Livelihood gains and ecological costs of non-timber forest product dependence: assessing the roles of dependence, ecological knowledge and market structure in three contrasting human and ecological settings in south India

Abstract

Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) constitute the single largest determinant of livelihoods for scores of forest fringe communities and poor people in the tropics. In India over 50 million people are believed to be directly dependent upon NTFPs for their subsistence. However, such human dependence on NTFPs for livelihood gains (win) has most frequently been at a certain ecological cost (lose). If livelihoods are to be maintained, the existing ‘win-lose’ settings have to be steered to a ‘win-win’ mode, otherwise, there could be severe erosion of the biological resources and loss of livelihoods (‘lose-lose’). Examining the dependence of forest fringe communities on NTFPs at three sites in south India with contrasting human and ecological settings, three key factors (extent of dependence on NTFPs, indigenous ecological knowledge and market organization) are likely to constrain reaching the win-win situation. How these factors shape the ecological cost of harvesting NTFPs at the three sites is examined. Within the parameter space of these factors, it is possible to predict outcomes and associations that will conform to win-win or win-lose situations. Empirical data derived from the three study sites demonstrate the causality of the observed associations. The key for long-term livelihood gains lies in reducing the ecological cost. Certain interventions and recommendations that could optimize the balance between livelihood gains and ecological cost are proposed.

Urban Foraging: A Ubiquitous Human Practice Overlooked by Urban Planners, Policy, and Research

“…Whether they are foragers because of their knowledge of the local ecology and species or vice versa, a high level of local knowledge is typically regarded as a positive attribute in contributing to the ecological sustainability of resource harvesting [76,77]. Additionally, urban foraging may be undertaken in groups [39], which promotes the dissemination of such knowledge within the group and to newcomers.…”

Rural poverty in Mexico: assets and livelihood strategies among the Mayas of Yucatán

“…For example, Nath et al (2006) examined how the shifting cultivation practices of tribal people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh contribute to the people's livelihoods, and noted the ineffectiveness of previous public policies to promote livelihoods and sustainable resource use. Working among tribal peoples in southern India, Shaanker et al (2004) argued that the ecological costs to fragile ecosystems of livelihood gains for the poor can be attenuated by policy approaches which themselves must be informed by an understanding of the sociocultural context of the people and of the economics of market operations into which natural resource products are sold. Sustainability issues among innovating Latin American communities were addressed by Nicklin et al (2006) who examined supply chains for lupin in Ecuador to assess the agronomic and livelihood benefits for poor producers.…”

“…Moreover, ownership of beehives gives entry into the (relatively) lucrative activity of honey production as well as providing important forest eco-services. Usufruct rights to fruit trees can be viewed similarly as 'ecological and economic win-wins' (Shaanker et al, 2004). Third, on markets, the characteristics of the (a) outlier household, (b) the household membership of the 'trading' cluster and (c) the identification of the dominant 'agribusiness' factor all reiterate that engagement with diverse markets is associated with the upper scales of the wealth ranking.…”

Integrating livelihoods and conservation in protected areas: understanding the role and stakeholder views on prospects for non-timber forest products, a Bangladesh case study

“…Again, promotion of commercial extraction of NTFPs as a conservation strategy is principally based on the argument that NTFPs could provide economic incentives to rural people who may otherwise be involved in destructive forest practices such as illegal logging or cattle ranching (Nepstad and Schwartzman 1992;Plotkin and Famolare 1992). Some recent experience, however, suggests that the production and estimation of sustainable harvesting levels of locally useful NTFPs are frequently an afterthought, and rapid commercialization potentially leads to over-exploitation or depletion of such NTFPs (Neumann and Hirsch 2000;Belcher et al 2005), which can even lead to total local extinction of a NTFP (or reduced NTFP yield of a plant/animal) or wide-scale degradation of the forest landscape/habitat (Ganeshaiah et al 1998, Uma Shaanker et al 2004. It is therefore another important challenge to determine an ecologically feasible sustainable harvesting level of key NTFPs, as well as their proper maintenance and monitoring in the forests.…”