Type of publication:
Peer-reviewed published grey literature
Mechanism by which biodiversity affects poverty:
Biodiversity component details:
Harvesting of timber and non timber products from the forest, additionally the forest is used for grazing by livestock.
Intervention employed other:
Community led sustainable forest management, in order to continue use of the forest and its resources, while at the same time conserving it in order to be able to continue using it in the future.
Measure of poverty impact used:
The potential income that could be generated from sustainable timber harvesting and charcoal production. Additionally qualitative descriptions of many other benefits are given.
Assessment of impact on poverty:
Evidence assesses the scale of impact:
Scale of impact details:
Under the government's 1993 plan for the forest, the Masan would have been entirely prohibited from grazing their livestock with the forest. The maintenance of grazing rights is therefore an important victory for the initiative. Combined with allowing areas of forest for small scale agricultural expansion, this has brought important nutritional and financial gains to the Suledo communities. Milk production has increased from 1 litre to 1.5 litres daily per cow, while farming communities have managed to increase crop production on average from 15 to 25 bags of maize per Ha. The forest offers a strong potential for beekeeping. The forest reserve is also an important venue for several traditional initiation ceremonies for the Masan and other local tribes. The increase local availability of timber for houses and community buildings has reduced household expenditure on commercially harvested timber. According to a study conducted in 2010 potential annual revenue from timber is US$213,00, US$23,700 per village. Charcoal could generate up to US$30,000 annually.
Sustainability of biodiversity use:
Yes specifics identified
Sustainability of biodiversity use details:
Mixed, as the project itself has been designed to be sustainable, however, illegal logging and agriculture has meant that the forest has been encroached into in a unsustainable manner.
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
Mechanism affects poverty precisely how:
The forest products collected can be used to meet immediate subsistence needs, for example construction material, medicinal plants for self use etc. Additionally the forest products can be used to gather products for commercial sale, for example timber and charcoal production and described in terms of their potential income generating abilities.
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?:
General biodiversity status described:
Species rich miombo woodland.
Does the evidence describe the biodiversity status of the site?:
Site biodiversity status described:
Extensive logging operations targeted and removed large timber trees and most of the valuable tree species in the forest were removed.
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?:
Each village has a environmental committee, two members of which sit on the overall committee which has been given the legal rights to manage and be responsible for the forest resources. They are responsible for ensuring that the off take is sustainable, and that people not abiding by the rules are punished appropriately.
What is the resource rights regime?:
Resource rights regime details:
A number of different zones have been mapped by the community, the rules stipulate whether the zones are prohibited from use, freely available for use, available for use with a free permit issued by the Village Environmental Committee or available for use with a permit and on payment of a fee.
What is the land tenure regime?:
Land tenure regime details:
Originally the project was state owned and managed by the community, now however the forest is owned and managed by the community as the state devolves further responsibility.
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:
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: