Contribution of non-timber forest products to the livelihood of farmers in coffee growing areas: evidence from Yayu Coffee Forest Biosphere Reserve

Abstract

This paper examines the role of forest products in the livelihoods of forest-dependent households in the Yayu Coffee Forest Biosphere Reserve in the South Western part of Ethiopia. Unlike many forest landscapes, households in Yayu district cultivate their primary crop, coffee, in a complex landscape. Sampled households (n=241) were chosen based on stratified random sampling method. We employ both descriptive statistics and econometric regression to assess the extent of forest products use and analyse the determinants of forest income, respectively. We find that relatively poor households are more dependent on forests resources as a share of total income than better off households. We further find that households in Yayu district use non-timber forest products (NTFPs) mainly for consumption. The current zoning arrangements around the Biosphere reserve support the provision of NTFPs, particularly for poorer households and should be considered for replication in other complex landscapes.

Contribution of wild edible plants to household livelihood in a semiarid Kondoa District, Tanzania

“…Contribution of forest products and wild foods from non‐forest environments in household food; nutritional security and income generation have been widely discussed (Angelsen et al, 2014; Beyene et al, 2019; Broegaard et al, 2017). Bakkegaard et al (2017) argue that the mean incomes from forest and wild products exceed the mean agricultural income.…”

“…Based on these key attributes, many people, particularly in the developing countries, depend on them in the times of acute food shortage after occurrence of hazards such as drought and bad harvests. As they are more obliged to prepare household meals, women in rural and urban areas particularly those stricken with poverty tend to revert WEPs utilization when there is shortfall in household income (Beyene et al, 2019; Fikir et al, 2016). WEPs can be important to the coming age (young people leaving their homes and establishing homesteads), as coming age as they are likely more energetic to conduct forest activities (Harrison, 2006).…”

“…In the same year, Bakkegaard et al (2017) conducted a study to measure the contribution of wild products in the welfare of households in West Kalimantan, Indonesia, and found that mean forest and wild product income, mean forest‐related wage, and business incomes exceeded the mean agricultural income statistics. The most recent study by Beyene et al (2019) in Ethiopia showed that non‐timber forest products (NTFPs) supported most the poor households.…”

Forest-based bioeconomy in sub-Saharan Africa: Looking at benefits and burdens from a social sustainability standpoint

“…Agroforestry plantation systems (e.g. cocoa, coffee), besides improving productivity (Pinard et al 2014), are also found to contribute to farmers' livelihoods by providing NTFPs (Beyene et al 2019). Some studies reminded of the potential benefits that value chain improvements (Deans et al 2018), greening (Nhantumbo and Camargo 2016) and certification (Millard 2011;Mitiku et al 2018) of agroforestry plantations could bring for local communities, such as price premiums or improved benefit sharing.…”

“…As with traditional forestry, evidence shows that overexploitation of natural resources is leading to their depletion, which points to the need for sustainable management and cultivation, for the sake of both natural resources and forest-dependent communities' livelihoods (Dovie 2003;Kimaro and Lulandala 2013). Indeed, the contribution of NTFPs to household income was shown to be important, particularly for poorer and/or more remote households, who also use them to fulfill their basic needs (Heubach et al 2011;Malleson et al 2014;Schaafsma et al 2014;Beyene et al 2019). They represent an income equalizer and an opportunity for poverty alleviation in rural areas, as well as contributing to food security and resilience in time of crisis.…”