Rural income and forest dependence –some evidence from Guatemala Pablo Prado CIFOR, 25th March 2009
Context Montane conifer forests of Central America 2567-3600 m a.s.l. Rain 825±125-1141±260 Area approx. 1,000 sqkm 12 villages, 996 hh, sample 271193147 7122 inhabitants, 5 persons/hh
Household income sources Total Cash Sh_cash Subsistence Sh_sub Direct forest 2831.04 381.6899 13 2406.119 85 Forest derived 864.8022 543.8218 63 365.1393 42 Fish Non-forest environmental 682.0084 666.3698 98 15.6386 2 Aquaculture Crop 5282.263 3439.225 65 1368.288 26 Livestock -28.29079 1.606817 -6 110 Payment for forest services 0.1558374 Other 924.4131 Wage 2162.468 Business 126.1637
Trends by quarter
Seasonality
Key forest and environmental products Total income Ti_share Cash income Ci_share Subsistence income Si_share Direct forest income Firewood 204749 65.05 24604.5 12.02 180144.5 87.98 Forest litter 87258 27.72 2675.857 3.07 84582.14 96.93 Forest derived income Sawnwood 136998 89.26 62958.86 45.96 74039.14 54.04 Non-forest environmental income Fodder grass 49498 97.25 47945.5 96.86 1552.5 3.14 Other types of income Payment for forest services 2617 100
Income composition and poverty
Other patterns Although very few hhs (8.96%) reported to have used forest productos to weather misfortune, they either did nothing (25.93%), spent cash savings (16.67%), received assitance from friends and relatives (16.67%), harvested more forest products (11.11%), harvested more agricultural products (11.11%) or harvested more wild products from the forest (1.85%).
Other patterns cont´d No evidence of forest products as stepping stones out of poverty, and very weak correlations between closeness to markets and forest income (DFI and DtM, 0.195; and FDI and DtM, -0.080). Subsistence peasant economies with irregular market articulations by means of agricultural products.
Policies and overall findings Regular subsistence users Interdependence between forest conservation and both subsistence and small scale commercial agriculture Firewood and leaf litter are the centrepiece for the local subsistence strategies Income assymetrically ditributed