Type of study:
Non-experimental research
Type of publication:
Peer-review published journal paper
Mechanism by which biodiversity affects poverty:
Biodiversity component details:
Mechanism details:
People harvest the fruits from Safou.
Intervention employed other:
ICRAF and IRAD working with local extension officers and NGO staff to cultivate production of safou.
Measure of poverty impact used:
The importance of Safou as an income source is ranked against other income sources for women over the calendar year
Assessment of impact on poverty:
Evidence assesses the scale of impact:
Sustainability of biodiversity use:
Sustainability of biodiversity use details:
Safou trees planted by the people who harvest the fruit - therefore sustainable in itself. Nothing to suggest that level of use is a threat to other biodiversity.
Attribute of biodiversity affecting poverty:
Abundance/Extent
Composition/Uniqueness
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 acts as a safety net
Mechanism affects poverty precisely how:
Supports immediate subsistence - it traditionally has been seen as an important source of food, and used for immediate subsistence. Income - now being sold more as market value of safou fruit is increasing. It acts as a safety net - it matures at a time of year when agricultural production is low and also coincides with the time of year that school fees need to be paid.
Evidence provides measure of poverty impact:
Location of primary author:
Evidence is site-specific:
Research method details:
PRA tools used - maps, timelines, matrices, calendars, semi-structured interviews, well-being ranking carried out,. in addition basic household data collected - family size, land holding, tenure, age, education level of household head, main sources of income.
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?:
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?:
Governance regime:
States that "Formal systems of land and tree tenure are state-dominated and do not encourage tree-planting by resource-poor farmers...planting can only be undertaken on land to which the owner has a title deed...[trees] exploitation is still subject to authorisations and restriction by the state....In practice we found that few farmers knew what the national legislation says about tree or land tenure and it cannot be said to be either a help or a hindrance as regards their tree-management decisions."
What is the resource rights regime?:
Resource rights regime details:
States that "Formal systems of land and tree tenure are state-dominated and do not encourage tree-planting by resource-poor farmers...planting can only be undertaken on land to which the owner has a title deed...[trees] exploitation is still subject to authorisations and restriction by the state....In practice we found that few farmers knew what the national legislation says about tree or land tenure and it cannot be said to be either a help or a hindrance as regards their tree-management decisions." In addition the authors state " ..all the households interviewed had at least some land for which they had secure tenure"
What is the land tenure regime?:
Land tenure regime details:
" ..all the households interviewed had at least some land for which they had secure tenure"
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:
Yes Detail on Specifics Provided
Duration of impact considered:
Distribution impacts details:
Article examines which households grow safou on their land and examine the impact of factors such as education level, gender, and wealth.
Outcome replicable elsewhere considered:
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:
Yes acknowledged and taken into account in study design
Confounding factors details:
"Our quantities data showed no strong trends in tree-planting related to well-being class. Nor did we find tenure to be an insurmountable constraint for poor people: all households had at least some land with secure tenure status. Households with small farms appear to make up for lack of space by increasing the density of their safou trees."
The Poverty and Conservation Learning Group is a project coordinated by IIED.
Facebook
Twitter
Newsletters
RSS Feed