Non-timber forest product types and its income contribution to rural households in the Horn of Africa: a systematic review

Abstract Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are those that come from forests other than those that provide timber. In order to identify the NTFPs’ financial contribution and usage categories based on regional and temporal patterns in the Horn of Africa countries, we performed a systematic review of 60 papers published between 2010 and 2022. The review used the search terms Non-Timber Forest Product* OR Non- Wood Forest Product*(NWFPs) OR Minor Forest Product in combination with Livelihoods and also Horn of Africa countries to thoroughly search the articles on the Google Scholar, Research4life, Scopus, Science direct, ResearchGate portals, EMBASE, and PubMed databases. The records contained information about the paper’s title, abstract, keywords, authors, country, NTFP income amount, NTFP usage type, and publication year. The recorded data were analyzed using R Studio, IBM SPSS Statistics 26, and Excel 2019. The majority of the research article for this review was done in Ethiopia (45%), Sudan (22%) and Kenya (17%), respectively. According to the review’s findings, NTFPs have a significant impact on rural household income in six nations, the average NTFP overall revenue was 24.41%. There were more than 35 NTFP uses and the source of product in the Horn of African Countries however, Gum Arabic, Food, Firewood, Medicinal plant, and honey were the five NTFP usage types that were used by people and found in almost in all countries of the Horn of Africa. The fact that different countries utilize different types of NTFPs, the most commonly used types of NTFPs have statistically significances differ (p < 0.05). According to the systematic review, the Horn of Africa is rich in NTFPs, which enhance rural income.


Introduction
There are a number of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) that come from forests other than those that provide timber (Ahenkan and Boon 2010;Shrestha et al. 2020)."NTFPs" broadly refer to all non-timber biological resource-derived goods (animal, plant, or fungus) that rural people collect from forested lands (Mbuvi and Boon 2009) and that are primarily intended for domestic use or small-scale trade with no, or limited, capital (Shackleton et al. 2007).In rural areas, NTFPs bring economic, social, and environmental benefits (Shrestha et al. 2020).NTFPs include a variety of wild and partially domesticated biological resources that are obtained by local households and communities from areas surrounding farms, fields, grazing grounds, and generally unaltered vegetation, such as grasslands, woodlands, and forests (Shackleton et al. 2011).Scholars have studied the functions of NTFPs in terms of both conservation and income generation for native populations or groups living near forests (Pasaribu et al. 2021).The cash revenue farmers receive from NTFPs is used for health expenses, to buy food and other necessities, to save money, and to purchase farm supplies (Heubach et al. 2011;Adam et al. 2013); (Schaafsma et al. 2014).In many nations, rural populations use NTFP revenue as additional capital to sustain their financial security during difficult times (Shackleton and Pandey 2014;Zivojinovi c et al. 2017;Harbi et al. 2018;Kurniasih et al. 2021).
Additionally, NTFPs are even gathered in cities (Davenport et al. 2012).Other than the opportunity cost of labor, wild foods are almost free.If a forest inhabitant had to choose between foraging for food in the forest and traveling to town to buy commercially produced substitutes, it makes sense to select the former (Hadish 2018).The use of medicinal plants is free self-medication, while the use of rattan, bamboo, wood, vines, and grasses are free building materials to produce baskets, mats, fences, roofs, walls, and agricultural equipment, as well as the use of wood as a cheap or free energy source (Hadish 2018).The benefits of forests in developed and developing countries are derived in large part from the production of non-timber forest products (David et al. 2019).NTFPs (under various names) have been the object of many scientific articles, and have quite an important place in scientific literature on forests and livelihoods.NTFPs, which support the livelihoods of communities living near forests, until the NTFPs have received minimal attention from different stakeholders despite the fact that they play an important role in supporting livelihoods, creating employment opportunities, and creating greater opportunities for NTFP companies (Shackleton et al. 2011;David et al. 2019).NTFPs offer local people, regional economies, and national economies a variety of livelihood advantages (Shackleton and Pandey 2014).For energy, many people living in rural and urban areas near forest areas rely on fuelwood, charcoal, and other NTFP products derived from forest products, especially in developing nations (Hadish 2018;David et al. 2019).NTFPs include fibers from plants like bamboo, rattan, and other palms that are utilized for weaving and other structural purposes as well as roots, fruits, medicinal herbs, resins, and essential oils (Belcher 2005).
Through five pathways, NTFPs improve human wellbeing in a variety of ways.The first is in direct home consumption, where NTFPs supply many of the world's poorest people and a sizeable fraction of the less impoverished with the things they need for food, shelter, medications, textiles, energy, and cultural artifacts (Oksanen et al. 2003;Saha and Sundriyal 2012).The percentage of total household income that these daily net resources provide to livelihoods typically ranges from10% to 60% (Babulo et al. 2009;Asfaw et al. 2013).Secondly, many households rely on NTFPs as a source of income, either as a primary source of income or as a complement to other sources of support (Mahapatra et al. 2005;Shackleton et al. 2008;Babulo et al. 2009;Mahapatra and Shackleton 2011).Depending on the level of involvement and specialization, the amount of value addition, and the seasonality of the resource, the percentage of NTFP trading to total household cash income can range from less than 5% to over 90% (Bista and Webb 2006;Shackleton et al. 2008;Morsello et al. 2012).Thirdly, NTFPs offer a safety net, or insurance, for usage in unfortunate circumstances like the passing of a household breadwinner, the loss of crops or livestock due to a drought, disease, or flooding, unforeseen financial obligations, retrenchment, and similar events (Shackleton and Shackleton 2004;McSweeney 2005).Fourthly, several NTFPs have extensive and significant roles in local religions and cultures (Shackleton et al. 2011;Shackleton and Pandey 2014).Last but not least, the use of NTFPs by local households results in financial savings for both those households and the State (Shackleton et al. 2007).
In order to minimize the severity of poverty experienced or to prevent falling into poverty, the use of forest resources to satisfy household subsistence needs, to act as a safety net in times of necessity, or to cover "gaps" during seasons of low income (Timko et al. 2010) It has always been known that traditional medicines are available locally, at a low cost, or sometimes for free (David et al. 2019).Most people in Sub-Saharan Africa rely on forest products for subsistence, for monetary gain, or for both (Timko et al. 2010).Forest adjacent communities benefit from NTFPs, the perceived value of forest resources could be increased by increasing harvests of NTFPs, thus providing incentives to conserve forested land, and NTFP exploitation provided a more sustainable basis for forest management (Shackleton et al. 2011;David et al. 2019).By selling NTFPs, farmers are able to meet their basic needs and those of their families (purchase of medicines, kerosene, soap and clothes; construction of houses; payment of dowry and school fees) (Hadish 2018;David et al. 2019).Additionally, NTFP sales revenue might assist rural communities finance water and electrical initiatives (Shackleton et al. 2011).With a focus on the particular standards used in these evaluations, the current study was developed to address the demand for a more in-depth investigation of the articles in NTFP in rural household livelihood contributions and usage kinds.To be more precise, by taking into account the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Liberati et al. 2009), by examining the research articles in the NTFPs in rural household livelihood contribution and there kinds, in order to achieve the review purpose the insight on the review criteria that were applied following the PRISMA checklist were important.We contend that a careful analysis of NTFP usage and financial impact of NTFP publications in comparing to the PRISMA checklist would help to improve understanding of the execution, quality, and rigor of the review.Overall, the current study seeks to make recommendations based on the review result that may enhance the validity and reliability of future reviews in NTFP type and the livelihood contributions by using a systematic evaluation of published studies in the field.As a result, the purpose of the current study was to determine the total income contribution of NTFPs to rural household communities in the Horn of Africa, as well as to list the types of NTFPs that exist in the Horn of Africa, and last but not least to identify the most common NTFPs across the region.

Search and information sources
The PRISMA method was used to find and code the literature (Moher et al. 2015).To thoroughly search the papers on the Google Scholar, Research4life, Scopus, Science direct, ResearchGate portals, EMBASE, and PubMed databases, the review used the search terms Non-Timber Forest Product Ã (NTFPs) OR Non-Wood Forest Product Ã (NWFPs) OR Minor Forest Product in combination with Livelihoods and also Horn of Africa countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya, Djibouti, Somalia, and Eritrea separately (using the Boolean operator AND, OR NOT etc.).The included articles were all written in English.For analytical data, the publishing years were limited to 2010 to 2022, because the authors believed that the paper published before 2010 not more representative the current NTFPs benefits and even in kind.The world is dynamic, change many things with time due to different factors like anthropologic factors.And the paper published in 2023 also not included because this review starts at the end of 2022 and at the starting of 2023 years.The article before 2010s was considered so old (not represent the current reality like the recent ones), we live in a dynamic world, and everything is being changed as time goes by.Therefore, the article before 2010 yours are no longer considered representative since it have been more than ten years.This review only considered papers for analysis that were released between this years in order to give the most recent and essential information.In order to maximize the trustworthiness of this systematic review, only published articles were included.

Data collection process and article screening
The paper's title, abstract, keywords, authors, nation, amount of NTFP income, NTFP usage category, and publication year were all included in the records.The second step's screening of articles and the context of the keywords used in each article's abstract in addition to the title were examined.Articles could be divided into two groups using this process: those that primarily pertain to the type of NTFPs and how they contribute to livelihood, and those that do not (for example, if the research area is not NTFPs and Livelihoods or if the subject of the study is not associated with income contributions and NTFPs use type).The remaining articles' eligibility was then independently evaluated by carefully reviewing the entire texts of the selected papers.Books, sessions, reports, theses, and online publications were ignored because authors believed they had not adequately portrayed the specific contributions of NTFPs income contributions and use types in each country (Horn of Africa).The reviewer was able to decrease the number of included publications by excluding papers that (i) did not give evidence on the income contribution of NTFPs, (ii) did not include articles that did not clearly explain the NTFPs use kinds, and (iii) were published before 2010 (eligibility criteria or inclusion and exclusion criteria).Understanding relationships between rural people and forest products is one of the challenges in balancing the usage of forest products with forest protection (Hlaing et al. 2017).Reading the titles, abstracts, conclusions, and findings of articles primarily served as the basis for selecting articles.From the total article (212) searched in different database, the authors selected only 60 articles that cover NTFPs with income contributions and usage types as the primary concerns for this systematic review due to its fulfillment of the eligibility criteria.Each of the papers was carefully studied and coded afterwards.Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) and revenue contributions for livelihoods are labeled as ID, Authors, Year, Study area/Country, Year of publication (Figure 1), allover NTFP income contributions for livelihoods (Figure 2), and NTFP use kinds (Table 1).

Data analysis
This study classified the chosen articles according to a number of characteristics in order to address research question 1 (How much of the overall income from the livelihoods did the NTFPs contribute?).First, an analysis of publications connected to related studies was done on a yearly and regional level.The income contributions from NTFPs were then examined.In addition to the first research question, we analyzed the second research question, which was what types of NTFPs are utilized in the Horn of Africa.Finally, we reviewed what types of NTFPs are most common in the Horn of Africa.Although some NTFP types are prevalent in nearly all of the chosen countries, others were prevalent in one region but not in another.
Different software is used by the authors to analyze data, since each software has its own advantages, such as Excel, which is very easy to store and code data recorded, and R, which is very sophisticated to make graphs.So, Excel was used to store and code all of the captured data and variables.After coding in IBM SPSS Statistics 26, frequency analysis and cross-tabulation were used to assess the distribution depending on the published year, research region, and country, as well as the NTFPs use type.Also, the income contributions of NTFPs (Figure 3) and the full variable matrix in graphs were created using R Studio.Besides compiling and storing the data, Excel 2019 was also used to create the graph.Afterwards, we examined the results and discussed them.Lastly, the conclusion and suggestion were written.

Results
In the literature search against databases and search engines, there were 212 records; however, 84 were eliminated as they did not meet the eligibility criteria, despite mentioning NTFPs, livelihood, and income in their titles, abstracts, and/or keywords.There were some articles that didn't incorporate NTFPs and livelihoods, but they met the criteria with other titles like Gum Arabis and their contributions to rural livelihoods.The full texts of the remaining 128 reviews were carefully screened, and 68 reviews were excluded due to ineligibility.As a result, only 60 papers remained and were analyzed in this systematic review.According to results, conducting research on NTFPs income contributions and NTFP types has a little changed over time.Nine research articles in total have been published since 2014 that meet the requirements, however only one has been since 2010 (Figure 4).Between 2017 and 2020, six research articles were published each year, a constant number.In terms of geography, research on NTFPs livelihood contributions and use type was conducted in a variety of countries along the Horn of Africa.This decrease may be caused by COVID-19 since research articles have decreased after 2019.In terms of the spatial scales included in the publications under study, some of the research involved an examination at the local scale (community, village, or district level), while other papers considered the state and national levels.The majority of the research for this review was done in Ethiopia (45%), Sudan (22%) and Kenya (17%), respectively (Figure 5).The remaining 16% of the research articles were covered by Eritrea, Somalia, and Djibouti.The whole matrix of correlations between the variables demonstrates a linear link between income and their percentages of the incomes from each article, i.e. the higher the income, the higher the percentages; however, there is no linear association between other variables (Figure 2).According to the review results, Somalia, Eritrea, and Djibouti (15% of retained articles) have very few publications, while Ethiopia, Sudan, and Kenya (85% of retained articles) have many.Of the six nations, Ethiopia published the first and most research regarding the use and income contributions of NTFPs (28 papers).By conducting the articles, Sudan (13 articles) and Kenya (10 articles) came in second and third, respectively (Figure 2).
NTFPs contribute significantly to the local populations' means of subsistence financially.The review's conclusions show that NTFPs have a considerable impact on rural household income in six countries (All studies estimate that NTFPs have a greater impact on rural households income than on national income), with minimal contributions of 9.33% rural household income in Djibouti and maximum contributions of 27.71% in Sudan, followed by Kenya (26.8%) and Ethiopia (25.67%) (Figure 3 and Table 1).The average proportion of NTFP revenue across the 6 countries that were examined was 24.41%, indicating that NTPFs account for 24.41% of the total livelihood income in those nations.The number of NTFPs use type among countries were differs in there number.In Kenya there was the higher numbers of NTFPs use types and also percentage NTFP use 35(60.3%)followed by Ethiopia 13 (22.4%).In Eritrea 2(3.5%) and Somalia 2(3.5%) (Figure 6) the number of NTFPs were lower only two types namely Gum Arabic and Beles in Eritrea and Gum Arabic and Charcoal in Somalia (Table 1).Even though some NTFP types and their use have not been the subject of research in those nations, this does not imply that these kinds and applications are absent from those nations.
Use and product types for NTFPs are displayed in (Figure 7).The main use and product types of NTFPs are listed: Medicinal plant, Food, Foder, Firewood, Honey, Wood-utensils, Spices, Smoke wood, Gum Arabic, Fencing, Sweeping, Wild coffee, Liana, Fiber, Mushroom, Charcoal, Thatch grass, Making beehive,   indicating that NTFP use in the Horn of Africa varied between nations.The absence of a specific NTFP use from the list in the article does not imply that the use is not occurring, but rather that it was seldom recorded because it wasn't typically researched in the study locations.The fact that when one type of NTFPs is not cited in one article, this does not mean this type is not present.Many studies concentrate on certain NTFP types and do not research all NTFP species nor all the uses.For such an analysis to have any NTFP value, all the articles were have asked the same questions, and use the same protocol.While there were a wide variety of NTFP usage types, some were commonly used across the countries.Namely, Gum Arabic, Food, Firewood, Medicinal plant, and honey were the five NTFP usage types that were used by people and found in at least in the two countries (Figure 7).Gum Arabic (Gums and resins, Boswellia papyrifera, myrrh) followed by Food (Wild fruits, Wild vegetables, Wild meat) and Medicinal plants was found in all countries.
There are numerous uses for NTFPs, including those for Gum Arabic, firewood, Food, Honey, traditional sticks, weaving materials, medicinal plants, religious purposes, and wood utensils and so on.However, Gum Arabic, Food, Firewood, Medicinal plant, and Honey are some of the NTFPs that were relatively common to use by the people of the Horn of Africa.The reviewer looked at the differences between the five most common NTFP usage types (Table 2).The fact that different countries utilize different types of NTFPs, the most commonly used types of NTFPs have statistically significances differ (p < 0.05) (Table 2).So, despite the fact that the five NTFP types were more prevalent than the other types in the six countries, they were not exactly alike.In terms of usage, Gum Arabic were the most common form of NTFP, followed by Food, and Medicinal plants.

Discussion
Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are essential for rural poor people's livelihoods because they provide their needs for food, fiber, fodder, medicine, building supplies, and income (Masoodi and Sundriyal 2020).In many rural communities in Sub-Saharan Africa, NWFPs play a crucial role in sustaining the local economy (Masoodi and Sundriyal 2020).Since they offer chances for income production to millions of people worldwide, NTFPs have long been recognized as being   important for rural livelihoods and forest conservation (Steele et al. 2015).There are a number of NTFPs available to rural people, such as food, medicine, construction materials, and income (Shrestha et al. 2020).The collection of NTFPs is a way to earn money for people whose livelihoods have been affected by food shortages.As one of the main strategies to assess the status of knowledge, systematic reviews have emerged as one of the most popular types of analysis conducted by scholars (Pahlevan-Sharif et al. 2019).Over the last decade, NTFPs have contributed a significant number of incomes.According to this study, the Horn of Africa countries receive 24.41% of annual income on average.In developing countries, forest-based biological resources, most of them non-timber forest products, contribute up to 20-25 percent of the rural income (Vedeld et al. 2007).Sudden changes in the social, economic, or physical settings in which households exist and operate are one way that NTFPs play a role in helping households manage in difficult times (Shackleton and Shackleton 2004).For the poor rural people, the usage of medicinal and aromatic plants as supplemental food and ethno-medicine, as well as the potential financial income, is a crucial source of livelihoods and resilience (Shrestha et al. 2020).NTFPs serve three main purposes in the household economy of rural communities that live in or close to forests.NTFPs first help households meet their subsistence and consumption needs for things like energy, food, medication, and building (Shrestha et al. 2020).Second, they are viewed as a safety net during   The country refers to the number of articles studied in that region and the most common NWFPs across those countries.Ã is the p-value less that 0.05 and ÃÃ is the p-value less than 0.01, but both are significance difference.
recessions (e.g.income losses from certain sources of production, such as crop failure) (Derebe et al. 2023), and third, some NWFPs have daily cash flow (Mohamed and Tesfaye 2020).There has been increasing recognition that non-timber forest products (NTFPs) can enhance the resilience and livelihoods of rural communities in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere in developed and developing nations (Mukul et al. 2010;Kar and Jacobson 2012).NWFPs have received substantial support from conservation and development organizations as potential alternatives to traditional livelihoods, especially among communities who are susceptible to forest dependency (Mbuvi and Boon 2009;Delgado et al. 2023;Dou et al. 2023).
The number of studies regarding NTFP revenue contributions and use has changed over time, according to a systematic review.Over the past 20 years, the number of research articles produced each year has been increased (Shackleton et al. 2015).NTFPs are used in many ways in Horn of Africa countries, and this systematic review incorporates more than 35 NTFP uses.Gum Arabic (Gums and resins, myrrh), Medicinal plant, Food (Wild fruits, Wild vegetables, Wild meat), Fodder, Firewood (fuel wood), Honey, Wood-utensils, Spices, Smoke wood, Fencing, Sweep, Wild coffee, Liana are some of them.Fruits contain a large number of critical minerals and nearly all known vitamins, which are particularly necessary for developing youngsters who are more susceptible to malnutrition and related disorders (Jama et al. 2008).Forest products provide a wide range of livelihoods for millions of rural and urban dwellers around the world, ranging from direct household provisioning to cash income derived from the sale of no timber forest products, cultural and spiritual needs, food, medicines, construction materials, and a means of income diversification in times of emergency (Hadish 2018;Delgado et al. 2023;Dou et al. 2023).Frewood, crafts, wild fish, toothbrushes, traditional sticks, weaving material, medicinal plants, religious value, mushroom, bamboo, rettan, liana, sweep, wild meat, wild vegetables, wild fruit, wild honey, grazing, grass, wood utensils, and spice are the most NTFP types that used by people in African and Asian countries (Derebe et al. 2023).Medicinal and aromatic plants, leaves, fruits, seeds, resins, gums, bamboos, and canes are some of the NTFPs.Some of the NTFPs are medicinal and aromatic plants, leaves, fruits, seeds, resins, gums, bamboos, and canes (Rasul et al. 2008).Furthermore, NTFPs are also a major source of supplementary food, medicines, fibers, and construction materials (Shackleton and Shackleton 2004;Vedeld et al. 2007;Uprety et al. 2016).Gum Arabic, Food, Firewood, Medicinal Plants, and Honey have gotten the most attention out of all the categories of NTFPs, despite the contributions of the other categories of NTFPs that have been highlighted (Uprety et al. 2016;Hido and Alemayehu 2022;Delgado et al. 2023).Even though NTFPs give a lot benefits especially the rural people the sustainable utilization of those resource is mandatory.The potential of a specific wild bio-resource to continue supplying both market and subsistence needs greatly depends on sustainable harvesting and effective management techniques (Negi et al. 2011).Since these valuable wild edibles can improve human health when used as food, medicine, and a source of additional income through value addition, it is imperative that better resource management be implemented through participatory sustainable conservation (Negi et al. 2011).These NTFP-bearing organisms could be employed for restoration and afforestation purposes, particularly on degraded lands, in order to conserve and stop the degradation of land resources (Negi et al. 2011;Derebe et al. 2023)

Conclusion and recommendations
Scholars and practitioners can apply existing knowledge (e.g.policies) and research through systematic reviews, as we have discussed.The protocols that make up systematic reviews make sure that the review process is thorough so that it may produce discussions and conclusions that are feasible (both objective and trustworthy) and could lead to further action.According to the systematic review, the Horn of Africa is rich in NTFPs, which enhance rural income.The three countries are abundant in NTFPs, according to the findings of this analysis (Kenya, Sudan and Ethiopia).While it's true that other nations may also be rich in NTFPs, their research capabilities on the topic are much lower.NTFP can play an important role in helping rural people sustain their livelihoods.For food security, poverty reduction, and improved livelihoods, particularly in rural regions, it is crucial to promote NTFPs, enhance harvesting policies, and improve processing methods.For the sake of conservation and local livelihoods, NTFP collectors need to be educated/trained on forest ecology and the negative effects of unsustainable collection.Local residents should be trained in sustainable harvesting methods as part of capacity-building initiatives.The results of the current study demonstrate the shortcomings of a single article written by academics in the field of NTFPs by conducting a systematic review of article studies in NTFPs and livelihood contribution.It was particularly clear that the majority of NTFP scholars had considered many of the things that were included in their studies, such as the type of NTFP use and the overall income contributions to their livelihoods.However, some were not incorporate the main things in their studies.Hence, the main output of this manuscript is the identification of a long list of uses, which could serve as a basis for further detailed studies on NTFPs and their contribution to rural livelihoods in the Horn of Africa.We also argue that training is necessary for researchers to comprehend the expansion of methodologies supporting the study of NTFPs because the number of publications is generally expanding within the subject of NTFPs.For doctorate students who frequently conduct systematic literature reviews as part of their study, this is especially crucial.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Flow chart of study selection process.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Number of articles published by year.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Entire matrix of correlations among variables (NB: Year of publication, country in which study was done, income of NTFP in each article and the percentage of each income).

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Conducted research among different country.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5.The contribution of NTFPs for overall annual income of rural household among Horn of African nations.

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.Number of NTFPs use type among countries.NB: The fact that when the type of NTFPs is not cited in one article, this does not mean this type is not present in the country, but it may lack of research study.Many studies concentrate on certain NTFP types and do not research all NTFP species nor all the uses.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. NTFPs use types.NB: NTFP types are shown in the above graph, from a total of 60 articles.For instance, 31 out of 60 articles contained Honey as an NTFP.

Table 1 .
Rafters, Ceremonial, Strings, Making traps, Banana ripening, Spears/arrows, Smoke calabashes, Water storage, Dye making, tourism and research, Graze livestock, Traditional sticks, Weaving material, Religious value, Bamboo, Rettan, Crafts, Toothbrushes, Beles, baobab fruit.The study reveals that there are different uses of NTFPs.Different communities use various nonwooden forest products, particularly those that reside close to forests.Studies from several countries were used in this review to demonstrate the existence of a wide range of NTFPs, although not all NTFP use types were discovered in any one publication or region, Recorded variables/items.Income (%), means the overall income of rural households that getting from the NTFPs and Measurement of the income is the country's currency, for example in Ethiopia in Birr; in Sudanese Pound and the like.But the main thing is the percentage of NTFPs among other source of livelihood, like farm income, livestock raring income, etc.