Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests

739

Published on

Presentation by Bastiaan Louman, Miguel Cifuentes, Mario Chacón. …

Presentation by Bastiaan Louman, Miguel Cifuentes, Mario Chacón.
REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests.
Oaxaca Workshop Forest Governance, Decentralisation and REDD+ in Latin America and the Caribbean,
31 August – 03 September 2010, Oaxaca, Mexico.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
739
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Mencionar ejemplos de países en cada segmento de la curva?
  • Esteslide podría ir aquí o al puro final.
  • Creo que vale la pena recapitular y dar la respuesta concisa a estas preguntas clave, porque básicamente guían todo el paper. Si mal no recuerdo reforzar las respuestas era una sugerencia pendiente para el paper.
  • Transcript

    • 1. REDD+, SFM, development, markets and forests.<br />Workshop on governance, decentralization and REDD+ <br />in Latin America and the Caribbean<br />31 August-3 September 2010 Oaxaca, México<br />Bastiaan Louman, Miguel Cifuentes, Mario Chacón<br />
    • 2. This presentation<br />Introduction<br />REDD+, SFM and land rent<br />REDD+ and development<br />REDD+ and carbon markets<br />SFM and REDD+<br />
    • 3. Introduction<br />Much written on causes of deforestation and forest degradation<br />Money appears to be key to change<br />Distance to market used as proxy to determine land value<br />
    • 4. Introduction<br /><ul><li>What role does SFM have?
    • 5. Does SFM contribute to REDD, rural development and conservation?
    • 6. What lessons from past SFM experiences are important for REDD+?</li></li></ul><li>REDD+, SFM and landrent<br />Land rent<br />Normal situation<br />NPVA = net present value of agriculture; <br />NPVB = net present value of forest use,<br />CM = transaction costs for sustainable land use;c<br />
    • 7. REDD+, SFM and landrent<br />Land rent<br />increased price<br />for forest products<br />from well-managed <br />forests;<br />NPVA = net present value of agriculture; <br />NPVB = net present value of forest use,<br />CM = transaction costs for sustainable land use;<br />SFM = sustainable forest management.<br />
    • 8. REDD+, SFM and land rent<br />Land rent<br />combination of<br />increased price and<br />reduced transaction<br />costs<br />NPVA<br />CM<br />NPVB<br />0<br />Agriculture<br />Forest use<br />SFM<br />Reduced <br />deforestation<br />Reduced <br />degradation<br />NPVA = net present value of agriculture; <br />NPVB = net present value of forest use,<br />CM = transaction costs for sustainable land use;<br />SFM = sustainable forest management.<br />
    • 9. REDD+, SFM and land rent<br />Markets & policies may influence land rent<br />Policies addressing underlying causes of deforestation and degradation before compensatory payments<br />May differ according to “development” characteristics of each country<br />forest transition curve<br />
    • 10. REDD+ and development<br />The forest transition curve (Kanninen et al. 2007, adapted from Angelsen 2007). <br />
    • 11. REDD+ and development<br />Ignores local perceptions on benefits and costs, expectations and risk behavior, mistrust, conservation preference, institutional frameworks <br />Is there a better indicator for “development” along the x-axis?<br />
    • 12. Governance vs. deforestation<br />Governance important factor to be considered as part of “development” conditions in forest transition curve?<br />
    • 13. REDD+ and development<br />Other factors that may determine deforestation rates:<br />off-farm employment<br />measures to reflect the level of agricultural prices, <br />road density and the level of local wages Macro-economic factors<br />Need more local scale and local perceptions on development and conservation; <br />It is not just income that moves curve upward: How much of “reforestation” in Costa Rica can be explained by increased income?<br />
    • 14. REDD+ and carbon markets<br />Carbon markets may raise land rent<br />However, transition costs may be high for individual (small) producers, raising the CM curve for them<br />How may markets contribute to improving enabling conditions (lowering CM curve)?<br />Will markets address the most problematic areas (center of graph)?<br />
    • 15. Effective<br />Efficient<br />REDD projects in Brasil<br />
    • 16. REDD+ and carbon markets<br />Carbon markets (regulatory and voluntary) are not enough<br />Also international funding (enabling conditions, FCPF, UN-REDD, Norway and Guyana for example)<br />And bilateral transactions (small and medium forest users and owners, Plan Vivo for example)<br />
    • 17. SFM and REDD+<br />RIL techniques reduce loss of biomass, and up to 30% less loss of carbon<br />Increased processing efficiency further reduces carbon losses<br />SFM reduces unauthorized use of forests<br />SFM and user rights may reduce deforestation<br />SFM may contribute to local livelihoods<br />But enabling conditions need to be in place for widespread implementation <br />
    • 18. SFM and REDD+<br />
    • 19. SFM appears to do well on REDD+ performance, and depending on the site conditions, may contribute to rural development as well as to biodiversity conservation. <br />
    • 20. Main lesson learned<br />Trees do not grow on money alone<br />REDD+ will need to address the enabling conditions for any chance of successful implementation: not by markets alone<br />REDD+ will need to reconcile local knowledge, needs and expectations with national and international frameworks<br />
    • 21. ManyThanks<br />Forfurther discussions: <br />blouman@catie.ac.cr<br />

    ×