About: Forest produce is a(n) research topic. Over the lifetime, 137 publication(s) have been published within this topic receiving 891 citation(s).
Papers published on a yearly basis
01 Jan 2010-Environmental Management
TL;DR: It is concluded that substitution for loss of income due to conservation activities would best be achieved through carefully targeted interventions to specific high-impact and high-dependency households.
Abstract: This article examines the use of forests in a protected area by nearby agriculturalists in central Vietnam Research indicates that the majority of rural farmers interviewed who lived near a state designated protected area were receiving both subsistence and cash incomes from forest-based activities, primarily from the collection of forest products However, much of the collection of forest produce was officially illegal, as it occurred in state protected forests, and interdiction efforts were on the increase Yet, little attention has been paid in Vietnam to the need for income substitution for households who lose access to forest produce as a result of conservation enforcement, particularly in the case of farmers who live near, but not in, protected areas; their resources use has been ‘invisible’ due to a lack of attention and research on the topic This misunderstanding of the importance of forests to rural farmers has the potential to result in households facing adverse welfare and livelihood outcomes as protected areas boundaries are tightened, and local communities face increased opportunity costs due to stricter conservation enforcement The article concludes that substitution for loss of income due to conservation activities would best be achieved through carefully targeted interventions to specific high-impact and high-dependency households Additionally, investments in new sources of wage labor and other low capital-input activities, rather than in agriculture, would likely be of most benefit
01 Apr 2004-Conservation and Society
Abstract: Non-timber forest products (NTFP) are extensively extracted from Indian forests, and their role in rural and forest economies is immense. However, the long-term ecological sustainability of NTFP extraction with respect to resource populations, dependent animal species and ecosystem functioning has remained largely unexamined. In this article NTFP research undertaken in India is reviewed in an attempt to understand issues related to ecological sustainability. There is a glaring scarcity of systematic research on ecological aspects of NTFP extraction in India. From the few available studies, it appears that species differ in their responses to harvest depending on the plant part extracted, natural history attributes and harvesting techniques. However, regeneration and population densities of some NTFP species are reported to be adversely affected by extraction. Such adverse effects, though, cannot be attributed to NTFP harvests alone, but rather to a combination of harvests, damaging harvesting practices and accompanying anthropogenic disturbances such as fire, grazing and fuel wood collection. There is little information on the long-term indirect effects of NTFP extraction on dependent animal species. The available literature also indicates a disturbing trend of ecosystem simplification due to intensive forest use, including extraction of NTFP, which may gradually lead to the weeding out of vulnerable plant species from Indian forests. Much more research is required before it can be clearly understood to what extent and in what ways livelihoods based on NTFP can be compatible with biodiversity conservation.
TL;DR: The authors argue that refugee status rarely leads to acquisition of nationality or denizenship, and rights and sources of livelihoods basic to warding off poverty are accessible only to nationals, and that not belonging to a spatially bounded community or geo-political entity is the single most important factor preventing formulation and implementation of long-term development programmes that enable refugees to recoup the losses they incur in connection with displacement and to construct sustainable livelihoods in countries of asylum.
Abstract: This paper examines the structural and institutional factors that preclude the ‘‘risk prevention’’ and rehabilitation strategies of the best-known victims of displacement, refugees. Though restrictive refugee policies are increasingly becoming common worldwide (Frelick 2001, GoodwinGill 1999), drawing on the experiences of refugees in many developing countries, I argue that refugee status rarely leads to acquisition of nationality or denizenship, and rights and sources of livelihoods basic to warding off poverty are accessible only to nationals. Not belonging to a spatially bounded community or geo-political entity is the single most important factor preventing formulation and implementation of long-term development programmes that enable refugees to recoup the losses they incur in connection with displacement and to construct sustainable livelihoods in countries of asylum. Refugees are people who flee their homes against their will because they fear for their lives. When refugees flee, they incur immense losses in life-sustaining resources, including social support networks, neighbours, friends, relatives, cultivable and grazing lands, livestock, jobs, houses, and access to common property resources such as forest produce, surface water, wild fruits, roots, and wildlife. In most rural societies, there is a strong sense of close interdependence between individuals, or their descent group, and the land with which that group is traditionally associated. In some of these communities land is neither divisible nor alienable – it is held in perpetuity. In such societies, land is the centre-piece of cultural systems, and its meaning incorporates people, traditions, customs, values, beliefs, institutions, soil, vegetation, water, and animals. Land and/ or house possession in one’s place of origin is seen not only as a wealth-creating and livelihood-sustaining resource, but also as the basis of status and identity. In such societies, belonging to a particular place is necessary for being rooted and therefore for acquiring land.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine Nepal's forestry policies and use practices during the pre-unification period (pre-1769), the Rana regime (1846-1950), planned development (the 1950s), the Panchayat regime (1960-90) and post-democracy (1990 to the present).
Abstract: The history of Nepalese forestry reveals that very little progress has been made in effectively integrating people's needs with forest management objectives through forestry policy mandates and practices. This paper critically examines Nepal's forestry policies and use practices during the pre-unification period (pre-1769), the Rana regime (1846–1950), planned development (the 1950s), the Panchayat regime (1960–90) and post-democracy (1990 to the present). This historical critique finds that political posturing, rhetoric and personal profiteering have taken precedence over public duty, regardless of whether autocratic or pseudo-democratic regimes were in power. Thus far, forest policy studies have focused on the hill zone of Nepal. This paper focuses on Tarai forestry, and exposes the geopolitical and political economic forces in play. It concludes that a lack of fiscal transparency and accountability on the part of the government, and the monopolistic control of the sale of forest produce by the Timber C...
01 Jun 2004-Forest Policy and Economics
TL;DR: A framework for the production analysis of collaborative forest management (CFM) is proposed in this paper, which has four main features: (i) a social organization, not an industrial organization; (ii) conventional factors (land, labor, and capital) as well as non-conventional factors (social, cultural, and organizational factors) as inputs (iii) social, biological, and economic outputs; and (iv) a production model that includes transformation and transaction components.
Abstract: A framework for the production analysis of collaborative forest management (CFM) is proposed. The framework has four main features: (i) a social organization, not an industrial organization, responsible for the production process of CFM; (ii) conventional factors (land, labor, and capital) as well as non-conventional factors (social, cultural, and organizational factors) as inputs (iii) social, biological, and economic outputs; and (iv) a production model that includes transformation and transaction components. The framework is used for the production analysis of joint forest management (JFM) in the Gujarat state of India, by estimating the production functions of social, biological, and economic outputs on the basis of data from fifty villages having JFM. The outcomes indicate that the inclusion of non-conventional factors is critical for un-biased analysis, and the contributions of non-conventional factors dominate the contributions of conventional factors. The social output – social empowerment – and the biological output – forest canopy cover – are associate products, the social output and the economic output – supply of forest produce to meet local demand – are rival products, and the biological output and the economic output are associate products, but the degree of association and rivalry between the two outputs are not the same in different ranges.
Related Topics (5)
4.6K papers, 89.1K citations
25.8K papers, 587.6K citations
3.5K papers, 88.2K citations
Intact forest landscape
2.8K papers, 89.1K citations
7.9K papers, 297.6K citations