1. Fortmann, Louise and Bruce, John, “Introduction,” in Fortmann, Louise and Bruce, John (eds.), Whose Trees? Proprietary Dimensions of Forestry, Rural Studies Series of the Rural Sociological Study (Boulder: Westview Press, 1988), p. 4.Google Scholar

2. The data used in this paper were gathered during field research in the summer of 1997 (and a follow-up visit in August 1998) in Zhongdian and Deqin counties of Diqing TAP. Primary research methods used were observation, semi-structured and unstructured interviews with matsutake harvesters, buyers and sellers in the two county seats and their surrounding villages. In addition, I interviewed representatives from several export companies, and government and academic forestry institutions in Kunming.

3. Anagnost, Ann, National Past-times: Narratives, Representation, and Power in Modern China (Durham: Duke University Press, 1997), p. 4.Google Scholar

4. Tibetans comprise 40% of Zhongdian county's population of 130,000 and 80% of Deqin county's population of 60,000. These statistics are from Marshall, Steven and Cooke, Susette, Tibet Outside the TAR: Control, Exploitation and Assimilation, Development with Chinese Characteristics (Washington, D.C: Alliance for Research in Tibet, available through International Campaign for Tibet, CD-ROM)Google Scholar; and from Hengjie, Wang, Diqing zangzu shehui shi (Social History of Diqing Tibetans) (Beijing: China Tibetan Studies Publishers, 1995), p. 8.Google Scholar

5. Marshall, and Cooke, , Tibet Outside the TAR, p. 246Google Scholar. However, according to the 1995 State Statistical Bureau report, Diqing TAP per capita GDP in 1994 was 1,490 RMB as compared with the national average of 3,755 RMB. Another report gave annual rural net per capita income as 605 RMB in one part of the report and 321 RMB in another; a third source cited annual per capita income in Zhongdian in 1994 as 727 RMB. However, the Party secretary of Zhongdian county informed me in 1998 that the figure was actually 836 RMB. He also stated that matsutake income is “of course” not included in their calculations even though it is “the most important income source for villagers.”

6. Ogilvie, James, “Forestry in Diqin prefecture, northwest Yunnan province, China,” Commonwealth Forestry Review, Vol. 75, No. 4 (1996), p. 293.Google Scholar

7. Zala, Qi, Zhongguo zangqu xianyu jingji tansuo (An Exploration of County Economy in Tibetan Regions of China) (Kunming: Yunnan Nationalities Publishing House, 1997), p. 4.Google Scholar

8. Redhead, Scott, “The pine mushroom industry in Canada and the United States and where it's going,” in Palm, Mary E. and Chapela, Ignacio (eds.), Mycology in Sustainable Development: Expanding Concepts, Vanishing Borders (Boone, NC: Parkway Publishers Inc., 1997), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

9. Pilz, David and Molina, Randy, “American matsutake mushroom harvesting in the United States: social aspects and opportunities for sustainable development,”Google Scholar in Palm, and Chapela, , Mycology in Sustainable Development, p. 68.Google Scholar

10. Author interview. 60% was the lowest figure I was given.

11. Zala, Qi, Zhongdian county Party secretary, “Qingzang gaoyuan kechixu fazhan de shixian yu tantao – yi Diqing zangzu zizhi zhou Zhongdian xian weili de fenxi” (“Practice and investigation of sustainable development on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau – Using Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture as an example for analysis”) (unpublished paper, 1998), p. 13.Google Scholar

12. By which I mean both male and female businesspeople; however, there are more men than women.

13. See for example, Berry, Sara, No Condition is Permanent: The Social Dynamics of Agrarian Change in Sub-Saharan Africa (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Peluso, Nancy Lee, “Fruit trees and family trees in an anthropogenic forest: ethics of access, property zones, and environmental change in Indonesia,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 38, No. 3 (1996), pp. 49–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ribot, Jesse, “Theorizing access: forest profits along Senegal's charcoal commodity chain,” Development and Change, Vol. 29, (1998), pp. 307–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. See for example Rose, Carol, Property and Persuasion: Essays on the History, Theory and Rhetoric of Ownership (Boulder: Westview Press, 1994)Google Scholar and Macpherson, C. B. (ed.), Property: Mainstream and Critical Positions (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978).Google Scholar

15. Ribot, , “Theorizing access,” p. 310.Google Scholar

16. Ross, Lester, Environmental Policy in China (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1988).Google Scholar

17. Tapp, N., “Social aspects of China fir plantations in China,” Commonwealth Forestry Review, Vol. 75, No. 4., (1996), pp. 302–308Google Scholar. Note Tapp mentions only counties, townships and administrative villages under collective forests, but in Diqing the collective ownership of the jitilin often belongs to a natural village. Also personal communication with Xu Jianchu, Yunnan Institute of Botany.

18. Swope, Lindsay, Factors Influencing Rates of Deforestation in Lijiang County, Yunnan Province, China (Masters thesis, University of California Davis, 1995).Google Scholar

19. Menzies, Nicholas K. and Peluso, Nancy Lee, “Rights of access to upland forest resources in southwest China,” Journal of World Forest Resource Management, Vol. 6 (1991), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

20. Ting, Zuo, “Institutional contraints of social forestry development in Yunnan China – based on the case study of Yunnan social forestry project,” in Community Forestry at a Crossroads: Reflections and Future Directions in the Development of Community Forestry. Proceedings of an International Seminar held in Bangkok, Thailand, 17–19 July 1997. (Bangkok: RECOFTC, 1997).Google Scholar

21. This type of tenure proliferation has been documented in other studies of the effects of commodity booms in other parts of the world. For example, in Upland Java (see Suryanata, Krisnawati, “Fruit trees under contract: tenure and land use change in upland Java, Indonesia,” World Development, Vol. 22, No. 10, pp. 1567–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar) commercialization and integration with the market economy led to a changed set of access conventions to apple trees, increased control by tree lessees over the landscape, and gradual dispossession of some farmers from their lands.

22. Yoruba communities described in Fortmann, and Bruce, , Whose Trees? p. 109.Google Scholar

23. See Fortmann, Louise, “Bonanza! The unasked questions: domestic land tenure through international lenses,” Society & Natural Resources, Vol. 9 (1996), pp. 537–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rose, , Property & Persuasion, pp. 1–7, 39–43Google Scholar; and Li, Tania Murray, “Images of community: discourse and strategy in property relations,” Development and Change, Vol. 27 (1996), pp. 501–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Berry, Sara (1993)Google Scholar quoted in Fortmann, , “Bonanza!” p. 540.Google Scholar

25. Berry, Sara, “Tomatoes, land and hearsay: property and history in Asante in the time of structural adjustment,” World Development, Vol. 25, No. 8 (1997), pp. 1225–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Fortmann, Louise, “Talking claims: discursive strategies in contesting property,” World Development, Vol. 23, No. 6 (1995), pp. 1053–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Lianjiang, Li and O'Brien, Kevin, “Villagers and popular resistance in contemporary China,” Modern China, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1996), pp. 28–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. Ibid. p. 41.

29. Ibid. pp. 54–55.

30. Clarke, Donald C., “The execution of civil judgements in China,” The China Quarterly, No. 141 (1995), pp. 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Verdery, Katherine, What was Socialism and What Comes Next? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Matsutake prices reported in the paper are based on 1997 and earlier rather than 1998 prices.