What isn't an NTFP?

. At every meeting where NTFPs arediscussed there will be some discussion about theterminology and about what should be included and whatshould not be included in the definition. There are manyalternate terms that are used more or less as synonyms,each with its proponents. Terms such as ‘wild products’,‘natural products’, ‘non-timber forest and grasslandproducts’, ‘veld products’ and ‘sustainably produced woodproducts’ (ostensibly distinct from industrial timber) andmany others have entered the vernacular.While in some ways this interminable debate can appeartrivial, the fact is that it reflects ambiguity and confusionthat inhibits understanding and progress in research anddevelopment. There are major differences in theunderstanding of what an NTFP is and, more importantly,in the expectations of how and why NTFPs are important.Different individuals/organisations use the same term, buthave modified the definition in different ways to suit theirneeds. The term and the underlying concepts have differentmeanings to different people, so both agreements anddisagreements can be false. On the positive side, thisambiguity has made it possible to bring together ideasabout rural development and conservation that mightotherwise have seemed incompatible. However, similaritiesin the terms often disguise real differences in understandingand in assumptions, values and beliefs. There is a risk thatthe ‘NTFP concept’ will be seen to have failed if it doesnot meet the unattainable expectations that have been raisedbecause of improper or inconsistent interpretation.In this paper I analyse the elements of the terminologyby looking at the underlying assumptions and beliefs of