Non-Timber forest products:Conservation status and managementpriorities in the community managedforests of Andhra Pradesh, South India

C. S. Silori, Mamta Mehar, M. A. Khalid and V. Paul

The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Habitat Centre, New Delhi, India

Key words: Non-timber forest products, NTFP, participation, conservation priority, sustainable use,southern India

SUMMARYPrimary surveys were conducted in 20 villages and an equal number of community man-aged forests (CMFs) of two districts, Adilabad and Chittoor in the state of Andhra Pradeshin southern India. The interviews conducted with 216 respondents listed a total of 22 and23 non-timber forest products (NTFP) from Adilabad and Chittoor districts, respectively,of which 15 species were common to both study districts. Eight of these NTFPs, including,Sterculia urens, Thysanolena maxima, Sapindus emerginatus, Dendrocalamus strictus, Pongamiapinnata, Schleichera oleosa, Azadirachta indica and Diospyros melenoxylon were collected forcommercial purposes. The vegetation survey was conducted in a total of 240 sample plotsin 20 CMFs, and found 15 NTFP species from Adilabad and 18 NTFP species fromChittoor. The density of NTFP trees in Adilabad was 52 trees/ha, as against an overall treedensity of 278 trees/ha, while in Chittoor it was only 28 trees/ha as against an overalldensity of 110 trees/ha. The regeneration density of NTFP species was, however, higher inChittoor. Some of the NTFP species, prioritized for conservation, included Sterculia urens,Tamarindus indica, Phyllanthus emblica, Strychnos nuxvomica, S. potatorum and Anogeissuslatifolia.

INTRODUCTION

The past decade has witnessed a rapid growth ofinterest in Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs)among conservation and development organiza-tions (Arnold and Ruiz Perez 1998). This can beattributed to increasing recognition of the contri-bution that NTFPs make to local and national econ-omies, food security and maintenance of biologicaldiversity (de Beers and McDermott 1989). Approxi-mately 80% of the populations of developing

countries use NTFPs to meet their health and nutri-tional needs, and several million householdsworldwide use these products for subsistence con-sumption and/or income generation (FAO 1997).Types of NTFPs include food, beverages, spices,flavourings, perfumes, medicines, paints, polishes,construction materials, and extracts used in thechemical industry. Currently, at least 150 NTFPsare significant in terms of international trade,

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 12 (2005) 1–13

Correspondence: C. S. Silori, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Southern Regional Centre, 4th Main, 2ndCross, Domlur 2nd Stage, Bangalore, 560 071, India. Email: cssilori@teri.res.in

1A5032:First Proof: 2 August 2005 Paper:Silori et al.

including honey, gums, rattan, bamboo, cork, nuts,mushrooms, essential oils and plants or animalparts used for pharmaceutical products (FAO1997).

India has an estimated diversity of 3000 plantspecies from which NTFPs are derived (Gupta andGuleria 1982). These NTFPs are an important live-lihood source for several communities, especiallythe forest fringe communities (Malhotra andPoffenberg 1989; TERI 1999). It has been estimatedthat NTFPs provide about 40% of total officialforest revenues and 55% of forest-based employ-ment. Nearly 500 million people living in andaround forests in India rely on NTFPs as a criticalcomponent for their sustenance (WRI 1990).Several thousand tons of NTFPs are removed annu-ally from India’s forests, providing earnings thatrun into billions of rupees each year. Based on astudy of ten forest protection committees under theJoint Forest Management programme, it was foundthat the income from NTFPs ranges from Rs. 234 toRs. 5569 (US$8–186) per hectare per year, with amean of Rs. 2299 (US$79) (Malhotra et al. 1991). Astudy done by Shiva and Verma (2002) reportedannual revenue contributions of NTFPs at Rs. 20billion (US$645 million) in India. These authorsfurther highlight that about 60% of total NTFPscollection goes unrecorded, and is consumed orbartered by about 15 million people living in andaround forests.

Although there have been suggestions thatNTFPs can be harvested with relatively little impacton the forest environment (Neumann and Hirsh2000; Marshall et al. 2003), the fact remains that theincreasing market potential for a variety of NTFPsin recent times has led to their accelerated rates ofextraction from the forest; at times, proving to bedestructive harvesting, adding to the already exist-ing population pressure in the form of livestockgrazing, collection of firewood and illegal timbercollection. Understandably, owing to the impor-tance of NTFPs in sustaining rural communities,the research focus has largely addressed socio-economic aspects of NTFPs and relatively fewerattempts have been made to understand the eco-logical and conservation aspects of such species intheir natural habitats. The increasing economicrole of NTFPs in sustaining rural communities andcatering to growing market demand may lead to theunsustainable harvesting of these resources. In viewof such a situation, it becomes imperative to assess

the conservation status of these economicallyimportant species in their natural habitat. Theassumption of conservation of NTFPs and theirmanagement for sustainable utilization is the pri-mary focus of this paper, which is based on a studyconducted in 20 community-managed forests in thestate of Andhra Pradesh in southern India.

METHODOLOGY

Study area

The results are based on the primary field surveysconducted in 20 community-managed forests(CMFs) of two districts, Adilabad and Chittoor inAndhra Pradesh (Figure 1). The selected districtsrepresent two out of three agro-climatic zones ofthe state, namely Telangana and Rayalseema. Theclimatic conditions in these two districts are largelyhot and semi-arid with long dry spells in summer.The average annual rainfall in the southern districtof Chittoor is 600–700 mm as compared to thenorthern district of Adilabad at 1000–1100 mm,and therefore faces frequent droughts.

Forest cover in the study districts is largely dis-tributed over disjointed mountain ranges of theEastern Ghats, well known for their rich biodiversity(Reddy et al. 2002). Of the total area of the district,Adilabad has 37.5% under forest, while Chittoorhas only 13.9% under forest (FSI 2001). The forestvegetation in both districts is primarily representedby two major categories of dry deciduous forests –southern tropical dry deciduous forest and south-ern tropical thorny scrub forest (Champion andSeth 1966). The entire forest area of Adilabad isadministratively divided into six divisions, whileChittoor has three forest divisions. We selected 10forests from each of the two districts that are pro-tected and managed by village level institutions,known as Village Samarakshana Samitis (VSS).

Sample selection

The selection of forest areas for field sampling wasprimarily based on ongoing initiatives of theAndhra Pradesh Forest Department (APFD) and oflocal communities towards conservation of forestresources in general and NTFPs in particular. Theinitial discussions with local forest officials helpedin identification of such forests, their composition,

NTFP conservation Silori et al.

2 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology

A5032:First Proof: 2 August 2005 Paper:Silori et al.

area of forest allotted to the local communities formanagement and duration of community partici-pation in the management of such forests. The VSSmanages the allotted forest area by regulating theuse of forest resources, mainly the NTFPs. Based on

the discussions, we selected 10 CMFs from each ofthe study districts (Table 1). While selecting theVSS forests, care was also taken to represent differ-ent forest types falling in different forest divisionsand duration of the existence of VSS in the area.

NTFP conservation Silori et al.

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 3

A5032:First Proof: 2 August 2005 Paper:Silori et al.

Figure 1 Map showing the location of study districts in the state of Adhra Pradesh in southern India

NTFPs and dependency of local people

The selection of VSS forest for vegetation samplingwas followed by preparation of a complete inven-tory of NTFPs that are collected by the villagers forself consumption as well as for marketing. For this,we sampled 10% of the total households from eachof the selected VSS, a total of 86 from Adilabad and130 respondents from Chittoor. A semi-structuredquestionnaire survey method was employed to pre-pare an inventory of NTFPs. Focused group discus-sions were also organized in some of the selectedvillages to extract information on the season ofcollection of different NTFPs and their use pat-terns. The sampled households consisted of a mixof communities, including Scheduled Tribe (ST)Scheduled Caste (SC) and General Caste (GC) anddifferent occupation categories, including land till-ing, daily wage labour and forest-based activities.

Vegetation sampling

A vegetation survey was conducted in the 20 CMFsfrom the two study districts. In each CMF, a

1.0–1.5-km long line transect was marked on thetopo sheet, starting at the sampled village and mov-ing deeper into the forest. To capture the floraldiversity, the line transect was directed in such a waythat it covered all possible micro-habitats and land-scape types, including riverine/stream, hilly, undu-lating and plain areas. Along the line transect, atevery 100-m interval, one circular plot of 10-mradius (314.28 m2) was laid to record the treevegetation. Thus, a total of 11 line transects and 115sample plots were taken in Chittoor and 12 linetransects and 125 sample plots completed inAdilabad. Within each circular plot, we recordedthe name and number of tree species, their girths atbreast height (GBH) and tree height. To under-stand the status of the growing stock, all the indivi-dual trees above 10 cm GBH were enumerated intotwo categories: mature tree (=> 30 cm GBH) andpole/recruitment (10–< 30 cm GBH). The indivi-duals with less than 10 cm GBH were recorded asthe regeneration by laying a circular plot of 3-mradius (28.26 m2) within the 10-m radius plots.

It is important to mention here that we are pre-senting the findings related to those NTFPs that

NTFP conservation Silori et al.

4 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology

A5032:First Proof: 2 August 2005 Paper:Silori et al.

Name of VSS No. householdsMajor

occupationHouseholds collecting

NTFP (%) VSS forest areaYear of VSSformation

AdilabadMathadiguddaTandraTarlapetSingapurKanchanbariSonapurPeddampetChowpangudaPeddabandaYerragunta

30100903032

110256908042

DWLAG

DWLAGAG

DWLAGAG

DWLDWL

100585773

10055334445

100

500232500210500947180350462468

1993198819971998199319981997199819961998

ChittoorCheagalbayaluMedivedu CrossMamandurGundala MadagoKavelipalliJaruguVagathurNerabayluChettacherlaMidikandriga

16085

1641801707595

11785

162

DWLDWLAG

DWLAG

DWLDWLDWLAGAG

45586555786866756665

40526580

502300300400250325150

1996199820021995199819981994199819951998

DWL: Daily wage labour, AG: Agriculture

Table 1 Socio-economic status of the sampled VSS in the study districts

were listed by the villagers during household inter-views and belong to tree and shrub categories andare not herbs or grasses. Therefore, the vegetationdata have been analysed to understand the densityand distribution of NTFP species and their growingstock. The taxonomical identification and confir-mation of plants as NTFP was done with the help ofseveral floras of the region (e.g. Somasundaram1963; Santapau and Henry 1984; Pullaiah et al.1992; Krishnamurthy 1993).

Conservation priorities for NTFPs

In order to set the conservation priorities, theNTFP species were ranked into three categories:top priority, medium priority and low priority.The prioritization was based on the sum of scoresassigned to different parameters, such as densityand distribution of NTFPs across different growthstages, harvesting methods and use patternsfor commercial and non-commercial purposes.Regarding frequency of occurrence of species, ahigher score was given to those species that hadrestricted distribution, while no score was given tothose that occurred in more than 60% of the total

sampled plots. NTFP species which occurred onlyin regeneration stage was given a score of 3, whilethose occurring in all the three stages were givenno score. The average values of density of a NTFPspecies in different growth stages were arranged inascending order and divided into equal quartile.The average density of NTFP species falling in thelowest quartile were given a score of 3, while thosefalling in the uppermost quartile were not given anyscore. The collection of vegetative parts such asroots, stem and bark and their products, suchas extracting gum by incising the stem were con-sidered more destructive than the collection ofreproductive parts such as fruits, flower and seeds(Rijsoort 2000). Therefore, a NTFP which involvedharvesting of vegetative parts and their productswas given a higher score compared to those whichinvolved harvesting of reproductive parts only.Similarly, species extracted for commercial pur-poses were given higher scores compared to thosebeing consumed at household level. All scores forthese criteria were summed for each species and,based on the total scores, NTFP species were priori-tized into the three categories mentioned above.The maximum score a species could get was 20(Table 2).

NTFP conservation Silori et al.

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 5

A5032:First Proof: 2 August 2005 Paper:Silori et al.

# Parameters Score

Distribution pattern123

NTFP species in = < 40% of sampled plotsNTFP species in > 40% and < 61% of sampled plotsNTFP species in > 60% of sampled plots

310

Occurrence pattern4567

NTFP species recorded only in regeneration stageNTFP species recorded only in tree/recruitment stageNTFP species recorded only in tree + recruitment/regeneration or only in recruitment/regenerationNTFP species recorded in all three growth stages

3210

Density pattern (individually for all three growth stages)89

1011

Lowest quartileMiddle quartileUpper middle quartileUpper quartile

3210

Harvesting of NTFP1213141516

RootsAerial parts, other than leaves (stem/bark or gum collection)Fruit/flowers/seedsCollection for saleCollection for self-consumption

32121

Table 2 Scoring matrix for setting conservation priorities for NTFP species

RESULTS

Inventory of NTFPs and their use

The respondents of the sampled villages listed atotal of 30 NTFPs (including honey), which werecollected by them for their own use or for sale(Table 3). Of these, 23 NTFPs were listed fromChittoor while 22 were listed from Adilabad, and 15

were common to both study districts. The villagerslisted various parts and products of plants used asNTFP, such as bark, fruit, flower, leaf, stem, seed,root and gum. Of these, fruits of as many as 12plants were used as NTFP, followed by seeds ofseven species, while the use of other parts, such asroot, bark, stem and leaves, was limited to a fewspecies.

NTFP conservation Silori et al.

6 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology

A5032:First Proof: 2 August 2005 Paper:Silori et al.

# NTFP Local name Adilabad ChittoorSeason ofcollection Part used Use

123456

7

8

910111213

14

1516

171819

20

2122

2324252627282930

Aegle marmelosAnnona squamosaAnogeissus latifoliaApis dorstataAzadirachta indicaBuchanania

Decalepis hamiltonii

Dendrocalamusstrictus

Diospyros chloroxylonDiospyros melenoxylonGardenia gummiferaGaruga pinnataGymnema sylvestre

Madhuca indica

Phoenix sppPhyllanthus emblica

Pongamia pinnataSapindus emerginatusSchleichera oleosa

Semecarpusanacardium

Soymida fabrifugaSterculia urens

Strychnos nuxvomicaStrychnos potatorumSyzygium cuminiTamarindus indicaTerminalia bellericaTerminalia chebulaThysanolaena maximaZizyphus xylopyrus

BelSitaphalTirmanRock honey BeeVepa (Neem)Chironji

Maredugadda

Baans (Bamboo)

UlindaBeedi leafKaringaGarugayasPodapatri

Mahua

Eata (Date fruit)Usri (Amla)

KanugaKukudu (Soapnut)Posuku (Lac tree)

Jiddi (Marking nut)

SomiTapisi

ChiligenjaMustegenjuNereduChinta (Tamarind)TaniKarakayaBroom grassGotti

√*√*√√

√

√

√√

*√*

√

√

*√*

*√*

*√*

√√

√√

√√

*√*√

*√*√√√√√

√

√

√

*√**√*

√√

√*√*

√

√√√√

√*√*√

Sept–DecJuly–SeptWhole yearDecemberMarch–MayMarch–April

Whole year

Whole year

Aug–SeptApril–MayWhole yearMayJuly/Aug,Feb–MarchApril–May

March–MayApril–May,Oct–JanMarch–JuneFeb–AprilFeb–March

March–April

April–MayWhole year

July–SeptJanAug–SeptFeb–MarchApril–MayMar–AprilOct–DecNov–Dec

FruitFruitGumHoneySeedSeed

Roots

Stem

FruitLeafGumFruitLeaves/Roots

Flowers, seed

FruitFruit

SeedFruitSeed (fat)

Seed kernel

Bark/FlowersGum

SeedSeedFruitFruitFruitFruitGrassFruit

Edible/MedicinalEdibleEdibleMedicinalMedicinalEdible (Pickle/

Sweetmeat)Edible (Spices &

condiments)Basket making

EdibleBeedi makingMedicinalEdibleMedicinal

Edible (Liquormaking)

EdibleEdible (Pickle

making)Diesel extractionSoap makingSoap making/

MedicinalEdible

MedicinalSweetmeat/ice

cream preparationMedicinalMedicinalEdibleEdibleMedicinalMedicinalBroom makingEdible

*, Not recorded in the forest survey

Table 3 List of NTFP species from during household interviews

The villagers used NTFPs for various purposes.A total of eight different uses were listed by thevillagers, with most frequent use recorded as ediblein the form of ripe fruits, fruit pickle, spices andcondiments and sweetmeat, in which altogetherabout 15 out of 30 NTFP species were used. Use ofplants as medicines was the second most commonuse, in which 11 species were used. Other uses, suchas basket making, beedi (local cigarette) making,diesel extraction, etc., were limited to one specieseach.

Of the total 30 NTFP species, six species, includ-ing Diospyros chloroxylon, Aegle marmelos, Phoenix spp.,Gymnema sylvestre, Decalepis hamiltonii and Soymidafabrifuga, were collected exclusively for self-consumption by the villagers, while another eightspecies including, Sterculia urens, Thysanolena max-ima (broom grass), Sapindus emerginatus, Dendro-calamus strictus, Pongamia pinnata, Schleichera oleosa,Azadirachta indica and Diospyros melenoxylon, werecollected for commercial purposes.

Occurrence of NTFP species in CMFs

The vegetation survey recorded 75 tree speciesfrom Adilabad and 83 from Chittoor, includingthose tree species that were in the recruitment(pole) and/or regeneration stages. Of the 75 treespecies from Adilabad, 15 species (20%) were iden-tified as having NTFP use, as against 21 species(except honey) listed by the villagers during house-hold interviews. Six species that were not recordedduring vegetation survey included Annona squa-mosa, Garuga pinnata, Pongamia pinnata, Schleicheraoleosa, Semecarpus anacardium and Thysanolena max-ima. On the other hand, in Chittoor, out of 22 NTFPspecies (except honey) listed by the villagers, 18(22% of the total 83 tree species) were recordedduring the vegetation survey. NTFP species whichwere not recorded during the vegetation surveyincluded Aegle marmelos, Gymnema sylvestre, Sapindusemerginatus and Thysanolena maxima. The absenceof some NTFP species from the sampled forestindicates their low availability in the surroundingforests.

On average, each sampled forest in Adilabadrecorded about 24 tree species, of which aboutseven species has NTFP value, while the samenumber of NTFP species was recorded as against anaverage number of 26 tree species from each CMFsof Chittoor. Some of the VSS forests that recorded

relatively higher number of NTFPs in Adilabadincluded Yerragunta (11) and Sonapur (11),Mathadigudda (9) and Chowpanguda (9) andPeddabanda (8) and Peddampet (8). In Chittoor,Cheegalabailu (11), Mamandur (10), Chettacherla(8) and Gundalamargo (8) recorded relativelyhigher number of NTFPs.

Population status of NTFPs in Adilabad

Tree category

The density of mature trees of NTFP speciesaveraged 52 trees/ha, as against average densityof mature trees of all the species of 278 trees/ha.The density of NTFP species ranged between6 trees/ha and 115 trees/ha in 10 sampled CMFs.Five of these forests, including Peddabanda (46%),Chowpanguda (41%), Yeragunta (40%), Sonapur(30%) and Peddampet (24%), recorded a rela-tively higher proportion of total density of NTFPspecies. However, Tandra (6%), Tarlapet (2%) andSingapur (2%) were extremely poor in terms ofNTFP availability. Some of the NTFP species thatrecorded relatively higher tree density includedAnogeissus latifolia, Terminalia chebula, Diospyrosmelenoxylon, Soymida fabrifuga, Strychnos potatorumand Dendrocalamus strictus (Table 4).

Pole category

In the pole category, the average density of NTFPspecies recorded was around 33 plants/ha (14% ofthe average pole density), ranging between 3 and57 plants/ha. Similar to mature trees, the propor-tion of NTFP species in the pole category, as againstaverage pole density of all species, was relativelyhigh in Yerragunta (33%), Peddampet (32%),Tandra (21%), Sonapur (19%) and Peddanabda(17%). The NTFP species recording higher densityin the pole category included Terminalia chebula,Anoegissus latifolia, Diospyros melenoxylon andMadhuca indica (Table 4).

Regeneration category

The average density of regeneration of NTFPspecies was 327 plants/ha, which is around 24% ofthe average density of 1345 plants/ha of the regen-eration of all the trees. Individually, at the CMFlevel, the proportion of regeneration density of

NTFP conservation Silori et al.

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 7

A5032:First Proof: 2 August 2005 Paper:Silori et al.

NTFP species against all the tree species was rela-tively higher in Yerragunta (42%), Mathadigudda(41%), Sonapur (25%), Peddabanda (24%) andPeddampet (24%) and Kanchanbari (22%). Someof the NTFP species recording higher naturalregeneration in the sampled forests includedTerminalia ballerica, Anogeissus latifolia, Madhucaindica, Diospyros melenoxylon, Buchnania lanzan andGardenia gummifera (Table 4).

Population status of NTFPs in Chittoor

Tree category

In Chittoor, the average density of NTFPs in thetree category was 28 trees/ha, as compared to theaverage density of 110 trees/ha for all tree species.Some of the sampled CMFs recording a higherproportion of NTFP species in terms of averagedensity included Jarugu (54%), Mamandur (50%),Chettacherla (46%), Nerabailu (40%) andMidikandriga (34%). Some of the NTFP specieswith relatively high density included Terminaliachebula, Annona squamosa, Azadirachta indica,Pongamia pinnata, Syzygium cuminii and Buchnanialanjan (Table 5).

Pole category

As against the average density of 115 poles/ha of allspecies, NTFP species in the pole category had anaverage density of about 38 plants/ha (33%). Ofthe total 10 CMFs, two forests did not record trees inthe pole category. However, some of the sampledforests, such as Mamandur, Jarugu, Kavelipalli,Midikandriga and Gundalamaragu, recorded rela-tively higher proportions of NTFP species in termsof density in the pole category. Two of the NTFPspecies in the pole category, Buchnania lanjanand Annona squamosa, recorded higher densities(Table 5).

Regeneration category

The average density of regeneration of tree specieswas 4568 plants/ha, while the density of regenera-tion of NTFP species was 1012 plants/ha. Some ofthe sampled forests with a higher density of regen-eration of NTFP species included Gundalamaragu(70%), Jarugu (60%), Nerabailu (54%) andMamandur (52%). Some of the NTFP species

recording better regeneration were Annona squa-mosa, Diospyros chloroxylon and Pongamia pinnata(Table 5).

Conservation status of NTFP species

In Adilabad, the prioritization exercise led tothe identification of five species each for the top,moderate and low priorities. Phyllanthus emblica,Strychnos potatorum, Sterculia urens, Syzygium cuminiiand Gardenia gummifera were identified as toppriority species from a conservation point of view.This is because all of these five species had verylimited distribution and, moreover, in the case ofPhyllanthus emblica, Gardenia gummifera and Syzygiumcuminii, mature trees were not recorded duringsampling. Similarly, Strychnos potatorum and Sterculiaurens were not recorded in the recruitment andregeneration categories, respectively. On the otherhand, the low priority NTFP species includedAnogeissus latifolia, Diospyros melenoxylon, Terminaliabellarica, Madhuca indica and Buchnania lanjan,owing to their wide distribution, averaging about70% in the total sampled plots and having a higheraverage density (96 trees/ha) as compared tomedium (57 plants/ha) and top (49 plants/ha)priority species (Table 6). Also, these low priorityspecies were recorded in all three growth stagesthroughout the sampled forests, which was not thecase for the species in the other two prioritizationcategories.

In Chittoor, out of 18 NTFP species, five species,Anogeissus latifolia, Decalepis hemiltoni, Sterculia urens,Strychnos potatorumn and Tamarindus indica, wereidentified as top priority species from the conserva-tion point of view. Besides limited occurrence ofthese species (22% of the total sampled plots,against 33% for medium priority and 45% for lowpriority), only Sterculia urens occurred in all threegrowth stages, while the others were only recordedin one or two growth stages. The average density ofthese five species was extremely low, at 1.8 trees/haagainst 5.5 trees/ha for medium priority and 14.8trees/ha for low priority species. The average den-sity of recruitment (2.7 poles/ha) and regeneration(163.7 plants/ha) was also very low, as againstmedium (14.8 poles/ha and 209 plants/ha) andlow priority species (197.4 poles/ha and 311plants/ha). Some of the species with a relativelybetter status in terms of density of different growthstages included Annona squamosa, Buchnania lanzan

NTFP conservation Silori et al.

8 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology

A5032:First Proof: 2 August 2005 Paper:Silori et al.

NTFP conservation Silori et al.

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 9

A5032:First Proof: 2 August 2005 Paper:Silori et al.

Tar

lape

tSi

ngap

urK

anch

anba

riT

andr

aM

atha

digu

dda

Pedu

mpe

tC

how

pang

uda

Pedd

aban

daYe

ragu

nta

Sona

pur

Spec

ies

Tr

Pol

Reg

Tr

Pol

Reg

Tr

Pol

Reg

Tr

Pol

Reg

Tr

Pol

Reg

Tr

Pol

Reg

Tr

Pol

Reg

Tr

Pol

Reg

Tr

Pol

Reg

Tr

Pol

Reg

Aeg

lem

arm

elos

Ano

geis

sus

latif

olia

Buc

hnan

iala

njan

Den

droc

alam

usst

rict

usD

iosp

yros

mel

enox

ylon

Gar

deni

agu

mm

ifera

Mad

uca

indi

caPh

ylla

nthu

sem

blic

aSo

ymid

afa

brifu

gaSt

ercu

liaur

ens

Stry

chno

spo

tato

rum

Sygy

zium

cum

inii

Ter

min

alia

cheb

ula

Ter

min

alia

belle

rica

Zizi

phus

xylo

pyru

s

3 3

335 71 177

3 3

335 106 35

19 35

16

141

177

13 3 3

16 3 6 16 3 3

71 106 35

6 32 1032 10

177 71 106 71 71 71 6 35

3 29 22 6

3 29 3 13 6 3

177 35 35 71 35 35

76 6 3

3 3 10 6 3 3 3

35

10 70 6 29

16 3 10 6 3

141

106 35

3 3 6 6 6 3 3 16 3

3 3 16 6 3 16 3

106

141 71 177 71

47 4 18 2 11 2

26 4 2 2 4 2

104 41 42 62 21 62 42 21

Tr-

Tre

e;Po

l-Po

le;R

eg-R

egen

erat

ion

Tab

le4

Den

sity

(pla

nts

/ha)

oftr

ee,p

ole

and

rege

ner

atio

nof

NT

FPsp

ecie

sin

the

sam

pled

fore

sts

ofA

dila

bad

NTFP conservation Silori et al.

10 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology

A5032:First Proof: 2 August 2005 Paper:Silori et al.

Che

egal

abai

luC

hetta

cher

laG

unda

lam

argu

Jaru

guK

avel

ipal

liM

aman

dur

Mid

ikan

drig

aM

udiv

edu

Ner

abai

luVa

gath

ur

Tre

esp

ecie

sT

rPo

lR

egT

rPo

lR

egT

rPo

lR

egT

rPo

lR

egT

rPo

lR

egT

rPo

lR

egT

rPo

lR

egT

rPo

lR

egT

rPo

lR

egT

rPo

lR

eg

Ann

ona

squa

mos

aA

noge

issu

sla

tifol

iaA

zadi

rach

tain

dica

Buc

hnan

iala

njan

Dec

alep

ishe

mal

toni

Den

droc

alam

usst

rict

usD

iosp

yros

chlo

roxy

lon

Gar

deni

agu

mm

ifera

Phoe

nix

spp

Phyl

lant

hus

embl

ica

Pong

amia

pinn

ata

Ster

culia

uren

sSt

rych

nos

nuxv

omic

aSt

rych

nos

pota

toru

mSy

zygi

umcu

min

iT

amar

indu

sin

dica

Ter

min

alia

cheb

ula

Zizy

phus

xylo

pyru

s

4 2 2

22 2

221

111

332

509 44 133

3 13

141 71 35 35 71 71

16 22

3 16 3 3

248 71 71 35 71 35

22 25 3

150 6 3

1380 35

9 5 5

5 4140

415

2

101

2 22 4 2 2 4 2

56 6 2 2 2 6

575

310 44

13

6 6

71 142 71

980

9

1213 35

10 22 45

212

955 71 35

8

8 8

221 44

Tr-

Tre

e;Po

l-Po

le;R

eg-R

egen

erat

ion

Tab

le5

Den

sity

(pla

nts

/ha)

oftr

ee,p

ole

and

rege

ner

atio

nof

NT

FPsp

ecie

sin

the

sam

pled

fore

sts

ofC

hit

oor

and Azadirachta indica and are therefore listedunder the low priority category.

Discussion

The recent initiatives under Joint Forest Manage-ment (JFM) and Community Forest Management(CFM) in India have given greater importance tothe conservation and management of NTFPs(Saigal et al. 1996; Prasad 1999). This is becauseNTFPs are integral to the sustenance of resource-dependent communities, provide gainful employ-ment during lean periods and supplementincomes from agriculture and wage labour. More-over, because NTFPs involve a large variety ofseasonal products, and become available in shortertime periods as compared to the timber products,returns are frequent and relatively continuous.Small-scale forest-based enterprises, many of thembased on NTFPs, provide up to 50% of income for20 to 30% of the rural labour force in India (Tiwariand Campbell 1997). The household survey in thepresent study also estimated the significant depend-ence of the tribal and landless families on NTFPsfor their daily use and to earn revenue for other

household needs. In the present study, in some ofthe sampled villages, 100% of households of STsrecorded their dependence on NTFPs. The averagecontribution of NTFPs to the household economyin the present study was estimated as 14% forAdilabad (between 4% and 50%) and 18%(between 19% and 25%) for Chittoor (TERI 2004;unpublished data). The findings are comparableto the 17% of total household income from NTFPsfor some villages in the state of West Bengal thatwere recorded by Malhotra et al. (1991).

From a conservation point of view, the two studydistricts present two different scenarios. On onehand, the CMFs of Adilabad had a better status ofNTFP species in terms of density in the tree andpole categories, while Chittoor had a very highdensity of regeneration of NTFP species. Theconservation and management inputs, there-fore, needs to be oriented to the existing phyto-sociological status of CMFs in the study districts.While in Adilabad the focus of village committeesand the forest department needs to be directedtowards ensuring better regeneration of forests,in Chittoor community efforts should be directedmore towards ensuring the survival of regenerating

NTFP conservation Silori et al.

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 11

A5032:First Proof: 2 August 2005 Paper:Silori et al.

Adilabad Chittoor

Prioritised NTFP species Score Prioritised NTFP species Score

High priorityPhyllanthus emblicaStrychnos potatorumSterculia urensSygyzium cuminiiModerate priorityAegle marmelosDendrocalamus strictusGardenia gummiferaSoymida fabrifugaTerminalia chebulaLow priorityAnogeissus latifoliaBuchnania lanjanDiospyros melenoxylonMaduca indicaTerminalia bellericaZiziphus xylopyrus

18141616

1312131010

493999

High PriorityAnogeissus latifoliaDecalepis hemaltoniDendrocalamus strictusSterculia urensStrychnos potatorumTamarindus indicaModerate priorityGaruga pinnataPhyllanthus emblicaPongamia pinnataStrychnos nuxvomicaSygyzium cuminiiZizyphus xylopyrusLow PriorityAnnona squamosaAzadirachta indicaBuchnania lanjanDiospyros chloroxylonPhoenix spp.Terminalia chebula

171614161717

121310131312

676998

Table 6 Priority list for conservation of NTFP species in the study districts

species and transforming them into mature treestands. This will not only improve the status of theforest, but would also enhance the chances ofincreasing the density of NTFP species, as recordedin CMFs such as Yerragunta and Sonapur inAdilabad and Cheegalabailu and Mamandur inChittoor. The afforestation and protection effortsshould include those species that were recorded inthe top priority category, owing to their limited dis-tribution, poor population status and increasingextraction for self-consumption and market needs.NTFP species such as Sterculia urens, Tamarindusindica (restricted to roadsides and in and aroundhuman habitation), Phyllanthus emblica, Strychnospotatorum, S. nuxvomica, Dendrocalamus strictus andPongamia pinnata should be targeted for large-scaledistribution and better population status throughparticipatory afforestation programmes.

It is generally observed that low value NTFPshave a reduced collection intensity and thus arelikely to face minimal human impact as comparedto those which have a high market value and there-fore involve greater collection intensity. Some ofthe NTFP species facing the latter situation in thestudy districts include Sterculia urens, Tamarindusindica, Strychnos potatorum and Gardenia gummifera.The high demand for gum from Sterculia urens,Anogeissus latifolia and Gardenia gummifera in themarket has led to unsustainable harvesting prac-tices incurring severe damage to the tree trunkfrom wounding it frequently for gum extraction.The increasing frequency of visits by the NTFPcollectors to the forests in an attempt to increasetheir economic returns causes heavy damage to thetrees by exposing the tree trunk to potential attacksfrom insects, borers and termites.

It is now increasingly felt that sustainablemanagement and development of NTFP resourcesis essential not only to ensure the sustenance of the

dependent population but also to meet increasingmarket demand. The management and productionof NTFPs, therefore, can be ecologically and eco-nomically sustainable provided that the extractionrates do not exceed the maximum sustainable yieldand methods of extraction of NTFPs are not des-tructive (Prasad 1999). Therefore, managingforests for production of NTFPs also implies main-taining biological diversity of such forests. Thecurrent initiatives in the study districts can be con-sidered to be one step ahead in the sense that theparticipatory approach to forest management isalready being implemented by the forest depart-ment. However, in continuation of the ongoingefforts, the scope of such approaches needs to bebroadened to accommodate participatory monitor-ing of the changes occurring due to communityintervention in CMFs. Special focus needs to begiven to the prioritized species, mentioned pre-viously. A participatory monitoring approach willnot only help in awareness generation among thevillagers about dwindling populations of NTFPspecies, but would also help in seeking furthercooperation of dependent communities. Foreffective protection, VSS should be provided withadequate financial and technical support. Moretraining programmes need to be organised as partof capacity building to implement sustainableharvesting practices and value addition for NTFPs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors thank the officials of Andhra PradeshForest Department for providing all necessaryhelp for planning and conducting field surveys.Our colleagues, Priti Barman, Nanki Kaur andGrace are sincerely thanked for helping in the vege-tation surveys and interaction at village level.

REFERENCESArnold JEM and Ruiz Perez M. The role of non-timber

forest products in conservation and development.In Wollenberg W and Ingles A (eds), Income fromthe forest: methods for the development and conservationof forest products for local communities. Indonesia:CIFOR/IUCN; 1998:17–42

Champion HG and Seth SK. A revised survey of foresttypes of India. India, Govt. of India Press, Nasik;1968

de Beers JH and McDermott MJ. Economic value ofnon-timber forest products in Southeast Asia. TheNetherlands, Council of the International Union

NTFP conservation Silori et al.

12 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology

A5032:First Proof: 2 August 2005 Paper:Silori et al.

of the Conservation of Nature and NaturalResources; 1989

FAO. Non-wood Forests Products. Forestry InformationNotes Handout. Rome:Food and AgricultureOrganization; 1997

FSI. State of Forest Report. Dehradun, India: ForestSurvey of India; 2001

Gupta T and Guleria A. Non-Wood Forest Products inIndia. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing;1982

Krishnamurthy T. Minor forest products of India. NewDelhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing; 1993

Malhotra KC and Poffenberger M. Forest regenera-tion through community protection. In Proceedingsof the Working Group Meetings of the Forest ProtectionCommittees. Calcutta: West Bengal Forest Depart-ment; 1989

Malhotra KC, Deb D, Dutta M, Vasula TS, Yadav G andAdhikari M. Role of non-timber forest produce in thevillage economy: a household survey in Jamboni ForestRange, Midnapore district. Calcutta, West Bengal:IBRAD; 1991

Marshall E, Newton AC and Schreckernberg K.Commercialisation of non-timber forest products:first step in analyzing the factors influencingsuccess. International Forestry Review 2003;5:128–37

Newmann RP and Hirsch E. Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: review and analysis of research.Indonesia: Centre for International ForestryResearch; 2000

Prasad R. Joint forest management in India and theimpact of state control over non-wood forestproducts. Unasylva 1999;198:58–62

Pullaiah T, Prasanna PV and Obulesa G. Flora ofAdilabad district. New Delhi: Vedant Books Ltd.;1992

Reddy CS, Murthy MSR and Dutt BS. Vegetationaldiversity and endemism of Eastern Ghats, India.pp 109–134. Proceedings of the National Seminar onConservation of Eastern Ghats. Tirupati, AndhraPradesh: SP University; 2002

Rijsoort JV. Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs): Theirrole in sustainable forest management in the tropics.The Netherlands: National Reference Centre forNature Management; 2000

Saigal S, Agrawal C and Campbell JY. Sustaining JointForest Management: The role of Non-timber forestProducts. New Delhi: Society for Promotion ofWastelands Development; 1996

Santapau H and Henry AN. A dictionary of the flower-ing plants of India. New Delhi: Council of Scien-tific and Industrial Research; 1984

Shiva MP and Verma SK. Approaches to sustainable forestmanagement and biodiversity conservation with pivotalrole of non-timber forest products. Dehradun: Inter-national Book Distributors; 2002

Somasundraram TR. A handbook on the identificationand description of trees, shrubs and some importantherbs of the forests of the southern states for the use ofthe southern forests rangers college, Coimbatore. Delhi:Govt. of India Press; 1963

Tiwari DD and Campbell JY. Economics of non-timberforest products. In Kerr JM, Marothia DK, Singh K,Ramaswamy C and Bentley WB (eds), Naturalresource economics – theory and application. New Delhi:Oxford and IBH; 1997

TERI. National Study on JFM. New Delhi: The Energyand Resources Institute (TERI) Project ReportNo 98SF64; 1999

WRI. The World Bank in the forest sector: a globalpolicy paper. Wasteland News 1990;8(2):6–12

NTFP conservation Silori et al.

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 13

A5032:First Proof: 2 August 2005 Paper:Silori et al.