Rural Development Policies and Sustainable Land Use in the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

44 CHAPTER 4 strategy (clusters 1 and 5), and to a lesser degree coffee production (and as coffee laborers). Brief Description of Livelihood Strategies This section describes how each cluster employs its land and labor resources, which formed the basis for the cluster analysis. The livelihood of households in cluster 1 (16 percent of the sample) is based on extensive livestock farming, as indicated by the fact that this cluster has the largest share of pastures (65 percent of operated area on average) and the smallest share of basic grains in their use of land (13 percent; see Table 4.7). These farmers also spend the highest proportion of their total family labor on their own farms, with most of their time devoted to livestock. However, even these farmers put a high value on food security and devote an average of 4 ha to basic grains production. Cluster 2 (7 percent of the sample) consists of coffee producers who on average devote 40 percent of their farm area and 34 percent of their family labor to coffee. However, these farmers still rely on basic grains for their subsistence needs: they use about one third of their farm area and more than one quarter of their family time to grow basic grains. Cluster 3 (18 percent of the sample) represents subsistence farmers. Table 4.7 shows that these households devote most of their farmland and family labor to the cultivation of basic grains (mostly maize and beans). These households work relatively little outside their own farm. Households in cluster 4, representing nearly one quarter of the total sample, are similar to those in cluster 3 in the sense that they devote most of their farm area to basic grains. However, rather than working exclusively on their own farms (where the land is often not suitable for second season cultivation), they spend about equal proportions of their time working on their own farms and off-farm (mostly on other people’s farms). Households in cluster 5 account for nearly one third of the total sample and on average keep nearly two thirds of their farm under fallow and/or forest. Their livelihood is similar to that of households in cluster 4 but they hire more labor and devote more time to livestock activities. Cluster 6 is a small group (12 households, representing 3 percent of the total sample) of permanent crop producers, who devote most of their land and time to intensive tree crop production such as fruits, oil palm, some sugarcane, and so forth. Finally, cluster 7 consists of only eight households (2 percent of the total sample) most of which are vegetable growers or intensive livestock producers. These households work very little off-farm, probably because of the labor-intensive character of most vegetable crops. Below we describe the main characteristics of the various livelihood strategies in terms of assets and outcomes such as level and composition of household income. Shockingly, none of the livelihood strategies in the hillside areas are able to generate an average annual income above the extreme poverty line of US$365 per capita, let alone above the poverty line of US$550 per capita (Figure 4.1). 38 Differences in outcome variables can be regarded as the result of differences in asset endowments that, in turn, are causal factors for differences in livelihood strategies represented by the clusters. 38 Total household income is defined as the sum of the net value of crop and livestock production (revenues minus costs) and income from off-farm salaried work (either farm or nonfarm), own business, and transfers. Own production, whether consumed by the household or sold, is included in the calculation of household income.
ASSET DISTRIBUTION AND LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES IN THE HILLSIDES OF HONDURAS 45 Figure 4.1 Annual per capita income in U.S. dollars, by livelihood strategy Annual per capita income (US$) 300 250 212 1 = Large livestock producers 2 = Coffee producers 3 = Small basic grain farmers 4 = Very small basic grain farmers/farmworkers 5 = Mixed basic grains/ livestock/farmworkers 6 = Very small permanent crop producers 7 = Small vegetable producers 241 200 150 120 153 106 139 100 50 55 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Livelihood strategy Factors Associated with Household Livelihood Strategy Types In this section we provide a more comprehensive characterization of each cluster according to its main asset characteristics. The extensive character of livestock operations in cluster 1 is evidenced by relatively large farm holdings (32 ha on average), where on average the herd is worth nearly US$6,000. But even these households obtain about 30 percent of their total household income from working outside their own farm (Table 4.8). The livestock farms in this cluster are mostly located in lower altitude areas with relatively low population densities (Table 4.9). Education is above average. Access to markets and public services is below average for these households, but given their livelihood focus on livestock keeping, this does not seem to negatively affect income. On the other hand, despite being the second richest household group in the IFPRI sample, average daily per capita income is still only US$0.58. However, the average per capita income is somewhat misleading because the poverty rate in this livelihood group is lower than in all the other groups. Therefore, there are some households for which this appears to be a poverty-exit livelihood strategy. Most coffee farms in cluster 2 are relatively small (average farm size is 3.5 ha) and located at higher altitudes (above 1000 meters above sea level; see Table 4.9). Somewhat surprisingly, market access and education are below average for these households and they farm relatively poorer soils. These coffee producing households earned just over half the average per capita income of households in cluster 1 (Table 4.8). However, the survey was taken during the period when coffee prices collapsed (falling in 2000–02 to about half the price of previous years), so this may overstate chronic poverty among this group. Subsistence basic grains producing households in cluster 3 have just over 2 ha
Page 1 and 2:
Rural Development Policies and Sust
Page 3 and 4:
Contents List of Tables iv List of
Page 5 and 6: TABLES v 5.6 Determinants of extern
Page 7 and 8: Boxes 1.1 Defining “Hillsides,”
Page 9 and 10: Acknowledgments The authors acknowl
Page 11: SUMMARY xi the adoption of sustaina
Page 14 and 15: 2 CHAPTER 1 Box 1.1 Defining “Hil
Page 16 and 17: 4 CHAPTER 1 will allow Honduras to
Page 18 and 19: 6 CHAPTER 1 In addition to providin
Page 20 and 21: 8 CHAPTER 1 econometric analysis to
Page 22 and 23: 10 CHAPTER 2 1998 and the coffee cr
Page 24 and 25: 12 CHAPTER 2 Box 2.1 Land Issues in
Page 26 and 27: 14 CHAPTER 2 Table 2.3 Yield of pri
Page 28 and 29: 16 CHAPTER 2 Table 2.7 Intersectora
Page 30 and 31: 18 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.2 Terms of tr
Page 32 and 33: CHAPTER 3 Methods and Models In thi
Page 34 and 35: 22 CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.1 Sustainable
Page 36 and 37: 24 CHAPTER 3 financial organization
Page 38 and 39: 26 CHAPTER 3 decide the number of c
Page 40 and 41: 28 CHAPTER 3 The reduced form versi
Page 42 and 43: 30 CHAPTER 3 Table 3.1 Variables in
Page 44 and 45: 32 CHAPTER 3 of years of formal sch
Page 46 and 47: 34 CHAPTER 3 Key socioeconomic elem
Page 48 and 49: 36 CHAPTER 3 although we report the
Page 50 and 51: 38 CHAPTER 4 Table 4.1 Natural capi
Page 52 and 53: 40 CHAPTER 4 Box 4.1 Remittances Re
Page 54 and 55: 42 CHAPTER 4 Table 4.6 Access to pu
Page 58 and 59: Table 4.8 Mean household net income
Page 60 and 61: 48 CHAPTER 4 Table 4.9 Summary stat
Page 62 and 63: 50 CHAPTER 4 Box 4.2 Gender in the
Page 64 and 65: 52 CHAPTER 5 The socioeconomic expl
Page 66 and 67: 54 CHAPTER 5 explanatory variables
Page 68 and 69: 56 CHAPTER 5 technology training) a
Page 70 and 71: 58 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.3 Determinants
Page 74 and 75: 62 CHAPTER 5 the basic grains/lives
Page 76 and 77: 64 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.5—Continued
Page 78 and 79: 66 CHAPTER 5 ambiguous effects, dep
Page 82 and 83: 70 CHAPTER 5 more livestock focus m
Page 86 and 87: 74 CHAPTER 5 Geographic determinant
Page 92 and 93: 80 CHAPTER 5 when they purchase it
Page 94 and 95: 82 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.10 Summary of
Page 96 and 97: 84 CHAPTER 5 able to compensate for
Page 98 and 99: 86 CHAPTER 5 On the other hand, edu
Page 100 and 101: 88 CHAPTER 5 and wage labor. Nevert
Page 102 and 103: 90 CHAPTER 5 productivity. 62 Incre
Page 104 and 105: CHAPTER 6 Summary of Findings, Conc
Page 106 and 107:
94 CHAPTER 6 zero/minimum tillage,
Page 108 and 109:
96 CHAPTER 6 Develop and promote yi
Page 110 and 111:
98 REFERENCES Boucher, S., B. Barha
Page 112 and 113:
100 REFERENCES Hornby, A. S. 1974.
Page 114 and 115:
102 REFERENCES Pino, H. N., P. Jim
show all

Rural Development Policies and Sustainable Land Use in the ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?