See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311327075

FOREST RESOURCES EXPLOITATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON RURAL

AGRO-ECONOMY IN ISIALA NGWA NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF
ABIA STATE, NIGERIA

Article · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 16,555

2 authors, including:

Onwuchekwa Raphael Iheke

Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike
44 PUBLICATIONS   215 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research paper View project

Conference paper View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Onwuchekwa Raphael Iheke on 02 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment. 12(1):37-43
Published March, 2016 Iheke and Eziuche, 2016

FOREST RESOURCES EXPLOITATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON

RURAL AGRO-ECONOMY IN ISIALA NGWA NORTH LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AREA OF ABIA STATE, NIGERIA
Iheke, O. R. and Eziuche, A. O.
ABSTRACT
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, P. M. B. 7267, Umuahia, Abia
State, Nigeria. Email: ralphiheke@gmail.com; iheke.onwuchekwa@mouau.edu.ng. +2347034419585, +2348085752735

The importance of forest resources/products in supporting rural livelihoods, reducing hunger and poverty cannot be over-
emphasized. Apart from meeting the economic needs of rural people for food and shelter, tropical forests are also a major
source of both industrial wood products and fuel wood. It, therefore, becomes pertinent to examine the implication of forest
resources exploitation on the rural agro-economy in Isiala Ngwa North Local Government Area of Abia State, Nigeria. Specifically,
it ascertained the proportion of household income contributed by forest products exploitation, identified factors that affect
exploitation of major forest products, ascertained the effects/implications of forest resources exploitation on the rural agro-
economy, and determined the factors influencing income from forest resources exploitation/harvesting. A multi-stage sampling
procedure was used in selecting the respondents used for the study. The data collected using structured questionnaire
administered to the respondents were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical tools such as means, frequency
tables, percentages and ordinary least square regression technique. Results of data analysis showed that 26% of total
household income is contributed by forest resources. The factors affecting the exploitation of forest resources as identified by
the rural households were deforestation, bush burning, urbanization, land degradation/erosion, losses due to bad market,
high transportation cost, community laws, land ownership, among others. Among the positive implications of forest
exploitation was its contribution to income and its associated reduction of poverty and hunger, and the creation of employment
while the negative implications of forest resources exploitation were depletion of the resource base, erosion, contribution
climate change and leading to the extinction of indigenous forest species. The significant variables influencing income were
the age of the respondents, household size, number of resources harvested and farming experience. It was recommended that
policies aimed at sustainability to manage the forest in a manner that would allow for sustainable utilization of the natural
resource base for the benefit of present and future generations should be put in place.

Keywords: Forest, Resources, Exploitation, Agro-economy

INTRODUCTION
Forest products play important roles in supporting rural livelihoods and food security in many developing
countries. Forest provides critical sources of food, medicine, shelter, and building materials, fuels and cash
income. More than 15 million people in Sub-Sahara Africa earn their income from forest-related enterprises such
as firewood and charcoal sales, small-scale saw-milling, commercial hunting and handicraft production
(Kaimowtz, 2003). Forest resources supply nearly half total wood requirements of the country and its dwindling
rapidly. Pimental et al. (1997) estimated that about 250 million people depend on the forest while Roper and
Roberts (1999) put the figure at 500million. Apart from meeting the economic needs of rural people for food and
shelter, tropical forests are also a major source of both industrial wood products and fuel wood. While the timber
components have been widely acknowledged as a great contributor to both national and local economies, the
equal importance of non-timber forest products have received little attention from social scientists and
development planners until recently. Non-timber forest products are any biological resources found in woodlands
except timber. They include edible and medicinal plants, mushrooms, moss and lichen, bark, foliage and cones,
wood products, wild and managed game as well as non-consumptive values contribution (services derived from
forest) to human welfare (Eboh, 2005; Jimoh, 2006; Jumbe and Husselman, 2007). Furthermore, forest and forest
trees are sources of a variety of foods that supplement and complement what is obtained from agriculture.
Stems, fruits and seeds of various kinds all contribute to the financial security of rural dwellers particular during
the emergency periods (Eboh, 2005; Paul, 2011). In high forest zones of eastern Nigeria, bush meat and snails’
harvesting and sales are a major income generating activity almost all year round. Also, the harvesting, selling and
use of bamboo trees for several purposes contribute to the income of the rural people. Harvesting and processing
of forest resources in many places have graduated from the subsistence level to household dietary, and shelter
needs alone and sales at local markets of` international cross-boundary trades. Obviously, the economic
importance of forest resources have been recognized globally, therefore, forest resources present both an
opportunity and challenge for achieving conservation and development (Timko et al., 2010). Forest resources
exploitation, therefore is a precondition for the livelihood of forested communities who do not have alternative
sources of income (Chilalo and Wiersum, 2011).

NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 1, 2016 37

 Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment. 12(1):37-43
Published March, 2016 Iheke and Eziuche, 2016
Forest products have been identified as a source of livelihood mainly for rural households (Jumbe and Husselman
2007; Jimoh 2006; Shackelton and Shackleton, 2006; and Fisher, 2004; Bwalya, 2004). Although the timber
industry is often discussed in the context of its contribution to both national and local economies, but NTPFs
receive little notice from social scientists and development planners (Jimoh, 2006) perhaps because of the small-
scale and dispersed nature of extractive industries. Extraction of NTFPs is mostly undertaken by poor households,
as it is labour intensive and the returns are relatively low. Mutamba (2008), also reported that barriers to entry and
market access discourage most households from engaging in timber extraction despite its high returns. Shackleton
and Shackleton (2006) opined that a greater proportion of poor household were involved in the sale of one or
more NTFPs, and they sold greater quantities and volumes per household, as compared to wealthy households.
Africa is said to have the highest percentage of poor people in the world that live on less than a dollar a day
(Arnold et al., 2006) and almost 60% rural Africa’s live below the poverty line (Kaimowitz, 2003). Timko et al.
(2010) noted that in Africa, over two-thirds of the continent’s 600 million people are estimated to rely on forest
products, either in the form of subsistence uses or as cash income derived from a wide range of timber and non-
timber forest products. Forest resources provide opportunities for income generation through small jobs and small
enterprise. As noted by Jimoh (2006), the contribution of non-timber forest products of the reduction of rural
poverty is a direct contribution of these resources to rural livelihood. According to Arnold (1994), employment
and income from small-scale non-farm enterprise activities are nearly everywhere becoming increasingly
important to the rural poor. Income is generated from the sales of forest products to supplement the income of
rural dwellers. In fact, there are individuals who derive up to 80% of their income from the sales of these products
(Jimoh, 2002). Plant such as Chrypsophllum albidum, Dacroyodes edulis, Treculia africana, Gnetum africanum
and many plant species and also medicinal plants are major sources of income to both rural and urban dwellers.
Forest-based activities such as sieve-making and charcoal production contribute significantly to rural income. The
ability of these forest resources to directly enhance people‘s income is a significant contribution to poverty
reduction in Nigeria.
Deforestation is a permanent destruction of indigenous forests or woodlands. Exploitation of forest resources
often causes deforestation, which has been a big problem to this nation. According to International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria has lost about 400,000 hectares of forest land to deforestation. Eboh (2005)
reported that huge sum of 180 billion naira is loss annually to deforestation. Deforestation has increased real fuel
wood prices in the last two decades and this result in an estimated loss of between 45 to 60billion naira annually.
The loss of forest has led to reduced access to and supplies of NTPs for exports as much as 40-50 percent in the
last five years. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) offer sources of income and opportunities for poverty
alleviation in both rural and urban areas. NFTPs contribute to poverty alleviation through two important avenues.
First, the marketing of NTFPs provides opportunities for income generation from the collection and trade in rural
areas and from their use in urban areas; and second, the market for NTFPs provides urban households with a
convenient and reliable source of energy for cooking, as well as in expensive food at relatively stable prices (Paul,
2011; Arnold et al., 2006). Jimoh (2006), noted that the contribution of non-timber forest products to the
reduction of rural poverty is a direct contribution of these resources to rural livelihood. Jimoh (2002) noted that
some individuals derive up 80% of their income from the sales of forest products. Forest resources exploitation is
a precondition for livelihood of forested communities, who do not have alternative sources of income (Chilalo and
Wiersum, 2011). Apart from the facts that the majority of rural households in Nigeria depend on forest products to
meet some part of their nutritional needs, very large number of households generate part of their income from the
sales of tree products and fruits from forest.
Although several studies have shown that rural households depend extensively on common pool resources (CPR)
to meet their daily economic and social needs (Jodha, 1995), not many of such studies have captured the
contribution of forest resources exploitation to their agro economy in Nigeria. Also, despite the immense value of
these resources, forests are being cleared as demand for timber arises and as agricultural activities and installation
of social amenities expands in the study area. The extreme exploitation of forest resources has reduced their range
and abundance compared with what was obtainable in the past. These have serious implications on exploitation on
rural communities. This study therefore, examined forest resources exploitation and its implications on rural agro-
economy in Isiala Ngwa North Local Government Area of Abia State, Nigeria. Specifically, it ascertained the
proportion of household income contributed by forest products exploitation, identified the factors that affect
exploitation of major forest products, ascertained the effects of forest resources exploitation on the rural agro-
economy, and determined the factors influencing income from forest resources exploitation.

METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted in Isiala Ngwa North Local Government Area of Abia State. Isiala Ngwa North is one
of the 17 Local Government Area Abia State and it has its headquarters at Okpuala Ngwa. Isiala Ngwa North
Area occupies a land area of about 283 km2, and is bounded by Isiala Ngwa South on the West-east and South-
west, Umuahia south and north on the east and South-east and Mbaise in Imo State on the south. The local
government is made up of 19 major communities and has a population of 153,734 (NPC, 2006). It is located at 5°

NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 1, 2016 38

 Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment. 12(1):37-43
Published March, 2016 Iheke and Eziuche, 2016
35' North and 7° 41' East. Isiala Ngwa North Area is within the South East Agro-ecological and in the rain forest
zone of the country. The major occupation of the people is farming. Multi-stage sampling procedure was adopted
in this research. In the first stage, simple random sampling technique was used in selecting 5 communities out of
19 autonomous communities in the area. In the second stage, 4 villages were selected in from each of the selected
communities. From the villages, list of households involved in forest resource extraction were compiled and 5
households were randomly chosen to make a sample of 100 respondents. Data for this study was collected with
the use of structured questionnaire administered to the respondents. However, out of the 100 questionnaire
administered, 97 were retrieved and 92 were found useful and used for the analysis. Data collected were analyzed
using descriptive and inferential statistical tools such as means, frequency tables, percentages and ordinary least
square regression technique. The model for the regression analysis is specified in the implicit form as:
Y = f (X1, X2, X3, X4, X5)
Where: Y= income from forest products (naira), X1 = age of household head (years), X2 = household size
(number), X3 = level of education (years), X4 = number of forest resources harvested, and X5 = experience (years).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Forest resources exploited/harvested
The distribution of the respondents based on the type of forest product harvested is presented in Table 1. Multiple
responses were recorded. The result showed that the major forest products harvested were Dacryodes edulis,
firewood, Gnetum aficanum, Gambeya albida, Piper guinensis, Thaumatococcus danielli, Plukenetia conophora,
snail, Mango, Pentaclethra macrophylla, Treculia africanum, and Black pear. It was found that high frequency of
harvest was due to their relative abundance and returns from sales. Therefore, there is need to ensure their
sustainability so that they do not get extinct

Table 1: Distribution of the respondents based on forest resources harvested

Forest resources harvested Frequency * Percentage

Snail 58 63
Gnetum africanum 70 76
Dacryodes edulis 77 84
Mushroom 32 35
Firewood 72 78
Plukenetia conophora 58 63
Thaumatococcus danielli 61 66
Annona nuricata 32 35
Piper guinensis 68 74
Avocado pear 52 57
Irvangia gabonensis 42 46
Pentaclethra macrophylla 55 60
Mangifera indica 59 64
Medicinal plants 39 42
Treculia africanum 53 58
Xylopia aethiopicum 26 28
Bush meat 30 33
Black velvet 46 50
Gambeya albida 70 76
Black pear 51 55
Garcinia kola 39 42
Source: Field Survey data, 2014
*Multiple responses recorded

Proportion of Household Income Contributed by Forest Resources

The proportion of household income contributed by forest resources exploitation/harvesting is presented in Fig. 1.
It showed that 26% of total household income is contributed by forest resources. This is quite enormous
considering all the livelihood activities that rural households engage in, to diversify their earning and increase
their income.

NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 1, 2016 39

 Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment. 12(1):37-43
Published March, 2016 Iheke and Eziuche, 2016

26%
Forest income
Non-forest income

74%

Fig. 1: Pie chart showing the contribution of harvest of forest resources to household income
Source: Survey data, 2014

Factors Affecting Exploitation of Major Forest Products Resources

The distribution of the respondents based on their perception of the factors affecting the exploitation of forest
resources is presented in Table 2. The identified factors by the rural households were deforestation, bush burning,
urbanization, land degradation/erosion, losses due to bad market, high transportation cost, community laws, land
ownership, among others.

These factors impinge on the harvest of the forest resources by reducing the relative availability, accessibility and
rate of harvest. There is therefore, the need for legislation against deforestation and protective acts to ensure the
preservation of forests as most rural households derive their livelihood from forest-based activities.

Table 2: Factors affecting exploitation of forest products

Factors affecting harvesting Frequency* Percentage
Deforestation 84 91.30
Land degradation/erosion 43 46.73
Urbanisation 55 59.78
Community laws 23 25.00
Limited resources 15 16.30
Bad roads 12 13.08
Land ownership 18 19.57
Bush burning 62 67.39
Labour intensive 15 16.30
Transportation 28 30.43
Losses due to bad market 35 38.04
Access to market 14 15.22
Source: Field Survey, 2014
* Multiple responses recorded

Effect/Implications of exploiting forest resources

The implications of forest resources exploitation is presented in Table 3. Among the positive implications of
forest exploitation are its contribution to income (100%); its associated reduction of poverty (86.96%) with
hunger (83.69% and creation of employment (65.22%).

On the other hand, the negative implications of forest resources exploitation were depletion of the resource base,
erosion, contribution climate change and leading to the extinction of indigenous forest species.

Although exploitation has positive outcomes, the negative implications should be considered. Therefore, efforts at
ensuring sustainability should consider the trade-off between the positive and negative implications of
exploitation.

NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 1, 2016 40

 Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment. 12(1):37-43
Published March, 2016 Iheke and Eziuche, 2016
Table 3: Implications of Forest Resources Exploitation
Positive implications Frequency * Percentage
Increase in income 92 100
Poverty reduction 80 86.96
Reduction of hunger 77 83.69
Employment 60 65.22
Negative implications
Forest resource depletion 72 78.26
Erosion 45 48.91
Climate change 65 70.65
Extinction of indigenous forest species 57 61.96
Source: Field Survey, 2014
*Multiple response recorded

Factors influencing income from forest products

The ordinary least square regression estimate of the factors influencing income from forest products is presented
in Table 4. The exponential functional form was chosen as the lead equation. This was based on the magnitude of
the coefficient of multiple determination, the number of significant variables, the conformity of the signs borne by
the variables to a priori expectation and the significance of the f-ratio. The coefficient of multiple determination
was 0.6525 implying that 65.25% of the variations in income from forest products harvested was explained by the
variables in the model. The F-ratio was significant of at 1% indicating the goodness of fit of the model. The
significant variables influencing income were age of the respondents, household size, number of resources
harvested and farming experience.

The coefficient of age of the respondents was significant at 5% and negatively related to income. This implies that
income from the forest decreases as the farmers gets older. This could be because of their inability to move round
the forest for harvesting due to age as the work is quite tedious and labourious, often demanding climbing of trees.
As noted Iheke (2010) and Nwaru (2004), the risk-bearing abilities and innovativeness of a farmer, his mental
capacity to cope with the daily challenges and demand of farm production activities and his ability to do manual
work decreases with advancing age.

Table 4: Factors influencing income from forest resources

Variable Linear Exponential (+) Double log Semi-log
Intercept -10170.06 1.534 8.560 -24443
( -0.17) (4.33)*** ( 8.34)*** (-1.34)
Age (X1) 921.580 -0.016 -0.3852 -34364.85
(6.96)*** (-2.06 )** (-2.22 )** (1.88)*
Household size (X2) 4663.359 .77958 0.041 22452.17
(1.80)* ( 2.94)*** (0.25 ) (0.77)
Years of education (X3) - 1171.349 -0.018 -0.298 -3022.433
(-0.36 ) (-0.96 ) (-0.16) (-0.09)
Number of resources 12252.96 0.78721 0.846 116583.6
harvested (X4) (6.33 )*** ( 7.04 )** (7.29)*** (5.66)**
Harvesting experience (X5) 952.503 .021 -0.056 2857.116
(-0.59 ) ( 2.24 )** (-0.53 ) (0.15)
R2 0.3820 0.6525 0.4403 0.3339
Adj. R2 0.3460 0.6207 0.4077 0.2952
F-ratio 10.63*** 14.22*** 13.53*** 8.62***
Source: Computed from survey data, 2015
*** = Significant at 1% level of significance; ** = Significant at 5% level of significance; * = Significant at 10%
level of significance; + = Lead equation; and (…) = t – ratios

The coefficient of household size of the respondents was significant at 1% and positively related to income from
forest resources harvested. This implies that income increases as the household size increase because large family
size uses their labour input to an advantage in farming and forest product exploitation, that is, more labour are
employed from the household thereby reducing the cost of hired labour. According to Onyenweaku and Nwaru
(2005), large household size eases labour constraints thereby leading to increases in productivity and income of

NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 1, 2016 41

 Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment. 12(1):37-43
Published March, 2016 Iheke and Eziuche, 2016
the farm household. Moreover, household labour supply should be more predictable than hired labour, especially
where the structure of the household is such that it is composed more of those in the active age (Iheke et. al.,
2013). Therefore, policies that enable farmers source more of their labour needs from their households are
encouraged.

The number of forest resources harvested is significant at 5% and positively related to the income from forest
resources harvested. This implies that as the number of forest resources harvested increases, the income of the
farmer increases because the more the forest resources harvested, the higher income contributed to the household.

The coefficient of harvesting experience of the respondent is significant at 5% and positively related to the
income from forest resources harvested. This is because with experience, the respondents learn more methods of
harvestings the resources, and gets know the values of the resources and the right knowledge of exploitation of the
products. According to Iheke et al. (2013), Iheke (2010) and Nwaru (2004), the number of years spent in a
business venture may give an indication of the practical knowledge he has acquired on how to overcome certain
inherent problems associated with the business activity.
CONCLUSION
It could be concluded from this study that forests products and their subsequent harvesting play crucial role in
rural livelihood diversification, providing a major source of income. Thus, it acts as a safety net, particularly when
there is a short fall in agricultural production to minimize risk and fill the gap of food shortage, thereby reducing
poverty and hunger. The adverse effect of exploitation of forest resources is depletion of the forest resource base,
climate change and erosion. Therefore, policies aimed at sustainable utilization of the natural resource base for the
benefit of present and future generations should be put in place. This would involve the development of strategies
for the control and protection of critical private forested areas and forest reserves, enforcement of relevant
legislation and regulations, reforestation, sustainable harvesting of products in natural forests, establishment of
agro-forestry systems, and effective protection and conservation of plants and wildlife.

REFERENCES

Arnold, J. E. M. 1994. The Importance of Tree Products in Rural Income and Employment. Paper Presented at the
Workshop on Non-Timber Tree Products Market Research Annapolis, Maryland, pp. 27.
Arnold, J. E. M., Kohlin, G. and Persson, R. 2006. Woodfuels, Livelihoods, and Policy Interventions: Changing
Perspectives. World Development 34 (3): 596-611
Bwalya, S. M. 2004. Rural Livelihoods and Collective Action in Joint Forest Management in Zambia. Final report
for SAGA Competitive Research Grants Program Atlanta, Georgia Clark Atlanta University.
Chilalo M., and Wiersum, K. K. 2011. The Role of Non-Timber Forest Products for Livelihood Diversification in
Southwest Ethiopia Agriculture and Forestry issues 3 (1): 44-59.
Eboh, E. 2005. Harnessing Renewable Resources, Sectors for Prosperity. Paper, Presented at the Economic
Workshop Organized by AIEA and Department of International Development Abuja 22nd June 2005.
Fisher, M. 200). Household Welfare and Forest Dependence in Southern Malawi. Environment and Development
Economics 9: 829-844.
Iheke, O. R. 2010. Impact of Migrant Remittances on Efficiency and Welfare of Rural Smallholder Arable Crop
Households in South Eastern Nigeria. Ph. D. Dissertation. Michael Okpara University of Agriculture,
Umudike, Nigeria.
Iheke, O. R., Nwaru, J. C., and Onyenweaku, C. E. 2013. The impact of Migrant Remittances on the Technical
Efficiency of Arable Crop Farm Households in South Eastern Nigeria. Invited paper presented at the 4th
International Conference of the African Association of Agricultural Economists, September 22-25, 2013,
Hammamet, Tunisia
Jimoh, S. O. 2002. A Multiple use Planning Model for Tropical Rain Forests: The case of Shasha Forest Reserves Osun
State Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis Department of Forest Resources Management, University of Ibadan, pp 253.
Jimoh, S. O. 2006. Sustaining the Roles of Non-Timber Forest Product in Rural Poverty Reduction and
Household Food Security. Journal of Fisheries International 2 (4): 63- 69.
Jodha, N. S 1995. Common property resources and the dynamics of rural poverty in India's Dry Regions. Unasylva
180, 46 (1): 23-29.
Jumbe, C. B., and Husselman, M. 2007. Contribution of Dry Forests to Rural Livelihood and the National Economy
in Zambia. In Managing The Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa" Policies, Incentives And Option
for the Poor, Technical Annexes No 5361 8.2.
Kaimowitz, D. 2003. Not by Bread Alone ... Forests and Rural Livelihood in Sub- Saharan Africa. In Oskanen, T.,
Pajari, B. and Tuomasjukka, T. (eds.): Forest In Poverty Reduction Strategies: Capturing the Potential,
EFI Proceedings No. 47. European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland p. 7-15.

NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 1, 2016 42

 Nigerian Journal of Agriculture, Food and Environment. 12(1):37-43
Published March, 2016 Iheke and Eziuche, 2016
Mutamba. M 2008. Farming or Foraging Rural Livelihood in Kabompo and Mufulira Districts of Zambia. In
managing the Miombo woodlands of Southern Africa: Policies, Incentives, and Options for the Rural
Poor, Technical Annexes No 53618.2 Washington D.C.
Nigerian Population Commission (NPC) 2006. 2006 Nigerian Census Figures. Nigerian Population Commission,
Abuja.
Nwaru, J.C. 2004. Rural Credit Markets and Resource Use in Arable Crop Production in Imo State of Nigeria.
Ph.D Thesis Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike.
Onyenweaku, C. E. and Nwaru, J. C. 2005. Application of stochastic frontier production function to the
measurement of technical efficiency in food production in Imo State, Nigeria. Nigerian Agricultural
Journal, 36: 1-12
Paul, O. 2011. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs): A Pathway for Rural Poverty Reduction in Nigeria.
International Journal of Economic Development Research and Investment, 2 (2): 25-34
Pimentel, D., Mcnair, M., Buck, L., Pimental, M. and Kamil, J. 1997. The Value of Forest to World Food Security.
Human Ecology 259: 1 -12.
Roper J., and Robert, R. W. 1999. Deforestation: Tropical Forests in Decline Forest. Issues No 1999-2001,
CIDA Forestry Adviser Network (CFAN). Canadian International Development Agency, Canada
Shackleton, C. M and Shackleton, S. E. 2006. Household Wealth Status and Natural Resources Use in the Kat
River valley South Africa. Ecological Economics 57 (2): 306-317.
Timko J. A. Waeber P. O. Koza R. A. 2010. The Socio-Economic Contribution of Non-timber Forest Products to
Rural Livelihoods in sub-Sahar Africa. Knowledge Gap and News Directions. International
forestry Research 12 (3) pp 284-294

NJAFE VOL. 12 No. 1, 2016 43

View publication stats