IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

Research article
erd

The Importance of Non-timber Forest Products in Rural
Livelihoods and Ecosystem Services at Phnom Prich Wildlife
Sanctuary, Cambodia
PHANITH CHOU*
Graduate School of International Development, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan /Faculty of Development Studies, Royal University of Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Email: chou.phanith@d.mbox.nagoya-u.ac.jp / c.phanith@gmail.com
Received 15 December 2016

Accepted 3 May 2017(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract This study aims to answer the research questions as follows: What is the current
context of Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary (PPWS)? Where are the most accessible sites of
non-timber forest products (NTFPs) over the landscape of PPWS? Who are NTFPs-dependent
people? What is the importance of NTFPs in rural livelihoods? What is the contribution of
NTFPs in ecosystem services? Analyzed the NTFPs endowment, the open access simulation
model was applied. From the 310 sample households, NTFPs dependency and intensity wereanalyzed through descriptive statistics. Cross tabulation was applied to identify the main usersof NTFPs. The role of NTFPs in rural livelihoods and ecosystem services were discussed. The
simulation result clearly shows that NTFPs are rich over the landscape, which local people caneasily access. Among many types of NTFPs, eight of them are considered as the mostimportance for rural livelihoods including liquid resin, solid resin, bamboo shoot, bamboo poles,
wild honey, orchid flower, fuelwood, and Prich leaf (Melientha suavis Pierre). Around 93% ofsampled households collect NTFPs for foods, cash incomes, house construction, and farmequipment. NTFPs are the resources not only for the poor but also to all rural households at
PPWS. Some of NTFPs also contribute to ecosystem services.
Keywords NTFPs, rural livelihoods, ecosystem services, Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary,
Cambodia

INTRODUCTION
Policy makers tend to forget the role of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) because they lackavailable information on contribution to the daily life of rural people and ecosystem services at national
or global levels (De Beer and McDermott, 1996). In Cambodia, about 84% of rural people heavily
depend on forest resources, especially on NTFPs for domestic consumption and complementary cash
income (MoE, 2011). NTFPs are also an intrinsic part of culture and traditions of forest-based andindigenous communities of Cambodia (EC-FAO, 2002). Local people have collected NTFPs
traditionally for various purposes without any statistical recording to the national economy, yet theimportance of NTFPs are not recognized well by the policy makers (Tola and McKenney, 2003). Royal
government of Cambodia has implemented the forest protection and management in various policies,
but they do not include NTFPs in their primary development agenda (FA, 2009). At present, theempirical evidence on the importance of NTFPs is not well documented in Cambodia. The role of
NTFPs has traditionally measured regarding direct benefits from only the amount sold. This
description does not reflect the real benefits of NTFPs to rural livelihood, national economy, or global
ecosystem services. To understand the real importance of NTFPs; first, the uniform category of
NTFPs-dependent people must be known because it gives insight into who are actually utilizing theseⒸ ISERD

7

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

resources for livelihoods. Then, the role of NTFPs in ecosystem services should also be revealed toreflect the real importance.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to explore the importance of NTFPs in rural livelihoods and ecosystemservices at Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary (PPWS). This study addresses the following questions:
What is the current context of rural households in PPWS? Where are the most accessible sites of
NTFPs over the landscape of PPWS? Who are NTFPs-dependent people? What is the importance of
NTFPs in rural livelihoods? What is the contribution of NTFPs in ecosystem services?
METHODOLOGY
Study Site Selection
Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary (PPWS) is located in the west of Mondulkiri province, north-east
Cambodia. The whole areas of PPWS are 2,225km2. PPWS has a rich intricate mosaic of forest habitats,which consists of a mosaic of deciduous dipterocarp forest (1027 km2) and wetter semievergreen/mixed-deciduous forest (1070 km2) (WWF, 2016). Whilst PPWS regards as the wealth ofecosystems, and it is also of great importance to local communities who thrive to enhance livelihood
through extraction of NTFPs. Currently, there are eight community protected areas (CPAs) have been
established. However, this study selected six communities including Nglaoka, Sre Y, Chi Klab,
Poutong-Pouhoung, Toul, and Srae Khtong.
Data Collection and Analysis
Fieldworks took place in September 2015, March and April 2016. Questionnaire testing and adjusting
were conducted prior to the survey. Secondary data were mainly gathered to produce the NTFPs
accessibility map. The types of secondary data were the dataset of forest cover 2010, population
centers and road locations over the landscape. Participatory rural appraisals (PRA) were conducted infour focus group discussions from four communities protected areas (CPAs) in the different areas of
PPWS. Two primary tools were applied including seasonal calendar and NTFPs accessibility stocks.
Structured questionnaire interview were conducted with the 310 sampled households, which wererandomly selected from six communities.
Descriptive statistics were used to describe social characteristics of local people in PPWS, thefrequency of forest resources dependence, and frequency of people who involved with NTFPs. Thenthe people-forest relationships were indicated by the seasonal calendar and people’s dependence on theforestry resources. The simulation of “Open Access” model in Arc-GIS software (version 10.1) was
run to get the map of NTFPs accessibility stock over the landscape of PPWS. The inputs data forprocessing were current land use and land cover (LULC) 2010, NTFP harvest products stocks (uniquevalue 0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1), maximum travel distance to the product, population center, road locations andsize and legal accessibility for harvesting. The output by whether NTFP resources are abundant in thearea or not and how local people make use those resources for their daily life were interpreted.
Crosstabs tabulations were used to analyze the people’s dependence on the NTFPs, which varies indifferent categories of households. The importance of NTFPs to rural livelihoods through the types andutilization level of NTFPs was analyzed. Last, the role of NTFPs in ecosystem services by using
literature reviews was described.

Ⓒ ISERD

8

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Current Context of Rural Households in PPWS
Figure 1 shows the current livelihood activities of local people in PPWS. All agricultural activities,
including rainfed rice, cash crop, and vegetables are done, in the rainy season. Livestock, fishing, andsmall business are done in the year-round. People, who were landless or owned small farmland,
worked for other farmers especially in the sowing and harvesting periods of the rice crop. Also, local
people collected NTFPs in both seasons upon the types of NTFPs. For illustration, bamboo shoot canbe collected in the rainy season, but wild honey and Prich leaf (Melientha suavis Pierre) are available
only in the dry season. Liquid resin, solid resin, bamboo pole, orchid flower, and fuelwood can becollected in year-round. In the dry season, local people often traded liquid resin, solid resin, wild honey,
and orchid flower. However, this result indicates that NTFPs play the vital role in livelihood
diversification especially during the off-season, when local people are free from farming.
Livelihood
Activities
Rainfed Rice
Chamkar
Vegetables
Livestock
Fishing Activity
Small Business
Off-farm
Liquid Resin
Solid Resin
Wild Honey
Orchid Flower
Bamboo-Pole
Bamboo-ShootPrich Leaf
Fuelwood

Dry Season (Nov-April)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr

May

Rainy Season (May-October)
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Fig. 1 Seasonal livelihood activities
Noted: Blank, light grey and pattern represent no activity, occasionally activity,and intensively activity respectively

NTFPs Resources Endowment in Phnom Prich Wildlife SanctuaryFig. 2 NTFPs resources endowment in PPWSⒸ ISERD

9

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

Figure 2 shows the result of “Open access” model simulation. Through the NTFPs accessibility
map, it clearly shows that NTFPs are abundant over the landscape, according to the identified value ofhigh accessibility - light green (0.7) and dark green (1.0). The value of resources accessibility is likely
to be less in the areas nearby roads, village zones, and city, as indicated by the red, orange, and yellow
colors. Each NTFP has different characteristics of habitats and capacity to produce. Bamboo, fuelwood, and prich leaf (Melientha suavis Pierre) are very abundant, so local people easily access nearby
the village zones. The commercial NTFPs including liquid resin, solid resin, wild honey, and orchid
flower are located in further distance, mostly in evergreen and semi-evergreen forests where thedistance ranged from 9 km to 14 km from their villages.
NTFPs Dependent People in Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary
Households’ characteristics make a crucial distinction between people who rely on NTFPs as the main
source or starting point of livelihoods. Fig. 3 shows that indigenous people (Bunong) tend to depend
more on NTFPs because it is the traditional activities to sustain their livelihoods. The study also findsthat households, who had moderate livelihood diversification (3 to 4 occupations per household), seemto collect more NTFPs. Also, low education people were more likely to rely on NTFPs. However, thisfinding agrees with other studies that native people and low education people are more likely to dependon NTFPs for livelihoods (Shackleton and Pandey, 2014). The claimed from Wunder (2001) that only
less income diversification households depend more on NTFPs is rejected because NTFPs are very
important for everyone living in the forest sanctuary. Regarding households’ production factors, thehousehold group having more members collected NTFPs more than the households who have less, as
be shown in Fig. 4. This result indicates that collection NTFPs is labor intensive. Also, households
owned a motorcycle for transportation enables to travel further to collect more NTFPs. Moreover, thehouseholds owned average agricultural land are likely to collect more NTFPs than the landless or
people owned large land. Despite the claimed from Cavendish (2002) that only local people who limit
the land ownership, limit capital, limit labor, and less income diversification tend to depend on NTFPs
heavily, is rejected.

Fig. 3 NTFPs dependency level by households’ characteristics

Fig. 4 NTFPs dependency level by households’ production factorsⒸ ISERD

10

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

Importance of NTFPs in Rural Livelihoods
The results from focus group discussions indicated 14 NTFPs which local people have collected themost in PPWS. Among the 14 NTFPs, six NTFPs are considered as the most important NTFPs
including fuelwood, bamboo shoot, prich leaf, solid resin, bamboo poles, and liquid resin, which
represent 98%, 85%, 83%, 56%, 56%, and 50% respectively, based on 288 sampled households, whocollected NTFPs. Additionally, wild honey and orchid flower are considered as importance NTFPs
because they constitute as sources of households’ cash income. Table 1 shows the diversity of NTFPs
use and commercialization in PPWS. The most important NTFPs for subsistence use in PPWS were
fuelwood, bamboo shoot, bamboo poles, prich leaf, wild honey, and liquid resin which identified by
the sign + and +/- in Table 1. Bamboo shoot and prich leaf were consumed for food during the wet
season and the dry season respectively. Fuelwood ultimately serve the local communities for energy
sources for cooking. Local people used the bamboo poles for construction, fencing, and furniture. Wildhoney was used for traditional medicine and food ingredient. Liquid resin was used as the raw material
for small construction. Table 1 shows that liquid resin, solid resin, wild honey, and orchid flower were
widely collected for commercialization in PPWS. Wild honey, orchid flower, and solid resin wereseasonally collected and sold. Liquid resin was the only NTFP that local people extracted intensively
and sold in the year-round. In a few cases, bamboo poles and prich leaf were sold to the market. This
result is similarly to another study that many NTFPs are the critical subsistence in rural households’
economy. People traded NTFPs when only the markets were available at their locations (Cavendish,2002).
Table 1 Importance of NTFPs to local livelihoods
NTFPs
Liquid resin (n=143)
Solid resin (n=162)

Wild honey (n=89)
Orchid flower (n=91)
Bamboo poles (n=160)
Bamboo shoot (n=244)
Prich leaf (n=239)
Fuelwood (n=281)

Key species
1. Dipterocarpus alatus
2. Dipterocarps intricatus Dyer
1. Shorea guiso
2. Shorea siamensis
3. And some of Genera ofDipterocarpaceae (Vatica & Hopea)
1. Apis dorsata
2. Apis florae
3. Apis cerana
1. Vandopsis gigantea
1. Bambusa sp.
2. Bambusa bambos
1. Bambusa sp.
2. Bambusa bambos
1. Melientha suavis Pierre
Diverse long-lived tree species

Importance to rural
livelihoods
Use
Commercial
+/+
-

+/-

+/-

+/-

-

+/-

+/-

-

+/-

-

+/+

-

Noted: Frequency of use/sell: - not or little use/sell; +/- sometimes use/sell (moderate amount/seasonally); + often use/sell (regularly in year round)
Source: Author’s structured interviews (2016).

Contribution of NTFPs to Ecosystem Services
Although most of the NTFPs do not play a direct role in ecosystem services, they are ones among thefinal products provided by ecosystem services. However, trees/forests, which provides NTFPs, play a
crucial role in ecosystem services as follows.
First, many of the trees providing NTFPs are the long-lived trees, so all parts of the trees play arole in carbon sequestration, (Table 2). The carbon storage function has the social value which equals
to the social damage avoided by not releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere (Nordhaus, 2007). Second,Ⓒ ISERD

11

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

the forest can regulate the runoffs the rainwater. It can reduce flood volumes during torrential rains,and in dry seasons, forest gradually releases the absorbed water that maintains river flow. The value ofwatershed protection is commonly equal to water treatment costs, water supply or investment costs ofreservoir construction (Gaodi et al., 2010). Third, the trees/forest helps to prevent soil erosion andminimize sedimentation in water reservoir or rivers. This service has a value that equal to the cost of
sediment removal from rivers and reservoirs (Keeler et al., 2012). Fourth, the honey bee not only
provides the honey products but also to crop plants pollinated. They are the pollinators that canincrease yield, quality, and stability of fruit and seed crops. Value equals to the investment costs tooptimize agriculture and conservation (Breeze et al., 2016). Last, some species, especially wild orchid
flower also contribute a role in aesthetic or recreation. The value of recreation equal to the travel costsof tourists to visit the particular site (Gaodi et al., 2010). This finding is consistent with other studies
that NTFPs play a direct or indirect role to maintain the value of ecosystem services because extraction
activities do not impact critically to the forest or trees (Arnold and Pe´rez, 2001; Neumann and Hirsch,
2000; Ros-Tonen and Wiersum, 2005).
Table 2 Contribution of the NTFPs to environmental services
Primary NTFPs
Long-lived trees: Liquid
resin, Solid resin,
Fuelwood, Bamboo, andPrich leaf (Melientha
suavis Pierre)

Ecosystem Services

Description of functioning contributed by NTFPs

Carbon storage

Leaves, branches, stems, barks, and roots of the longlived trees play role in carbon storage

Watershed protection

Water can be relocated to regulate availability of surface
water and runoff through the crown, trunk, undergrowth
vegetation and forest littler and soil.

Soil erosion prevention

Trees/forest help to prevent soil erosion and minimize
sedimentation in reservoirs and rivers.

Honey bee

Pollination

A honey bee is the key animal pollinator for croppollination

Ornament plant:
Orchid flower

Aesthetic

Slightly contribute to recreation and eco-tourism(physical wellbeing, learning, and quality of life)

Source: Author’s literature reviews (2016).

CONCLUSION
The contribution of NTFPs to rural livelihoods and forest conservation is regarded as very promising.
NTFPs are the common natural wealth for all residents, and their importance in rural livelihoods is
confirmed because of the strong dependence from most of the local people regardless their different
households’ characteristics. NTFPs make a significant contribution to the local economy such as food,house construction, fencing, energy, farm equipment, and cash income. Some primary types of NTFPs
also contribute simultaneously to ecosystem services through carbon storage, watershed protection, soil
erosion prevention, pollination, and aesthetic.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is extremely grateful to Professor USAMI Koichi for his enthusiasm for his helpfulcomments and suggestions.

Ⓒ ISERD

12

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

REFERENCES
Arnold, J.E.M. and Pe´rez, M.R. 2001. Can non-timber forest products match tropical forest conservation anddevelopment objectives? Ecological Economics, 39, 437-447.
Breeze, T., Santo, M.E., Fernandez, J.R., Worati, E.K., Salles, J.M., Sandhu, H. and Bond, J. 2016. Chapter 4:
Economic valuation of pollinator gains and losses The thematic assessment on pollinators, pollination andfood production. Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
Cavendish, W. 2002. Quantitative methods for estimating the economic value of resource use to rural households. In
Campbell, B.M. & Luckert, M.K. (Eds.), Uncovering the Hidden Harvest: Valuation Methods for Woodland andForest Resources, 17-65, Earthscan Publication Ltd., London, UK.
De Beer, J.H. and McDermott, M.J. 1996. The economic value of non-timber forest products in southeast Asia.
Second Revised Edition, Committee for IUCN, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
EC-FAO. 2002. Non-wood forest products in 15 countries of tropical Asia an overview. The Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand.
FA. 2009. Cambodia's national forest programme. Background document, Forestry Adminstration, Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Cambodia, Phnom Penh.
Gaodi, X., Wenhua, L., Yu, X., Biao, Z., Chunxia, L., Kai, A. and Jinzeng, W. 2010. Forest ecosystem services
and their values in Beijing. Geogra. Sci, 1, 0-51-058. doi: 10.1007/s11769-010-0051-y
Keeler, B.L., Polasky, S., Brauman, K.A., Johnson, K.A., Finlay, J.C., O’Neill, A. and Dalzell, B. 2012. Linking
water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. PNAS, 109,
18619-18624.
MoE. 2011. Cambodia human development report 2011, Climate change and forestry, Minisry of Environment of
Cambodia, Ministry of Economy and Finance of Cambodia and United Nations Development Programme. 9.
Neumann, R.P. and Hirsch, E. 2000. Commercialisation of non-timber forest products, Review and analysis ofresearch. Center for International Forestry Research. Indonesia.
Nordhaus, W. 2007. Critical assumptions in the Stern review on climate change science, 317, 201-202.
Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. and Wiersum, K.F. 2005. The scope of improving rural livelihoods through non-timber forest
products, An evolving research agenda. People, Trees and Livelihoods, 15 (2), 129-148.
Shackleton, C.M. and Pandey, A.K. 2014. Positioning non-timber forest products on the development agenda.
Forest Policy and Economics, 38, 1-7.
Tola, P. and McKenney, B. 2003. Trading forest products in Cambodia, Challenges, threats, and opportunities forresin. Cambodia Development Resource Institute, Cambodia.
Wunder, S. 2001. Poverty alleviation and tropical forest, What scope for synergies? World Development, 29,
1817-1833.
WWF. 2016. Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary. World Wildlife Fund for Nature-Cambodia.

Ⓒ ISERD

13