NTFPs on Nakai Plate.. - TABI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 6: Average family budgets, 5 villages, Nakai plateau, March 1997. Village 9eo;o7v[7q; Khonken Kaoy Nakai Sopphene Thalang AVERAGE % Total No Families 9eo;o7v[7q; 35 25 57 40 41 NTFP's 1997 7 x f !__( n.a. 164,716 118,891 245,919 30,195 116,931 47% Livestock laf]Ph' n.a. 0 231,309 23,682 118,130 77,626 31% Off-farm ovd9kdg7njv'd}d n.a. 0 110,246 0 207,372 56,199 22% GROSS VALUE ]kpIa[ma's,qf n.a. 164,716 460,446 269,601 -232,398 250,755 100% Rice*** g0Qk n.a. -444,750 -284,202 -270,858 -25,027 -240,813 -96% NET VALUE n.a. -280,034 176,244 -1,257 -257,425 9,943 4% *) Amount of money needed to buy rice (negative values) or surplus rice sold (positive values), based on a calculation of surpluses after family consumption, calculated as 300 kg/head/year. 4.2.2 Estimated quantities of NTFP’s collected A rough estimate of the total off-take of NTFP’s was calculated by multiplying average offtake per family by 850 , the total number of families on the plateau. What we have here is only a rough estimate, the actual off-take may be higher (see also table 12 in chapter 5). The results are shown in table 7. Harvesting of kisi resin has increased from 158 tonnes in 1996 to 345 tonnes in 1997, over all 5 villages surveyed. Bong bark harvested has fallen back from 211 tonnes in 1996 to 96 tonnes in 1997. This hints to depletion of the stock. The situation on the rattan canes is less clear, harvesting seems to have come to a halt in the plateau area but is apparently still very much going on in the adjacent national protected area (Dick Watling, IUCN, p.c.). Table 7: Estimated total extraction of NTFP’s on the Nakai plateau. 1996 1997 bong (kg) [q' d] 210,976 95,831 kisi (kg) 0U-u d] 158,167 344,736 cardamom(kg) s,kdcsoj' d] 3,771 1,122 rattan canes(no) s;kpm6o glAo 10,268 0 What are the most valuable NTFP’s collected for selling? Kisi resin is the most important product, going up from 28% of NTFP based family income in 1996 to 56% of average family income in 1997 (see table 8). Curiously rattan shoots have come up to second place in 1997, replacing bong bark which has been greatly reduced. Rattan canes have all but disappeared, cardamom remains stable. This picture may still change as we are early in the year.
Table 8: Estimated income from NTFP’s in 5 villages on the Nakai plateau. Product 7 x f Total Value 5 villages Av. Value per household (values in kip) 1996 1997 1996 1997 kisi 0U-u du[ 4,684,367 13,079,661 23,658 66,059 rattan shoots [6jo}lko 326,606 5,071,125 1,650 25,612 cardamom \kdc|' du[ 2,196,294 1,834,933 11,092 9,267 bong [q' 3,919,132 1,632,600 19,794 8,245 wildlife lafxjk 77,857 1,024,800 393 5,176 others* 1,991,014 721,333 10,056 3,643 rattan canes s;kpm6o 3,224,000 55,175 16,283 279 TOTAL ]kpIa[ma's,qf 16,419,271 23,419,628 82,926 118,281 *) others include various fish species sold, eaglewood (Aquilaria crassna), and wild cinnamom, “chouang” bark (Cinnamom sp.) 4.2.3 Differences between wealth classes within a village Working with wealth classes allowed us to compare the importance of NTFP’s between wealthy and poor families. The poorer families tend to derive a high percentage if not all of their cash income from NTFP’s (see table 9). However, if we look at the absolute values, poor families do not get higher income from NTFP’s than richer families (see table 10). This means that most families tend to be involved in collecting NTFP’s, but poorer families have no access to other sources of income. Table 9: Percentage of cash income derived from NTFP’s in 1996, per wealth class (1=wealthiest, 5=poorest), in 5 villages on the Nakai plateau. Village: Wealth class: 1 2 3 4 5 Khone ken 49% 75% 89% 89% Ka-Oy 33 % 90% 99% Nakai Neua 12% 25% 17% 27% 64% Sop Phen 57% 61% 100% 100% 100% Thalang 31% 5% 59% 83% Similar relationships are found if we rank all 21 wealth classes in all 5 villages according to net income (see Annex 4 and table 11). In a normal year like 1996, of all 191 families living in the 5 villages together, 108 families or 57 % have a positive net income, and 83 families or 43 % had a negative income or rice shortage. Income from NTFP’s is higher among wealthy families than among poor families (see table 11). Also income from livestock sales and other income such as salaries and trading goods, are much higher in the richer groups than in the poorer groups. For the poorest, NTFP’s are the only available source of income.
Page 1 and 2: THE USE OF NON TIMBER FOREST PRODUC
Page 3 and 4: 5- According to a survey over 100 o
Page 5 and 6: PART 2: MAIN REPORT 1 BACKGROUND Th
Page 7 and 8: 2.2 Semi-structured interviews with
Page 9 and 10: 2.10 Village selection Out of the t
Page 11 and 12: Bamboos “mai” and rattan “vai
Page 13 and 14: 4 Importance of NTFP’s in the fam
Page 15: 4.2 Household interviews 4.2.1 The
Page 19 and 20: 5 Traditional use areas and boundar
Page 21 and 22: 6 Potential use of NTFP’s in the
Page 23 and 24: same way as its close relative, the
Page 25 and 26: not only used for home consumption
Page 27 and 28: PART 3: ANNEXES ANNEX 1: List of al
Page 29 and 30: and walked back again, total six ho
Page 31: ANNEX 7: Pictures 1: Ranking exerci

NTFPs on Nakai Plate.. - TABI

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?