Dear Dr. Dhital,

You asked me a few questions. I am sorry for the delay in writing you
back. Anyway, postings by Dr. Thinley, Peter, and others have largely
answered your questions, but still I will add my perspective to your
questions on 'resource base' and 'sustainability' issues of a plant-
based resource in general, and Cordyceps in particular.

I have over the recent years come to believe that we are sometimes
too preoccupied with the concept of sustainable management for
anything and everything connected to the use of natural resources. I
feel that this preoccupation is not necessary, and that it in fact is
ecologically, economically and socially detrimental when viewed out
of context. Our overly environmental concern immobilizes us to
formulate policies which otherwise our poor rural people could value
and be blessed by the rich biodiversity around them, but instead the
rich bio-diversity oftentimes brings them the curse.

Cordyceps now a 'gem' was a curse to the yak herders prior 2004 when
it was illegal to pick it. Since the public policy banned the picking
of Cordyceps prior 2008, the law enforcement (forest and park)
personnel as part of their lawful duty policed and fined the local
people caught with the illegal possession of Cordyceps. The local
people found themselves confused with the public policy formulated by
their Government and felt unnecessarily harassed by the law.

The public policy ban on Cordyceps was due to one underlying
assumption amongst the natural resource policy makers, managers and
researchers that Cordyceps was a 'rare species' which needed the
state protection, and if people extracted it, it would be wiped out
of the face of the earth.

The current commercial demand for Cordyceps is reported to have
started since 1980s, and the demand is rising. Cordyceps collection
for Chinese emperors and nobility has been there hundreds of years
ago. Even during then, Cordyceps was considered a rare product, but
now on reflection, this rarity may not have been due to ecological
rarity but difficulty of locating it - a needle in a haystack.

Like any plant-based product, there is a cycle of good and bad
production year. Not realizing this, resource managers and
researchers are quick to jump at a bad production year as over-
exploitation of the resource base.

Cordyceps is a fungus parasiting on caterpillars. One single
Cordyceps may produce thousands of spores, and the technology
employed in the extraction of it is hand picking in a vast forbidding
alpine wilderness, there is no way Cordyceps collectors can sweep
clean the alpine bushes and floor like the giant fishing nets
employed by big fishing trawlers in the west do to fishes in the sea.

There is a theory even proposed that since commercial extraction of
Cordyceps, the humans have become important agent of its dispersal in
addition to wind and water.

Cordyceps picking should not be a matter of concern from the point of
sustainable management, but like Peter said, we should rather try to
understand more about the population dynamics of the caterpillar
(moth). I would guess the caterpillar population dynamics would not
be influenced strongly by the Cordyceps collectors as infection of
caterpillar by the fungus is reported to be in the Sept/Oct when the
picking would have ended by July.

I am going on and on. I better end this posting.

Before I do, I just want to mention a few theories which might be
useful in the discussion on sustainable management.

Firstly, economic extinction precedes ecological extinction which
means that for example if the population base of Cordyceps declined
considerably, there would be few collectors venturing out since it
does not pay them to invest their time.

Secondly, the history shows, the demand for a natural product is not
guaranteed because of domestication and synthetic production of the
natural product e.g. American ginseng; natural rubber; and chi-cle
(chewing gum). The isolation and culture of Cordyceps in laboratory
have been successful since early 1980s. Much of Cordyceps products in
the west is laboratory produced.

Thirdly, NTFP is a sub-set of biodiversity people value, and provides
an incentive for people to take responsibility for its proper upkeep.

Finally, there are a lot of safety checks in the Bhutanese context
viz. small population and large resource base.

I hope this posting today coming on such an important day as the
Social Forestry Day in our country shall generate more discussion.

Warmest regards

Phuntsho Namgyel






------------ --------- --------- ------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Bhutan- eForest/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Bhutan- eForest/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Bhutan- eForest-digest@ yahoogroups. com
mailto:Bhutan- eForest-fullfeat ured@yahoogroups .com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Bhutan-eForest- unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/