Abstract
This article addresses the question, to what extent and under which conditions nontimber forest product (NTFP) trade leads to both livelihood improvement and forest conservation. We based the analysis on a standardized expert-judgment assessment of the livelihood and environmental outcomes of 55 cases of NTFP trade from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The results show that NTFP trade benefits several components of peoples' livelihoods, but may increase inequality between households. Involvement of women in the production-to-consumption system (PCS) tends to have a positive impact on intrahousehold equity. In 80% of the cases, the commercial production of NTFPs does not enable people to make financial investments to increase quality and quantity of production, limiting the potential for development. In our set of cases, commercial extraction from the wild, without further management, tends to lead to resource depletion. NTFP production systems are generally considered to have lower environmental values than natural forest, but do contribute positively to the environmental values in the landscape. We found that higher livelihood outcomes are associated with lower environmental outcomes and conclude that NTFP trade is not likely to reconcile development and conservation of natural forest.
Highlights
In the early 1980s, the protectionist paradigm that had dominated nature conservation since the 19th century began losing ground
We found that higher livelihood outcomes are associated with lower environmental outcomes and conclude that nontimber forest product (NTFP) trade is not likely to reconcile development and conservation of natural forest
NTFPs were given a prominent role in many conservation and development projects based on the proposition that supporting the production and trade of NTFPs leads to livelihood improvement without compromising the environment
Summary
In the early 1980s, the protectionist paradigm that had dominated nature conservation since the 19th century began losing ground. It was replaced by a strong notion among both conservationists and development practitioners that poverty reduction and environmental protection should go hand in hand (Adams 1990, Roe and Elliot 2004). That proposition was based on the following assumptions: (1) commercial NTFP production can provide economically attractive options to farmers helping to increase their income and offering development opportunities (Peters et al 1989, Clay and Clement 1993); (2) NTFP production is a more benign way to use tropical forests than most land use alternatives, allowing for the conservation of key forest values (Myers 1988, Nepstad and Schwartzman 1992); and (3) increased monetary value of the NTFP will prevent people from converting the lands into other land uses (Evans 1993, Stiles 1994). The extensive literature on NTFPs provides a good overview of the range of experiences, the lack of an extensive, comparable
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
