Contribution of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) to rural livelihoods and rural economy

Introduction

Forests provide a wide range of products and services that support the livelihoods of rural communities. In addition to timber, forests provide fruits, flowers, seeds, leaves, medicinal plants, gums and other biological materials commonly referred to as Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) (Belcher et al., 2005) [1] . These products are particularly important for households that have limited agricultural land and fewer employment opportunities. NTFPs collection contributes to rural livelihoods through cash income, food supply and seasonal employment. Mahapatra et al. (2005) [4] found that NTFP sales contributed to the cash income of rural households living in dry deciduous forest regions of India. Their study also demonstrated that the contribution of NTFPs differs according to ecological conditions, seasons and household characteristics. For many rural households, forest collection becomes particularly important during periods when agricultural employment is limited. Thus, NTFPs can act as a supplementary source of income and help households diversify their livelihood activities (Mahapatra et al., 2005) [4] . However, the economic benefits of NTFPs depend on several factors, including availability of forest resources, collection costs, product prices, market access and the bargaining position of collectors. Poor access to markets and dependence on intermediaries may reduce the share of final value received by collectors (Belcher & Schreckenberg, 2007) [2] . Commercialization of NTFPs can create opportunities for income enhancement, but commercialization alone does not guarantee improved livelihoods or conservation.

Belcher and Schreckenberg (2007) [2] emphasized the importance of value-chain development, product quality, market organization and sustainable resource management. Chhattisgarh is an important state for minor forest produce collection and marketing. The Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Federation operates mechanisms for procurement and marketing of minor forest produce and promotes processing, value addition and sustainable utilization. The official state federation reports MSP rates for several products. For the 2024-25 collection year, the listed rates include ₹36/kg for Tamarind with seeds, ₹33/kg for dry Mahua flower and ₹24/kg for Karanj seed, including the applicable state incentive where specified. Therefore, understanding the actual household-level costs and returns from NTFP collection is important for designing policies that improve rural incomes while ensuring sustainable use of forest resources.

Materials and methods 2.1 Study area

The study was conducted in three selected forest-fringe villages, namely Titirgaon, Baalikonta and Kaalipur under NSS programme. These villages were selected purposively because households in the area participate in forest-product collection. The selection of forest-dependent households is appropriate for NTFP livelihood studies because access to forest resources can influence household income and livelihood diversification (Mahapatra et al., 2005) [4] .

Sampling

A total of 50 households were selected for the study. Respondents were categorized according to agricultural landholding size.

Data collection

Primary information was collected through:  Household interviews;  field observations;  Discussions with respondents; and  Information collected during NTFP harvesting periods.

Information was collected on quantity harvested, collection cost, selling price, gross income, net income, employment days and working hours.

Data analysis  Gross income was calculated as:

 Gross income = Quantity collected × Selling price  Net income was calculated as:  Net income = Gross income -Collection cost  The benefit-cost ratio was calculated as:  B:C ratio = Gross income / Collection cost The employment generated was measured in person-days. The analytical approach is consistent with previous household-level studies examining the contribution of NTFPs to rural income (Mahapatra et al., 2005) [4] . Half of the respondents were marginal farmers, while 28% were small farmers. Thus, 78% of the respondents belonged to marginal and small-farmer categories. This result indicates that most respondents possessed relatively limited agricultural land. Such households are more likely to depend on diversified livelihood activities, including forest-product collection. Similar relationships between household characteristics and NTFP dependence have been reported in Indian dry deciduous forest regions (Mahapatra et al., 2005) [4] .

Economic contribution of major NTFPs

Salfi

Salfi was the most economically important product in the study. It generated a gross income of ₹21,902.10 per household against a collection cost of ₹4,760, resulting in a net income of ₹17,142.10. The gross B:C ratio was 4.60, which was the highest among the five NTFPs.Salfi also generated 90 person-days of employment, the highest employment contribution recorded in the study.The result indicates that Salfi has considerable potential as a livelihood-supporting forest product in the study area. However, increased commercialization should be accompanied by appropriate resource management because uncontrolled commercialization can create ecological and livelihood risks (Belcher & Schreckenberg, 2007) [2] . Source for numerical results: Primary survey data.

Tamarind

Tamarind generated a gross income of ₹11,899.23 and net income of ₹8,159.23 per household. The collection cost was ₹3,740, resulting in a gross B:C ratio of 3.18.Tamarind was therefore the second most important NTFP in terms of household income.The importance of Tamarind is also reflected in the institutional procurement system of Chhattisgarh. The state federation lists a 2024-25 MSP of ₹36/kg for Tamarind with seeds and ₹69/kg for seedless Tamarind. Improved grading, processing and marketing could further increase the value retained by collectors. Value-chain development is important for ensuring that commercialization generates meaningful livelihood benefits (Belcher & Schreckenberg, 2007) [2] .

Mahua flower

Mahua flower generated a gross income of ₹5,345.84 and net income of ₹2,965.84 per household. The gross B:C ratio was 2.25.Mahua is an important minor forest produce in Chhattisgarh. The state federation lists dry Mahua flower at ₹30/kg MSP plus ₹3/kg incentive, giving a listed collection rate of ₹33/kg for the 2024-25 collection year. Better drying, grading, storage and processing could improve the market value of Mahua flower. NTFP value addition is particularly important because raw products often provide lower returns than processed products (Belcher & Schreckenberg, 2007) [2] .

Tendu leaves

Tendu leaves generated gross income of ₹1,991 and net income of ₹461 per household. The gross B:C ratio was 1.30.Although the net financial return was comparatively low, Tendu leaves generated 50 employment days. This indicates that an NTFP can have an important employment role even when its direct net income contribution is relatively small.NTFPs can provide seasonal employment and therefore contribute to livelihood diversification beyond their direct cash value (Mahapatra et al., 2005) [4] .

Karanj seed

Karanj seed generated gross income of ₹1,057.83 and net income of ₹37.83 per household. The gross B:C ratio was 1.04.This was the lowest-returning product among the five NTFPs. Nevertheless, collection generated 40 employment days.The Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Federation lists Karanj seed at ₹22/kg MSP plus ₹2/kg incentive, giving a listed collection rate of ₹24/kg for the 2024-25 collection year. The relatively low return observed in the survey suggests that additional research is needed on collection efficiency, market price, processing and value addition for Karanj seed. Salfi accounted for the largest share of gross income (51.91%), followed by Tamarind (28.20%). Together, these two products contributed approximately 80.11% of total gross income.This concentration suggests that Salfi and Tamarind are the most promising products for targeted value-chain interventions in the study area. However, livelihood diversification should also be maintained to reduce dependence on individual products (Belcher & Schreckenberg, 2007) [2] . [4] .

Share of NTFPs in total gross income

Employment generation

Overall cost and return

 The combined gross income from the five NTFPs was ₹42,196 per household, while total collection cost was ₹13,430.  Therefore:Net income = ₹42,196 -₹13,430. Net income = ₹28,766 per household  The overall gross B:C ratio was approximately:  ₹42,196 / ₹13,430 = 3.14 Thus, the NTFP activities generated a positive overall economic return.However, considerable differences were observed among products. Salfi showed the highest return, whereas Karanj seed showed only a small surplus.These findings support the argument that NTFP development should be product-specific and should consider collection costs, market demand, processing opportunities and sustainability (Belcher & Schreckenberg, 2007) [2] .

Conclusion

The study demonstrates that NTFPs make an important contribution to the livelihood and rural economy of the surveyed households in Titirgaon, Baalikonta and Kaalipur.The predominance of marginal and small farmers, accounting for 78% of the respondents, indicates that households with limited agricultural land use forest resources as an important supplementary livelihood source.Among the five NTFPs studied, Salfi was the most economically important, generating ₹21,902.10 gross income and ₹17,142.10 net income per household. Tamarind ranked second, generating ₹11,899.23 gross income and ₹8,159.23 net income.The five NTFPs together generated ₹42,196 gross income and ₹28,766 net income per household, while providing 265 person-days of employment.These results are consistent with previous Indian research showing that NTFP sales can contribute significantly to rural cash income and livelihood diversification (Mahapatra et al., 2005) [4] . At the same time, commercialization should be managed carefully. Evidence from the wider NTFP literature shows that commercialization can improve livelihood opportunities but may also create ecological and socioeconomic risks if resource management and value-chain conditions are ignored (Belcher & Schreckenberg, 2007) [2] .

References

1. Belcher B, Ruiz-Pérez M, Achdiawan R. Global patterns and trends in the use and management of commercial NTFPs: implications for livelihoods and conservation. World Development. 2005;33(9):14351452.
2. Belcher BM, Schreckenberg K. Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: A reality check. Development Policy Review. 2007;25(3):355-377. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2007.00374.x.
3. Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (Trading & Development) Co-operative Federation Limited. Minimum support price scheme and development of value chain for minor forest produce. Government of Chhattisgarh; 2024.
4. Mahapatra AK, Albers HJ, Robinson EJZ. The impact of NTFP sales on rural households' cash income in India's dry deciduous forest. Environmental Management. 2005;35(3):258-265. DOI:10.1007/s00267-003-8203-9.
5. Shackleton CM, Pandey AK, Ticktin T, editors. Ecological sustainability for non-timber forest products: dynamics and case studies of harvesting. Routledge; 2015.