Type of publication:
Peer-reviewed published grey literature
Mechanism by which biodiversity affects poverty:
Biodiversity component details:
Harvesting of timber and non timber forest products, additionally ecotourism.
Intervention employed other:
Sustainable forestry and harvesting of NTFPs.
Measure of poverty impact used:
Average income, number of days of paid work generated, minimum salary, empowerment.
Assessment of impact on poverty:
Evidence assesses the scale of impact:
Scale of impact details:
In total around 14,000 in total have benefitted in some way due to this organisation. The average local wage is now more than US$12 per day with the national average being US$4 per day, community based eco-tourism is now in place allowing further cash income to be generated. Additionally ACIFOP directly generates 40, 000 days of paid employment per year. Additionally ACOFOP has contributed to economic progress in other ways, for example the development of technical skills related to the administrative and marketing aspects of forest management. Social equality in terms of female participation in decision making.
Sustainability of biodiversity use:
Attribute of biodiversity affecting poverty:
Does the evidence relate to a specific intervention?:
How does the mechanism affect poverty?:
It supports immediate subsistence needs
It generates income/tradeable surplus
It contributes to long term resilience
Mechanism affects poverty precisely how:
The timber and NTFPs gathered are used to meet immediate subsistence needs or can be sold to generate a cash income. The ecotourism in the region helps generate a cash income. Additionally by obtaining the rights to gather resources from the forest the community have secured their homes and their livelihoods which has helped to empower them significantly.
Evidence provides measure of poverty impact:
Evidence is site-specific:
Unit of analysis and sample size:
Does the evidence mention the general biodiversity status of the country/region?:
Does the evidence describe the biodiversity status of the site?:
Site biodiversity status described:
The Maya Biosphere reserve is Central America's most biologically diverse ecosystem and contains the majority to the tropical rainforest still remaining in Guatemala. As a result of multiple pressures the tropical rainforest was being rapidly destroyed or degraded leading to the loss of large numbers of plant and animal species. This began to affect the stability of [the] forest ecosystem and the livelihoods of thousands of forest dwellers and millions of others who depend on the forests for a range of products and services,
Does the evidence mention the general poverty status of the country/region?:
Does the evidence discuss the governance regime at the site?:
Does the evidence describe the poverty/socioeconomic status of the site?:
Initially government controlled which enacted extremely rigid conservation policies which severally restricted what the communities could harvest. Through lobbying the government the ACOFOP was able to secure resource rights for the communities which now make the decisions with regard to how they sustainably manage the forest resources.
What is the resource rights regime?:
Resource rights regime details:
What is the land tenure regime?:
Land tenure regime details:
State owned but managed by the community .
Does the evidence mention the power relations?:
Does the evidence consider possible trade-offs/costs as well as benefits?:
Measure of poverty impact tag:
Distribution impacts considered:
Duration of impact considered:
Duration of impact details:
Long term sustainability is planned.
Outcome replicable elsewhere considered:
Outcome replicable elsewhere details:
In the current area further replication is no longer possible as there is no more consessioned forest to manage. However the model is being replicated in Honduras, Nicaragua, Brazil and Bolivia.
Thresholds/boundary limits/tipping points of achieving the outcome considered:
How costs and benefits/impacts might vary across different spatial scales considered:
Presence of possible confounding factors acknowledged: