Printer Friendly

Economic Significance of Non-Timber Forest Products as a Sustainable Source of Rural Livelihoods: A Micro Level Analysis in Mountainous Areas of Ayubia National Park.

Byline: Himayatullah Khan, Laura G. Vasilescu and Branka Buric

Abstract

Human societies derive many essential goods from natural ecosystems, including seafood, game animals, fodder, fuel wood, timber, and pharmaceutical products. These goods represent important and familiar parts of the economy. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are an important forest resource in Pakistan, with the potential to make a significant economic contribution to small, resource-based communities. Non-timber forest products include all the human-exploited uses of plant and fungal species of the forest, other than timber, pulpwood, shakes or other wood products. The commercial harvest of NTFPs from forest lands is a significant economic activity in Pakistan and in some areas it is important to rural economic development. This study is based on a sample of 209 households in three selected villages of District Abbottabad. The data were collected using a pre!tested interview schedule in spring 2008.

This study investigates the role of common property resources as a source of sustainable rural income in Ayubia National Park. No study has ever been conducted in Pakistan on the role of NTFPs collected from the forests in ANP area. This study was conducted to examine the extent of dependency of households on NTFPs as family income; the relative contribution of NTFPs in annual family income; category wise variation of NTFP collection among households, if any; the type of NTFP collected by villagers; and trend of NTFP collection for sale, etc. The study finds that family size and family type contributed positively to NTFPs income and labour employment, landholdings and agricultural income and cost of technology contributing negatively to NTFPs dependence.

Key Words: Non-timber forest products, Common property resources, Sustainable livelihood, National Parks, Pakistan.

JEL Classification: N500, Q000, Q010, Q200, Q320, Q500.

I. Introduction

Human societies derive many essential goods from natural ecosystems, including seafood, game animals, fodder, fuel wood, timber, and pharmaceutical products. These goods represent important and familiar parts of the economy. What has been less appreciated until recently is that natural ecosystems also perform fundamental life- support services without which human civilizations would cease to thrive. These include the purification of air and water, detoxification and decomposition of wastes, regulation of climate, regeneration of soil fertility, and production and maintenance of biodiversity, from which key ingredients of our agricultural, pharmaceutical, and industrial enterprises are derived. This array of services is generated by a complex interplay of natural cycles powered by solar energy and operating across a wide range of space and time scales.

The process of waste disposal, for example, involves the life cycles of bacteria as well as the planet-wide cycles of major chemical elements such as carbon and nitrogen. Such processes are worth many trillions of dollars annually. Yet because most of these benefits are not traded in economic markets, they carry no price tags that could alert society to changes in their supply or deterioration of underlying ecological systems that generate them. Because threats to these systems are increasing, there is a critical need for identification and monitoring of ecosystem services both locally and globally, and for the incorporation of their value into decision-making processes (Tiwari, nd).

According to Holdren and Ehrlich (1974) and Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1981) historically, the nature and value of Earth's life support systems have largely been ignored until their disruption or loss highlighted their importance. For example, deforestation has belatedly revealed the critical role forests serve in regulating the water cycle -- in particular, in mitigating floods, droughts, the erosive forces of wind and rain, and silting of dams and irrigation canals. Today, escalating impacts of human activities on forests, wetlands, and other natural ecosystems imperil the delivery of such services. The primary threats are land use changes that cause losses in biodiversity as well as disruption of carbon, nitrogen, and other biogeochemical cycles; human-caused invasions of exotic species; releases of toxic substances; possible rapid climate change; and depletion of stratospheric ozone.

Based on scientific evidences, it can be inferred that many of the human activities that modify or destroy natural ecosystems may cause deterioration of ecological services whose enormous long term value is sacrificed for the miniscule short-term economic benefits society gains from those activities. Our current understanding of ecosystem services reveals that:

(i) Ecosystem services operate on such a grand scale and in such intricate and little-explored ways that most could not be replaced by technology.

(ii) Human activities are already impairing the flow of ecosystem services on a large scale.

(iii) If current trends continue, humanity will dramatically alter virtually all of Earth's remaining natural ecosystems within a few decades.

(iv) Considered globally, very large numbers of species and populations are required to sustain ecosystem services.

(v) Land use and development policies should strive to achieve a balance between sustaining vital ecosystem services and pursuing the worthy short-term goals of economic development.

(vi) The functioning of many ecosystems could be restored if appropriate actions are taken up in time.

Forest ecosystems are also of pivotal importance to human beings in many respects. There is a very close relationship between forests and poverty as majority of the people living close to or inside forests depends on forests for their livelihood. People don't only extract timber products but also non-timber forest products from forests. Generally speaking, the term "Forest product" implies wood and wood-based products, but there are equally important non-wood products that are procured from the forest. These include all botanical and other natural products extracted from the forest other than timber. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are components of the forest system that exist in nature and are generally not cultivated. They are non-timber, but can be made of wood (Adepoju and Salau, 2007).

NTFPs are plants or plant parts that have perceived economic or consumption value sufficient to encourage their collection and removal from the forest. That is, they are those items harvested or removed from the forest lands for private use or for resale (excluding, saw timber, pole timber, natural gas, oil, sand, gravel, and shale and building stone). It can also be referred to as all the resources/products that may be extracted from forest ecosystem and are utilized within the household or are marketed or have social, cultural or religious significance (FAO, 1990). These include plants and plant materials used for food, fuel, storage and fodder, medicine, cottage and wrapping materials, biochemical, as well as animals, birds, reptiles and fishes, for food and feather. NTFPs which are harvested from within and on the edges of natural and disturbed forest, may be all or part of living or dead plants, lichens, fungi, or other forest organisms.

It therefore, represents a diversity of potential products sought after by a wide variety of people on a continuum of scales and intensities.

Unlike timber-based products, NTFPs came from a large variety of plant parts and are formed into a diverse set of products: leaves & twigs that may be component of decorative arrangements, food items such as fruits, fungi and juices, wood carved or woven into pieces of art or utilitarian objects and roots, leaves and bark processed into herbal remedies or medicines. Like timber, NTFPs may further be processed into consumer oriented products. NTFPs are found in a wide variety of outlets e.g. health food store, pharmacy, etc unlike timber-based products. People have benefited from those plants for many generations. In some cases, NTFPs contribute significantly to local and regional economies (Adepoju and Salau, 2007).

Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are an important forest resource in Pakistan, with the potential to make a significant economic contribution to small, resource-based communities. Non-timber forest products include all the human-exploited uses of plant and fungal species of the forest, other than timber, pulpwood, shakes or other wood products (FPB, 2004). The commercial harvest of NTFPs from forest lands is a significant economic activity in Pakistan and in some areas it is important to rural economic development.

Forest constitutes about only 4.8% of the total area of Pakistan and forest resources directly contribute to 80% of livelihood of people living in extreme poverty in the country. Notable NTFPs1 in Pakistan include morels, honey, fruits and nuts, vegetable, condiments and spices, mazri palm, silk cocoon, and many others. Latif, Shinwari and Shaheen (nd) have reported 17 species of mushrooms in their study which showed that about 34% of local people are dependent on NTFPs for income generation from these products. Local people rely on their indigenous knowledge for collection, processing, packing, drying, marketing and consumption of various NTFPs2.

Like other developing countries of the world, in Pakistan's forests, many plant species other than trees are used for personal, social, traditional or commercial purposes. Numerous species of plants and fungi are harvested including wild edible mushrooms, floral and greenery products and medicinal products, wild berries and fruit, herb and vegetable products and miscellaneous products such as honey. However, Alarming rates of deforestation, increased awareness of the multiple products and services provided by forests, and new commitments to address rural poverty, have converged in efforts to link conservation and development through the commercial development of forest products. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) in particular have a high profile in this, based on a perception that that they are more accessible to rural populations, and especially to the rural poor (Belcher, Ruiz-Perez, and Achdiawan, 2003; Saxena, 2003), and that their exploitation is more benign than timber harvesting (Myers 1988).

Moreover, there is an assumption, often implicit, that making forests more valuable to local users can encourage forest conservation (Plotkin and Famolare 1992; Evans 1993). The Forest Stewardship Council, for example, says: "Harvest of NTFPs usually has lower impacts on the forest ecosystem than timber harvesting, can provide an array of social and economic benefits, particularly to community operations, and can therefore be an important component of forest ecosystem management." (Belcher, Ruiz-Perez, and Achdiawan, 2003).

This study investigates the role of common property resources3 (CPRs) as a source of sustainable rural income in Ayubia National Park (ANP). No such study has ever been conducted in Pakistan on the role of NTFPs collected from the forests in ANP area. This study was conducted to examine: i) the extent of dependency of households on NTFPs as family income; ii) the relative contribution of NTFPs in annual family income; iii) the determinants of NTFPs income; iv) type of NTFP collected by villagers peoples and v) perceptions of sample respondents about NTFP collection. Section II outlines classification of NTFPs. Section III discusses the conceptual and econometric models used for this study. Section IV highlights universe, sample and data collection methods used for this study. Section V provides analytical results.

Finally, section VI concludes the study with a brief discussion and implications for further research.

II. Classification of NTFPs

The number of products available from NTFP is considered to be staggering. The United Nations and Food & Agricultural Organization claimed that at least 150 non- wood products are found in international markets. Classifying these products into like categories is an important first step of understanding the NTFPs industry. NTFPs can be broadly classified into edibles and non-edibles. The former include edible plants & animals, honey, oils, fish, spices etc while non-edible products include grasses, ornamental plants, oil for cosmetic use, medicinal products etc.

These two classes can further be divided into four general categories:

1. Edibles such as mushroom, the most well known and documented edible forest products and many other food products gathered from the forest. Since most of these products are not traded widely and are usually collected and consumed by the harvesters themselves, it is difficult to assess their economic magnitudes. These products include ferns, berries or other fruits, nuts, ramps (wild onions), herbs and spices.

2. Medicinal and dietary supplements: This includes plant based products that are processed into medicines. Beginning in the late eighteenth century, over 100 plant species indigenous to the U.S were commonly accepted for their medicinal properties. The majority are wild harvested and traded as botanical products (Foster 1995).

3. Floral products: It includes pine boughs, grapevines, ferns, and other plant products used for decorative applications. These unique forest products may appear in floral arrangements, dried flower decorations, and ornaments, common example include products made from pine boughs, grape vines, moss, ferns, flowers, cone, mistle toe and holly (Hammett and Chamberlain, 1998).

4. Specialty wood products include handicrafts, carving and turnings, musical instrument containers (basket), special furniture pieces as well as utensils. In general, specialty wood products are considered non traditional if they are produced directly from trees and not from lumber or timber purchased from mills. In other words, the tree may not need to be cut down to produce these items.

III. The Conceptual and Econometric Models

The Conceptual Model

We assume that a representative household performs a dual function of a rational consumer that maximizes satisfaction as well as that of a neoclassical firm that aims at maximization of profit. Thus, following Hanemann (1999) the household has preferences for various market purchased consumption goods whose consumption is denoted by the vector x, as well as non-market environmental amenities denoted by q. Depending upon the context these may be a single amenity, in which case q is a scalar, or several amenities, in which case q is a vector. The household takes q as given-in effect it is a composite public good to the household. By contrast, the household can freely vary the consumption of the private market goods, x. The preferences of the representative household are represented by a utility function u(x, q)4 which is continuous and non-decreasing in its arguments and strictly quasi-concave in x.

The household faces a budget constraint based on its disposable income m, the prices of the market commodities, denoted by vector p and cost of NTFPs, denoted by vector w. Given its budget constraint, the household chooses its consumption by solving its constrained utility maximization problem

Max u(x, q) subject to p i x i + wjqj ~ m (1)

taking q as given. This yields a set of ordinary demand functions, xi =hi(p,q,m), i= 1,... ,N and an indirect utility function, v(p,q,m)=u[h(p,q,m),q], which has the conventional properties with respect to (p,q). Alternatively speaking, if x is taken as given, then this yields set of ordinary demand functions for NTFPs, qi =gi(w,x,m), i= 1,... ,N and an indirect utility function, v(w,x,m)=u[g(w,x,m),x], which has the conventional properties with respect to (w,x).

Since q is extracted from forests for meeting various household requirements, household members spends time on harvesting or extracting such products. Thus, the household also spends owned or purchased inputs in collecting q from the forest. The theoretical model, therefore, for understanding the household production decisions is based on profit function approach.

We, therefore, further assume that the representative household functions as a neoclassical firm that controls the transformation of inputs (resources it owns or purchases) into outputs or products (valued products that it consumes and/or sells) and earns profit (the difference between what it receives in revenue and what it spends on inputs). The household can do so under a given production technology which is a description of the sets of outputs that can be produced by a given set of inputs using a given method of production process (Hallam, 2007). Thus, the household maximizes the profits or net returns as follows:

where pj is now the price of jth output (yj) of NTFPs, wi is the price of the ith input (xi) the household uses in collecting NTFPs and T represents the technology set. The problem can also be written as

where the technology is represented by V(y), the input requirement set, or P(x), the output set. If we carry out the maximization in equation 1 or equation 3, we obtain a vector of optimal outputs and a vector of optimal inputs such that y is producible given x and profits cannot be increased. We denote these optimal input and output choices as y(p,w) and x(p,w), where it is implicit that y and x are vectors.

If we substitute the optimal input demand in equation 1, we obtain the profit function of the following form.

Notice that p is a function of p and w and not x or y. The optimal x and the optimal y have already been chosen. The function tells us what profit will be (assuming the household is maximizing profits) given a set of output and input prices. As mentioned earlier and following Adhikari (2002) household's profit maximizing behaviour is constrained by the production technology. Fuel wood, tree fodder, cut grass and leaf litter production technology is given by a continuous quasi-concave production function that describes collection of forest products from common property forests, ANP, in this study. Representative household maximize profit by collecting (harvesting) various products from community forest by employing variable inputs, x (like labour, tools etc.).

Forest product collection is also conditioned on vector of fixed socio-economic characteristics, z, (i.e., land and livestock holding, ethnicity, gender, educational level, institutional constraints, including forest stock and access condition, leadership quality of household head, etc.) which drive the biomass need of user households. Production function for households engaging in gathering and collection activities can be written as

y = f(x;z) (5)

The representative household chooses the optimal level of input x and output y to maximize profits from collection and gathering activities. The input-demand and output supply functions can be given as follows. The supply and demand functions show the relation between output supply and input demand and the prices (both input and output) and the quantities of fixed factors.

x=x(p,w;z) (6)

y=y(p,w;z) (7)

This indicated that the optimal level of inputs and outputs are a function of output price, input price and fixed factors of production used in forest product collection. Substituting (6) and (7) in profit function, we get the new profit function.

Differentiating this profit function with respect to output and input price, we can get the following first order conditions that give rise to the output supply and factor demand function.

oir/opi (p,w,z) = yi (9)

oir/owi (p, w, z) = -xi (10)

As we have seen, profits are not only affected by input and output price but also socio!economic position of households (fixed factors) by its affects on demand and level of dependency on the commons. Demand of forest products is indeed a function of increasing wealth (land, livestock etc.), which, in turn, is a driving force in exploiting NTFPs from the ANP. The econometric model in subsequent section analyses the determinants of household level benefits from such NTFPs.

The Econometric Model

The study made use of primary data consisting 209 households based on a stratified two stage sampling technique. The households' dependency on forests and the factors influencing NTFPs collection was estimated using Logit model. Logit model is generally used to predict the effect of changes in independent variables on probability of response to a group or category (Aldrich and Forrest, 1984; Maddala, 1983). In the present study, it is employed to capture the probability of a particular household would indulge in the collection of NTFPs. This model was chosen because of its ability to deal with a dichotomous dependent variable and a well-established theoretical background.5

The logit6 model based on the logistic probability is specified as

Where

F, = the probability that 1', = 1, that a randomly chosen household collects NTFPs,

1-F, = is the probability that 1', = 0, that a randomly chosen household will not go for NTFPs collection,

f3i = coefficient of explanatory variables to be estimated. The unknown parameters ssi are usually estimated by maximum likelihood.

Xi = explanatory variables which include household labour, land holding, livestock holding, education, gender, leadership quality, fuel wood price, distance between forest and house, forest condition, institutional constraints, etc.

e = base of natural logarithm,

?i = the stochastic error term,

i ) = Li ( also called logit) is the log odds ratio of the probability that a

household will go for collection of NTFPs to the probability that it will not.. It is linear in both independent variables and parameters. This will be estimated by the method of maximum likelihood estimator (MLE).

IV. Universe and Sample of the Study

The study was conducted in the District Abbottabad because this is very close to Ayubia National Park. Although there are a larger number of villages in Abbottabad district, this study is based on 3 purposively selected villages. These villages, namely, Makol Bala, Nagribala and Kasala constitute the area of this study. These are the villages where some NGOs (SRSP, SUNGI, etc) have introduced most of its activities related to Natural Resource Management.

In order to select sample for study a list of households was obtained from the office of the SRSP and 50% of the households were selected by following simple random sampling method. The detail of total and sample households is given in Table 1.

Table 1. Total and Sample Households in the Study Area

Name of Village###Total Households###Sample Households

Makol Bala###140###70

Kasala###128###64

Nagribala###150###75

All###418###209

The data for this study were collected through a household level survey in the study area in Spring 2008. A pre-tested interview schedule was used for data collection. Data were collected through face-to-face interview from the respondents in the study area. The data collected for this study were analyzed using statistical package for social sciences (SPSS).

IV. Results and Discussion

Socio-Economic Profile of Sample Households

People of sample households in the study area have significant interaction with forest vegetation as they have been deriving most of their basic requirements such as food, fodder, fuel, fruit and fiber from the forest. Extraction, processing and marketing of NTFPs are still a major source of employment and income to majority of these households. Table 2 presents the socio-economic characteristics of sample households. The averages household size was 6.5 members of which about 2 were each adult males, adult females and children, respectively. Adult literacy was 20% and the total literacy of the sample households was only 47%. The people of the area lack permanent assets as their main occupation was food gathering from the forests and collection of NTFPs. Among all (209 households) 55 percent were landless, 25 percent marginal farmers and 20 percent were small farmers. The average size of the land was only 0.8 acres because of the mountainous nature of the area. The people did not have other assets except livestock holding. Majority of them live in kacha houses built out of locally available material and they lack water, power and sanitation.

S.No.###Socio-economic Characteristics###Per Household

1###Household Size###6.5

A###Number of adult males###2.3

B###Number of adult females###2.2

C###Number of children###2.0

2###Landholding Size (Acres)###0.8

3###Livestock Holding Size

A###Cattle###1.7

B###Poultry###7.8

C###Goat and Sheep###6.5

D###Donkey###0.9

4###Literacy (%)###Average

A###Adult Literacy###20

B###Total Literacy###47

5###Status of Land Ownership (%)

A###Landless###55

B###Marginal Farmers###25

C###Small Farmers###20

Note: Marginal farmers are those who own upto 5 kanals of land and small farmers are those having more than 5 kanals of land.

How Do Households Allocate Labour for NTFPs?

This section analyses how a household allocates its labour for NTFPs collection in the study area. The study has investigated such allocation in four areas: firewood, tree fodder, grass fodder and leaf litter collection. Table 3 shows that households in Makol Bala on average allocated a total of 125, 18, 175, and 315 hours annually for fuel wood, tree fodder, leaf litter and grass fodder collection, respectively. Similarly sample households in Nagribala on average allocated 150, 32, 680, and 790 hours annually in collection of these products. This shows that the forest products i.e. tree and grass fodder and leaf litter are highly wealth sensitive. It appears that households with larger endowments (Makol Bala) extract more intermediate forest products than poorer households (Nagri Bala) in the study area. This finding is in agreement with Adhikari (2003) which also sows that richer households extract more NTFPs from forest than poor households.

Table 3 Sample Households Allocation of Labour for NTFPs (Hour/Year)

Activities###N###Mean###Standard Dev.

Mako Bala (Low Income Households)###70###

Fuel wood collection###125###106

Fodder collection###18###45

Leaf litter collection###175###123

Grass collection###315###245

Kasala (Middle Income Households)###64###

Fuel wood collection###132###121

Fodder collection###22###65

Leaf litter collection###365###570

Grass collection###656###983

Nagri Bala (High Income Households)###75###

Fuel wood collection###150###137

Fodder collection###32###87

Leaf litter collection###680###879

Grass collection###790###923

Source: Survey

Employment and Income

The major sources of employment and income included agriculture, NTFPs collection and wage income. The composition of employment and income is presented in Table 4. The data show that table indicates that the overall employment level per household was to the extent of 343 man days per annum. Among various sources the NTFPs collection constituted the major source of employment as it provided 42.3 percent of the total employment followed by wage earning 31.5 percent and agriculture (26.2 percent). On the basis of landholding, the comparison showed that 355 man days of employment were generated on small farm households, followed by marginal households (300) and landless households (295). The sample households did not only collected NTFPs for own consumption but also for selling to earn cash income. This is why NTFPs contributed most of the total employment to the sample households in the area. Regarding income, the sample households on the average obtained Rs. 13,942 per annum.

The NTFPs provided 43 percent to total household income. The wage income and agriculture contributed about 37 percent and 20 percent, respectively to total income. Average annual household income was Rs. 15,088/-, Rs. 14,900/-, and Rs. 11840/- for small farmers, marginal farmers and landless.

The above analysis indicates the importance of NTFPs in rural livelihoods of the people of the area. NTFPs play an important role in rural economy of the area in terms of income earning and employment generation. However, the average household income shows that these people live on income below the poverty line and a serious effort is needed enhance the income of the these poor and marginal households.

Table 4. Composition of Annual Employment and Income of Sample Households by Landholdin

Source###Landless###Marginal###Small###All

###Empl###Incom###Empl###Income###Empl###Income###Empl###Income

###e###

Agri.###0.00###-###65###2450###125###3250###90###2850

###0###-###(21.6)###(16.4)###(35.2)###(21.5)###(26.2)###(20.4)

NTFP###150###5615###130###6560###150###6780###145###6000

s###(50.8)###(47.4)###(43.3)###(44.0)###(42.3)###(44.9)###(42.3)###(43.0)###

Wage###140###6225###105###5890###80###5058###108###5092

###(49.2)###(52.6)###(35)###(39.5)###(22.5)###(33.5)###(31.5)###(36.5)

All###295###11840###300###14900###355###15088###343###13942

###(100)###(100)###(100)###(100)###(100)###(100)###(100)###(100)

Notes: Figure in the parentheses indicate percentage to column total Marginal holdings-households with land holding upto 5 kanals.

Small holdings -households with land holdings more than 5 kanals. Employment in mandays per annum per households.

Incomes in rupees per annum.

Factors Determining Households' Dependence on NTFPs

The sample households collect the NTFPs inside the Ayubia National Park area. It is important to know what explains dependence of households in NTFPs collection for their livelihood. In order to understand the importance of NTFPs as an economic activity among sample households, a multiple linear regression with income from NTFPs as a dependent variable and family type, family size, days of employment, size landholding and agricultural income as independent variables was estimated by following ordinary least square (OLS) method. The estimated equation is given as follows:

Yi = 45.12 + 3.23X1* + 3.10X2** + 0.33X3 - 1.847X4* - 0.046X5

(1.69) (2.43)###(2.906)###(1.54)###(-2.55)###(-1.65)

R2=0.48 (Figures in the parentheses are the t-ratios of the estimates)

Where,

Yi = Income from NTFPs

X1 = Family type assuming value of 1 if joint family and 0 for nuclear family.

X2 = Household size i.e. No. of members in the family

X3 = Number of mandays employed

X4 = Land holdings (kanals)

X5 = Annual income from agriculture (Rs. per annum)

The analysis shows that only three variables including family type, family size and possession of land holdings had an impact on the collection of NTFPs by the sample households and in turn the income derived from it. The joint family system of living and the large family size has contributed positively towards NTFPs income earned by sample households, whereas landholdings and greater opportunities for wage employment had negative impact on household income from NTFPs. These results are similar to that reported by Amacher et al. (1993), Gunatilake (1998), Heltberg (2001), Adhikari (2003),

In addition, Logit model was also used to investigate the probability of a particular sample household going for collecting NTFPs with a given set of socio economic background. The results of the logit analysis are given in Table 5. Based on the average socio-economic characteristics of the sample households, the average probability that a household would collect NTFPs was estimated. This was done by substituting the average values of the variables into the Logit function and calculating the probabilities from the estimated value of the Logit function so obtained. The average function so obtained was 0.60 indicating that the average household in the study area would go for NTFPs collection was 60 percent. This is because of lower non-NTFPs incomes that they are deriving from other sources such as wage employment, and agriculture. Joint family systems and large family size would increase the probability of collection of NTFPs by the household.

Thus, the results of Logit analysis were generally similar to OLS analysis indicating that family size and family type contributed positively to NTFPs income and labour employment, landholdings and agricultural income and cost of technology contributing negatively to NTFPs dependence.

Table 5. Effects of Socio-economic Characteristics on the Probability of being Dependent on NTFPs (Results of Logit Regression)

Independent Variable###Coefficient

Constant###2.65 (0.25)

Family Type (joint/Nuclear)###0.16 (4.1)

Household Size (No.)###0.13 (3.2)

Labour time spent (days)###-0.01 (-2.3)

Size of Land Holding (Acres)###-0.45 (-2.13)

Annual Income from Agriculture (Rs. Per annum)###-0.006 (-.3.5)

Gender (Male =1, 0 otherwise)###0.003 (1.4)

Distance from Forests###-0.09 (-2.6)

Education of household members (No. of school years)###0.02 (2.10)

Technology (cost of tools used in NTFPs collection)###-0.05 (-2.3)

Log (L)###237

Sample Size###209

Per cent correct predicted###0.76 %

Note: The numbers in parentheses are the ratio of the coefficients to the estimates of their asymptotic standard errors. *, **, and *** show significance level of 10, 5 and 1 percent, respectively.

V. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

NTFPs are of pivotal importance for rural livelihood of communities living in mountainous areas of northern Pakistan. NTFPs accounts for a significant portion of household income and livelihood. But harvesting of NTFPs is currently not done in line with the sustainable development. Local communities need to be educated on the sustainable use of NTFPs so that overexploitation of these and other natural resources may be minimized if not completely eliminated.

The study concludes that wage earning/employment, ownership of land, and income received from farming and other agricultural related sources reduce significantly the probability of sample households involved in collecting NTFPs from the park area. Since, there are no alternative sources of income for these communities their dependence on NTFPs is exclusively for their survival and not due to commercial gains from NTFPs. There is a dire need to take measures for providing some sort of alternative sources including trainings, microfinance and credit facilities so that they could initiate income generating activities. This will reduce pressure on fragile natural resources and forests.

It is suggested that village organizations including women participation may be formed to train and mobilize local communities to use NTFPs and even other forest products on sustainable basis.

The present study is a preliminary effort and further research is needed in this area on a wider scale. This may be of much value for other researchers, stack holders, students, policy makers and politicians.

References

Adepoju, A. A. & Salau, A. S. (2007). Economic Valuation of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA) Paper No. 2689. www.mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2689/.

Adhikari, B. (2002). Property Rights and Natural Resource: Socio-economic Heterogeneity and Distributional Implications of Common Property Resource Management in Nepal. Paper presented at the Beijer Institute's Advanced Workshop on "Property Rights Structures and Environmental Resource Management." May, 28-3 0, Durban, South Africa.

Adhikari, B. (2003). What Determines Household Dependency on Community Forests? Empirical Evidence from Nepal. Paper Presented at the XII World Forestry Congress, Quebec City, Canada.

Alberini, A. (1995). Efficiency vs. Bias of Willingness-to-estimates Bivariate and Internal-Data Models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29: Pp. 169-80.

Alberini, A., et al. (1997). Modeling Responsive Incentive effects in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Data. Land Economics 73: Pp. 309-24.

Aldrich, J. H. & Forrest, D. N. (1984). "Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models", Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Science. 07-45, Sage Publishers, London, U.K.

Amacher, G., W. Hyde & B. Joshee (1993). Joint Production and Consumption in Traditional Households: Fuel Wood and Crop Residues in Two Districts in Nepal. Journal of Development Studies 30 (1): Pp. 206-225.

Bann, Camille (1998). The Economic Valuation of Tropical Forest Land Use Option: A Manual for Researchers. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia, Singapore.

Belcher, B., Ruiz-Perez, M. & Achdiawan, R. (2003). Global Patterns and Trends in NTFP Development. Paper presented at the International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity, 19-23 May, Bonn, Germany.

Ehrlich, P. R. & Ehrlich, A. H. (1981). Extinction. Ballantine, New York.

Evans, M. I. (1993). Conservation by commercialization. In: Hladik, C.M., Hladik, A., Linares, O.F., Pagezy, H., Semple, A. and Hadley, M. (Editors). Tropical Forests, People and Food: Biocultural Interactions and Applications to Development. MAB Series vol. 13. UNESCO, Paris and Parthenon Publishing Group, Carnforth, UK. Pp.815-822.

Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations FAO (1990). The Major Significance of Minor Forest Product. The Local Use and Value of Forest in the West African Humid Forest Zone. Community Forestry Note 6, Rome..

Forests Practices Board FPB (2004). Integrating Non-Timber Forest Products into Forest Planning and Practices in British Columbia. Special Repot. The Centre for the Non-Timber Resources at Royal Roads University (CNTR).

Foster, Steven (1995): Forest Pharmacy: Medicinal Plants in American Forest. Forest History Society. Durham NC.

Government of Pakistan (2000) Economic Survey of Pakistan. Ministry of Finance, Economic Adviser's Wing, Islamabad.

Gunatilake, H., (1998). 'The Role of Rural Development in Protecting Tropical Rainforests: Evidence from Sri Lanka." Journal of Environmental Management 53: Pp. 273-292.

Hallam, Arne (2007). Econ 501: Microeconomics (Lecture Notes online). http://www.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ501/Hallam/index.html

Hammett, A. L. & Chamberlain, J. L. (1998). "Sustainable Use of Non-Traditional Forest Product: Alternative Forest Based Income Opportunities." In S. K. Jonathan (ed). Natural Resources Income Opportunities on Private Land Conference. April 5-7th 1998. Hagerstown, Maryland. Pp: 141-147.

Hanemann, W. M. (1999).The Economic Theory of WTP and WTA. In: Ian J. Bateman and Kenneth G. Willis (eds) Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press.

Heltberg, R., (2001). "Determinants and Impact of Local Institutions for Common Resource Management." Environment and Development Economics 6: Pp. 183-208.

Holdren, J. P. & Ehrlich, P. R. (1974). "Human Population and the Global Environment." American Scientist 62: Pp. 282-292.

Kannien, B. J. (1995). Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22: Pp. 57-70.

Latif, A., Shinwari, Z. K., Hussain, J. & Murtaza, S. (2006). NTFPS: An alternative to Forest Logging in Minadam and Sultanar Valley Swat Non Timber Forest Products: An Alternative to Forest Logging in Minadam and Sultanar Valley Swat. Lyonia: a journal of ecology and application, 11, No. 2. http://www.lyonia.org/downloadPDF.php?pdfID=303.485.1.

Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Maler, K-G. (1974). Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry, published for Resources for the Future by John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Myers, N. 1988. Tropical forests: much more than stocks of wood. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 4: Pp. 209-221.

Plotkin, M. & Famolare, L. (Editors). 1992. Sustainable Harvest and Marketing of Rain Forest Products. Conservation International-Island Press, Washington, DC. Pp. xiii-xv.

Saxena, N. C. (2003). Livelihood Diversification and Non-Timber Forest Products in Orissa: Wider Lessons on the Scope for Policy Change? ODI Working Paper No. 223. London, U.K.: Overseas Development Institute.

Tiwari, B. K. (nd). Marketable and Non-Marketable Environmental Goods and Services. Centre for Environmental Studies, North-Eastern Hill University, http://www.freewebs.com/envir/tiwari.htm

Appendix-A: NTFPs in Northern Pakistan

S.###Botanical###Local###Part Used###Used for

No.###Name###Name###

1###Aconitum violaceum###Zaharmora###Rhizome###Rheumatism and arthritis.

2###Acorus calamus###Sakha Waja###Rhizome###Cough, remedy for flatulence, colic and diarrhea and also against snake bites

3###Adiantum venustum###Sumbal###Leaves###Sexual disability, fever, backache and used as blood purifier

4###Aesculus indica###Jawaz###Fruit, Oil###Fruits are used as anathematic and given to horses in colic.

5###Ajuga bracteosa###Boti###Whole Plant###Throat sore treatment and purifying blood, used in epilepsy act as coolant

6###Artimisia brevifolia###Terkha###Shoots###Antispasmodic and stomach-ache

7###Arisaema flavum###Marjarey###Rhizome###-

8###Atropa acuminata###Bargak###Plant###Pains and rheumatism as poultice

9###Berberis lycium###Kowarey###-###Jaundice, sore mouth stomach problems

10###Bergenia ciliata###Gat Panra###Rhizome###anti-diabetics and expectorant

11###Bistorta mpilexicaulis###Tarwa Panara###Rhizome###Rheumatism and gout

12###Caltha alba###Makan Path###Floral shoot###Laxative

13###Corydalis stewartii###Mamera###Floral shoot###Eye drops for curing eye diseases

14###Dioscorea deltoidea###Qanris###Rhizome###Used for treatment of jaundice and ulcers

15###Dry opteris jaxtaposta###Kowanjey###Whole Frond###Enhance digestion

16###Feoniculum vulgare###Kaga Velaney###Fruit###Used for curing urinary, dried fruits are used as carminative and laxative

17###Fumaria indica###Papra###Whole plant###Used for jaundice, also used as blood purifier and coolant

18###Hedera nepalensis###Prewatei###Stem and leaves###Anti-diabetics, blood purifier

19###Hypericum perforatum###Shin chey###Stem and leaves###Used as diuretic and its tea is stimulant and analgesic

20###Indigofera heterantha###Ghorejey###Root, leaves###For scabies, leaves are used for stomach problems

21###Isodon rugosus###Spirkey###Stem and leaves###Remedy for toothache

22###Juglans regia###Ghuz###Fruit, bark###General body tonic, bark is used for cleaning teethes and antiseptic

23###Mentha longifolia###Velaney###Shoots###Used in diarrhea in children and prevention of vomiting. Also used in dyspepsia

24###Mentha spicata###Podina###Leaves and stem###Used as carminative and refrigerant also used as Carminative

25###Paeonia emodi###Mamekh###Rhizome###Backache and general weakness

26###Primula denticulate###Mamera###Flower###Eye irritant

27###Podophyllum emodii###Kakora###Rhizome###Used to control jaundice and other liver disease

28###Polygonatum verticilatum###Noor-e- alam###Rhizome###Used for treatment of joint pain

29###Rheum australe###Chotial###Roots, Rhizome and leaves###Purgative, astringent, alexiterix, emmenagogue, diuretic and act as blood purifier

30###Skimmia laureola###Nazar Panra###Leaves Tea made from the leaves###dyspepsia, smoke is considered as antiseptic

31###Solanum nigrum###Kamachoo###Leaves and fruit###Treat eczema, fruits edible and are used in fever

32###Taxus buccata###Banerya###Bark###Emmenagogue and antispasmodic

33###Valeriana jatamansi###Mushk-e- Bala###Rhizome###Unknown local uses

34###Viola odorata###Banafsha###Flower###throat sore and carminative agent

Source: Latif et al. (2006)

Notes

1 A list of NTFPs is given in appendix-A.

2 Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) refer to a wide array of economic or subsistence materials that come from forests, excluding timber. Similar terms include "non wood," "minor," "secondary," and "special" or "specialty" forest products. About 6000 species of higher plants are noted in various forms (Shinwari, 2002). About 400 (7.8%) of these are endemic to Pakistan representing 149 genera and 41 families. The share of forestry in country's economy is 456 millions in 1999-00 (Govt. of Pakistan, 2000).

3 Common property resource, alternatively termed common-pool resource, is a particular type of good consisting of a natural or human-made resource system, the size or characteristics of which makes it costly, but not impossible, to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use. Common pool resources face problems of congestion or overuse, because they are subtractable. Examples of common-pool resources include irrigation systems, fishing grounds, pastures, and forests. A pasture, for instance, allows for a certain amount of grazing occurring each year without the core resource being harmed. In case of excessive grazing, however, the pasture may become more prone to erosion and eventually yield less benefit to its users. Their core resource being vulnerable, common-pool resources are generally subject to the problems of congestion, overuse, pollution, and potential destruction unless harvesting or use limits is devised and enforced.

4 The elements of q are viewed as goods and multiple amenities rather than bads. In this study q stands from non-timber forest products that household collects from forests.

5 For more detailed discussion, see Alberini (1995); Kannien (1995) and . Alberini et al. (1997).

6 There might be distinction in the application of probit and logit models in dealing with qualitative variable cases. Probit is thought to better suit the experimental data while logit might be more appropriate for the survey data (Bann, 1998).

Himayatullah Khan Institute of Development Studies (IDS) NWFP Agricultural University, Peshawar, Pakistan, Laura G. Vasilescu Faculty of Economy and Business Administration University of Craiova, Romania and Branka Buric Environmental Economist, Serbia
COPYRIGHT 2009 Asianet-Pakistan
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:The Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9PAKI
Date:Dec 31, 2009
Words:6999
Previous Article:Conflict, postwar reconstruction and corruption: institutionalised corruption by donors in Afghanistan's reconstruction.
Next Article:Institutionalization of Participatory Development in Pakistan: a Case Study of a Local Government and NGO Partnership-based Project.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters