1 / 9

Forest dependency in lowland Bolivia

UNIVERSITY COPENHAGEN. Forest dependency in lowland Bolivia. Patricia Uberhuaga, Carsten Smith Olsen & Finn Helles Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen. Objectives.

howardwarner
Download Presentation

Forest dependency in lowland Bolivia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UNIVERSITY COPENHAGEN Forest dependency in lowland Bolivia Patricia Uberhuaga, Carsten Smith Olsen & Finn Helles Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen

  2. Objectives • To determine the importance of forest income at the rural household level in lowlands Bolivia. • To analyse and explain the variation of economic dependency of forest resources among households

  3. Context – study area • Tropical Forest (closed canopy, similar semi-valuable timber species) under 200 masl • Population: indigenous groups, & in-migrants from Bolivian highlands • Small & scattered villages. • Six villages (formal FMP, low coca production, willingness to participate, located relatively close to each other) • Households n=118 • Avg. HH size 5.5

  4. Total income sources

  5. Relative Forest Income • Forest income is important to all groups (20%) • For the top group (24%) timber is the main source as cash • For the poorest group (19%) game meat, medicinal plants, tree leaves, wild animals are important as subsistence income • Fuelwood comes in second (11%)

  6. Income sources and seasonality • Q3 and Q4 represent timber harvesting (rainy season) • Q1 & Q2 present some relationship between agriculture and forest • Q3 agric. & forest income

  7. Determinants of forest dependency RFI / R=0.24 '* significant at 1%, # non-expected sign

  8. Conclusions • The most well off HHs have the highest absolute forest income • Overall HHs derive 20% of their income from forest and 6% from non-forest environment. • The forest dependency is highest for the top income group (timber), but lowest income group is only 5% points less • The poorest group depends a lot on subsistence income (unprocessed forest products), and rely on fuelwood & game meat • Important determinants of low forest dependency are inter alia high education level and high self-sufficiency in food production

  9. Acknowledgements • Field assistance Gilda Jauregui, Xavier Velázquez, Freddy Zubieta (CERES) Freddy Cruz, Jankiel Sainz, Harry Soria, Sergio Miranda (CERES) • Regional partners • Funding sources • Advisors Carsten S. Olsen (LIFE) / Rosario Leon (Bolivia) • Villages and local organizations Cochabamba SANREM Project

More Related