A study of households (rich and poor) in the Masvingo Province in southeastern Zimbabwe provides a good example of how agricultural income complements wild income and how it compares with other income sources such as wages and remittances. Agricultural income—from crops and home gardens—contributed 30% of total household income (cash and subsistence income combined). Livestock rearing—a modified form of agriculture that relies on wild forage—contributed another 21%. Wild products from woodlands contributed 15%. Together, these elements of environmental income sum to 66% of total income. In other words, goods and services from ecosystems contribute twothirds of family incomes in rural Zimbabwe. The remaining 34% came from wage labor, income from home industries, and remittances. For the poorest of these rural households, dependence on these different kinds of environmental income is even higher, providing a full 70%t of total income when combined.
From collection: Pro-poor Growth and Natural Resources – The Economics and Politics