• Like
Measuring the opportunity costs of forest conservation in Uganda: Implications for forest conservation policy and management in a REDD+ framework
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Measuring the opportunity costs of forest conservation in Uganda: Implications for forest conservation policy and management in a REDD+ framework


Glenn Bush, Woods Hole Research Center, USA …

Glenn Bush, Woods Hole Research Center, USA
Nick Hanley, University of Stirling, UK
Daniel Rondeau, University of Victoria, Canada

Presentation for the conference on
Taking stock of smallholders and community forestry
Montpellier France
March 24-26, 2010

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1.
    • Measuring the opportunity costs of forest conservation in Uganda; implications for forest conservation policy and management in a REDD+ framework
    • Taking stock of small holder community forestry
    • Montpelier 24-26 March 2010
    • Glenn Bush, Woods Hole Research Center, USA
    • Nick Hanley, University of Stirling, UK
    • Daniel Rondeau, University of Victoria, Canada
  • 2. Summary
    • The policy framework – REDD+ and sustainability
    • The theoretical framework – Forest values
    • Study objectives and methodology
    • Results and conclusions
  • 3. Climate Change; REDD + Sustainability and Safeguards
    • Several key issues were agreed upon with regard to the role of tropical forest in mitigating the effects of climate change through the REDD+ mechanism:
    • Principle to contribute to sustainable development and poverty reduction
    • Safeguards (including rights, good governance and protection of natural forests)
    • Consideration of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation e.g. land tenure, forest governance, gender and safeguards when developing national strategies
  • 4. Forests in Sustainability
    • Forest biomes support economic growth and human welfare
    Forest Environment and Biodiversity Provisioning Food and fuel Cultural Religious beliefs Regulatory Climate control Economy and human wellbeing
  • 5. Drivers of forest loss Two key factors may be seen as the major threats to forests worldwide: 1. Conversion into agricultural and grazing land, due to population expansion and extensive pastoral systems (Deforestation) 2. Over harvesting (mining of the resource) for fuel wood, timber, NTFP and charcoal due to high dependence by predominantly rural populations to maintain their livelihoods (Degradation)
  • 6.
    • Deforestation & degradation
    • Agriculture
    • Livestock
    • Timber
    • Fuelwood
    • NTFP
    • Human Needs
    • Income
    • Consumption
    • Livelihoods security
    Conservation threats vs. Human needs
  • 7. Forest Total Economic Value   Direct economic benefits: Indirect economic benefits: Timber-Fuel wood, Construction, Charcoal Non Timber- Honey, wild food, medicinal plants, bushmeat Recreational use- Tourism Grazing Cultivation Soil - fertility and erosion control Water - conservation and regulation Carbon sequestration
  • 8. Accounting for smallholder decisions; to deforest or conserve?
    • Benefits to one group are costs to another!
    • Forests give benefits to the national and international economy/society through tourism revenue, climate regulation
    • Local loss of access to land and forest resources creates costs in their lives
    • Local opportunity costs
  • 9. REDD+ Monitoring Issues
    • REDD+ aims to offset local opportunity costs of forest conservation
    • Need to quantitatively estimate the costs to objectively design REDD+ offset programs
    • Continued monitoring of the economic and social impacts of programs on household incomes
    • Must incorporate social and economic indicators in to the monitoring framework
  • 10. Study objectives
    • To assess the local opportunity costs of avoided deforestation and forest degradation around selected protected forests in Western Uganda
    • To evaluate the differences in measures of two quantitative valuation procedures
    • To assess the implications of the different valuation estimates on planning REDD+ project interventions
  • 11. Methods
    • Market price and contingent valuation survey of 23 villages
    • Stratified/random sample selection, proportionate to income levels in villages
    • In-house interviews by trained interviewers from the region
    • Extensive pre-testing
  • 12. Measuring economic impacts of REDD+ interventions on local livelihoods Financial vs Economic values Financial values – prices of goods and services as they accrue to private individual or Economic values – value of goods and services to individuals or groups as a whole adjusted to account for social and environmental concerns (welfare value) Which values to consider?
  • 13. Measuring financial value
    • Market price method:
    • Assess the volumes of goods harvested using household surveys
    • Assign a market price value to estimate total financial values of goods
    • Usually estimates the value of goods sold and consumed in the home
  • 14. Measuring welfare values
    • Sated and reveled preference methods
    • Contingent valuation
    • Assess willingness to pay or willingness to accept compensation for a given gain/loss in environmental goods and services
    • Choice of approach depends on property rights context e.g. de facto or de jure access
  • 15. The CVM- WTA setting
    • The payment scenario
      • Regulations to be enforced
      • Current uses to cease
      • Compensation fund to provide annual payments to affected households
      • there is a maximum amount (provision point) available in the fund
      • Each affected household gets to make a claim on the fund.
  • 16. Ugandan forest management context
    • Ugandan forests are managed under a deregulated para-statal system
    • National and district forest authorities with varying responsibilities over different governance classifications of forests e.g. Central forest reserves, district forest reserves, nature reserves, forests on private land
    • National wildlife authority manage forests in national parks – strict exclusionary policies and community co-management arrangements
  • 17. Survey Sample
  • 18. Study Sites Uganda Queen Elizabeth NP Bwindi Forest NP N Key Protected Areas in Uganda Tengele CFM Budongo FR Kampala National Park Forest Reserve Hunting Reserve
  • 19. Market price survey results hh= household Prices in $US per annum
    • Mean annual household income for all sites was just over $1000
    • Mean annual income form the protected area $21.56 (2.13%)
  • 20. CVM Results - Mean Bid values between sites
    • Mean willingness to accept compensation for all sites was $417
    • No significant difference between sites
  • 21. CVM Results Mean bid values by income group F=2.796, d.f.=3, p<0.05
    • Welfare values appear to increase and then decrease with income group ( environmental Kuznets relationship)
    • Highest income group had lowest welfare value
  • 22. Tobit; n=675, R 2 (Decomposition) = 0.061; OLS - R 2 = 0.064, F= 3.94, d.f. = 9, 463 p<0.001 p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001; Dependant variable WTA Bid CVM-WTA bid determinants
    • Significant factors:
    • Area of agricultural land (negative)
    • Total income form the protected area (positive)
    • Tengele CFM – (negative)
  • 23.
    • MPM estimates sow that the % contribution of mean annual total household income was 2.13%
    • The amount of compensation required estimated by the CVM is equivalent to almost as much as 50% of annual income
    • Methods essentially measure different things reflects substantial non-market use of forest resources and the potential local economic losses imposed by conservation policies
    • Social (non-market) values associated with forest income can be higher for low income households than for high income households (high dependence).
    • Forest conservation strategies using direct or indirect compensation methods must do more than compensate the finical values lost to ensure local equity
    • Simply improving incomes ( poverty alleviation) may not help to conserve forests
    Conclusions values and approaches
  • 24. Conclusions Governance 1
    • Surprising result of the governance dummies –expected higher WTA values with increasing community involvement in management.
    • Amount of agricultural land was an important factor in lowering respondents WTA value; respondents in Tengele had higher mean holding than respondents around other sites
    • Difference between de facto and de jure access might be another key e.g. strict national park no access in reality poor local enforcement means open access
  • 25. Conclusions Governance 2
    • With increasing levels of community involvement in the management of the protected area more effective enforcement of lower but more sustainable levels of use may be apparent.
    • This means overall less goods are available to the community form the protected area and therefore less on an individual basis to households in the community.
    • Highlights the need to quantitatively account fro the changes in social values as a result of community forest management initiatives
  • 26. Recommendations
    • Need to adequately understand the economic incentives and rational for forest conservation measures involving small holders
    • Need to quantitatively account for the social impacts as a result of community forest management initiatives
    • . Economic research is essential to help us realistically budget for programmes that expect to achieve a given set of social outcomes
  • 27.
    • UK Government, Economic and Social Research Council
    • CARE Uganda Rights Equity and protected areas Program
    • CARE Denmark – Poverty Environment and Climate Change Network
    • Howard Buffet Foundation