Non-Timber Forest Products

Livelihoods and Conservation

JYOTSNA KRISHNAKUMAR, JEFFERSON FOX, V ANITHA

This paper attempts an explorat

subsistence as well as livelihoods for forest dwellers and
opportunities for livelihoods an
Forest rural subsistence
rural resources communities.
communities. as well have as Evidently always livelihoods been the for anthe
Evidently positive forest important dwellers outcomes
positive outcomes part and in of in
connected with non-timber
terms of livelihoods and conservation connected with non-
for
the increasing timberdemand
forest products (ntfps) remainfor thes
elusive (Cunningham
regional and 2011; Fagerberg et al 2007; Gubbi and MacMillan 2008)
international markand
evolution of as
the remedies, new policies
management and institutional arrangements are o
being recommended (Campbell et al 2002). However, there
broader scale in terms of polici
is increasing scepticism Mnked to these arrangements thus
arrangements and the dilemm
raising the question of whether the scope for synergistic
complexities opportunities exists. Since the originalwith
associated discussion on this the
potential more
strategies than a decade ago bytoWunder (2001),
overcomethis paper atte-
mpts to re-examine and re-explore it mainly from a ntfp
existing, relevant literature, wit
markets and trade perspective through a review of relevant
parts of the developing world
literature. This question continues to be pertinent due to the a
from India increasing
has market demand for
been wild harvested ntfps, espe-
presented.
the wildcially medicinal plants (mp)
harvested catering to a growing alternative
medicinal pl
medicine industry (e g, ayurveda) with tremendous eco-
certification as a potential strat
nomic potential for both primary and secondary stakeholders
scenario is hypothesised. Lesson
embedded within the mp supply chain. Simultaneously
reporting harvest pressures are escalating
successful conservation concerns as
implement
forest well. In this
products context, the paper discusses how natural re-
certification ar
source management paradigms evolved, the corresponding
research gaps and future direct
institutional changes, the challenges encountered and new
emerging ideas.
The discussion begins at a broader scale, looking at natu-
ral resource management and the shift in focus from timber
to non-timber, change in paradigm from centralised to
decentralised management, and the corresponding policy
changes. It then narrows down to discussions on the dilem-
mas encountered in the context of ntfps, its sociocultural
and political dimensions, suggestions for a new "middle
ground" approach (Sills et al 2011) to overcome failures
linked with ntfps and new strategies such as certification
that can potentially incorporate the key aspects prescribed
within the "middle ground" approach. The paper is largely
written from an Indian context, but key lessons are also
drawn from a global context where relevant. The discussion
narrows down to the state level, with a focus on Kerala, and
the wild harvested mp sector. Certification as a strategy to
Jyotsna Krishnakumar (jyotsna@hawai
of Natural improve the and
Resources challenges facing the sector is hypothesised and
Environmental
Hawaii, Honolulu, suggestions
Jefferson or lessons learnt from previous
Fox experiences
(foxj@e on
Environmental Studies, University
ntfp certification from of
other parts of the developing world Ha
(anitha@kfri.org)
areis
listed.with
Ongoing as wellthe Forest
as future research needs are Ec
Forest Research Institute, Thrissur.
also identified.

132 December 29, 2012 vol XLVii no 52 ŒC3 Economic & Political WEEKLY

This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:05:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Natural Resource Management: Timber to Non-Timber
Historically, communities have always been using and extract-
ing resources from the forests based on indigenous/traditional
management practices such as slash and burn agriculture,
grazing, fires and sacred groves to ensure continued availa-
bility of diverse resources. Following colonisation and post-
colonisation, the states attempted to restrict the use of these
resources by the communities mainly through establishment
of protected areas, the argument being "humans would desta-
bilise forest ecosystems by their unsustainable and destructive
use" (Saberwal et al 2001). This was the case with India as well
as many other parts of the resource rich developing world. For
example, after Cameroon became a republic, all vacant lands
were declared state lands (Laird et al 2010b) and in Bolivia,
poor guidance and regulations by the state led to claiming
of large tracts of forestlands by immigrant, non-indigenous
groups during the rubber boom period, further marginalising
and excluding the indigenous communities (Cronkleton and
Pacheco 2010). Eventually, efforts to reinstate inclusive arra-
ngements were pursued and succeeded by the users and their
advocates (Gadgil and Guha 1992; Pimbert and Pretty 1995).
Following this there was recognition of other forest products,
services and ecosystem management emerged as the new par-
adigm (Salwasser et al 1993), and emphasis moved from only
timber to include non-timber as well.
New strategies emphasising a participatory approach were
initiated. This led to a series of scholarly works on participa-
tion in natural resource management including the role of
local institutions, property rights, the nature of power rela-
tions between the state and the local institutions, between the
rich and the poor resource users, the heterogeneous nature of
communities and the multiple stakeholder rights over re-
sources and corresponding challenges (Borrini-Feyerabend
and Tarnowski 2005; Ostrom 1990, 1999; Agrawal and Gibson
1999; Li 2002; Ribot, Agrawal and Larson 2006). There were
corresponding shifts in policy as well.
For example, in India, the National Forest Policy was
amended in 1988 (Lele et al 2010) followed by the establish-
ment of joint forest management in the 1990s (Gadgil 2001).
Community-based natural resource management (cbnrm) be-
came the new paradigm and role of communities in resource
management was recognised (Agrawal and Gibson 2001;
Agrawal 2005) along with the market potential of biodiversity,
capitalising on indigenous knowledge. Later, with the increas-
ing market demand for biological resources, when issues with
equity, fairness and biopiracy became apparent (Rausser 2000),
India responded by ratifying the Convention on Biological
Diversity (cbd) in 1992 (un Report 1997) and the Biodiversity
Act was implemented in 2002 (Enviro News 2003; Vasan 2005).
However, even with ntfps, priority over high value resources
remained with the state (Lele et al 2010: 107). More recently,
in response to indigenous rights to property and access, the
Forest Rights Act 2006, was implemented (moef) and is an
ongoing activity. Similar policy changes were simultaneously
taking place in other parts of the world as well in post-Suharto
Indonesia, the Philippines through the Certificate of Ancestral
Economic & Political weekly E33S3 December 29, 2012 vol xlvii no 52 133
This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:05:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Domain (Li 2002) and in Brazil through the establishment of
extractive reserves (Klüppel et al 2010).
In conjunction with these new policy trends, a number of
institutional arrangements linking the ntfps, conservation
and development were being experimented with and repor-
ted upon. Salafsky and Wollenberg (2000) called it the
"linked incentive mechanism" that emphasised the commer-
cial use of forest resources not restricted to buffer zones with
greater devolution of power to local users to use and manage
the resources; the argument being that this would not only
improve income and push people out of poverty but also act
as an incentive to conserve resource and use it sustainably
(Nepstad and Schwartzman 1992; Durst et al 2005; Salafsky
and Wollenberg 2000; Rangarajan and Shahabuddin 2006;
Laird et al 2010a). In this context, although the cooperative
market arrangements and institutions for decentralised
governance were established, in practice various dilemmas
were encountered.
Associated Dilemmas
It was the groundbreaking work of Peters et al in 1989 that
originally brought the ntfps into the limelight, its role in
achieving livelihood and conservation goals mainly by linking
it to markets. Salafsky and Wollenberg (2000: 1435) tried to
assess the effectiveness of this "linked incentive mechanism"
and their study concluded that "ntfps have weak linkages".
There are studies that have illustrated the complex nature of
the ntfps, and the challenge in quantifying its true value to
the local users (Godoy et al 2000; Sheil and Wunder 2002).
Even the more recent studies looking at the potential of the
ntfps to meet livelihood and conservation goals indicate chal-
lenges (Shackleton et al 2011a; Sunderland et al 2011), raising
the question as to why despite new incentive-oriented mecha-
nisms, there is a continued state of degradation of forests and
increasing poverty. Some arguments suggest that the ntfps
can support rural livelihoods only if alternative options are not
available (Gubbi and MacMillan 2008) and/or when market
access and basic infrastructure are missing (Sunderland et al
2011). A study on forest resource value conducted in sub-
Saharan Africa by Lucrezia Tincani (in Shackleton et al
2011a 74) illustrates why "incentive" based mechanisms using
the ntfps fail, as non-tangible costs such as opportunity
costs and transaction costs are absent from the equation.
In addition, the ntfps have subsistence value, protecting
communities from extreme poverty along with cultural values
thus affirming the complex and multi-use values associated
with the ntfps (Shiel and Wunder 2002).
Last but not the least, from a conservation perspective, con-
tinued harvesting of the ntfps, and especially on a long-term
basis is not feasible as it may cause depletion (Ticktin 2004)
unless the scale of monitoring and enforcement is manageable
and effective. There are evidences that show how intensive
harvesting of the ntfps has increased loss of biodiversity and
forest cover as in the case of India (Gadgil and Rao 1994;
Shanker et al 1998; Shahabuddin and Prasad 2004; Arjunan
et al 2006). Also, changing lifestyle trends, with a greater
demand for the ntfps that has changed the "traditional eco- access and regulations easy (Michon 2005). However, this
nomic characterisation" of ntfps (Shanley et al 2008c) and, is often missing and examples of weak integration and its
due to poorly evolved co-management structures (Rai 2007) repercussions are illustrated through case studies across
and oversimplification (Li 2002) or as Ostrom (1999) calls it the Western Ghats, and particularly in Kerala and Karnataka
"single prescription policies" have had negative effects on the (Lele et al 2010: 102-06) (also Amruth et al 2007).
conservation of these resources. These dilemmas become The challenge is in identifying strategies that incorporate this
more complex when the social, cultural and political contexts
"middle ground" to realise a win-win situation. One such strat-
that these resources are embedded in are considered. egy that seems to fit the bill is certification of the ntfps with
some amount of success reported from countries in Latin Amer-
Sociocultural and Political Dimensions
ica and Africa; successful attempts include certification of the
Studies by Borrini-Feyerabend and Tarnowski 2005;natural
Ostrom Chicle harvest in Mexico, the Brazil nut and Palm hearts
1990, 1999; Agrawal 1998; Li 2002; Ribot et al 2006;
in Bolivia and the Palm hearts in Brazil (Shanley et al 2008a).
Dove 1993 have all highlighted how sociopolitical constraints
Certification: Opportunities and Challenges
restrict the marginalised communities from achieving
In the 1990s, in response to issues involving the over extrac-
optimal returns despite various "participatory" arrangements.
Dove (1993: 21) says: tion of forest resources particularly timber, "sustained yield
forestry"
Forest people are impoverished by the degradation of the resources by gained importance followed by the recognition of
other
external actors. Instead, due to their proximity to the resources forest products. A number of principles and guidelines
they
are often blamed and as they lack the political capital they find it hard
have emerged over the past decade to ensure sustainable harvest
to refute these charges.
and use of these forest products which came to be known as
Consequently, benefits from market arrangements
thenever
certification guidelines with the common goals of main-
taining ecological integrity; social equity; and economic
trickle down to the primary harvesters, increasing pessimism
viability
manifested in the form of boom-bust cycles and poverty traps.(Pierce 2008). The three established ones are (1) Forest
Stewardship
Studies have also emphasised the sociocultural significance of Council (fsc); (2) International Federation of
Organic Agriculture Movement (ifoam); and (3) Fair-trade
these resources (Posey 1999). As remedy, a "middle ground"
approach is suggested (Sills et al 2011) where the importance
Labelling Organisation (flo). Although originally intended for
of (i) the centrality of culture; (ii) role of local and timber,
regionalorganic products and improving trade conditions
respectively,
markets; (iii) value of diversity in itself; and (iv) greater inclu- they were later extended to include the ntfps
siveness in resource management is stressed. (Pierce 2008; Erwin and Mallet 2008). Certification is ex-
pected to benefit markets for value added products with a
The 'Middle Ground'
potential for niche markets. The advantage the ntfps have is
The previous discussions all indicate the complexitiesthe
associ-
opportunity for diversified markets considering the variety of
ated with the ntfps with stakeholder consultation and decen- products available and for tapping into existing markets as well.
The challenge lies with the associated cost and with the three
tralised management limited to rhetoric. What can be inferred
from these discussions is absence of participation and a clear
levels of certification possible, namely, self; second party; and
departure from some of the recommended conditions for the
independent, third party certification, with the cost increasing
"middle ground". To begin with, the cultural importance of respectively. Considering the economic and political vulnerability
the ntfps is often not given enough weightage despite its of the primary stakeholders, the added burden of costs of cer-
significance. For example, traditional ecological knowledge tification renders itself a challenge rather than an opportu-
nity. Options to address this are being explored, as demon-
(tek) and the usefulness of combining it with scientific know-
ledge to develop effective management plans has been sug- strated by Chicle in Mexico gaining all three certification by part-
gested (Posey 1999; Ticktin 2004). Next is the neglect shownnering with a private company catering to green market con-
in developing the local and regional markets where cost of sumers, which is a growing market segment (Guillén 2008).
entry, risk and barriers are low (Shanley et al 2002) when Attempts to develop common principles and standards exclu-
compared to international markets. A good example is the sively for the ntfps, that address its socio-economic and eco-
ayurvedic medicine industry in Kerala, which will be discussed
logical dimensions necessary for sustainability and simplifying
later in some detail. Also the importance of tapping into the
the certification process for ease of implementation and reduce
diversified value of the ntfps, not only as cash source but cost for primary collectors are being made. Simultaneously its
also its subsistence value is not emphasised. Diversity is apotential is being explored in other parts of the developing
world such as India.
significant quality from a socio-economic-ecological perspec-
tive where shifting from a single ntfp to a suite of species can
act as a "safety net" from unexpected setbacks (Neumann andScope for Certification in India
Hirsch 2000; Marshall et al 2006). Finally, a greater inclusive-
In India, the ntfps are integral to the livelihoods as well as for
ness in managing these resources is important. Local users
subsistence use by communities near or in the forests, broadly
referred to as the "forest-dwelling tribal communities" (Lele
who have been traditionally managing them must be consulted
"integrating production with social arrangements" that makes
et al 2010: 87) and a significant source of revenue to the state

134 December 29, 2012 vol XLVii no 52 E3223 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:05:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 = SPECIAL ARTICLE

from the
government as well (Tewari and Campbell 1995; forests by the
Mitchell et tribal
al people and 96 species by tribal
cooperatives.
2003; MOEF 2001). The commercial value of the ntfps Thein largest
Indiaconsumer of the forest products is
the state's
is currently estimated at an average of $11 billion but ayurvedic industry (Ramesh et al 2007; Menon
the ntfp
2003). for
trade distortions and poor marketing account Nearly70%
80% ofaver-
the Indian traditional medicine industry
is situated in Kerala2007).
age loss in returns to these communities (Choudhury with a predicted growth rate increase of
35% annually
Medicinal plants are ntfps that are of particular (Nath 2010;to
importance Samraj 2010). This poses a threat as
well as to
the rural poor, who harvest these from the wild an opportunity
meet their for sustainable ntfp extraction in
primary healthcare needs as well as their south India, especially
livelihood in Kerala.
needs.
Within the
According to the World Health Organisation (who), 80% ntfp
ofsector
the in Kerala, recent studies have
pointed
world's population relies on traditional medicine out the
for need for
health andappropriate support policies; market
other needs and the value of MP-related trade in India
research is toand
and analysis the
efficient stock management strate-
order of $5.5 billion and is growing rapidlygies.(Aromatic
The mp sector is best depicted as having three core sce-
and
narios: private sector
Herbal Plantations). Increasing market demand has affected the dominance; market force dominance
availability and quality of these resources, as and a growing
well informal sector (Jayaraman and Anitha 2010).
as livelihoods.
Therecan
Experts claim that "certification standards is alsoridge
concern the
about the gaps between the payment re-
ceived by
environmental, economic, and social pitfalls that the collectors
have impeded and the retail price of the commodities
the success of commercialisation efforts of andntfps"
the absence(Wilsey
of a pricing policy does not help matters. The
weakening of the market
and Hiderband 2010: 68). It is considered a "voluntary formal economy and a growing dependency
tool that encourages 'green consumerism' byon the informal princi-
ensuring sector has resulted in unsustainable extraction
of the(Bhattacharya
ples of sustainable forest management (sfm)" resources affecting its environmental as well as social
et al 2009: 1). values. As a result availability and quality concerns are affect-
With this growing interest in ntfp certification, some pre- ing the resource, its trade and ultimately the ayurvedic (indus-
liminary attempts have been made in India. Marketing of wild try) sector (Madhavan 2008). A need for identifying an alter-
honey from the Nilgiris Biosphere Range and the Western native source for key medicinal plants, especially those that
Ghats, sold with an "eco-mark", called "pgs Wild", based on are vulnerable is felt, however the quality parameters and as-
the principles of the Participatory Guarantee System (Nath sessment standards appear vague and absent.
2010) drawing parallels to the Brazil nut production and qual- Based on experiences elsewhere in Mexico, Brazil and
ity assessment in Bolivia is an example of a successful attempt. Bolivia as previously discussed, it is hypothesised that certi-
These attempts are indeed very encouraging but how viable fication of the mp may prove to be an effective strategy to
are these considering larger international markets that adhere meet conservation and livelihood goals. However, there is
to stricter quality standards and third party assessments also the realisation that for new strategies such as certifica-
(Ervin and Mallet 2008) remain to be explored? Such require- tion to be successful these are factors that must be looked
ments may be too costly for small producers unless there is at: (1) expert and detailed scientific knowledge on the re-
consumer demand and willingness to pay a premium price for source is available; (2) demand for certified product exists;
the products. Recently a fully-fledged certification framework (3) external funding and other resource support is available
was brought out based on participatory approach, drawing on for developing and monitoring certification guidelines; and
stakeholder feedbacks from four states in India (Bhattacharya (4) expanding markets are available for specific products
et al 2008, 2009). However its feasibility when factoring in the (Shanley et al 2008b; Ross-Tonen and Küsters 2011). Also,
local and regional markets, the existing policy and institu- in India there is a need to explore its feasibility on a state
tional arrangements which often differ across states, and stake- specific basis as state policies on forest resource access and
holder reactions and/or preferences remains to be explored. use differs, along with stakeholder consultation (Agrawal
Finally, new strategies are viewed with scepticism mainly due 2005: 18) and how the cost of certification can be addressed
to weak sociopolitical conditions such as lack of tenure security, (Bhattacharya et al 2009). Understanding the socio-economic
elite capture, insufficient monitoring capacity, poor manage- implications is also emphasised (Agrawal 2005: 119) as they
ment capacity and poor organisation among users affecting ef- are often overlooked. In summary, reverting to the original
fective management of these resources as previously seen in question of synergistic possibilities and based on lessons
the case of India, Brazil or Cameroon. The following section learnt on the ntfp certification and other incentive based
briefly discusses this through a specific case from Kerala. strategies in India and elsewhere, these are our suggestions
for a win-win situation.
A Kerala Perspective
The Kerala region of the south Western Ghats is rich in bio- 1 Management Plan for Single Species
diversity with many species endemic to it. The forest dwelling Most studies report the lack of a management plan for the
communities of this region depend on the ntfp collection as a ntfps as the reason for the over harvesting and increasing
major source of livelihood; in fact 56% of their total income is threat. With a clear and a well laid out management plan, sus-
from the ntfps (Thomas 1996). One hundred and twenty tainable harvests of resources can be maintained ensuring
items of the ntfps, mainly mp are permitted to be collected long-term benefits. A good example is the Mexico Chicle

Economic & Political weekly rara» December 29, 2012 vol xlvii no 52 *35

This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:05:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
harvest where the management plan is integrated with timber
and set by the government. The harvesting is however done in
the traditional way with a fairly successful certification effort
in place. Two key points are highlighted as important. These
are the chain of custody and management and monitoring of
the forests (Alcorn 2008). Another example is that of Brazil
nuts in Bolivia where after many repeated attempts an accept-
able standard for Brazil nut management was put in place.
Certification efforts in the form of fair trade arrangements
brought in some success due to direct linkages to local proces-
sors who had connections with the Europeans fair trade bro-
kers. This direct, comparatively shorter value added chain
brought in better returns to the harvesters/producers. A self-
regulation mechanism (much like the Participatory Guarantee
Scheme in India, see Nath 2010), to ensure quality and quan-
tity standards not only ensures quality but is also cost-effective
(Cronkleton and Pacheco 2010). On the flip side there are risks
associated with focusing on a single species and hence diversi-
fication and prioritisation are recommended (Cunningham
2011; Ticktin and Shackleton 2011).
2 NTFP Management for Multiple Species
The ntfps comprise multitude species, with varying ecological,
social, cultural and economic functions and this can both be an
advantage and a disadvantage. Multi-species dependency in-
creases diverse economic opportunities, simultaneously reducing
harvest pressures and also act as "safety nets" from unex-
pected set backs. However, designing management plans fac-
toring in the diversity of species can be difficult. Limited infor-
mation regarding its availability, spatial distribution and other
ecological functions add to the challenge. Some suggest exempt-
ing the ntfps that are of subsistence use only (Kliippel et al
2010). The role of tek in developing sustainable management
plans for the ntfps is also highlighted (Ticktin and Shackleton
2011). The advantage of the tek is that it factors in the ecologi-
cal knowledge and the social institutions that govern these re-
sources and these include taboos, legends, stories, customs, land
tenure, rate, timing and location of harvest (Ticktin 2004).
Even though the tek may not be considered a sophisticated
management plan, combining it with scientific research is sug-
gested (Ticktin and Shackleton 2011: 161). Studies have also
highlighted the cultural and social significance of the ntfps.
All this maybe of particular significance to Kerala due to the
diversity of medicinal plant species harvested in the state to
cater to the local ayurvedic industry. Many species that are key
ingredients to specific, culturally significant ayurvedic formu-
lations (e g, dashamoola) with a growing market demand are
in the vulnerable or endangered list. Substitution of species and
as a result adulteration is a major problem facing the industry.
The challenge however, for most forest communities is finding
the resources to undertake these recommended activities.
3 Collective Action and Donor Support
The initial investment and continuous resource support needed
lowed in terms of use of the ntfps. When statutory rules were
for preparation of management plans, implement certification,
put in place, restricting the use or harvest of certain species,
carry out adaptive management, and ensure monitoring and
they were either ignored due to lack of awareness or because
136 December 29, 2012 vol XLVii no 52 laayj Economic & Political WEEKLY
This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:05:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
enforcement is a difficult prospect. Suggestions include form-
ing producer organisations (successful examples of these
include the Mexican ejidatarioss (Granich et al 2010), the tribal
cooperatives in India like the lamps to some extent (Lele et al
2010), and the indigenous groups of Bolivia organising against
the barraqueros (Cronkleton and Pacheco 2010). In fact the
NTFP trade is more likely to be viable when producers (espe-
cially the small producers) are organised, good entrepreneurs
participate women's involvement is encouraged, there is trans-
parency in the value chain (Schreckenberg et al 2006; te Velde
et al 2006) and adaptive resource management is in place. The
advantages of collective action are many. These include the
economies of scale, where many producers can come together
and meet the market demand rather than at an individual pro-
ducer level and bringing the cost down as well in the process.
Politically, there is the advantage of strength in numbers and
thus an increased bargaining capacity (Agrawal 1998). The
problem that is anticipated here is the heterogeneous nature of
the groups involved and how the dynamics among the group
members may influence various decisions (Agrawal and
Gibson 1999: 638-39; Wunder 2001). However, studies also
suggest that if groups are formed with a specific objective in
mind, they are more likely to succeed (Agrawal 1998: Ch 3).
As much as local community cooperation is a must, facilita-
tion from outside is also equally important. This may be
through private partnership or government partnership or
non-government partnership. Outside funding is vital along
with donor support for local and national research, support
for small producers and for efforts to increase consumer
awareness. Funds and support are also needed to establish
additional livelihood schemes so that the dependency on
resource extraction is decreased (Wunder 2001; Gubbi and
MacMillan 2008). This could be in the form of payment of
ecosystem services (pes), where conservation goals are met
and resource dependent communities are not made worse off
(Chhatre and Agrawal 2009). Donor support for other wel-
fare activities such as health, education and employment
training and opportunities are also recommended. Last but
not the least there is an increasing trend among corporate
companies to support environmental and other socially rele-
vant causes as part of "corporate social responsibility"
(Shanley et al 2008a: 6). Non-governmental organisations
(ngos) and local producer organisations can play a signifi-
cant role in tapping this resource.
4 Appropriate Policy Measures
No matter what plans are made or what new strategies are
suggested, they would not work or be effective without having
enabling policies in place. In the case of the ntfps, formal poli-
cies are in fairly nascent stages with challenges encountered
due to their complex nature. The overlap between statutory
and customary laws was the most limiting factor. For example,
in Camaroon (Laird et al 2010b: 56), customary laws were fol-
they were considered "illegal" by the local communities. One and the chances of falling into a debt trap depending on
reason for the confusion is that most of these policies are put in its commercial value. There are also environmental effects
place and implemented without stakeholder participation. The associated with such land-use changes that include: defor-
needs of the local communities are rarely studied and even if estation, loss of diversity of species, ecosystem degradation
they are, eventually those with stronger political clout or lob- and loss of genetic variability, and soil and water degrada-
bying capacity have their way and invariably they are usually tion and loss (Granich et al 2010). Last but not the least there
not the traditional, indigenous users. Therefore, it is recom- are quality issues associated with the species, especially be-
mended that before any rules are changed or created, active tween the wild harvested and the cultivated substitutes. This
participation of stakeholders must be sought. The purpose of is particularly important in the case of the medicinal plant
the participation can range from prioritising species of com- species. Recently (May 2011) ayurvedic products have been
mercial importance to preparing management plans and for- banned in the European Union (eu) and all future trade will
mulating and implementing legislations that support them. In be permitted only after a licensed authorisation from the eu
the case of first world countries such as British Columbia, tra- ( Indian Express , 2011). These are clearly additional burdens
ditional connections to the ntfps is only limited to its use. The on the primary collectors and traders and add to the man-
rest of the traditional knowledge is "lost due to acculturation" agement challenges. Therefore before such efforts are put in
and yet stakeholder consultation is maintained (Mitchell et al place a thorough analysis is a must with the information gaps
2010). But, in case of developing countries, resources continue filled in.
to be socially as well as culturally linked and consultation and
Conclusions
collaboration becomes all the more important yet is rarely
practised. In India's resource rich regions like Kerala, such par- This paper has attempted to explore whether synergistic
ticipation and consultations appear to be absent (Amruth et al opportunities for ntfp livelihoods and conservation are avail-
2007) and this needs to be addressed. able in India, specifically for Kerala. Based on past and present
and global and local experiences the answer is yes and no. It
5 Property Rights and Tenure would depend on the kind of relationship that is in place,
Policy arrangements incorporating property rights and tenu- which is influenced by the nature of policies and the external
rial arrangements continue to evolve especially within the support system in place. This reflects Barrett et al's (2005: 193)
commons' sector. Examplés from India and Brazil all illustrate opinion that "synergies between livelihoods and conservation
the importance of clear property rights and tenure arrange- do not automatically occur simply because they are related".
ments regarding forest access and rights to harvest-specific re- Despite the suggestions given, it is important to note that the
sources. There is evidence (as in the case of Brazil nuts in parts use of the ntfps and its potential to meet the expected goals of
of Bolivia, e g, Acre) where clear rights have helped in sustain- improved livelihoods and conservation is contextual. There-
able management and use of the Brazil nut which is an impor- fore it is important to make room for flexibility while applying
tant resource traded nationally and internationally and a some of the previously listed points.
source of high income to the locals. In regions which lack such Purely from a market and trade perspective, instead of
arrangements and where government support is poor, the re- expanding the markets, or exposing them to mass markets,
source is subjected to unsustainable extraction and even theft. exploring specialised, diversified, and high end niche mar-
(Moss 2011). It is suggested that depending on the traditional kets may offer improved, long-term sustainable returns.
access and use arrangements of these resources (or customary There is increasing demand for certified "green" or "fair-
rules), statutory rules must be put in place such that feeling of trade" products obtained from the wild. Thus further
ownership is felt which, in turn, will ensure better manage- research is needed to identify niche market segments; will-
ment, enforcement of rules and protection of resources, simul- ingness of consumers to pay, the various costs associated with
taneously maximising the benefits from trade. The recently the ntfp production and marketing, and design appropriate
passed Forest Rights Act (2006) in India indicates steps in the campaign strategies for effective sales. In this context, policy
right direction but its implications on different stakeholders
arrangements for effective trade and compensation must also
are still under scrutiny. be placed such that industries and other "elite" bodies that
are primarily responsible for pushing local harvesters into
Alternative Source: Domestication and Cultivation
over harvesting are persuaded to be more sustainable which
Attempts are being made to encourage cultivation or may simultaneously improve primary harvester returns.
domesti-
Prioritising
cation of the NTFP species of importance, especially those with species, incorporating the tek and working out
high market demand. This is expected to ease harvest collaborative
pres- management plans with local users can ensure
sures on the forests and examples are agave in Mexico,better accountability and a higher incentive to conserve.
or some
of the medicinal plant species in India. The problems Finally,
with thisexpanding citizens' awareness on the importance of
natural
approach are varied. First of all cultivation would require resources, pushing for more ethical business prac-
ad-
ticeseco-
ditional land and other resources along with additional and keeping consumers informed on the origin and
"real" value of these resources, perhaps through the chain of
nomic and physical burdens on the marginalised communities
(Gubbi 2006). It may increase vulnerability to elite custody
capture,arrangements, a win-win scenario can be achieved.

Economic & Political weekly EESQ December 29, 2012 vol xlvii no 52 137

This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:05:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Future Directions determinants that influence their choices and reactions to new
As discussed earlier, a certification framework for mp has been such as certification. It will also study if there is
strategies
designed for India drawing from stakeholder feedbacks
compliance
and with the certification standards from a multi-
stakeholder
consultations from four central and western forest regions of perspective. It is expected to throw light on the
India. It was also deduced that management strategies need to
implementation challenges of the strategy if any, in a place like
Kerala, identify gaps to be addressed, alternative approaches
remain flexible and more importantly must be context-specific.
and synergistic potential. So far no studies have been con-
Based on this argument, an ongoing study is in place exploring
the potential of certification of mp in Kerala, using theducted
certi-in India looking at these implications from the ntfp
fication framework by Bhattacharya et al (2008). Thiscertification
study and the mp sector in Kerala will provide an excel-
lentthe
intends to find the contribution of mp to household income, case study to not only design practical strategies to im-
impact of existing institutional arrangements on theprove
socio-
the local situation but also gain new theoretical insights
economic status of primary harvesters, the socio-economic
on the broader question of synergy raised initially.

REFERENCES Gadgil, M, P R S Rao (1994): "A System of Positive

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia and Christopher B Tar-
nowski (2005): "Participatory Democracy in Incentives to Conserve Bio-diversity", Econom-
Alcorn (2008): "Chicle (Manilkara zapota)" in
Natural Resource Management: A 'Columbus's ic & Political Weekly, 6 August, 2103-07.
P Shanley, A R Pierce, S A Laird and A Guillen
Egg'?" in J P Brosius, A L Tsing and C ZernerGodoy, R, D Wilkie, H Verman, A Cubas, G Cubas,
(ed.), Tapping the Green Market- Certification
(ed.), Communities and Conservation: Histories J Demmer, K McSweeney and N Brokaw
and Management of Non-Timber Forest Products
and Politics of Community-Based Natural Re- (2000): "Valuation of Consumption and Sale of
(London: Earthscan Publications), pp 49-60.
source Management (Walnut Creek, CA: Altami- Forest Goods From a Central American Rain
Amruth, M, M Karunakaran, M Balasubramanian
ra Press), pp 69-90. Forest", Nature, 406: 62-63.
and B R Ramesh (2007): "Imperatives of
Campbell, B M, S Jeffrey, W Kozanayi, M Lückert,Granich, C I, S E Purata, F Edouard, F S Pardo and
Change: Reflection Practices and Policies of
M Mutamba and C Zindi (2002): "Household C Tovar (2010): "Overcoming Barriers in
Forestry Management" in B R Ramesh and
Livelihoods in Semi-arid Regions: Options and Collectively Managed NTFPs in Mexico" in
R Gurukkal (ed.), Forest Landscapes of the
Constraints", CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. S A Laird, J M Rebecca and P W Rachel (ed.),
Southern Western Ghats, India: Biodiversity ,
Human Ecology and Management Chhatre, A and A Agrawal (2009): "Trade-offs and Wild Product Governance Finding Policies That
Strategies,
Synergies between Carbon Storage and Liveli- Work for Non-Timber Forest Products (London:
French Institute of Pondicherry (Pondicherry:
All India Press), pp 171-98.
hood Benefits from Forest Commons", PNAS,• Earthscan Publication), pp 205-25.
106(42): 17667-70. Gubbi, Sanjay (2006): "Tiger Habitats and Integ-
Agrawal, Arun (1998): "Group Size and Successful
Collective Action: A Case Study ofChoudhury,
Forest Man- P R (2007): "Forest- Route to Poverty rated Conservation and Development Projects:
agement Institutions in the Indian Alleviation:
Himalayas" Myths and Realities: Analysis of A Case Study from Periyar Tiger Reserve,
NTFP-Livelihood
in C Gibson, M McKean and E Ostrom (ed.), Linkages in Some Indian India", MSc thesis, University of Kent.
States", Trees
Forest Resources and Institutions: Forests, Poster presented in the RRI Confer-
Gubbi, Sanjay and Douglas C MacMillan (2008):
and People Programme, Working Paper ence,
3,Bangkok,
Chap- 4-7 September. "Can Non-Timber Forest Products Solve Liveli-
ter 3, FAO, Rome, Italy. Cronkleton, P and P Pacheco (2010): "Changing hood Problems? A Case Study from Periyar
Policy
- (2005): Environmentality, Technologies of Trends
Gov- in the Emergence of Bolivia's Tiger Reserve, India", Oryx, 42(2): pp 222-28.
ernment and the Making of Subjects Brazil(Delhi:
Nut Sector" in S A Laird, J M Rebecca and
Guillen, A (2008): "Summaries of the Field-testing
P W Rachel (ed.), Wild Product Governance Find- Results in Mexico, Bolivia and Brazil" in
Oxford University Press), pp 1-304.
ing Policies that Work for Non-Timber Forest Prod- P Shanley, A R Pierce, S A Laird and A Guillen
Agrawal, A and C C Gibson (1999): "Enchantment
ucts (London: Earthscan Publication), 20-34. (ed.), Tapping the Green Market- Certification
and Disenchantment: The Role of Community
Cunningham,
in Natural Resources Conservation", World A B (2011): "Non-timber Products and Management of Non-Timber Forest Products
Development, 27(4): 629-49. and Markets: Lessons for Export-Oriented Enter- (London: Earthscan Publications), 28-35.
prise Development From Africa" in S C Shackleton
Indian Express Report, 3 February 2011, viewed on
- (2001): "The Role of Community in Natural Re-
and P Shanley (ed.), Non-Timber Forest Prod- 10 July 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/
source Conservation" in A Agrawal and C Gib-
ucts in the Global Context (Berlin Heidelberg: news/ayurvedic-drugs-face-eu-ban-from-may-
son (ed.), Communities and the Environment:
Springer-Verlag), pp 83-106. 1/745660/
Ethnicity, Gender and the State in Community-
based Conservation (Piscataway, Dove,
NJ: M R (1993): "A Revisionist View of Tropical
Rutgers Jayaraman, K and V Anitha (2010): "Forestry Sec-
University Press), pp 1-32. Deforestation and Development", Environmen- tor Analysis for the State of Kerala - Phase II",
tal Conservation, 20(1). KFRI Research Report No 345 (Peechi: Kerala
Arjunan, M, C Holmes, J Puyravaud and P Davidar
Durst, P, Influ-
(2006): "Do Developmental Initiatives C Brown, H Tacio and M Ishikawa (2005): Forest Research Institute Peechi, Kerala), 86.
ence Local Attitudes toward Conservation? "In Search of Excellence: Exemplary Forest Man-
Klüppel, M P, J C R Ferreira, J H Chaves and
A Case Study from the Kalakad-Mundanthurai agement in Asia and the Pacific", Asia-Pacific For- A C Hummel (2010): "In Search of Regulations
Tiger Reserve", India Journal of Environmental est Commission and RECOFTC, Bangkok. to Promote the Sustainable Use of NTFPs in
Management, 79: 188-97. Enviro News (2003): Viewed on 10 December Brazil" in D A Laird, J M Rebecca and P W Rachel,
"Aromatic and Herbal Plantations", Entrepreneur-2009, (http:// envfor. nic. in/news/). Wild Product Governance Finding Policies That
Ervin, J B and P Mallet (2008): "The Rise of Certi-
ship in Agriculture & Allied Sectors, Horticul- Work for Non-Timber Forest Products (London:
ture and Allied Sectors, Business Knowledgefication, the Current State of the Playing Earthscan Publication), pp 43-52.
Resource, GOI, viewed on 10 July 2011 (http:// Field for NTFP Certification Programmes Laird,
and S A, R J McLain and R P Wynberg ed,
business, gov.in/agriculture/aromatic herbal_ Future Prospects in P Shanley, A R Pierce, (2010a): Wild Product Governance-Finding Poli-
plantation.php). S A Laird and A Guillen (ed.), Tapping the Green cies that Work for Non-Timber Forest Products
Market- Certification and Management of Non-
Barrett, C B, D R Lee and J G Mcpeak (2005): "Insti- (London: Earthscan Publications), 1-15.
tutional Arrangements for Rural Poverty Reduc- Timber Forest Products (London: Earthscan Laird, S A, V Ingram, A Awono, O Ndoye, T Sunder-
tion and Resource Conservation", World Deve- Publications), pp 7-9. land, E L Fotabong and R Nkuinkeu (2010b):
lopment, 33(2): 193-97- Fagerberg, J, M Srholec and M Knell (2007): "The "Integrating Customary and Statutory systems:
Bhattacharya, P, R Prasad, R Bhattacharya and Competitiveness of Nations: Why Some Coun- •The Struggle to Develop a Legal and Policy
A Asokan (2008): "Towards Certification of tries Prosper While Others Fall Behind", World Framework for NTFPs in Cameroon" in S A Laird,
Wild Medicinal and Aromatic Plants in Four Development, 35(10): 1595-1620. J M Rebecca and P W Rachel (ed.), Wild Product
Indian States", Unasylva, 59: 230 Governance Finding Policies that Work for Non-
Gadgil, M (2001): "Conserving India's Biodiversity:
Bhattacharya, P, R Prasad and S Roy (2009): "De-Let the People Speak", Ecological Journeys: The Timber Forest Products (London: Earthscan
veloping National Standards for NTFP Certifi- Science and Politics of Conservation in India Publication), pp 55-56.
cation in India: A Tool to Achieve Sustainable (New Delhi: Permanent Black). Lele, S, M Pattanaik and D N Rai (2010): "NTFPS
NTFP Management and Equitable BenefitGadgil, M and R Guha (1992): This Fissured Land: in India: Rhetoric and Reality" in S A Laird,
Sharing", World Forestry Congress, Buenos An Ecological History of India (New Delhi: J M Rebecca and P W Rachel, Wild Product
Aires, Argentina, 18-23 October. Oxford University Press), p 272. Governance Finding Policies That Work for

138 December 29, 2012 vol XLVii no 52 rrr?3 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:05:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Non-Timber Forest Products (London: Earths- Scenario", Conservation & Society, 2(2): 235-50.
Pimbert, M P and J N Pretty (1995): "Parks, People
can Publication), pp 85-113. and Professionals: Putting 'Participation' into U, K S Murali, U R Shanker, K N Gane-
Shanker,
Li, T M (2002): "Engaging Simplifications: Commu- shaiah and K S Bawa (1998): "Extraction of
Protected Area Management", Discussion Paper
nity-Based Resource Management, Market 57 (Geneva, Switzerland: UNRISD). Non-timber Forest Products in the Forest of
Processes and State Agendas in Upland South- Posey, D (1999): "The Cultural and Spiritual Value
Biligiri Rangan Hills, India: Impact on Floristic
east Asia", World Development, 30(2): 265-83. of Biodiversity" (Nairobi: United Nations Envi-
Diversity and Population Structure in a Thorn
Madhavan, H (2008): "Linking Tribal Medicinal ronment Programme). Scrub Forest", Economic Botany, 52: 302-15.
Plant Cooperatives and Ayurvedic Manufactu- Rai, N D (2007): "The Ecology of Income; Shanley,
Can WeP, L Luz, I Swingland (2002): "The Faint
ring Firms for Better Rural Livelihood and Have Both Fruit and Forest? in ShahabuddingPromise of a Distant Market: A Survey of
Sustainable Use of Resources", MPRA Paper G and M Rangarajan (ed.), Making Conserva- Belem's Trade in Non-timber Forest Products",
No 6954, posted on 01 February 2008/06:45, tion Work (Uttaranchal: Published by Perma-Biodiversity Conservation, 11: 615-36.
viewed on 10 January 2011 (http://mpra.ub. nent Black), 142-62. Shanley, Ç S A Laird, A R Pierce, A Guillen (2008a) :
uni-muenchen.de/6954/). Ramesh, B R, P V Karunakaran, M Amruth, M Balas-
"Introduction" in P Shanley, A R Pierce, S A Laird
Marshall, E, K Schreckenberg, A C Newton, ed. ubramanian and Rajan Gurukkal (2007): "Strate-
and A Guillen (ed.), Tapping the Green Market-
(2006): Commercialisation of Non-timber Forest gies and Actions-I: Accounting for Values" in
Certification and Management of Non-Timber For-
Products: Factors Influencing Success, Lessons B R Ramesh and Rajan Gurukkal (ed.), From est Products (London: Earthscan Publications), p 4.
Learned from Mexico and Bolivia and Policy Forests Landscapes of the South Western Ghats,
- (2008b): "Conclusions and Recommendations"
Implications for Decision-Makers (Cambridge:India-Biodiversity, Human Ecology and Manage-in P Shanley, A R Pierce, S A Laird and A Guillen
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre). ment Strategie: Collection Ecologie-40 (India:
(ed.), Tapping the Green Market- Certification
Menon, P (2003): "Conservation and Consump- Institute Francais De Pondicherry), 199-211. and Management of Non-Timber Forest Products
tion: A Study on the Crude Drug Trade in Rangarajan, M and G Shahabuddin (2006): "Dis- (London: Earthscan Publications), p 4.
Threatened Medicinal Plants in Thiruvanan- placement and Relocation from ProtectedShanley,
Areas: P, A Pierce, S Laird, D Robinson (2008c):
thapuram District, Kerala" (Trivandrum: KR- Towards a Biological and Historical Synthesis",
"Beyond Timber: Certification and Manage-
PLLD, CDS), p 90. Conservation and Society, 4 (3): 359-78. ment of Non-timber Forest Products" (Bogor,
Michon, G (2005): "Domesticating Forests: How
Rausser, G C (2000): "Valuing Research Leads:Indonesia:
Bio- Center for International Forestry
Farmers Manage Forest Resources" (Bogor, prospecting and the Conservation of GeneticResearch), p 13.
Indonesia: CIFOR/ICRAF). Resources", Journal of Political Economy,
Sheil,108
Douglas and Sven Wunder (2002): "The Value
Mitchell, C P, S Corbridge, S Jewitt, A K Mahapatra(1): 173-206. of Tropical Forest to Local Communities: Com-
and S Kumar (2003): "Non-timber Forest Prod-Ribot, J, A Agrawal and A Larson (2006): "Recen-
plications, Caveats, and Cautions", Conservation
ucts: Availability, Production, Consumption, tralising While Decentralising: How National
Ecology, 6(2): 9.
Management and Marketing in Eastern India" Governments Re -appropriate Forest Resourc- Sills, E, P Shanley, F Paumgarten, J de Beer, A Pierce
(London: University of Aberdeen). es", World Development, 34(11): 1864-86. (2011): "Evolving Perspective on Non-timber
Mitchell, D A, S Tedder, T Brigham, W CocksedgeRoss-Tonen, M A F, K Küsters (2011): "Pro-poor Forest Products" in S Shackleton, C Shackleton
and T Hobby (2010): "Policy Gaps and InvisibleGovernance of Non-timber Forest Products: and P Shanley (ed.), Non-Timber Forest Prod-
Elbows: NTFPs in British Columbia" in S A Laird,The Need for Secure Tenure, the Rule of Law, ucts in the Global Context (Berlin Heidelberg:
J M Rebecca and P W Rachel, Wild Product Market Access and Partnerships" in S Shackleton, Springer-Verlag), pp 23-51.
Governance Finding Policies that Work for Non-C Shackleton and P Shanley (ed.), Non-TimberSunderland, T C H, O Ndoye and S Harrison-
Timber Forest Products (London: Earthscan Forest Products in the Global Context (Berlin Sanchez (2011): "Non-timber Forest Products
Publication), 113-35. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 189-207. and Conservation: What Prospects?" in
MoEF, Gol (Ministry of Environment and Forest, Saberwal, V, M Rangarajan and A Kothari (2001): S Shackleton, C Shackleton and P Shanley
Government of India), Forest Rights Act 2006, "Humans and Protected Areas" in V Saberwal, (ed.), Non-Timber Forest Products in the Global
viewed on 10 December 2010 (http://moef.nic. M Rangarajan and A Kothari (ed.), People, Context (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag),
in/modules/rules-and-regulations/forest-con- Parks & Wildlife: Towards Coexistence (Hydera- 209-24.
servation/). bad: India: Orient Longman), pp 44-70. te Velde, D W, J Rushton, K Schreckenberg, E Mar-
Salafsky, N and E Wollenberg (2000): "Linking shall, F Edouard, A Newon and E Arancibia
Moss, C (2011): "Going Nuts: How Price Increases
and Property Rights Insecurity May Lead to Livelihoods and Conservation: A Conceptual (2006): "Entrepreneurship in Value Chain of
Brazil Nut Theft", viewed on 15 November Framework and Scale for Assessing the Inte- Non-timber Forest Products", Forest Policy and
(http://blog.cifor.org/3127/going-nuts-how- gration of Human Needs and Biodiversity", Economics, 8: 725-41.
price-increases-and-property-rights-insecurity- World Development, 28 (8): 1421-38. Tewari, D D and J Y Campbell (1995): "Developing
may-lead-to-brazil-nut-theft/). Salwasser, H, D MacCleery and T Snellgrove and Sustaining Non-timber Forest Products:
Nath, S (2010): "Eco Certification for NTFPs & (1993)' "An Ecosystem Perspective on Sus- Some Policy Issue and Concerns with Special
Plant Extractions from Forests in India" in tainable Forestry and New Directions for Reference to India", Journal of Sustainable For-
M Ramnath (ed.), From Indigenous People and the US National Forest System" in G Aplet, estry, 3(1): 53-77-
Forests in India: View from a Network (TamilN Johnson, J Olson and V Sample (ed.), Defining
Ticktin, Tamara (2004): "The Ecological Conse-
Nadu, India: NTFP-EP-India Network Secretar-Sustainable Forestry (Washington DC: Island quences of Harvesting Non-timber Forest Prod-
iat, Keystone Foundation), pp 42-57. Press). ucts", Journal of Applied Ecology, 41: 11-21.
Nepstad, D C and S Schwartzman ed, (1992): "Non- Samraj, T (2010): "The Ayurvedic Industry andTicktin,
Its T and C Shackleton (2011): "Harvesting
timber Products from Tropical Forests: Evalua- Implications on NTFP Sustainability" in M Ram- Non-timber Forest Products Sustainably:
tion of a Conservation and Development Strat- nath (ed.), Indigenous People and Forests in Opportunities and Challenges" in S Shackle-
egy", Advances in Economic Botany, 9: 33-42. India -View from a Network (Tamil Nadu: ton, C Shackleton and P Shanley (ed.), Non-
Neumann, R P and E Hirsch (2000): "Commercialisa-NTFP-EP-India Network Secretariat, Keystone Timber Forest Products in the Global Context
tion of Non-timber Forest Products: Review and Foundation), 48-51. (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 149-70.
Analysis of Research" (Bogor, Indonesia: Centre Schreckenberg, K, J Rushton, D W te Velde (2006):
UN Report (1997): "National Resource Aspects of
for International Forestry Research/FAO). "What Happens between Production and Con- Sustainable Development in India", 5th Session
Ostrom, Elinor (1990): Governing the Commons: The sumption?" in E Marshall, K Schreckenberg of the United Nations Commission on Sustain-
Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cam- and A C Newton (ed.), Commercialisation of able Development 1997, viewed on 15 April 2008
bridge: Cambridge University Press), 1-57. Non-timber Forest Products: Factors Influencing (http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/
- (1999): "Self-Governance and Forest Resour- Access CCambridge, UK: UNEP). countr/india/natur.htm#biodiv).
ces", Occasional Paper No 20 (Bogor, Indonesia: Vasan, Sudha (2005): "In the Name of Law, Legality,
Shackleton, S, C O Delang and A Angelsen (2011a):
Centre for International Forestry Research). "From Subsistence to Safety Nets and Cash Illegality and Practice in Jharkhand Forests",
Peters, C M, A H Gentry and R 0 Mendelsohn Income: Exploring the Diverse Value of Non- Economic & Political Weekly, 40(41): 4447- 50.
(1989): "Valuation of an Amazonian Rainfor- timber Forest Products for Livelihoods and
Wilsey, D S and P E Hilderbrand (2010): "Chamae-
est", Nature, 339: 655-65. Poverty Alleviation" in S Shackleton, C Shack- dorea Palm Frond Commercialisation and
Pierce, A R (2008): "Social Issues: Section III: The leton and P Shanley (ed.), Non-Timber Forest Certification Considered from a Smallholder
Core Elements if NTFP Certification in Products in the Global Context (Berlin Heidel- Livelihood System Perspective", Small-Scale
berg: Springer-Verlag), 55-81.
P Shanley, A R Pierce, S A Laird and A Guillen Forestry, 10: 67-81.
Shahabuddin, Ghazala and Soumya Prasad (2004):
(ed.), Tapping the Green Market- Certification Wunder, Sven (2001): "Poverty Alleviation and
"Assessing Ecological Sustainability of Non- Tropical Forests: What Scope for Synergies?",
and Management of Non-Timber Forest Products
(London: Earthscan Publications), 283-99. Timber Forest Produce Extraction: The Indian World Development, 29(n):i8.

Economic & Political weekly E32S3 December 29, 2012 vol xlvii no 52 139

This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:05:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms