municipality

Kolasin 38.1% 19.0% 42.9%

Plav 9.1% 72.7% 18.2%

Andrijevica 75.0% 25.0%

Rozaje 25.0% 25.0% 50.0%

Mojkovac 16.7% 66.7% 16.7%

Berane 17.9% 39.3% 39.3% 3.6%

Pljevlja 31.6% 42.1% 26.3%

Bijelo Polje 40.6% 25.0% 34.4%

Zabljak 53.8% 46.2%

Do you own forestland?

Yes 21.4% 39.8% 37.9% 1.0%

No 25.9% 38.9% 35.2%

Gender Male 23.1% 38.1% 38.8%

Female 18.8% 37.5% 37.5% 6.3%

To what extent does your household rely on this money? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Does not rely at all 280 14.1 63.2

Rely somehow 72 3.6 16.3

Rely 51 2.6 11.5

Pretty much rely 18 0.9 4.1

Totally rely 22 1.1 5.0

Total 443 22.3 100.0

To what extent does your household rely on this money/crosstabs 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Urban/Rural Urban 57.6% 18.2% 9.1% 15.2%

Rural 57.9% 19.5% 16.5% 2.3% 3.8%

Municipality Kolasin 55.6% 33.3% 11.1%

Plav 36.4% 63.6%

Andrijevica 60.0% 40.0%

Rozaje 41.7% 58.3%

Mojkovac 80.0% 20.0%

Berane 80.0% 6.7% 13.3%

Pljevlja 50.0% 14.0% 34.0% 2.0%

Bijelo Polje 42.3% 7.7% 25.0% 5.8% 19.2%

Zabljak 57.1% 42.9%

Do you own forestland?

Yes 47.7% 22.0% 19.3% 2.8% 8.3%

No 60.8% 16.5% 20.3% 1.3% 1.3%

Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting?

Yes, just for

household

purposes

69.7% 21.2% 9.1%

Yes, for

processing

50.8% 23.0% 21.3% 1.6% 3.3%

No 100.0%

64

Do you collect NTFPs? Note: Question was answered by head of the household.

Respondent’s role in NTFPs

You collect NTFP because it is… Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer.

541 100% 88.4%

Tradition in your family 113 20.9% 18.5%

You have stabile sources of income from this activity 59 10.9% 9.6%

This is the way to supplement household budget 241 44.5% 39.4%

You earn your pocket money or money for the school 103 19.1% 16.8%

This is a main activity in your family 6 1.1% 0.9%

Something else 19 3.5% 3.1%

During which seasons do you collect NTFPs? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 573 100% 93.6%

Winter 1 0.2% 0.2%

Spring 93 16.2% 15.2%

Fall 110 19.2% 18.0%

Summer 369 64.4% 60.3

Which NTFP do you collect? 672 100% 109.8%

Mushrooms 348 51.8% 56.9%

Forest fruits 209 31.1% 34.2%

Medical plants 113 16.8% 18.5%

Other 2 0.3% 0.3%

How long have you collected NTFPs? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

More than 20 years 63 3.2 13.2

Between 10 and 20 years 83 4.2 17.4

Between 3 and 10 years 199 10.1 41.8

Recently 131 6.6 27.5

Total 476 24.0 100

How long have you collected NTFPs/crosstabs Between 3 and 10

years Between 10 and 20

years More than 20

years Recently

Up to 18 100.0%

From 19 to 25 66.7% 33.3%

From 26 to 35 41.7% 25.0% 25.0% 8.3%

From 36 to 45 44.4% 19.4% 27.8% 8.3%

From 46 to 55 43.9% 19.5% 14.6% 22.0%

From 56 to 65 40.0% 27.5% 17.5% 15.0%

Over 66 37.5% 25.0% 31.3% 6.3%

Where do you sell the NTFPs you collect? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 527 100% 86.1%

Other 3 0.6% 0.5%

To processor 16 3.1% 2.6%

On a improvised place during the season 48 9.1% 7.8%

Directly to customer 52 9.8%3 8.5%

On a local market 56 10.6% 9.2%

I don't sell the products 73 13.8% 11.9%

To middleman 279 52.9% 45.6%

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes 226 11.4 59.3

Yes, but stopped 16 0.8 4.2

No 119 6.1 31.2

No, but have intention 20 1.1 5.3

Total 381 19.2 100

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Collector 400 20.2 93.9

Middleman 17 0.9 3.9

Processor 7 0.4 1.6

Processor and exporter 2 0.1 0.5

Total 426 21.5 100

65

How much did you sell in 2007? (average)

Note: If total amount of sold NTFPs is < 100kg

Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Mushrooms 41 30.0 100.0 72.8

Forest fruits 13 10.0 100.0 80.0

Medical plants 1 25.0 25.0 25.01

How much did you sell in 2007? (in average) Note: If total amount of sold NTFPs is > 100kg

Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Mushrooms 24 100.0 500.0 123.1

Forest fruits 11 150.00 400.0 252.7

Medical plants 1 500.0 500.0 500.0

How do you spend revenues from NTFPs? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 465 100% 79.2%

It is a supplement for household budget 273 58.7% 44.7%

It is used for financing school expenditures 91 19.6% 14.9%

It is a pocket money 79 16.9% 12.9%

Other 22 4.7% 3.6%

Do you regard revenues from NTFPs to be sustainable source of income? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes 125 6.3 28.2

No 319 16.1 71.8

Total 444 22.4 100

Do you regard revenues from NTFPs to be sustainable source of income/crosstabs Yes No

Urban/Rural Urban 25.8% 74.2%

Rural 26.7% 73.3%

Municipality Kolasin 50.0% 50.0%

Plav 6.3% 93.8%

Andrijevica 40.0% 60.0%

Rozaje 38.5% 61.5%

Mojkovac 16.7% 83.3%

Berane 6.7% 93.3%

Pljevlja 75.0% 25.0%

Bijelo Polje 10.3% 89.7%

Zabljak 100.0%

Do you own forestland? Yes 22.3% 77.7%

No 30.5% 69.5%

Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting?

Yes. just for household

purposes

8.7% 91.3%

Yes. for processing 16.0% 84.0%

In which measure does your household rely on this money?

1.00 4.9% 95.1%

2.00 45.2% 54.8%

3.00 36.7% 63.3%

4.00 100.0%

Have you ever taken part in a training program related to NTFPs collection? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes 14 0.7 3.1

No 441 22. 3 96.9

Total 455 22.9 100

Have you ever taken part in a training program related to NTFPs collection/crosstabs Yes No

Urban/Rural Urban 2.9% 97.1%

Rural 1.0% 99.0%

Municipality Kolasin 100.0%

Plav 100.0%

Andrijevica 100.0%

Rozaje 100.0%

Mojkovac 100.0%

Berane 6.3% 93.8%

Pljevlja 5.6% 94.4%

Bijelo Polje 100.0%

Zabljak 100.0%

Do you own forestland? Yes 1.0% 99.0%

66

No 1.8% 98.2%

Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting?

Yes. just for household

purposes

7.7% 92.3%

Yes. for processing 100.0%

In which measure does your household rely on this money?

1.00 2.3% 97.7%

2.00 100.0%

3.00 3.7% 96.3%

4.00 100.0%

Are you a member of an association of NTFP collectors? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes 13 0.7 1.5

No 627 31.6 71.7

No, there is none in this area 221 11.1 25.3

I don't know 14 0.7 1.6

Total 875 44.1 100.0

If there were an association of collectors what services would be useful to you? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 1.348 100% 229.6%

NTFPs points of sale 361 26.8% 59.1%

Cooling together 157 11.6% 25.7%

Quality control 273 20.3% 44.7%

Information about collecting 315 23.4% 51.6%

Information on quality 201 14.9% 32.9%

Other 41 3.1% 6.7%

Is any household member engaged as a middleman in NTFPs? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes 29 1.5 2.7

Yes, but stopped 10 0.5 0.9

No 949 47.9 88.7

No, but planning 82 4.2 7.6

Total 1,070 53.9 100

Who do you resell medical plants to? Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 20 100% 83.3%

Domestic NTFPs processor 2 10% 8.3%

Foreign NTFPs processor 6 30% 25.0%

Other middleman 10 50% 41.7%

Other 2 10% 8.3%

How much did you sell in 2007 in average? (kg) Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Mushrooms 15 80 3.000 805.3

Forest fruits 7 25 4.000 934.3

Medical plants 6 50 170 103.3

Other 1 500 500 500

What was the average price per kg? Number Minimum Maximum Mean

Mushrooms 13 1.7 6 3.9

Forest fruits 5 3 7 4

Medical plants 5 5 12 8.6

Do you think the price is fair? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes 2 0.1 9.1

No 14 0.7 63.6

Don`t know 6 0.3 27.3

Total 22 1.1 100

Do this prices increase over time? Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Yes 9 0.5 39.11

No 2 0.1 8.7

Sometimes 11 0.6 47.8

Never 1 0.1 4.3

Total 23 1.2 100

67

What is the main barrier for NTFPs collection?

Note: Possibility of giving more than one answer. 56 100% 233.3%

Lack of knowledge 6 10.7% 25

Lack of collectors 10 17.8% 41.6%

Lack of training programs relating to collecting procedure 2 3.5% 8.3%

Low prices 18 32.1% 75

Lack of motivation between collectors 11 19.6% 45.8%

Lack of natural resources 3 5.3% 12.5

Lack of processors and exporters 6 10.7% 25

Trends in wood cutting and sales in last 3 years Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Increasing 96 4.8 23.9

Stable 256 12.9 63.7

Decreasing 50 2.5 12.4

Total 402 20.3 100

Trends in wood cutting and sales in last 3 year/crosstabs Increasing Stable Decreasing

Urban/Rural Urban 28.0% 68.0% 4.0%

Rural 21.7% 56.7% 21.7%

Municipality Kolasin 23.1% 76.9%

Plav 50.0% 50.0%

Andrijevica 50.0% 50.0%

Rozaje 40.0% 50.0% 10.0%

Mojkovac 100.0%

Berane 25.0% 62.5% 12.5%

Pljevlja 38.9% 50.0% 11.1%

Bijelo Polje 11.5% 65.4% 23.1%

Zabljak 100.0%

Do you own forestland?

Yes 24.1% 62.1% 13.8%

No 25.0% 59.4% 15.6%

Trends in NTFPs collection in the last 3 years Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Increasing 79 4.0 18.2

Stable 208 10.5 47.9

Decreasing 147 7.4 33.9

Total 434 21.9 100.0

Trends in NTFPs collection in the last 3 years/crosstabs Increasing Stable Decreasing

Urban/Rural Urban 18.2% 51.5% 30.3%

Rural 13.1% 46.4% 40.5%

Municipality Kolasin 7.7% 53.8% 38.5%

Plav 58.3% 41.7%

Andrijevica 25.0% 75.0%

Rozaje 8.3% 33.3% 58.3%

Mojkovac 75.0% 25.0%

Berane 19.0% 52.4% 28.6%

Pljevlja 26.3% 47.4% 26.3%

Bijelo Polje 18.8% 37.5% 43.8%

Zabljak 66.7% 33.3%

Do you own forestland?

Yes 13.6% 47.7% 38.6%

No 11.6% 53.5% 34.9%

Is your household aware of NTFPs collecting?

Yes. just for household

purposes

16.1% 29.0% 54.8%

Yes. for processing 14.8% 64.8% 20.4%

No 10.5% 44.7% 44.7%

No. but have plans 100.0%

In which measure does your household rely on this money?

1.00 15.7% 54.9% 29.4%

2.00 5.3% 47.4% 47.4%

3.00 14.3% 57.1% 28.6%

4.00 100.0%

5.00 100.0%

Do you regard NTFP money as a sustainable source of income?

Yes 30.0% 50.0% 20.0%

No 61.1% 38.9%

68

ANNEX 2

QUESTIONNAIRES

69

QUESTIONNAIRE NO 1 – QUALITATIVE SURVEY

I General information about NTFPs processor

Name and surname:

Function of interviewed person

Name of the company

Year of establishing

Contact details:

telephone contact:

internet address:

e-mail:

II Sourcing 1. What product exactly do you collect/buy?

• Mushrooms

• Forest fruits

• Medical plants

• Other

2. Exact origin/village/municipality where NTFPs are collected (if known)

3. Amounts that are processed

• Last season:

• Maximum in recent years: • Minimum in recent years:

4. Price. price fluctuations (within year. between years)

5. Who determines prices?

6. Usual mode of payment

7. Contracts. [is the trade based on contracts. and what type. verbal. written…?]

70

III Processing 8. What type of processing/value adding are you doing?

9. Is the processing done by hand or by machines?

10. Recent innovations

11. N° of staff (permanent/seasonal)

12. Storage facilities

13. Packaging

14. Quality losses. Causes and impacts?

IV Destination: Customers and purchasers 15. Which exact product are you selling ((trade) name and specification of the product)?

16. Destination: to where are you selling it (client. region/country)?

17. What type of customers do you have (company. exporters. end users…)?

18. Different qualities for different customers?

19. Who are the ultimate consumers of your products?

20. Amounts sold: a) last year. b) the maximum ever sold in a year and c) the minimum

21. Units (in which the product is being traded)

22. Price. price fluctuation (within year. between years)

23. How is the price being determined?

24. Mode of payment

25. Contracts (type of contracts. done ahead of the harvest or upon delivery)?

26. Are you a member of any type of cooperation/association/cooperative? Which?

27. What type of benefit do you get from being part of this cooperation / association?

28. Certification and relevance for the respective player? Reasons for being certified (or: not being

certified)?

V Threats/opportunities

• Threats:

• Opportunities:

QUESTIONNAIRE NO 2 – QUANTITATIVE SURVEY

NTFPs SURVEY

Name and Surname of surveyor ___________________________

U/R _____________________________

Date __________________________

Municipality _________________________

Settlement ______________________________

Address _________________________________

Phone number ____________________________

Household head (respondent’s name and surname) ________________________ Number of household members’ _____________________________

72

Part 1 Demographic characteristics No 1 2 3 4 5

Household members

Age Gender Highest completed level of education

Respondent’s occupation What was yours primary activity in the past month?

Name and

surname

1. Male

2.

Female

1. Currently attending

primary school

2. Currently attending

secondary school

3. Currently attending

university

4. Primary school

5. Secondary school - 3

years

6. Secondary school –4 years

7. College

8. BA degree

9. MSc degree

10. PhD

1. Agriculture. forestry and

water supply

2. Fishing

3. Mining and quarrying

4. Electricity. gas and water

supply

5. Construction

6. Wholesale and retail trade

7. Hotels and restaurants

8. Transport. storage and communication

9. Financial intermediation

10. Real estate activities.

renting

11. Public administration and

social insurance

12. Education

13. Health and social work

14. Other community. social and personal services

15. Households with employed

persons

16. Extra-territorial

organizations and bodes

1. Working/helping to earn income

2. Job searching

3. Attending school

4. Housekeeping

5. Retired

6. Stay at home

7. Sick/disabled

8. Other, specify

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

73

Part 2 Private forest owners

No 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Do you own

forestland?

Area

Type of the forest

Who owns the forest?

Type of ownership documents

How did you obtain the forest?

Why do you own forest?

How often do you visit your

forest?

1. Yes 2. No

ha 1. Conifers 2.Broadleave

3. Both types

1. Myself 2. Spouse

3. Family

member

4. Other

1. Full documents

2. Only

descriptive

cadastre

3. In process of

restitution

4. Something

else. specify

1. Inheritance 2. Purchase

3. Other. specify

1. Pass on to children or other

2. To enjoy scenery and

privacy

3. Long-term financial

investment

4. For hunting and fishing

5. For timber production

6. As part of my family

heritage 7. To collect NTFPs

8. Fore recreation other

than hunting and fishing

9. For grazing livestock

10. To collect firewood

11. Other, specify

1. Never 2. Monthly

3. Almost

four times

per year

4. Almost

twice

times per

year

5.Annually

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

74

No 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Do you sell

forest products?

Is there a forest

management plan for your

forest?

What do you think about

forest certification?

Do you have experience with the forest

certification?

What do you think about

forest certification?

How often do you cut your wood?

How do you get permits to cut the wood you want?

Main purposes for wood cutting

Do you have contracts with any companies in the area of

wood processing?

1. Yes.

firewood 2. Yes.

timbers

3. Yes.

NTFPs

4. Yes. all

5. No

1. Yes

2. No. but it is no problem

3. No and this

is big problem

4. I don’t

know

1.

Certification will improve

forest

management

2.

Certification

will increase

my profits in

tree farming

3. Certification

will satisfy

consumers

that their

woos

purchases are

supporting

good forestry

4.

Certification will lessen the

need for

forestry

regulation

5.

Certification

will give me

recognition for

the good forestry that I

am already

practicing

6.

Certification

will be

necessary for

timber

growers to

compete in the

international

market

1. Yes. I have

certification 2. Yes. have

proper

information

3.No. Go to question 4. No. I think

that is not

useful Go to question

1. If it helped

protect the environment

2. If it

improved

wildlife habitat

3. If it made

my forest

more healthy

4. If my wood

products could be sold for a

higher price

5. If it gained

me access to

additional

wood markets

not normally

available

6. If it saved

me money by reducing the

likelihood of

future

regulation

1. All

year (monthly)

2. All

year (five

times or

less)

3.

Seasonal

(winter)

4. Seasonal

(spring)

5. Never

done that

before

1. For as

much as I want.

without

much

problems

2.

Difficult.

but I am

allowed

to cut 3.

Terrible.

permit is

in

adequate

1. Selling to

companies 2. Selling to

individuals

3. For

household

needs

4. Other.

specify

___________

1. Yes. contract

deliveries 2. No. I sell when

I have wood to

sale

3. No. don’t selling

to wood

companies

4. Other. specify

_______________

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

75

No 23 24 25 26 27 28

Annual production in 2007

Annual production in 2008

How important

is firewood for you?

Do you regard revenue from firewood to be sustainable source of income?

Are you introduced with current legislation of the

forestry sector?

What kind of services do you received from the Forestry Directorate? Evaluate services 1-3

Timbers________m3

Firewoods______m3

Timbers________m3

Firewoods______m3

1. Very

important

2. A little

important

3. Not that

important

4. Not in all

important

1. Yes. for ever

2. Yes. for next 10

years

3. No. in 10 years

it is less than

today

1. Yes. sufficiently

2. No. I want to but there is

no information

3. No. I want to know more

4.i don’t want to know

1. Cutting permits

2. Transport documents

3. Advice

4. Seedlings

5. Other, specify

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

76

No 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Recommendation in order to be better informed

Main problems

in forestry sector Specify

Who helps you in solving the problems?

Who should solve the problem?

Are you a member of a Private Forest Owners

Association

If there is association of PFO. What services would be useful for

you?

How much are you

willing pay annually for this services

1. Training

programs

2. Seminars

3. Workshops

4. Other

1. Relatives and

friends

2. Government

3. Forest Directorate

4. NGO

5. Donor

6. Nobody

7. I don’t need any

help

8. Other. specify

1.Government

2. Forest

Directorate

3. Family

4. NGO

5. I don’t know

6. Other. specify

1.Yes

2.No

3.No. there is

none in this

area

4.I don’t

know

1. Getting

cutting permits

2.Making forest

management

plan

3 Fire

management

4. Influence

national plans

and policies 5. Selling forest

products

6. Restitution

7. Land

registration

8.Training in

forest

management

Other. specify

1.Less than 2

euro/year

2. Between 2

and 5

euro/year

3. Between 5

and 10

euro/year

4. Between

10 and 20 euro/year

5. Above 20

euro/year

6. Somebody

else should

pay for this

costs

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

77

Part 3 NTPFs (Collecting of mushrooms. forest fruits and medical plants) 3.1. NTFPs Collectors No 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Is your household aware of NTFPs

collecting

In which measure does your household rely on this money?

1- Not so

much

5-Totally

Who is collecting NTFPs from the household Mark with the 1

members

who

collecting

NTFP

Are you collecting NTFPs Question

addressed to

respondent

Respondent’s role in NTFPs?

You collect NTFP

because it is…

During which

seasons you collect NTFPs

Which NTFP you collect

1. Yes. just

for

household

purposes

2. Yes. for

processing

3. No. go to question 50 4. No, but

have plans. go to question 50

1. Yes. go to

question 40

2. Yes. but

stopped

3. No

4. No. but have

intention

2.3.4 go to

question 52

1. Collector

2.Middleman

3. Processor

4. Processor

and exporter

1. Tradition

in your

family

2. You have

stabile

sources of

income from

this activity

3. This is

the way to

supplement

household

budget

4. You earn

your pocket

money or

money for

the school

5. This is a

main

activity in

your family

6.Something

else

(specify)

1. Summer

2. Spring

3. Fall

4. Winter

1.Mushroom

2. Forest fruits

3. Medical plants

4. Other, specify

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

78

No 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52.

Since when you are involved in NTFP collectio

n?

NTFP that you collect you sell

How much you sold in 2007 In kg

How do you spend the NTFPs money

Do you regard NTFP

money as a

sustainable source of income?

Were you

involved in some training program related to NTFPs collectin

g

Are you a member of

an association of NTFP collectors

If there is association of collectors.

What services would be useful

for you?

What improvements

could you suggest about develop of NTFP sector

1. More

than 20

years

2.Betwee

n 10 and

20 years

3.Between 3 and

10 years

4.Recentl

y

1.Directly

to

customer

2. On a

local

market

3. On a improvise

d place

during the

season

4. To

middlema

n

5. To

processor 6. I don’t

sell the

products

7. Other

1.Mushroom________

2.Forest

fruits__________

3. Medical

plants________

4. Other, specify

1. It is a

supplement

for

household

budget

2. It is used

for financing school

expenditure

s

3. It is a

pocket

money

4. Other

1. Yes

2. No

1. Yes

2. No

1.Yes

2.No

3.No. there

is none in

this area

4.I don’t

know

1. Selling

together NTFP

2. Cooling

together

3.Quality control

4. Information

about collecting 5. Information on

quality

6. Other,specify

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

79

3.1. NTFPs Middleman No 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

Is any HHS

member

engaged as

middleman in NTFPs

Who is engaged as middleman?

To whom you resell medical

plant

How much

you sold in 2007 In kg

What was the price per

kg

Do you think the

price is fair

Do this prices increase over time? Last five

years

What is the main barrier

regarding NTFPs

Are you a member of an

association of NTFP

collectors

If there is association of collectors.

What services would be

useful for you?

What improvements could you suggest

about develop of NTFP sector

1. Yes

2. Yes.

but

stopped

3. No.

go to question54 4. No.

but

planning

. 2.3.4 go to question 61

1. NTFPs

processor, which?

2. Foreign

processors

which country

3. Other middleman

4. Other, specify

1.Mushroo

m

2.Forest

fruits

3. Medical

plants 4. Other,

specify

1.Mushroo

m

2.Forest

fruits

3. Medical

plants 4. Other,

specify

1.Yes

2.No

3.Don’t

know

1. Yes

2. No

3.Somet

imes

4. Never

1. Lack of

knowledge

2. Lack of

collectors

3. Lack of

training programs

relating to

collecting

procedure

4. Low

prices

5. Lack of

motivation

between collectors

6. Lack of

natural

resources

7. Lack of

processors

and

exporters

8.Something else

1.Yes

2.No

3.No.

there is

none in

this area 4.I don’t

know

1. Selling

together NTFP

2. Cooling

together

3.Quality control

4. Information about collecting

5. Information on

quality

6. Other, specify

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

80

Part 4 Household income No 62 63 64 65 66 67

What is the main source of

household income? Max 3 answers

Average monthly

HHS income

HHS income during previous three

years is…

Average HHS income from forest products Annual. in €

Trends in wood cutting and

selling in last 3 year

Trends in NTFPs collecting in last 3

year

1. Wage

2. Pension

3.Agricultural

pension

4. Social assistance

5. Revenues from

property

6. Revenues from

agriculture 7. Revenues from

other sources

1. Up to 300

euro

2. From 300

to 600 euro

3. From 600

to 800 euro

5. From 800

to 1.000

euro 6. More than

1.000 euro

1.

Constantly

increasing

2. Mostly

the same-

stabile

3.

Constantly

decreasing

Wood

Mushrooms

Medical plants

Forest fruits

1. Increasing

2. Stable

3. Decreasing

1. Increasing

2. Stable

3. Decreasing