Multidimensional challenges in Non-Timber Forest Product (NTFP) activities and strategic recommendations for livelihood enhancement of forest dwellers in Chhattisgarh

Introduction

Forests have historically been the cornerstone of survival for millions of tribal and forest-dependent communities across India. Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs), also called Minor Forest Produce (MFP), include a wide range of plantand animal-based items such as fruits, seeds, leaves, roots, resins, gums, bamboo, honey, lac, and medicinal plants, forming the foundation of food security, income, and cultural identity for forest-dwelling households (FAO, 1995) [6] . Chhattisgarh, formed in 2000, has about 44.21% of its area under forest cover, making it one of India's most forestdependent states (Champion and Seth, 1968) [5] . Over 32% of its population is tribal, with communities such as Gond, Baiga, Oraon, Kamar, and Halba depending heavily on forest ecosystems. NTFPs like tendu leaves, saal seeds, mahua, harra, bahera, and bamboo are their principal sources of cash income. The economic significance of NTFPs for tribal livelihoods is well documented globally (Hegde et al., 1996; Shackleton et al., 2001; Sunderlin et al., 2005) [7,13,14] and in India (Bahuguna, 2000; Mahapatra and Mitchell, 1997) [2,8] . Yet, converting this potential into real livelihood gains remains constrained by structural, institutional, and knowledgerelated challenges (Belcher and Schreckenberg, 2007) [3] . While individual dimensions have been studied, a comprehensive analysis spanning the entire NTFP value chain in Chhattisgarh is lacking, and community-derived recommendations are rarely documented in policy frameworks. This study was designed to fill this gap by examining constraints across five dimensions of NTFP activities and documenting community-derived strategic recommendations for sustainable livelihood enhancement.

Objectives

• To identify the challenges in collection, processing, storage, marketing, and value addition of NTFPs. • To document strategic recommendations proposed by forest dwellers for overcoming these challenges and www.extensionjournal.com improving NTFP-based livelihoods.

Methodology

The study was conducted in Chhattisgarh during the period 2024-2025, employing an ex-post facto research design. Out of the six forest circles in the state, three circles Raipur (Chhattisgarh Plains), Kanker (Bastar Plateau), and Surguja (Northern Hills) were purposively selected to ensure representation of all major agro-climatic zones. From the 17 forest divisions within these selected circles, 9 divisions (approximately 50%) were selected using a simple random sampling technique. Further, out of 42 Van Dhan Kendras located in these divisions, 21 Kendras (50%) were randomly selected. Subsequently, 15 respondents were chosen from each selected Van Dhan Kendra through simple random sampling. This resulted in a total sample size of 315 respondents, comprising 105 from Raipur, 95 from Kanker, and 120 from Surguja. Data were collected using a pre-tested, structured interview schedule focusing on challenges across collection, processing, storage, value addition, marketing, and institutional support, and on strategic recommendations for livelihood enhancement. Data were coded, tabulated, and analysed using frequency and percentage. The percentage was calculated as:

The findings obtained through frequency and percentage analysis were used to assess the severity and prevalence of challenges across different dimensions of NTFP activities and to formulate suitable strategic recommendations for improving the livelihoods of forest dwellers in Chhattisgarh.

Result and Discussion Constraints Faced by Forest Dwellers in NTFP Activities

The multidimensional challenges encountered by forest dwellers in their NTFP activities were examined across five critical dimensions: collection, processing, storage, marketing, and value addition. The findings are presented in Table 1. [12] , who reported post-harvest NTFP losses of 20-40% in Central India due to inadequate storage infrastructure.

Marketing Constraints

Unfair pricing of raw NTFP products was the primary marketing constraint (60.63%, Rank I), reflecting the disproportionate market power middlemen hold over collectors. Limited buyers (47.62%, Rank II) and poor transport connectivity (32.38%, Rank III) further curtailed market access, while unorganised markets (28.57%, Rank IV) and distant markets (24.44%, Rank V) highlighted the need for organised market development and better transport infrastructure. [9] and Ticktin (2004) [15] . Regular training in scientific collection, processing, marketing, and value addition ranked second (67.30%, Rank II), underscoring the role of extension education. Community sensitisation on the economic benefits of value addition (56.51%, Rank III) suggests forest dwellers recognise this potential but need awareness and motivation to act on it.

Value Addition Constraints

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors thank the forest-dwelling respondents for sharing their experiences and recommendations, and acknowledge the support of the Forest Department (Government of Chhattisgarh), field extension staff, Van Dhan Vikas Kendras, and Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur.

References

1. Ahenkan A, Boon E. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs): Clearing the confusion in semantics. Journal of Human Ecology. 2011;33(1):1-9.
2. Bahuguna VK. Forests in the economy of the rural poor: An estimation of the dependency level. Ambio. 2000;29(3):126-129.
3. Belcher B, Schreckenberg K. Commercialisation of nontimber forest products: A reality check. Development Policy Review. 2007;25(3):355-377.
4. Bharucha Z, Pretty J. The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2010;365(1554):2913-2926.
5. Champion HG, Seth SK. A revised survey of the forest types of India. New Delhi: Manager of Publications, Government of India; 1968.
6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Non-wood forest products for rural income and sustainable forestry. FAO Forestry Paper No. 124. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1995.
7. Hegde R, Suryaprakash S, Achoth L, Bawa KS. Extraction of non-timber forest products in the forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills, India. I. Contribution to rural income. Economic Botany. 1996;50(3):243-251.
8. Mahapatra AK, Mitchell CP. Sustainable development of non-timber forest products: Implication for forest management in India. Forest Ecology and Management. 1997;94(1-3):15-29.
9. Murali KS, Shanker U, Shaanker RU, Ganeshaiah KN, Bawa KS. Extraction of non-timber forest products in the forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills, India. II. Impact of NTFP extraction on regeneration, population structure, and species composition. Economic Botany. 1996;50(3):252-269.
10. Pouliot M, Treue T. Rural people's reliance on forests and the non-forest environment in West Africa: Evidence from Ghana and Burkina Faso. World Development. 2013;43:180-193.
11. Rao KS, Nautiyal S, Maikhuri RK, Saxena KG. Local peoples' knowledge, aptitude and perceptions of planning and management issues in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environmental Management. 2003;31(2):168-181.
12. Saxena NC. Livelihood diversification and non-timber forest products in Orissa: Wider lessons on the scope for policy change? ODI Working Paper. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2003.
13. Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE, Cousins B. The role of land-based strategies in rural livelihoods: The contribution of agroforestry and non-timber forest products. Development Southern Africa. 2001;18(5):581-604.
14. Sunderlin WD, Angelsen A, Belcher B, Burgers P, Nasi R, Santoso L, et al. Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: An overview. World Development. 2005;33(9):1383-1402.
15. Ticktin T. The ecological implications of harvesting nontimber forest products. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2004;41(1):11-21.
16. Vira B, Wildburger C, Mansourian S, editors. Forests, trees and landscapes for food security and nutrition: A global assessment report. IUFRO World Series. Vol. 33. Vienna: International Union of Forest Research Organizations; 2015.