Although they suffer some obvious disadvantages, small rural producers also hold some competitive advantages that can help them successfully commercialize their ecosystem assets. Exploiting these advantages increases their economic leverage.

• Control of commercially valuable forest resources, land, or fishing rights . Poor households and communities with well-established resource tenure are sometimes in a position to parley this into commercial opportunities. This is especially true for those communities within reasonable proximity of expanding centers of domestic or industrial demand, such as inland cities far from commercial ports. Constraints on the private sector's ability to meet wood demand in India, for example, have motivated more than a dozen companies to partner with rural farmers to grow trees on the farmers' lands (Mayers and Vermeulen 2002:45; Scherr et al. 2002:4-5).
  
  
• Lower cost structure for some products . For communities or farmers with excess labor or land not currently under crops, there may be little opportunity cost for growing trees or establishing low-tech aquaculture ponds. These operations may have lower costs than large-scale plantations or high-tech fish-raising enterprises run by outside business interests. Agroforestry systems, for example, may offer lower costs for tree production because trees are produced jointly with crops and livestock. For products like wood fuel and charcoal, transportation costs even from rural communities may be lower than importing these commodities from international markets (Scherr et al. 2002:4-5).
  
  
• Sole providers of some products. Because of their access to ecosystems and their traditional knowledge, poor households may be in the best position to supply some niche markets, such as for medicinal plants, exotic fruits, or traditionally made handicrafts or art objects. They may also be in the best position to sell to “socially responsible” markets, which may value the fact that their products come from small community enterprises rather than factory farms or plantations (Scherr et al. 2002:4-5).
  
  
• Ability to compete in domestic markets for some products. Lowincome producers may not always be able to be competitive in international trade, but they can frequently compete effectively in domestic markets. This is particularly true for certain products that do not offer high margins, such as “commodity grade” wood used for fencing, storage structures, crop and tree supports, or packing crates. Larger international producers typically do not compete in these markets with cheaper domestic products, which small-scale farmers can in many cases supply by growing trees in agroforestry schemes or wood lots (Scherr et al. 2002:4-5).
  
  
• Better monitoring and enforcement abilities. Local people may have greater ability than outside companies to prevent illegal logging or fishing. This may mean they are in a better position to assure the quality of certified wood or fish products (Scherr et al. 2002:4-5).

In general, low-income communities will find it easier to compete in commercial markets where there is less competition with large-scale producers, where there are few substitutes for their goods, where their low labor and start-up costs give them a lower overall cost structure, and where their deficits in transport are minimized.