• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Non-Timber Forest Products: Conservation Status and Management Priorities in the Community Managed Forests of Andhra Pradesh, South India

Posted on: Saturday, 29 October 2005, 03:01 CDT

By Silori, C S; Mehar, Mamta; Khalid, M A; Paul, V

Key words: Non-umber forest products, NTFP, people's participation, conservation priority, sustainable use, southern India

SUMMARY

Primary surveys were conducted in 20 villages and an equal number of community managed forests (CMFs) of two districts, Adilabad and Chittoor in the state of Andhra Pradesh in southern India. The interviews conducted with 216 respondents listed a total of 22 and 23 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, Pongamia pinnata, Schleichera oleosa, Azadirachta indica and Diospyros melenoxylon were collected for commercial purposes. The vegetation survey was conducted in a total of 240 sample plots in 20 CMFs, and found 15 NTFP species from Adilabad and 18 NTFP species from Chittoor. The density of NTFP trees in Adilabad was 52 trees/ ha, as against an overall tree density of 278 trees/ha, while in Chittoor it was only 28 trees/ha as against an overall density of 110 trees/ha. The regeneration density of NTFP species was, however, higher in Chittoor. Some of the NTFP species, prioritized for conservation, included Sterculia urens, Tamarindus indica, Phyllanthus emblica, Strychnos nuxvomica, S. potatorum and Anogeissus latifolia.

INTRODUCTION

The past decade has witnessed a rapid growth of interest in Non- Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) among conservation and development organizations (Arnold and Ruiz Perez 1998). This can be attributed to increasing recognition of the contribution that NTFPs make to local and national economies, food security and maintenance of biological diversity (de Beers and McDermott 1989). Approximately 80% of the populations of developing countries use NTFPs to meet their health and nutritional needs, and several million households worldwide use these products for subsistence consumption and/or income generation (FAO 1997). Types of NTFPs include food, beverages, spices, flavourings, perfumes, medicines, paints, polishes, construction materials, and extracts used in the chemical industry. Currently, at least 150 NTFPs are significant in terms of international trade, including honey, gums, rattan, bamboo, cork, nuts, mushrooms, essential oils and plants or animal parts used for pharmaceutical products (FAO 1997).

India has an estimated diversity of 3000 plant species from which NTFPs are derived (Gupta and Guleria 1982). These NTFPs are an important livelihood source for several communities, especially the forest fringe communities (Malhotra and Poffenberg 1989; TERI1999). It has been estimated that NTFPs provide about 40% of total official forest revenues and 55% of forest-based employment. Nearly 500 million people living in and around forests in India rely on NTFPs as a critical component for their sustenance (WIU 1990). Several thousand tons of NTFPs are removed annually from India's forests, providing earnings that run into billions of rupees each year. Based on a study often forest protection committees under the Joint Forest Management programme, it was found that the income from NTFPs ranges from Rs. 234 to Rs. 5569 (US$8-186) per hectare per year, with a mean of Rs. 2299 (US$79) (Malhotra et al. 1991). A study done by Shiva and Verma (2002) reported annual revenue contributions of NTFPs at Rs. 20 billion (US$645 million) in India. These authors further highlight that about 60% of total NTFPs collection goes unrecorded, and is consumed or bartered by about 15 million people living in and around forests.

Although there have been suggestions that NTFPs can be harvested with relatively little impact on the forest environment (Neumann and Hirsh 2000; Marshall et al. 2003), the fact remains that the increasing market potential for a variety of NTFPs in recent times has led to their accelerated rates of extraction from the forest; at times, proving to be destructive harvesting, adding to the already existing population pressure in the form of livestock grazing, collection of firewood and illegal timber collection. Understandably, owing to the importance of NTFPs in sustaining rural communities, the research focus has largely addressed socioeconomic aspects of NTFPs and relatively fewer attempts have been made to understand the ecological and conservation aspects of such species in their natural habitats. The increasing economic role of NTFPs in sustaining rural communities and catering to growing market demand may lead to the unsustainable harvesting of these resources. In view of such a situation, it becomes imperative to assess the conservation status of these economically important species in their natural habitat. The assumption of conservation of NTFPs and their management for sustainahle utilization is the primary focus of this paper, which is based on a study conducted in 20 community-managed forests in the state of Andhra Pradesh in southern India.

METHODOLOGY

Study area

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

Forest cover in the study districts is largely distributed over disjointed mountain ranges of the Eastern Ghats, well known for their rich biodiversity (Reddy el al 2002). Of the total area of the district, Adilabad has 37.5% under forest, while Chittoor has only 13.9% under forest (FSI 2001). The forest vegetation in both districts is primarily represented by two major categories of dry deciduous forests southern tropical dry deciduous forest and southern tropical thorny scrub forest (Champion and Seth 1968). The enure forest area of Adilabad is administratively divided into six divisions, while Chittoor has three forest divisions. We selected 10 forests from each of the two districts that are protected and managed by village level institutions, known as Village Samarakshana Samitis (VSS).

Sample selection

The selection of forest areas for field sampling was primarily based on ongoing initiatives of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Department (APFD) and of local communities towards conservation of forest resources in general and NTFPs in particular. The initial discussions with local forest officials helped in identification of such forests, their composition, area of forest allotted to the local communities for management and duration of community participation in the management of such forests. The VSS manages the allotted forest area by regulating the use of forest resources, mainly the NTFPs. Based on the discussions, we selected 10 CMFs from each of the study districts (Table 1). While selecting the VSS forests, care was also taken to represent different forest types falling in different forest divisions and duration of the existence of VSS in the area.

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

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

NTFPs and dependency of local people

The selection of VSS forest for vegetation sampling was followed by preparation of a complete inventory of NTFPs that are collected by the villagers for self consumption as well as for marketing. For this, we sampled 10% of the total households from each of the selected VSS, a total of 86 from Adilabad and 130 respondents from Chittoor. A semi-structured questionnaire survey method was employed to prepare an inventory of NTFPs. Focused group discussions were also organized in some of the selected villages to extract information on the season of collection of different NTFPs and their use patterns. The sampled households consisted of a mix of communities, including Scheduled Tribe (ST) Scheduled Caste (SC) and General Caste (GC) and different occupation categories, including land tilling, daily wage labour and forest-based activities.

Vegetation sampling

A vegetation survey was conducted in the 20 CMFs from the two study districts. In each CMF, a 1.0-1.5-km long line transect was marked on the topo sheet, starting at the sampled village and moving deeper into the forest. To capture the floral diversity, the line transect was directed in such a way that it covered all possible micro-habitats and landscape types, including riverine/stream, hilly, undulating and plain areas. Along the line transect, at every 1000-m interval, one circular plot of 10-m radius (314.28 m^sup 2^) was laid to record the tree vegetation. Thus, a total of 11 line transects and 115 sample plots were taken in Chittoor and 12 line transects and 125 sample plots completed in Adilabad. Within each circular plot, we recorded the name and number of tree species, their girths at breast height (GBH) and tree height. To understand the status of the growing stock, all the individual trees above 10 cm GBH were enumerated i\nto two categories: mature tree (=> 30 cm GBH) and pole/recruitment (10-<30 cm GBH). The individuals with less than 10 cm GBH were recorded as the regeneration by laying a circular plot of 3-m radius (28.26 ms) within the 10-m radius plots.

It is important to mention here that we are presenting the findings related to those NTFPs that were listed by the villagers during household interviews and belong to tree and shrub categories and are not herbs or grasses. Therefore, the vegetation data have been analysed to understand the density and distribution of NTFP species and their growing stock. The taxonomical identification and confirmation of plants as NTFP was done with the help of several floras of the region (e.g. Somasundaram 1963; Santapau and Henry 1984; Pullaiah et al. 1992; Krishnamurthy 1993).

Conservation priorities for NTFPs

In order to set the conservation priorities, the NTFP species were ranked into three categories: top priority, medium priority and low priority. The prioritization was based on the sum of scores assigned to different parameters, such as density and distribution of NTtTs across different growth stages, harvesting methods and use patterns for commercial and non-commercial purposes. Regarding frequency of occurrence of species, a higher score was given to those species that had restricted distribution, while no score was given to those that occurred in more than 60% of the total sampled plots. NTFP species which occurred only in regeneration stage was given a score of 3, while those occurring in all the three stages were given no score. The average values of density of a NTFP species in different growth stages were arranged in ascending order and divided into equal quartile. The average density of NTFP species falling in the lowest quartile were given a score of 3, while those falling in the uppermost quartile were not given any score. The collection of vegetative parts such as roots, stem and bark and their products, such as extracting gum by incising the stem were considered more destructive than the collection of reproductive parts such as fruits, flower and seeds (Rijsoort 2000). Therefore, a NTFP which involved harvesting of vegetative parts and their products was given a higher score compared to those which involved harvesting of reproductive parts only. Similarly, species extracted for commercial purposes were given higher scores compared to those being consumed at household level. All scores for these criteria were summed for each species and, based on the total scores, NTFP species were prioritized into the three categories mentioned above. The maximum score a species could get was 20 (Table 2).

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 a total of 30 NTFPs (including honey), which were collected by them for their own use or for sale (Table 3). Of these, 23 NTFPs were listed from Chittoor while 22 were listed from Adilabad, and 15 were common to both study districts. The villagers listed various parts and products of plants used as NTFP, such as bark, fruit, flower, leaf, stem, seed, root and gum. Of these, fruits of as many as 12 plants were used as NTFP, followed by seeds of seven species, while the use of other parts, such as root, bark, stem and leaves, was limited to a few species.

Table 3 List of NTFP species prepared during household interviews

The villagers used NTFPs for various purposes. A total of eight different uses were listed by the villagers, with most frequent use recorded as edible in the form of ripe fruits, fruit pickle, spices and condiments and sweetmeat, in which altogether about 15 out of 30 NTFP species were used. Use of plants as medicines was the second most common use, in which 11 species were used. Other uses, such as basket making, beedi (local cigarette) making, diesel extraction, etc., were limited to one species each.

Of the total 30 NTFP species, six species, including Diospyros chloroxylon, Aegle. marmetos, Phoenix spp., (Symnema sylvestre, Decalepis hamiltonii and Soymida falmfuga, were collected exclusively for self-consumption by the villagers, while another eight species including, Sterculia urens, Thysanolena maxima (broom grass), Sapindus emerginalus, Dendrocalamus slriclus, Pongamia pinnata, SchMchera oleosa, Azadirachta indien and Diospyros melenoxylon, were collected for commercial purposes.

Occurrence of NTFP species in CMFs

The vegetation survey recorded 75 tree species from Adilabad and 83 from Chittoor, including those tree species that were in the recruitment (pole) and/or regeneration stages. Of the 75 tree species from Adilabad, 15 species (20%) were identified as having NTFP use, as against 21 species (except honey) listed by the villagers during household interviews. Six species that were not recorded during vegetation survey included Annona squamosa, Garuga pinnata, Pongamia pinnala, Schleichera oleosa, Semecarpus anamrdium and Thysanolena maxima. On the other hand, in Chittoor, out of 22 NTFP species (except honey) listed by the villagers, 18 (22% of the total 83 tree species) were recorded during the vegetation survey. NTFP species which were not recorded during the vegetation survey included Aegle marmelos, (tymntma sylvestre, Sapindus emerginatus and Thysanolena maxima. The absence of some NTFP species from the sampled forest indicates their low availability in the surrounding forests.

On average, each sampled forest in Adilabad recorded about 24 tree species, of which about seven species has NTFP value, while the same number of NTFP species was recorded as against an average number of 26 tree species from each CMFs of Chittoor. Some of the VSS forests that recorded relatively higher number of NTFPs in Adilabad included Yerragunta (11) and Sonapur (11), Mathadigudda (9) and Chowpanguda (9) and Peddabanda (8) and Peddampet (8). In Chittoor, Cheegalabailu (11), Mamandur (10), Chettacherla (8) and Gundalamaragu (8) recorded relatively higher number of NTFPs.

Population status of NTFPs in Adilabad

Tree category

The density of mature trees of NTFP species averaged 52 trees/ ha, as against average density of mature trees of all the species of 278 trees/ha. The density of NTFP species ranged between 6 trees/ha and 115 trees/ha in 10 sampled CMFs. Five of these forests, including Peddabanda (46%), Chowpanguda (41%), Yerragunta (40%), Sonapur (30%) and Peddampet (24%), recorded a relatively higher proportion of total density of NTFP species. However, Tandra (6%), Tarlapet (2%) and Singapur (2%) were extremely poor in terms of NTFP availability. Some of the NTFP species that recorded relatively higher tree density included Anogeissus lalifolia, Terminalia chebula, Diospyros melenoxylon, Soymida falmfuga, Strychnos potatorum and Dendrocalamus strictus (Table 4).

Pole category

In the pole category, the average density of NTFP species recorded was around 33 plants/ha (14% of the average pole density), ranging between 3 and 57 plants/ha. Similar to mature trees, the proportion of NTFP species in the pole category, as against average pole density of all species, was relatively high in Yerragunta (33%), Peddampet (32%), Tandra (21%), Sonapur (19%) and Peddabanda (17%). The NTFP species recording higher density in the pole category included Terminalia rlirbula, Anoegissus lalifolia, Diospyros melenoxylon and Madhuca indica (Table 4).

Regeneration category

The average density of regeneration of NTFP species was 327 plants/ha, which is around 24% of the average density of 1345 plants/ ha of the regeneration of all the trees. Individually, at the CMF level, the proportion of regeneration density of NTFP species against all the tree species was relatively higher in Yerragunta (42%), Mathadigudda (41%), Sonapur (25%), Peddabanda (24%) and Peddampet (24%) and Kanchanbari (22%). Some of the NTFP species recording higher natural regeneration in the sampled forests included Ttrminalia belerica, Anogrissus lalifolia, Madhiim indira, Diospyrus melenoxylon, Buchnania lanzan and Gardenia gummifera (Table 4).

Population status of NTFPs in Chittoor

Tree category

In Chittoor, the average density of NTFPs in the tree category was 28 trees/ha, as compared to the average density of 110 trees/ha for all tree species. Some of the sampled CMFs recording a higher proportion of NTFP species in terms of averagedensity includedJarugu (54%),Mamandur (50%), Chettacherla (46%), Nerabailu (40%) and Midikandriga (34%). Some of the NTFP species with relatively high density included Tennhialia cheJnila, Annona squamosa, Azfulimchla indica, Pongamia pinnata, Syzygium cumini and Buchnania lanzan (Table 5).

Pole category

As against the average density of 115 poles/ha of all species, NTFP species in the pole category had an average density of about 38 plants/ha (33%). Of the total 10 CMFs, two forests did not record trees in the pole category. However, some of the sampled forests, such as Mamandur, Jarugu, Kavelipalli, Midikandriga and Gundalamaragu, recorded relatively higher proportions of NTFP species in terms of density in the pole category. Two of the NTFP species in the pole category, Buchnania lanzan and Annona squamosa,, recorded higher densities (Table 5).

Regeneration category

The average density of regeneration of tree species was 4568 plants/ha, while the density of regeneration of NTFP species was 1012 plants/ha. Some of the sampled forests with a higher density of regeneration of NTFP species included Gundalamaragu (70%), Janigu (60%), Nerabailu (54%) and Mamandur (52%). Some of the NTFP species recording better regeneration were Annona sauamosa, Diospyros chloroxylon and Pongamia pinnata (Table 5).

Conservation status of NTFP species

In Adilabad, the prioritization exercise led to the identification of five species each for the top, moderate and low priorities. Phyllanthus emblica, Strychnos po, St\erculia urens, Syzygium cumini and Gardenia gummifera were identified as top priority species from a conservation point of view. This is because all of these five species had very limited distribution and, moreover, in the case of Phyllanthus emblica. Gardenia gummifera and Syzygium cumini, nialuir lives were not recorded during sampling. Similarly, Strychnos potatorum and Sterculia urens were not recorded in the recruitment and regeneration categories, respectively. On the other hand, the low priority NTFP species included Anogeissus latifolia, Diospyrus melfnoxylon, Terminalia Merica, Madhuca indica and Buchnania lanzan, owing to their wide distribution, averaging about 70% in the total sampled plots and having a higher average density (96 trees/ha) as compared to medium (57 plants/ha) and top (49 plants/ha) priority species (Table 6). Also, these low priority species were recorded in all three growth stages throughout the sampled forests, which was not the case for the species in the other two prioritization categories.

In Chittoor, out of 18 NTFP species, five species, Anagrissus latifolia, Decalepis hamiltonii, Stfrculia urens, Strychnos patatorum and Tamarindus indica, were identified as top priority species from the conservation point of view. Besides limited occurrence of these species (22% of the total sampled plots, against 33% for medium priority and 45% for low priority), only Slerculia urens occurred in all three growth stages, while the others were only recorded in one or two growth stages. The average density of these five species was extremely low, at 1.8 trees/ha against 5.5 trees/ha for medium priority and 14.8 trees/ha for low priority species. The average density of recruitment (2.7 poles/ha) and regeneration (163.7 plants/ha) was also very low, as against medium (14.8 poles/ha and 209 plants/ha) and low priority species (197.4 poles/ha and 311 plants/ha). Some of the species with a relatively better status in terms of density of different growth stages included Annona squamosa, Buchnania lanzan and Azadirachta indica and are therefore listed under the low priority category.

Table 4 Density (plants/ha) of tree, pole and regeneration of NTFP species in the sampled forests of Adilabad

Table 5 Density (plants/ha) of tree, pole and regeneration of NTFP species in the sampled forests of Chitoor

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

Discussion

The recent initiatives under Joint Forest Management (JFM) and Community Forest Management (CFM) in India have given greater importance to the conservation and management of NTFPs (Saigal et al. 1996; Prasad 1999). This is because NTFPs are integral to the sustenance of resourcedependent communities, provide gainful employment during lean periods and supplement incomes from agriculture and wage labour. Moreover, because NTFPs involve a large variety of seasonal products, and become available in shorter time periods as compared to the timber products, returns are frequent and relatively continuous. Small-scale forest-based enterprises, many of them based on NTFPs, provide up to 50% of income for 20 to 30% of the rural labour force in India (Tiwari and Campbell 1997). The household survey in the present study also estimated the significant dependence of the tribal and landless families on NTFPs for their daily use and to earn revenue for other household needs. In the present study, in some of the sampled villages, 100% of households of STs recorded their dependence on NTFPs. The average contribution of NTFPs to the household economy in the present study was estimated as 14% for Adilabad (between 4% and 50%) and 18% (between 19% and 25%) for Chittoor (TERI 2004; unpublished data). The findings are comparable to the 17% of total household income from NTFPs for some villages in the state of West Bengal that were recorded by Malhotra et al. (1991).

From a conservation point of view, the two study districts present two different scenarios. On one hand, the CMFs of Adilabad had a better status of NTFP species in terms of density in the tree and pole categories, while Chittoor had a very high density of regeneration of NTFP species. The conservation and management inputs, therefore, needs to be oriented to the existing phytosociological status of CMFs in the study districts. While in Adilabad the focus of village committees and the forest department needs to be directed towards ensuring better regeneration of forests, in Chittoor community efforts should be directed more towards ensuring the survival of regenerating species and transforming them into mature tree stands. This will not only improve the status of the forest, but would also enhance the chances of increasing the density of NTFP species, as recorded in CMFs such as Yerragunta and Sonapur in Adilabad and Cheegalabailu and Mamandur in Chittoor. The afforestation and protection efforts should include those species that were recorded in the top priority category, owing to their limited distribution, poor population status and increasing extraction for self-consumption and market needs. NTFP species such as Sterculia urens, Tamarindus indica (restricted to roadsides and in and around human habitation), Phyllanthus emblica, Strychnos potatorum, S. nuxvomica, Dendrocalamus strictus and Pongamia pinnata should be targeted for large-scale distribution and better population status through participatory afforestation programmes.

It is generally observed that low value NTFPs have a reduced collection intensity and thus are likely to face minimal human impact as compared to those which have a high market value and therefore involve greater collection intensity. Some of the NTFP species facing the latter situation in the study districts include Sterculia urens, Tamarindus indica, Strychnos potatorum and Gardenia gummifera. The high demand for gum from Sterculia urens, Anogeissus latifolia and Gardenia gummifera in the market has led to unsustainable harvesting practices incurring severe damage to the tree trunk from wounding it frequently for gum extraction. The increasing frequency of visits by the NTFP collectors to the forests in an attempt to increase their economic returns causes heavy damage to the trees by exposing the tree trunk to potential attacks from insects, borers and termites.

It is now increasingly felt that sustainable management and development of NTFP resources is essential not only to ensure the sustenance of the dependent population but also to meet increasing market demand. The management and production of NTFPs, therefore, can he ecologically and economically sustainable provided that the extraction rates do not exceed the maximum sustainable yield and methods of extraction of NTFPs are not destructive (Prasad 1999). Therefore, managing forests for production of NTFPs also implies maintaining biological diversity of such forests. The current initiatives in the study districts can be considered to be one step ahead in the sense that the participatory approach to forest management is already being implemented by the forest department. However, in continuation of the ongoing efforts, the scope of such approaches needs to be broadened to accommodate participatory monitoring of the changes occurring due to community intervention in CMFs. Special focus needs to be given to the prioritized species, mentioned previously. A participatory monitoring approach will not only help in awareness generation among the villagers about dwindling populations of NTFP species, but would also help in seeking further cooperation of dependent communities. For effective protection, VSS should be provided with adequate financial and technical support. More training programmes need to be organised as part of capacity building to implement sustainable harvesting practices and value addition for NTFPs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors thank the officials of Andhra Pradesh Forest Department for providing all necessary help for planning and conducting field surveys. Our colleagues, Priti Barman, Nanki Kaur and Grace are sincerely thanked for helping in the vegetation surveys and interaction at village level.

REFERENCES

Arnold JEM and Ruiz Perez M. The role of non-timber forest products in conservation and development. In Wollenberg W and Ingles A (eds), Income from the forest: methods for the development and conservation of forest products for local communities. Indonesia: CIFOR/IUCN; 1998:17-42

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

de Beers JH and McDermott MJ. Economic value of non-timber forest products in Southeast Asia. The Netherlands: Council of the International Union of the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; 1989

FAO. Non-wood Forests Products. Forestry Information Notes Handout. Rome:Food and Agriculture Organization; 1997

FSI. Stale of Forest Report. Dehradun, India: Forest Survey of India; 2001

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

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

Malhotra KC and Poffenberger M. Forest regeneration through community protection. In Proceedings of the Working Group Meetings of the Forest Protection Committes. Calcutta: West Bengal Forest Department; 1989

Malhotra KC, Deb D, Dutta M, Vasula TS, Yadav G and Adhikari M. Role of non-umber forest produce in the village economy: a household survey in Jamboni Forest Range, 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 influencing success. 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 Forestry Research; 2000

Prasad \R. Joint forest management in India and the impact of state control over non-wood forest products. Unasylva 1999;198:58- 62

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

Reddy CS, Murthy MSR and Dutt BS. Vegetational diversity and endemism of Eastern Ghats, India. Proceedings of the National Seminar on Conservation of Eastern Ghats. Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh: SP University; 2002:109-34

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

Saigal S, Agrawal C and Campbell JY. Sustaining Joint Forest Management: The role of Non-timber forest Products. New Delhi: Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development; 1996

Santapau H and Henry AN. A dictionary of the flowering plants of India. New Delhi: Council of Scientific and Industrial Research; 1984

Shiva MP and Verma SK. Approaches to sustainable forest management and biodiversity conservation with pivotal role of non- timber forest products. Dehradun: International Book Distributors; 2002

Somasundraram TR. A handbook on the identification and description of trees, shrubs and some important herbs of the forests of the southern states for the use of the southern forests rangers college, Caimbatore. Delhi: Govt. of India Press; 1963

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

TERI. National Study on JFM New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) Project Report No 98SF64; 1999

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

C. S. Silon, Mamta Mehar, M. A. Khattd and V. Paul

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

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

Copyright CRC Press Sep 2005

Source: International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology

More News in this Category