Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: review and analysis of research

By R. Neumann, Eric Hirsch. 2000

540 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This study is one in a series of activities undertaken by CIFOR to reach a better understanding of the impact of commercialisation on forest resources and what factors influence the market demand for forest products. For example, two international workshops were organized by CIFOR in 1995 and another the following year to analyse key research issues in the field of NTFP development. These workshops recognised that the process of NTFP commercialisation interacts with people's welfare, forest management, tenure and control of resources, and forest structure and function (through ecological processes). Earlier review and analysis had generated a number of hypotheses, theories and conclusions related to the effects of commercialisation. Forest and resource tenure are likely to both affect the way a resource is managed and utilised, and be affected by changes in value due to commercialisation. Many authors have suggested that NTFP harvesting will be less damaging to biodiversity and other environmental values than management for timber. Others suggest that market pressures are likely to lead to the decline and eventual disappearance of valuable products and to severe impacts on the ecosystem. While there is a growing understanding (and acceptance) of the economic importance of forest products, especially for the poor, the potential impact of NTFP commercialisation needs to be better understood. A recommendation from the workshops was to undertake a thorough overview of the available literature to synthesise the key lessons about these areas of interaction. Such a review would critically examine the available information and analyses and identify key research areas needing further attention.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/975b7cfee10fea1719794ac317e7507bbb4d9920

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Forest environmental income in Vietnam: household socioeconomic factors influencing forest use (2008, background): “…of why some households harvest forest goods while others do not may help explain some of the problems encountered in NTFP promotion, such as whether the poor or rich are more likely to benefit from commercialization schemes (Neumann & Hirsch 2000; Marshall et al. 2003; Belcher et al. 2005).”
Who are forest-dependent people? A taxo nomy to aid livelihood and land use decision-making in forested regions (2016, background): “This dimension considers people who live within or proximate to forests, but additionally extends to those who are connected by roads or waterways (Neumann and Hirsch, 2000; Padmanaba and Sheil, 2007).”
Household welfare and forest dependence in Southern Malawi (2004, background): “The first column of the table shows a negative correlation between measured income and reliance on LRFA, consistent with the extant literature (for a review see Neumann and Hirsch, 2000).”
Agrobiodiversity for food security, health and income (2013, background): “The marketing of non-timber forest products (NTFP) received considerable attention during the 1990s as a possible means to alleviate poverty of forest margin or forest dwelling communities (for example see Leakey et al. 1996; Neumann and Hirsch 2000).”
Charcoal, livelihoods, and poverty reduction: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa (2013, background): “Several studies have examined the forest/poverty link looking at tropical forests generically (Angelsen and Wunder, 2003; Wunder, 2001), non-timber forest products (Neumann and Hirsch, 2000), woodfuels (Arnold et al.”
Opportunities for Enhancing Poor Women's Socioeconomic Empowerment in the Value Chains of Three African Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) (2011, background): “It is this feature of NTFPs that has led to the widespread promotion of these products, particularly by agencies interested in sustainable development, as tools for enhancing gender equity and empowering and benefitting women (Shillington 2002, Neumann and Hirsch 2000).”
From Subsistence to Safety Nets and Cash Income: Exploring the Diverse Values of Non-timber Forest Products for Livelihoods and Poverty Alleviation (2011, background): “Additionally, NTFP commercialisation is being promoted and facilitated through the creation and stimulation of external markets by agencies concerned with linking rural livelihoods to the conservation of natural ecosystems ( Neumann and Hirsch 2000; Arnold and Ruiz Pe´rez 2001, Chap.”
Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: first steps in analysing the factors influencing success (2003, methodology): “The level of cash income received by those involved in NTFP collection is often very low; in some situations, dependency on income from sale of NTFPs may apparently perpetuate poverty rather than alleviate it (Neumann and Hirsch 2000).”
Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis (2014, background): “…environmental income (i.e., the share of environmental income in total household income) decreases—i.e., household’s environmental “dependence” or “reliance” decreases with higher incomes (Cavendish, 2000; Escobal & Aldana, 2003; Mamo et al., 2007; Neumann & Hirsch, 2000; Vedeld et al., 2007).”
The importance of dry woodlands and forests in rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa (2007, background): “…demonstrated that it is generally the poorest households who are most directly reliant on non-timber forest products (NTFPs) for both subsistence and cash income (Clarke et al., 1996, Campbell et al., 1997, Qureshi and Kumar, 1998, Cavendish, 2000, Neumann and Hirsch, 2000 and Cavendish, 2002).”
Safety Nets, Gap Filling and Forests: A Global-Comparative Perspective (2014, background): “…households with more substantial buffers (Anderson, May, & Balick, 1991; Chambers & Leach, 1989; Kant, Nautiyal, & Berry, 1996; McSweeney, 2004): extracting forest products usually requires little human, financial, or physical capital, making it a suitable fallback option (Neumann & Hirsch, 2000).”