Contribution of Small-Scale Gum and Resin Commercialization to Local Livelihood and Rural Economic Development in the Drylands of Eastern Africa

Abstract

This paper examines the extent to which the economic gains derived from gum and resin commercialization impact rural livelihood improvement under different resource management regimes in the drylands of Ethiopia and Sudan. Primary data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 240 randomly selected small-scale producers in four regions with gradients of resource management regimes. The survey was supplemented by secondary data, group discussions and key informant interviews. In the four regions, gum and resin income contributes to 14%-23% of the small-scale producers' household income. Absolute income was positively correlated with resource management regime and commercialization level. It was higher from cultivated resources on private lands, followed by regulated access to wild resources. In open-access resources, the producers' income was the lowest, although accessed by the poor and women. However, dependence on gum and resin was higher in open-access resource areas. Households' socioeconomic characteristics, resource access, production and marketing variables determining income from gum and resin were identified and their variation across the cases OPEN ACCESSForests 2014, 5 953 is discussed. Overall, gum and resin commercialization in the study areas play a potential poverty alleviation role as a source of regular income, a safety net, and a means of helping producers move out of poverty.

Strengthening the resiliency of dryland forest-based livelihoods in Ethiopia and South Sudan: A review of literature on the interaction between dryland forests, livelihoods and forest governance

“…A diverse and rapidly growing body of literature on dryland forests in Ethiopia points to the importance of these ecosystems in providing the goods and services needed to support sustainable and resilient rural and urban livelihoods (Mamo et al 2007;Babulo et al 2008;Bekele 2011;Abtew et al 2014;2 FAO (2010, 209) defines forest as: "Land spanning more than 0.5 ha with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use."…”

“…In the Acacia-Boswellia-Commiphora vegetation zones in northern Tigray and Somali regional state, sales of gums and resins are the most important source of forest-related income for many households (Lemenih et al 2003;Abtew et al 2014;Worku et al 2014). In the Kaffa zone of the Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Regional state, wild coffee is the major source of forest income (Melaku et al 2014); in the dry, afromontane forests in Dendi district, Oromiya (Mamo et al 2007) and the Bale Highlands (Yemiru et al 2010), fuelwood is a major contributor to forest income.…”

“…These are broken down by wealth category or livelihood strategies (Lemenih et al 2003;Mamo et al 2007;Babulo et al 2008;Tesfaye et al 2011, Abtew et al 2014Worku et al 2014, Yemiru 2014 or are calculated according to income from key products, such as coffee (Melaku et al 2014); frankincense, myrrh and gum arabic (Abtew et al 2014;Worku et al 2014); or honey (Melaku et al 2014); • assessment of major products harvested, number of households involved in their harvest, and determination of the relative importance in value and volume of different products (Lemenih et al 2003;Yemiru et al 2010;Melaku et al 2014); • identification of factors associated with different levels of forest income and relative dependency (Mamo et al 2007;Babulo et al 2008;Yemiru et al 2010;Abtew et al 2014;Melaku et al 2014) and types of forest products harvested Gebru et al 2014); • evaluation of the timing of forest income and the importance of such income in enabling households to bridge gaps in food or cash resources (Yemiru et al 2010;Abtew et al 2014).…”

“…Some researchers measure and report on total household income (i.e. Abtew et al 2014;Worku et al 2014), while others measure and report on cash income only (i.e. Melaku et al 2014).…”

“…subsistence and cash value) among rural Ethiopian households is attributable to forest products. Average forest income dependency ranged from a low of 20% among sedentary mixed croplivestock producers in northern Tigray (Abtew et al 2014) to a high of 39% among mixed croplivestock producers near the Chilimo National Forest in Oromiya region (Mamo et al 2007). In studies reporting on total household cash income dependency, the low figure for average household dependency on forests products for cash income was 31.9% in Somali Regional State (Lemenih et al 2003) while the high was 53% in Bale zone, Oromiya (Yemiru et al 2010).…”