Win Wins Or Tradeoffs


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • 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

No notes for slide
  • Win Wins Or Tradeoffs

    1. 1. Tradeoffs or Win Wins?
    2. 2. <ul><li>Is it possible to improve both livelihoods AND carbon outcomes on community forests? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the role of community action in achieving improvements in carbon and livelihoods? </li></ul>
    3. 3. <ul><li>1. Carbon and livelihoods outcomes are not correlated. This means that win-win, tradeoffs, and lose-lose outcomes are all possible depending on policy action and context. </li></ul><ul><li>2. To secure Win-Win outcomes on carbon and livelihoods, it is necessary to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>increase the size of individual community forests under the control of communities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>increase community autonomy to manage their forests </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. <ul><li>3. Where communities do not own the land for forests on which they rely, they need compensation to conserve biomass and carbon. </li></ul>
    5. 5. <ul><li>Extent and increase </li></ul>
    6. 6. 80 Mill. Ha. increase 2002-08; 180 Mill. Ha. in 1980-2002 RRI 2008
    7. 7. RRI 2008
    8. 9. very little!!! Looked at 511 published papers since 1980 Très peu Nesten ingenting कुछ नहीं Hampir tidak hyvin vähän mycket lite Empirical Other Totals Explicit measures and analysis 5 3 8 Measures of outcomes and recognition of tradeoffs limited or absent 359 144 503 364 147 511
    9. 10. IFRI Data as of September 2008
    10. 12. <ul><li>Biomass measured as basal area per hectare </li></ul><ul><li>Can be calculated from data in the plot form </li></ul><ul><li>Averaged for all plots over the forest gives a measure of the basal area per hectare </li></ul>
    11. 13. <ul><li>Simpson’s Index – Draw two trees from the sample </li></ul><ul><li>What is the probability of the two being of the same species? </li></ul><ul><li>1 = No diversity </li></ul><ul><li>0 = Infinite diversity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Log of the inverse of the Simpson’s index </li></ul></ul>
    12. 14. <ul><li>Combination of contributions to food, fodder, fuelwood, biomass, and timber needs of the users </li></ul><ul><li>A weighted-average of contribution </li></ul><ul><li>Factor Analysis of the five livelihood dimensions </li></ul><ul><li>Provides a continuous measure for comparison </li></ul>
    13. 15. <ul><li>Examine outcomes one by one using several potential causal factors </li></ul>
    14. 16. Result 1: Almost no observed correlation among the three outcome measures Implication: Tradeoffs as well as above average outcomes on two dimensions are possible, above average on all dimensions unlikely
    15. 17. <ul><li>We have evidence of trade-offs AND above average outcomes on two dimensions; </li></ul><ul><li>BUT No above average outcomes on all three dimensions </li></ul><ul><li>Next step – What is the association with socio-economic, biophysical, institutional factors </li></ul><ul><li>To answer: How does community involvement make a difference to carbon and livelihoods outcomes? </li></ul>
    16. 18. Forest size related to all outcomes Other relationships ambiguous
    17. 19. <ul><li>A number of different relationships </li></ul>
    18. 20. Ownership of community forest land Community autonomy to match rules to resources
    19. 21. <ul><li>For improvements in BOTH carbon sequestration and livelihoods contribution, the area of forest land controlled by communities must increase </li></ul><ul><li>Tenure reforms in favor of communities must not ghettoize community forests. It is incumbent upon governments to allocate large areas to communities to improve carbon and livelihoods outcomes. </li></ul>
    20. 23. Two sets of outcomes on carbon and livelihoods: Panel 1 Low carbon, low livelihoods Panel 2: High carbon, high livelihoods
    21. 24. Two tradeoff outcomes on carbon and livelihoods Panel 3 Low carbon, high livelihoods Panel 4: High carbon, low livelihoods
    22. 25. <ul><li>We statistically analyze all our data to show how </li></ul><ul><li>Community forest size, </li></ul><ul><li>Community autonomy in forest management, and </li></ul><ul><li>Community forest land ownership </li></ul><ul><li>Affect the likelihood of win-win/lose-lose or tradeoffs for carbon and livelihoods </li></ul>
    23. 26. <ul><li>HOW? </li></ul>
    24. 27. Finding 1: Controlling for effects of other factors, as size of community forests increases, Implication – If community rights are not recognized over larger forest areas, win-win outcomes for carbon and livelihoods are not very likely the likelihood of below average outcomes on carbon and livelihoods becomes lower, likelihoods of above average outcomes becomes greater.
    25. 28. (statistically significant at .01 level) Likelihood -> Forest size ↓ Probability of Community Forest being in Low-Low Category Probability of Community forest being in High-High Category 100 hectares 0.57 .01 500 hectares 0.37 .07 2500 hectares 0.16 .30
    26. 29. Finding 2: Controlling for effects of other factors, as communities have greater autonomy in managing their forests, below average outcomes on carbon and livelihoods less likely, and above average outcomes more likely. The area under the blue and red curves is the area of win-win that greater local autonomy produces Implication – policies giving more autonomy to communities likely to yield Win-Win outcomes on carbon and livelihoods
    27. 30. statistically significant at .05 level Likelihood -> Forest size ↓ Change in probability of community forest being in Low-Low Category Change in probability of community forest being in High-High Category 100 Hectares -0.26 +0.07 500 Hectares -0.21 +0.21 2,500 Hectares -0.12 +0.35
    28. 32. Finding 3a: when community forest land is owned by the state, communities overuse Finding 3b: When community forest land is owned by communities, communities conserve (and increase carbon sequestration) Implication: Compensate communities for reducing use of state- owned forests so that they have incentives to conserve the biomass and carbon on such forests – Revisit incentive design. Overall, community ownership already provides better outcomes stat. sig. at .01 level
    29. 33. <ul><li>Community forests are one of the few classes of forests worldwide that simultaneously satisfy multiple management objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Major gains in carbon sequestration and livelihoods benefits can be achieved by increasing the area of individual community forests under community control </li></ul><ul><li>Similar substantial gains can be achieved through greater community autonomy in managing their forests forests </li></ul><ul><li>To increase carbon sequestration, it is necessary to compensate communities to reduce use of their forests </li></ul>