Download What are NTFPs

What are NTFPs?
In developed countries people may not depend directly on forest products for their daily
needs, but rather see them as part of recreational activities (collecting forest mushrooms, and
chestnuts), small enterprise (truffles a gourmet food in Europe and USA: US$273/kg) or
cultural festivities (first spring egg of the Northern lapwing or Kiviet in the Netherlands).
However in a country like Lao PDR non-timber forest products have a more important function
altogether. For instance rural communities have to secure food intake by collecting tubers of
Dioscorea or bamboo shoots when rice shortages occur. They may also ensure purchases of
rice by selling marketable forest product such a cardamom and malvanuts. Local people who
do not have sufficient income also need to construct and repair their houses with local forest
products, besides wood these are often bamboos, palm or grass leaves for roofing.
Non-timber forest products or popularly called NTFPs refer to a wide array of economic or
subsistence materials that come from forests, excluding timber. De Beer and McDermott
(1989) define the NTFPs as: “encompassing all biological materials other than timber, which
are extracted from forests for human use”. Similar terms include "non-wood forest products
(NWFPs)" or "minor forest products". Many kinds of animal and plant resources are gathered
in natural forests, including fruits, nuts, mushrooms, essential oils, florals, medicinal products,
herbs and spices, dyes, resins, and animal products such as honey, fish and wild game. NTFPs
generally also include fuelwood and small woods (FAO, 1999; Rijsoort, 2000). However, FAO
(1999) proposed the following definition for NWFPs excluding all woody raw materials and
services: “non-wood forest products consists of goods of biological origins other than wood,
derived from forests, other wooded land and trees outside forests”. Chandrasekharan’s (1995)
older definition also did not include soil, sand, stones and water, timber, poles, wood fuel or
charcoal, watershed values and conservation; however it did cover grazing, eco-tourism and
hunting.
Which ever definition is used the importance of local people should be reflected in it. Many
have difficulty with the FAO NWFP definition because it excludes wood and services (Wong,
2000; Belcher, 2003; CIFOR). NTFPs may thereby also be produced with varying degrees of
cultivation and domestication, either within a forest ecosystem or as part of an agroforestry
system. Wickens (1991) provide this clearly in his definition of NTFPs: “all the biological
material (other than industrial round wood and derived sawn timber, wood chips, wood-based
panel and pulp) that may be extracted from natural ecosystems, managed plantations, etc.
and be utilised within the household, be marketed, or have social, cultural or religious
significance”. Some NTFPs involve little processing, serving local markets or family needs, and
others involve complex management and processing and are bound for national or
international markets (Wilkinson, 2004).
Wong (2000) believes that in many senses it is nonsense to exclude timber of natural forest
origin from a classification that centres on the ‘wildness’ and ‘utility’ of a species, as it is
important to get the full picture of resource use by a community. Wong finds it more logical to
discard the exclusion of timber and instead to define wild forest products and sub-divide this
into wild non-timber forest products and wild timber products if so desired. In subsistence
Box 1: NTFPs include all the materials (excluding timber extraction) collected from
forest, or manmade forest and riverine habitats that are used to support local
livelihoods. This includes items such as forest and aquatic vegetables, fruit,
traditional medicine products, wild animals and aquatic organisms such as fish,
mollusks, insects and crustaceans. While the term NTFP implies non-timber items,
it does include wood products for home construction, fuelwood and charcoal and
handicraft products. The term NTFP can even include non-organic items like scrap
metal from bombs and airplanes. (adapted from Mollet et al, 2004).
economies and traditional forest societies the forest provides many of the essentials of life and
each product often comes from preferred species of plant or animal and the depth of
ecological knowledge of forest dwellers is such that nearly everything can be used for some
purpose by someone. Box 1 may wrap up the issue for Lao PDR.
What is the importance of NTFPs?
1
NTFPs are essential for subsistence and economic activities all around the world, and among
the oldest and most long-standing of internationally traded commodities, dating back
thousands of years. Vantomme (2001) estimated that:

80% of the population of the developing world use NTFPs to meet some of their health and
nutritional needs

Several million households worldwide depend heavily on NTFP products for income

The estimated total value of world trade in NTFPs is approximately US$11 billion.
Recently, the importance of NTFPs is being rediscovered and is receiving increasing
recognition by governments and other official agencies. Forests are being valued not simply
for their timber, but as intricate systems capable of sustained generation of a great diversity
of resources and services. NTFPs are key to local livelihoods, in maintaining biological
diversity, and sustainable economic growth.
Livelihood Importance
NTFPs provide basic
subsistence with food,
medicines and construction
materials for shelter, cultural
and ritual values (i.e. incense)
as well as cash income for
many local communities,
especially where these groups
have access to forest areas.
Most often NTFPs require
opportunistic and low level
harvesting, processing and
marketing skills, a crucial
resort for the poorest groups,
and in many cases they are as
important as agriculture. While
the preservation of NTFPs is
fundamental to the
maintenance and continuation of many traditional ways of life, NTFP sources are increasingly
threatened by deforestation and land development activities.
Source: Raintree in Thomas, 2003
Environmental Importance
NTFPs represent a way to meet environmental objectives such as conservation of forests,
watersheds, and biological diversity. Many scientific researchers and development workers
suggest that NTFPs can help communities meet their needs without jeopardizing forest
ecosystems. Conservation efforts seek to encourage low-intensity management systems and
see livelihood improvement as an important (or necessary) instrument to achieve nature
conservation. It is often assumed that harvests of NTFPs have less impact on a forest than
logging. However, forest ecosystems have complex interrelationships that harvests of some
NTFPs can affect plant (and wildlife) populations negatively. Without a sound knowledge of the
resource and regular monitoring, harvests of certain NTFP resources can have a large impact.
Economic Importance
The important contribution of NTFPs to food and financial well-being has gained increased
recognition. In fact, in some areas, the financial impact of NTFPs may be even greater than
that of forestry. In local, urban, national and international markets, forest foods and medicines
contribute substantially to national economic growth and the NTFP sector worldwide is growing
perhaps faster than the timber industry. For example, the market for NTFPs has grown by
nearly 20% annually over the last several years, and the related herbal medicine market at a
rate of 13-15% annually (Wilkinson, 2004). Development efforts focus on the potential for
creating and capturing value through improved production, processing and marketing, with
the main focus on improving livelihoods for local people, and by diversifying enterprises.
2
These 3 different interests and objectives are ambiguous and inconsistent, and are sometimes
conveniently combined in ICDPs (Integrated Conservation and Development Projects). ICDPs
assume that when the value of NTFPs can be increased the incentives for conserving forest
can be increased. The concept becomes different when the value or scale of production of
NTFP is/becomes large and non-transparent with access becoming limited to the poor, and
only a few rich stakeholders benefit (Belcher, 2003).
However, NTFPs cover a large variety of products/species and associated production and
marketing systems and care should be taken to adapt methods to local socio-economic and
environmental circumstances.
How to classify NTFPs?
There is considerable uncertainty in how to classify NTFPs and no uniform system has been
adopted yet. It is sometimes argued that this may not be possible because it depends much
on specific importance of NTFPs – for livelihood, income or conservation –, stage of processing
or even where they are collected – forest, domesticated –, and so challenge the definition of
an NTFP. NTFPs are often listed on the basis of local importance, but these are inconsistently
reported resulting in an inability to analyse trade, provide market information, investigate
export potential and planning for product development (Vantomme, 2001). For that reason
NTFPs rarely feature in official statistics or national accounts, thus wrongly suggesting a
relatively low contribution of forests to GDP and national welfare. Chandrasekharan (1995) list
the following reasons:

NWFPs form a heterogeneous group,

transactions related to these products largely take place in households and small-scale
units,

while NWFPs are very important in local economies, they mostly form part of an informal
sector and are outside the established market system.
Van Rijsoort (2000) makes clear the large variety of products covered by the term NTFP and
categorises these in:

By user purpose (e.g. food, medicine, spiritual and traditional uses, construction, etc),
with some overlap between categories;

By level of use (self supporting, commercial), but difficult to strictly separate;

By type of NTFP harvested (e.g. leaf, fruit, stem, exudates, skin, etc), an effective way of
clarifying the impact of harvesting on the individual NTFP, species or ecosystem. This is a
useful basis for sustainable systems for managing NTFPs.
Iqbal (1995) mentions the complexity as illustrated in the 1982 ITC report on Medicinal Plants
and their Derivatives in the following words: "It is not possible to assess the volume or value
of the trade in all botanicals that are used medicinally because trade statistics do not identify
all the plants individually and of those listed, the statistics do not identify medicinal and other
uses separately. Products reported as medicinal plants often include gums, spices and plants
used in the food industry, certain plant products include those used for teas and infusions, a
large volume of plants are used in the manufacture of insecticides, plants used by the
cosmetic industry are also included."
In Table 1 classification systems used in Southeast Asia are summarised. The French, when
ruling Indochina until the 1950-60’s, developed a grouping system for products with
commercial value, which at that time included all produce, together with NTFPs. In the
“Catalogue des produits de l’Indochine” (Crevost, C. et al, 1910-41) 8 end use groups were
distinguished describing the product group roughly. Within the groups a further 30 classes
were distinguished focussing on specific products (perfume, paper) or plant parts (tuber,
fruit). In 1991 Rao made an extensive classification system, based on 6 head categories. Each
category then contains more specific products, which are specified either to end use or plant
part used. Iqbal in 1993 proposed a classification of significant commercial products according
to their end uses (17 groups), but compared to the French ungrouped some categories, mainly
for exudates. He also subdivided the categories like Crevost et al. De Beer & Mc Dermott
(1989) only use a few users’ purpose categories, and include fibres, ornamentals, and
chemical components into the non-edible plant product category. Vantomme (2001) used 2
3
grouping systems, with 1 group based on plant parts, incl. subgroups according to purpose
(food, fibres); and a second group based on vegetable exudates, with subgroups according to
characteristics (latex). FAO (2002) for Laos and Asia also used end use as a criterion to group
NTFPs and then split them up into specific species. PROSEA (2004) arranges 7,000 useful
plants according to their main use (and secondary use) relating to daily practices into (to
date) 22 commodity groups, very similar to the Crevost et al individual class system. Kaat and
Jeppesen (2004) in their Savannakhet thesis used a locally defined use-categories framework
representing natural capital converted to other kinds of livelihood assets. Foppes
(unpublished) groups NTFPs, as most others, according to end uses, and thereby their
importance or the role they play in people’s lives in Lao PDR. Then his system recognises for
each group an own style of subdivision either by plant parts used (roots, leaves) or specific
products obtained (baskets, brooms).
There seems to be a tendency to first group NTFPs into end use groups and then according to
specific products, species, or plant parts. But besides that, there is still no clear system. To
illustrate some of the contradictions or confusions met while trying to classify NTFPs the
following examples are mentioned here:

The French put the rattans (and its edible shoots) only under the fibre group and not also
in the food groups like the bamboos. Many Boehmeria species are classified as fibre
plants, but peuak meuak, also believed a Boehmeria species, of which the bark is
harvested for making glue would rather be placed in the extract group. Also Pentace
burmanica is grouped in fibres, but its end use are the stimulating tannins when chewed.

Iqbal included bong bark under insecticides, as the adhesive made form the bark is used
also in mosquito coils, however he is not sure of the source and does not mention its
primary use. Lacking or incomplete information regarding a products final end use creates
confusion.

FAO placed Aquilaria, bong bark and peuak meuak into the category of perfume and
cosmetics, because of its aromatic substances made use of in incense. FAO and PROSEA
placed some products with dual purposes in more than one category, such as some spices,
medicines, peuak meuak, vomica nuts and berberine in the extract group, however vomica
nuts and berberine are primary used for their medicinal purpose.
Vantomme (2001) suggests that developing national or globally applicable classification
systems might not be feasible neither practical. He argues that what is needed is to improve
the existing national product classification schemes by a more detailed reporting system as to
provide an identity and clarity on the diverse group of products obtained from the forest with
their production and trade figures. There have been some attempts to develop or improve the
classification of NTFPs by including non-marketed but estimated values for goods and services.
These still require further refinement, as it is still difficult to decide where to assign a
monetary value, based on shares of NTFPs going to the households (incl. subsistence nonmarket use) and to the market. Chandrasekharan (1995) made such an attempt in accordance
with major international classification systems such as the Harmonised Commodity Description
and Coding System, the Standard International Trade Classification Rev. 3, and the Provisional
Central Product Classifications which help trace the flow of goods and services. However, these
classifications are only concerned with product characteristics (i.e. degree of processing or
edible foodstuff, etc) without any regard for the plant or animal that provided the raw material
(Wong, 2000). Chandrasekharan (1995) proposed that at national-level classification need not
necessarily be identical, but can be adopted to meet national requirements within the
framework.
Researchers and developers alike may try to term and classify NTFPs, but this should
represent the importance to people who depend most on them. For the purpose of presenting
NTFPs in this handbook chosen is for a simplified model, based primarily on FAO (2002) and
Foppes (unpublished), grouping NTFPs according to what the product is primarily used for
(livelihood and development context), and then divided into parts of the plants used
(conservation context) when necessary, see table 2.
4
Table 1: Classification systems in use for SE Asia.
No.
Crevost et al,
(1910-41)
Rao (1991)
Iqbal (1993)
De Beer &
McDermott
(1989)
VanTomme
(2001)
FAO (2002)
(animals
separate)
Kaat & Jeppesen
(2004)
PROSEA (2004)
Foppes
(unpubl.)
1
Food
Food Products
Food products
Edible plant
products
Food
Food
Cereals
Food
2
Fibre and textile
Fibre Products
Edible animal
products
Fodder
Fodder and grazing
Fats and oils
Medicinal
products
Fibres
Medicine
Firewood
4
Resins, gums,
rubber, tannin,
dye
Medicine, drugs,
perfume,
essential oil
Diverse
commercial
products (incl.
animals)
Wood
Medicinal and
cosmetic plant
products
Extractive
products
Carbohydrates
other than in
seed
Pulses
Fibre
3
Spices,
condiments an
culinary herbs
Industrial plant
oils and waxes
Plant part
Food products
Chemical
properties
Plant gums
Non-edible
plant products
Bio fertilisers
Perfume,
cosmetics
Tools and
handicrafts
Vegetable oils
and fats
Extractive
products
Animal products
other than food
Natural pigments
Non-edible
animal products
Greenery
Dyes and
Tannins
Building materials
Edible fruits and
nuts
Non food oils
Miscellaneous
products
Oleoresins
Other
Utensils,
handicrafts and
construction
Medicine
Vegetables
Stimulants
Fibres and flosses
Vegetable
exudates
Resins/
oleoresins
Latex
Animal
products
Edible
products
Hides, skins
Chemical
properties
Other
Ornamental
Income/exchange
Spices and
condiments
Forages
Ornamental
5
6
7
8
9
10
Vegetable tanning
materials
Latex
Insect products
11
Incense woods
12
13
Essential oils
Plant insecticides
14
15
16
Medicinal plants
Wild plants
Animals and
animal products
Floral greenery
Miscellaneous
17
18
19
20
21
Industrial, mining
products
Exudates
Medicine,
cosmetics
Animal
Essential oils
Stimulants
Medicinal,
poisonous
Dyes and tannins
Exudates
Ornamental
Auxiliary
Lower plants/
cryptogams
Rattans
Bamboos
Fibre
Timber
Miscellaneous
5
A. Plant foods or edible plant products such as forest fruits and seeds, flowers,
rhizomes, tubers, roots, barks, etc. have a primary purpose to be consumed, or to
flavour foods (spice) and to facilitate food preparation (edible oil). Fodder is edible
for cattle and is placed in this group too.
B. Fibres from plants are materials used to build (bamboo canes) or finish
constructions (thatch), or for clothes and paper and household implements
(broom). Mainly from Tiliaceae, Sterculiaceae, Bombacaceae, Moraceae,
Leguminosae, Urticaceae, Palmae and Gramineae. Grasses are used for fodder,
matting, roping, thatching (Imperata cylindrica) and manufacturing of furniture,
basketry and screens.
C. Medicinal botanicals have the primary purpose to treat people and their animals
or to make and keep them healthy. Aphrodites are also put in this group.
Classification maybe upon the plant organ from which they are derived: roots and
other underground parts, bark, wood, leaves, flowers and fruit and seed.
D. Extractives are chemical substances (liquid or not) derived from plant parts, with
specific characteristics used in a variety of products, like essential oils for their
fragrance in perfumes, resins for their ability to act as a carrier for paint or tannins
for their preservative capacity. Cosmetics are put in this group as these are often
extracted from plants, such as Kheua mak khampae (an unknown legume:
Abrus?) roots used in the production of skin lotion. The glue obtained from peuak
meuak and bong bark used in incense sticks functions as an adhesive or glue, and
is placed under gums. Included here are non-edible oils such as wood oil or leaf oil
which are often essential oils or oleoresins. Stimulants depend on chemicals which
have an arousing effect on people, or insecticides chemically able to prevent or kill
insects.
E. Ornamentals and greenery, for beautification of human surroundings.
F. Charcoal and fuel wood for heating or food preparation.
G. Animals or animal products, which require a group and classification by itself.
Table 2: Most important NTFP end use groups in Lao PDR with some examples
A. Food (edible products)
C. Medicines
Fruits: tree fruits, rattan fruits
Fruits: malva nuts
Stems/shoots: bamboo and rattan shoots
Stems/shoots: berberine
Tubers/roots: Dioscorea hispida
Tubers/roots:
Leaves: Melientha suavis
Leaves:
Nuts/seeds: chestnuts, Arenga sp.
Nuts/seeds: strychnine
Flowers: Markhamia stipulata
Flowers:
Spices: Zanthoxylum rhetsa
Bark: cardamom
Mushrooms:
Wood:
Food oils and gums:
D. Extractives (chemicals)
Fodder (for animals): grass, legume
Gums: Boehmeria malabarica, Persea sp
foliage
Gum resin:
B. Fibres
Resin: dammar
Bamboo: canes
Oleoresin: Yang oil, benzoin, pine resin
Rattan: canes
Latex: rubber
Leaf fibre: pandan leaves
Tannin: Pentace burmanica
Stem fibre:
Dye: Diospyros mollis
Bark fibre: Broussonetia papyrifera
Essential oil: Eaglewood, vetiver
Grass: Broom grass
Stimulants: betel nut
Insecticides: Neem
E. Ornamentals
Orchids, ferns and curcuma flowers
F. Charcoal and fuel wood
G. Animal products (separate group)
(how many species/products now known from Laos)? Check database. (put no. in table)
6