1. XIV WORLD FORESTRY CONGRESS, Durban, South Africa, 7-11 September 2015
The socio-economic contributions of non-timber forest products
(NTFPs) in Muzarabani district, Zimbabwe
Victor Mabhare1
, Lizzie Mujuru1
, Joyce Gombe2
1
[Bindura University of Science Education, Department of Environmental Science. P. Bag 1020. Bindura.
Zimbabwe.
2
[Zimbabwe College of Forestry. P.O. Box 660. Mutare. Zimbabwe]
Abstract
The potential role of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) in improving nutrition, health and
reduction of poverty has been recognised in recent years. Despite their significant contribution to food
security, and sustaining livelihoods, NTFPs tend to be overlooked by policy makers and have not been
accorded the necessary attention in development planning and livelihood improvement programs. A
study was done to assess the socio-economic gains of NTFP to communities in Muzarabani district,
Zimbabwe. Information was mainly collected from focus group discussions and key informant
interviews. A total of eleven NTFPs were actively used in Muzarabani, of which only three were
exploited for economic gains. The other eight NTFPs were mainly for subsistence use. The three
commercialised NTFPs were the local economic drivers, changing people’s standards of living during
peak periods. The three commercialised NTFPs contributed 46% of total annual household income
with Hyphaene coriaceae leaves, Ziziphus mauritiana fruit and Adansonia digitata fruit contributing
20%, 56% and 24% respectively. The annual income obtained from sale of NTFPs ranged from
USD4120 to USD10750. Among the non- commercialised uses, 86% of the communities use
firewood where as 80% also require the forest for pasture. About 30% were still hunting in the
degraded forests. A major challenge to the sustainable utilisation of NTFP is that the accessibility to
exploit NTFPs was open to all with no one controlling the exploitation of NTFPs. The products
remain open access goods which were even accessed by those from outside the villages or outside the
province. There is need to formalise the exploitation and trade of NTFPs so as to promote
sustainability, avoid leakages and increase income. Owing to socio economic benefits of NTFP,
sustainability can be achieved when local communities are included in management and utilisation of
their forest products.
Keywords: Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs), Livelihoods, sustainable, socio-economic,
development, rural communities, forestry

2. Introduction
Despite their significant contribution to food security, and sustaining livelihoods, NTFPs tend to be
overlooked by policy makers and have not been accorded the necessary attention in development
planning and livelihood improvement programs (Ahenkan and Boon, 2010).
The understanding of how forests work in rural development remains limited and it is not clear
whether a high level of current forest dependence necessarily corresponds with a high potential of
using forests to reduce poverty in the future (Angelsen and Wunder, 2003). There is a pressing need to
facilitate specific interventions that enable forest resources to play a greater role in livelihoods.
Compared to South America and Africa, NTFPs markets in Asia tend to be more stable due to
intensified management and frequent government interventions (Belcher and Kusters, 2004). Many
studies supported the fact that forest dependent people often have few options except to gather and
hunt NTFPs for their food, medicines and paltry cash amounts (FAO, 1995). Zimbabwean
communities gather and trade in NTFPs and sometimes the products are of inferior quality owing to
poor production, handling or processing techniques, or they lack adequate marketing strategies Braedt
(2002).
The Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) (2001) stated that timber and non-timber
forest products (NTFP) supply about half of the households needs for 350 million people living in
areas around tropical forests. The exploitation and trading of NTFPs creates almost ten percent of jobs
in developing countries. Therefore, NTFPs play a crucial role for the total household income of rural
households across many regions (Neumann and Hirsch, 2000). While the facts are clear in other areas,
the contribution of NTFPs to household welfare in Muzarabani, has not been quantified. This research
aimed at investigating the socio-economic contributions of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) to
rural communities in Ward 19 Muzarabani district. The specific objectives were i) to identify
important Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) utilised in ward 19.ii) to determine the contributions
of NTFPs to household income and iii) to assess issues of access and control of available NTFPs.
Methodology/approach
Study area
The study was conducted in Nhangura Ward of Muzarabani Rural District council, Zimbabwe.
Nhangura is found in agro-ecological zone IV characterised by rainfall ranging from 450 to 600 mm
per year (Moyo et al., 2012). Thus, the area is prone to seasonal droughts and severe dry spells
(Murwira et al., 2012). Temperatures are excessively high (up to 40 degrees Celsius during the hot
season – September to November) and floods are experienced occasionally (Murwira et al., 2012).
However, smallholder farmers usually grow drought-tolerant varieties of maize (Zea mays L.),
sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum), finger millet (Eleusine coracana)
and cotton (Gossypium herbaceum).

3. An initial meeting with the local leadership was done to discuss issues related to the management and
exploitation of the NTFPs. This assisted in gaining local acceptance as well as trust from the local
leadership. During the discussions, three villages were identified with the help of the local leadership
and these were Mtunda, Boore and Kamwara villages.
Three focus user group discussions were used on selected active NTFP users who provided
information on NTFPs utilisation and management and to assess the trend of events and way forward.
The focus group discussions also provided information on socio-economic impacts of NTFP. The key
informants were selected from the social structures such as the headmen, councillor who is perceived
to know almost everything that was happening in their area of jurisdiction. In addition secondment of
key informants who were actively involved in the trade were selected from villagers.
Focus group discussions were conducted with user groups of three main NTFPs following
recommendations by Johnson & Christensen, (2004) who advocated 6-12 participants. These were: i)
Ziziphus mauritiana (Masau) fruit harvesters and traders. Sample of ten (10) individuals from two
villages were selected from a list of 35 active Masau fruit harvesters and traders. These were
identified using snowball sampling. ii) Hyphaene coriacea (Ilala palm) traders. With a sample of ten
harvesters and traders selected from one village (Boore village) that was heavily trading in Ilala palm.
These were also identified from snowball sampling. iii) Adansonia digitata (Baobab fruit) harvesters.
A sample of ten individuals from two villages was used from a list of 28 harvesters. Discussions were
guided and focused on how each group accessed forest products, gender involvement in harvesting
and trading of NTFPs, estimates of income from product sales, any other sources of income, social,
ecological and economic strains faced by users, the state and conditions of the resource base, market
conditions, control measures to regulate use and potential for local participation in NTFPs
commercialisation and management.
A total of 12 key informants were interviewed following recommendations by Guest et al. (2006) that
12 participant are enough as key informants. Key informants included local authorities and forestry
officer who are the overall custodians of the forest resources. Since most of the information was
obtained from the villagers it was important to get the views and perceptions of the local leaders who
are the local resource managers as well as transport operators who are playing a significant role in
transporting the NTFPs from the source to the market.

4. Results
Important NTFPS harvested in ward 19 Muzarabani
The frequency of harvest of most of the forest products shows a heavy dependency of the local people
to the forests (Table 1). All participants were involved in the exploitation of NTFPs for social and
economic benefits. The social needs included medicines, firewood, grazing among a host of benefits.
The results show that although the people were getting economic gains from the forests, their social
needs were addressed first as the primary motive for exploitation was for domestic purposes.
Table 1: NTFPs that are mainly exploited in the three (3) villages
Forest product Village Top
ranking
products
Boore Mtunda Kamwara
Percentage of households (about 10
people per village at meetings)
Fruits 100 100 100 1
Wildlife 30 10 40 5
Leaves and herbs 30 20 100 4
Firewood 100 100 100 1
Building poles 100 100 100 1
Thatch grass 100 100 100 1
Mushrooms 10 30 40 5
Medicines 20 20 10 6
Edible worms 0 10 30 7
Grazing/pastures 80 90 90 2
Barks and gum/resins 90 60 70 3
Average percentage 69 64 78
Rank at village level 2 3 1
Economic importance of NTFPS
Although households utilised a wide range of forest products, most of them were for subsistence use.
Ranking of forest products according to economic importance showed that all genders agreed and
allocated higher priority to Masau in all the three villages. Only three NTFPs were commercialised
which are Hyphaene coriaceae (Ilala palm leaves) 20%, Ziziphus mauritiana (Masau) 56%, and
Adansonia digitata (baobab fruit) 24% (Figure 1). Although there were 10 people selected for each
village meeting, all the people around the villages were involved in the trade of these forest products
chiefly Masau. The three products were the local economic drivers, changing people’s standards of
living during peak harvesting periods.

5. Figure 1: NTFPs exploited for economic gains
Amongst the three villages NTFPs contributed more (46%) than all other sources of revenue to the
household income per annum (Figure 2). Other source of income was second (30%). This included
piece jobs, formal employment, vegetable vending and the sale of poultry products. Livestock sales
per annum (10%) have declined due to the diminishing stocks owing to over selling during the hard
times. 13% received money from relatives in town. In a rare case some people (3%) mentioned that
they were actually sending money from the sale of NTFPs to relatives in town to supplement their
financial needs. Interviews with Eco-cash agents revealed that business was low especially when
NTFPs are off-season. This compounded the importance of NTFPs to rural communities.
Figure 2: Contributions of different incomes to household income

6. Figure 3 shows that Boore village made greater use of NTFPs and their total income per annum
(USD10750) was greater than the other two villages, Mtunda (USD8770) and Kamwara (USD4120).
Remittances were however high in Mtunda village (USD3840) owing to the relatively high number of
relatives/family members who are in town as compared to the other villages.
Figure 3: Income per village household
Significantly different from others income from NTFPs was making the greatest contributions to the
income to the income of all the three villages (Figure 4). Other sources of income were lower with a
gross total of USD15540 per annum. Other sources category included peace jobs, vegetable vending
among other activities and then showed significant differences with the rest of the incomes.
Remittances contributed USD7080 whilst Livestock sales were at USD5100 and they showed no
significant differences.

7. Figure 4: Comparison of different sources of income in Ward 19
Social benefits conferred from the forests
There were several social benefits of NTFPs (Figure 5). The greatest use/benefit was on firewood
(86%) and very few people 14% did not use firewood though these claims were questionable. About
14% of the people used electricity, solar energy and gas. This was also a sign of superiority within the
community and was showcased by individuals with relatives in the diaspora. Grazing also formed an
important role (80%) in the community as villagers relied on the free range pastures for their
domesticated animals. A small percentage (30%) practiced hunting. There were no significant
differences between Aesthetics, medicines and religious benefits. There were also no significant
differences between identity, nutrition, grazing and fuel-wood. Hunting and traditional purposes were
not significantly different.

8. Figure 5: Percentage social benefit from NTFPs
Access to and control of NTFPS by community leaders and members
Accessibility to exploit NTFPs was open to all with no one controlling the exploitation of NTFPs in
the three villages (Table 2). The products were free for all and were even accessed by those from
outside the villages or outside the province.
Table 2: Access to and control of NTFPs by community leadership and members
Product Access Control
Ziziphus mauritiana fruit
(Masau)
All people were free to harvest
the products at their pace and
will
There were no distinct control
measures to this resource.
Sporadic raids by Forestry
commission on vendors and
collectors. A disused boom-gate
by CAMPFIRE at the entrance
to Muzarabani was also noted
and was used to collect some
revenue from NTFPs traders.
Hyphaene coriaceae leaves
(Ilala palm)
Access was open to all. No control measures were in
place to sanction the harvesting
and trade of Ilala.
Adansonia digitata fruit
(Mauyu)
Access was open to all. There was no control for the
product. The local leadership
regarded the product abundant
and did not bother putting any
control measures to it.

9. Discussion
Important NTFPS harvested in ward 19 Muzarabani
The results show that although the people were getting economic gains from the forests, their social
needs were addressed first as the primary motive for exploitation was for domestic purposes. A
variety of NTFPs are being exploited showing heavy reliance of the community on the forest
resources mainly for subsistence use.
Ranking of forest products according to economic importance showed that both males and females
allocated higher priority to Masau in all the three villages. Only three NTFPs were commercialised:
Hyphaene coriaceae (Ilala palm leaves), Ziziphus mauritiana (Masau) and Adansonia digitata
(baobab fruit) (Figure 1). Homma (1992) showed that commercial extraction of the most valuable
forest products follows a cyclical pattern, which is characterised by an initial stage of expansion,
sometimes followed by a stabilisation phase, ultimately leading to a bust. Relating this observation to
Ward 19, Adansonia digitata (Mauyu) was substituted by the cheap synthetic beverages resulting in a
burst in the demand (Figure 1). During the 2008 economic crisis climax in Zimbabwe, Mauyu were
the major economic driver in the ward as people across the country preferred this product for
substitute drinks, the “ice lolly”. However, the magnitude of reliance on NTFPs varies from
individual to individual but Ziziphus mauritiana fruit has the most widespread effect for subsistence
and economic needs (Figure 1).
Contributions of NTFPS to household income
Results show that, NTFPs had the greatest contribution (about 46%) to household incomes indicating
heavy reliance on NTFPs (Figure 2). Income from livestock was 6% less than that found by Babulo
(2009) whilst working in Ethiopia and 5% less than that found by Cavendish (2000) in Zimbabwe.
The lower values in Muzarabani can be attributed to the persistent economic hardships coupled with
harsh climatic conditions in Zimbabwe for the past 15 years.
Ziziphus mauritiana fruit, Adansonia digitata fruit as well as Hyphaene coriaceae leaves collection
forms the main annual income for some families, without which alternative incomes would have to be
sought (Figure 3). Results shows that Boore village made greater use of NTFPs and their total income
per annum was 45.4%, 28% and 8.4% greater than Mtunda and Kamwara respectively. Remittances
were however high in Mtunda village owing to the relatively high number of relatives/family
members who are in town as compared to the other villages. Mtunda village was also having a high
rate of income from other sources. This was attributed to moderately high political favours as it was
the Ward councillor’s home village and his father was the village head so most projects and jobs were
given to the village youths. Boore village made 3% and 29% higher income from livestock sales as
compared to Kamwara and Boore villages respectively.
With the current economic crunch in Zimbabwe, there is this heavy reliance on NTFPs as shown in
Figure 4 where NTFPs have major economic contributions amounting to USD23640 owing to

10. decreases in remittances from relatives in town apart from the liquidity crisis. The livestock sales have
also reduced significantly owing to the diminishing livestock sales as well as the lower prices
hindering sales. Livestock and remittances show no significant differences unlike NTFPs and Other
that shows significant differences from each other and the other sources of income.
Social benefits conferred from the forests
There were several social benefits of NTFPs (Figure 5). The highest benefit was on firewood (86%).
Very few people (14%) did not use firewood though these claims were controversial. Most people
who did not use firewood were using electricity and solar energy and gas. This was also a sign of
superiority within the community and was showcased by individuals with relatives in the diaspora. A
small percentage (30%) practiced hunting. There were no significant differences between Aesthetics,
medicines and religious benefits. There were also no significant differences on the preference of
identity, nutrition, grazing and fuel-wood. Hunting and traditional also showed no significant
differences from each other.
Furthermore, property rights are unclear and monitoring and sanctioning is not adequate to mitigate
external threats (Table 2). Direct linkage with the forest is insufficient to protect against outsiders at
present. However, there is difficulty designating any form of property considering the number of
stakeholders including outsiders who also use the Muzarabani resources interested in any proposal.
Conclusions/outlook
NTFPs have a key role in providing security to diversified livelihoods in Ward 19 of Muzarabani
district. NTFPs made great contributions to people’s incomes more than any sources of income in the
three villages. However the level of integration and relevance of NTFPs in villager's annual activities
is diverse; any forest management strategy should provide the flexibility to accommodate this
diversity. Owing to NTFPs important role this study confirms that local communities should not be
excluded from using the forest products on which they depend. However, although many limitations
to the use of NTFPs have been highlighted, there are indications that some NTFPs may be more
appropriate for economic gain than others.
Acknowledgements
This project received a grant from ANAFE programme on Strengthening Africa’s Strategic
Agricultural Capacity for Impact on Development (SASACID). We are also grateful to Mr Kadumba
who assisted in the fieldwork.
References
 Ahenkan A, Boon E. (2010). Commercialisation of non-timber forest products in Ghana:
processing, packaging and marketing. J Food Agricult Environ.

11.  Angelsen A, Wunder S (2003): Exploring the forest-poverty link: key concepts, issues and
research implications. Occasional Paper no. 40, Centre for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR), Jakarta, Indonesia.
 Babulo B, Muys B, Nega F, Tollens E, Nyssen J, Deckers J, Mathijs E (2009). The economic
contribution of forest resource use to rural livelihoods in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Forest
Policy and Economics 11:109-117.
 Belcher B, Kusters K (2004): Non-timber forest product commercialisation development and
conservation lessons. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jakarta, Indonesia.
 Braedt, O (2002) forest products and rural households: woodcraft commercialisation in
southern Zimbabwe. PhD thesis, university of Hamburg, Germany.
 Cavendish W (2000). Empirical Regularities in the Poverty-Environment Relationship of
Rural Households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development 28:1979-2003.
 CIFOR (2010).http://www.cifor.org/publications/corporate/factsheet/ntfp.htm. Accessed 10
October 2013. Change, Harare, Zimbabwe, pp35-73.
 FAO (1995). Non Wood Forest Products for Rural Income and Sustainable Forestry. NWFPs
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
 Guest G, Bunce A, and Johnson. L (2006). How many interviews are enough? : An
experiment with data saturation and variability. Sage
 Homma AKO (1992). The dynamics of extraction in Amazonia: a historical perspective. In:
Nepstad DC, Chwartzman S (eds) Non-timber products from tropical forests: evaluation of a
conservation and development. New York Botanical Garden, New York.
 Johnson and Christensen (2004) Educational Research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixes
approaches, 2nd
edition. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.
 Moyo M, Mvumi BM, Kunzekweguta M, Mazvimavi K, Craufurd P and Dorward P (2012)
“Farmer perceptions on Climate Change and Variability in semi-arid Zimbabwe in relation to
climatology evidence”, Vol. 20 Issue Supplement s2, pp.317-335.
 Murwira A, Masocha M, Gwitira I, Shekede M.D, Manatsa D, and Mugandani R.
 Neumann R P, Hirsch E (2000): Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: review and
analysis of research. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.