Using an income accounting framework to value non-timber forest products

Abstract

The land-use strategies of many tropical countries have evolved from analyses which are based on a first world perspective, and as a result, many of them have been found to be unsustainable. Methodologies currently used for environmental valuation in developing countries are often inappropriate, and subject to serious degrees of error which inevitably have important policy implications (Markandya and Perrings, 1992). In particular, valuations of resources in tropical forest ecosystems often fail to take account of the full spectrum of forest products and services, since many of these have traditionally been ignored as being insignificant or non-marketed. Resource auditing procedures, which may be useful in other circumstances, fail in this case because of such problems as the lack of clearly defined markets, uncertainty regarding both current and future demand and supply of forest products, and the lack of detailed information about how these resources are used (Daly, 1989). The objective of this paper is to demonstrate a method of assessing the use-value of these non-timber forest products (NTFPs), using an income accounting framework, and by focusing this research on these NTFPs, it is possible to demonstrate an extra dimension to forest valuation which is often ignored.

Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges

“…Amerindian communities in flooded forest (varzea) along the Amazon also use many products for handicrafts, medicines and food (Neves, 1995). These flooded forests have been calculated to generate a level of household income equivalent to US$2330/year (Sullivan, 2002), which highlights the importance of considering a wide range of stakeholders in environmental valuations and the development of effective conservation policies (Opschoor, 1998).…”

Trees at work: economic accounting for forest ecosystem services in the U.S. South

“…This publication considers industrial wood chips and poles to be timber products, while wood extracted for traditional firewood and artisanal crafts are considered NTFPs. Definitions and quantification methods focus on goods produced from natural forests (e.g., Adepoju and Salau 2007, Famuyide and others 2013, Godoy and Lubowski 1992, Sullivan 2002, but they could be used for products grown in plantations solely for their non-timber value. Often, products grown in tree plantations or cultivated on an industrial scale, such as fruits, nuts, or Christmas trees, are not considered NTFPs, yet the valuation methods presented are applicable to these products.…”

Quantitative and financial evaluation of non-timber forest products (case study: Zemkan basin forests, West of Iran)

“…In the meantime, the importance and value of non-timber forest products (NTFP S ) increase day to day. NTFPs include any kind of product and service that result from forests, except for lumber, including fruit, nuts, vegetables, fish, green manure, wild edible plants, thatching grasses, rattan, resins, pesticides, animal bedding, veterinary medicines, green manure, ornamental plants, cosmetics, gums, honey, wildlife products, birds, mushrooms, medicinal plants, glue, scents, and a wide range of acrylics (Ingram et al 2012;Sullivan 2002;FAO 1997;Krishna et al 2009). Thus, firewood is also an NTFP (Croitoru 2007;Ingram et al 2012;Khosravi et al 2014).…”

“…However, these products were previously regarded as products of low importance, and as a result, they used to be called minor forest products (Arnold and Ruiz-Perez 2001). Similarly, the potential economic value of NTFPs was ignored or at least underestimated in terms of exploitation and market value (Murthy et al 2005;Sullivan 2002). However, simultaneous with the propagation of social forestry and sustainable development concepts, NTFPs had been argued positively and significantly improving rural livelihoods (Balick and Mendelsohn 1992;Olsen 1998) and needing natural resources management (Godoy and Bawa 1993;Plotkin and Famolare 1992).…”