2020
DOI: 10.1505/146554820828671553
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Into the wild: disentangling non-wood terms and definitions for improved forest statistics

Abstract: As scientists strive to make nature's value visible, a large portion of forests and wild biodiversity known as non-wood forest products (NWFPs) continues to remain largely invisible and unaccounted for. At the core of the problem is wide disaccord over what is a NWFP (and correlate terms), a debate which has been running in circles for nearly three decades. This paper reviews existing terms and definitions, with the aim of improving forest statistics and the visibility of NWFPs. The paper starts by (1) clarif… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0
3

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
0
12
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…At the global level, there is still no systematic framework to collect data on NWFPs because: (i) there is no universally agreed definition of NWFPs; (ii) hunting and gathering activities, often informal, are not easy to capture through formal statistics; and (iii) a huge number of forest products and species can be considered as NWFPs and should be included in such statistics (Sorrenti 2017;Muir et al 2020). Moreover, as forest and farmland sources are often assessed differently by government forestry and agriculture departments, a proper synthesis of the overall value of tree products and services across these sources is hard to achieve (de Foresta et al 2013 related activities, both formal and informal, represent more than a million jobs for a total population of about 13 million, and over 80 percent of rural Zambian households depend heavily on natural resources for their livelihoods (Turpie et al 2015).…”
Section: Box 2 Non Wood Forest Products (Nwfps)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the global level, there is still no systematic framework to collect data on NWFPs because: (i) there is no universally agreed definition of NWFPs; (ii) hunting and gathering activities, often informal, are not easy to capture through formal statistics; and (iii) a huge number of forest products and species can be considered as NWFPs and should be included in such statistics (Sorrenti 2017;Muir et al 2020). Moreover, as forest and farmland sources are often assessed differently by government forestry and agriculture departments, a proper synthesis of the overall value of tree products and services across these sources is hard to achieve (de Foresta et al 2013 related activities, both formal and informal, represent more than a million jobs for a total population of about 13 million, and over 80 percent of rural Zambian households depend heavily on natural resources for their livelihoods (Turpie et al 2015).…”
Section: Box 2 Non Wood Forest Products (Nwfps)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many non-timber forest species undergo a "dynamic process of domestication" that transgresses their collection from the wild and often includes their simultaneous cultivation on farms [98]. Certainly, there is a progression of sourcing forest foods that originate in natural habitats of gathering fruits and proceeds to growing fruit around homes.…”
Section: Orchards and Plantationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…NTFPs are the most utilized term referring to this kind of produce (non-wood forest products and minor forest products are some utilized denominations), some of those terminologies have a local legal definition, but there is no consolidated formal elucidation with global acceptance. A recent FAO analysis on such problematic suggests that it is unlikely that a single universal term and definition would be coined and globally accepted due to "cultural and contextual differences regarding how these products are perceived in different countries/regions and by different entities" [2]. This fact could domains; 2-the study area was in Brazilian territory; 3-the species used are native to Brazil; and 4-the works evaluated non-timber forest products.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%