Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

PEN: How global-comparative data challenges conventional wisdom


Published on

Presented by Terry Sunderland

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

PEN: How global-comparative data challenges conventional wisdom

  1. 1. The PEN Team Knowledge frontiers on poverty-forest linkages PROFOR, World Bank, 3rd October 2014 PEN: How global-comparative data challenges conventional wisdom
  2. 2. THINKING beyond the canopy PEN is… Large, tropics-wide collection of detailed & high-quality & comparable data by PhD students on the poverty-forest (environment) nexus, coordinated by CIFOR, with numerous partners It is the most comprehensive analysis of poverty-forest linkages undertaken to date
  3. 3. Features of PEN  Approach: a network • PhD students: Long fieldwork & student engagement • Supported by senior resource persons • Mutual benefits  Capacity building • Majority of partners from developing countries  State-of-the-art methods • Quality data – short recall • Comparable methods • Methods summarised in a 2011 book
  4. 4. THINKING beyond the canopy PEN: the numbers..  24 countries  38 PEN studies  239 households in the average study  364 villages or communities surveyed  >8,000 households surveyed  40,950 household visits by PEN enumerators  2,313 data fields (variables) in the average study  294,150 questionnaire pages filled out and entered  456,546 data cells (numbers) in the average study  17,348,734 data cells in the PEN global data base!
  5. 5. The PEN data set
  6. 6. PEN sample: a delicate balance  Criteria for site selection: • Within a tropical or sub-tropical developing region, • Some access to forests (0 < forest cover < 100%)  Site selection was opportunistic (PhD students) – with some posterior gap-filling (e.g. West Africa, Vietnam)  Within sites: stratified village selection (along pre- defined gradients), random HH selection in villages  Broadly representative of smallholder-dominated tropical and sub-tropical landscapes with moderate-to- good access to forest resources.  Probably a slight bias toward areas with “good forests” (vis-á-vis “rural developing world” baseline)
  7. 7. PEN methods and approaches Research tools are online:  Summarized in Angelsen et al. (eds.) 2011 book (available for free download from CIFOR website)  PEN prototype questionnaires available in eight languages  ESRC (UK) positive evaluation 2012: “methods and capacity building may be more important than actual PEN results”
  8. 8. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 income shares other environment business livestock wages forest crops Source: CIFOR-PEN dataset Income sources in the PEN dataset ~22% ~6.4% T = 27.5% => Clearly supports “high env. income” hypothesis – …much more than some of us had thought! 
  9. 9. Income share from forests and environment (not country representative!) sample mean=0.28 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Cameroon Zambia Nigeria Bolivia Brazil Congo, Dem. Rep. Mozambique Peru Cambodia China Ethiopia Uganda Ghana Bangladesh Burkina Faso Malawi India Belize Ecuador Indonesia Senegal Guatemala Vietnam Nepal forest and environmental income other sources
  10. 10. Forest and environmental income shares by product type Forest income (%) Other environmental income (%) Food 20.9 39.6 Fuel 37.2 21.8 Structural and fiber 33.3 15.5 Medicines, resins and dyes 5.1 5.8 Other 3.5 17.3 (fodder) Total 100 100
  11. 11. 15.3 7.5 13.0 8.3 11.5 8.9 10.0 9.5 9.1 9.9 0 5 10 15 20 25 Forest income share (%) Bottom 20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% Top 20% Forest reliance by income quintile, global Subsistence Cash Forest and environmental income shares by wealth status
  12. 12. • Gender: Men generated at least as much forest income as women do (with product variations) • Shocks: Forests less important as “safety nets” and “gap fillers” than portrayed in case-study literature (other priority responses key) • Tenure: more income from state than private or community forests (absolutely and per-ha) • Deforestation: The poorest farmers (“they cut because they must”) clear much less forest than smallholder middle class (investment motives) Other myth-busting findings
  13. 13.  Peer-reviewed journal articles: >50  Books: 1  Book chapters/sections: 7  Conference papers & presentations: >100  PhD theses: >15  Masters theses: 4  Working papers & reports: 6  Newsletters & bulletins: 26  Policy briefs: 2 PEN-related publications
  14. 14. World Development Special Issue Free download online:
  15. 15. 1. Analysis of fuelwood & charcoal in rural livelihoods (Univ. N. Carolina) 2. Migration, land-cover & climate change (Wageningen). 3. Local tenure institutions and forest benefit sharing (Univ. of Colorado at Boulder). 4. Local tenure institutions, forest product types, and income share (e.g. poor, ethnic minorities, women etc.) (University of Alberta). 6. Theoretical model on safety-net uses of NTFPs (Columbia Univ.). 7. What share of hh nutrition comes from forest foods at PEN sites? (CIFOR) 8. Relative importance of forest and non-forest food supply (Univ. Copenhagen). 9. Safety net response strategies to different types of shocks (ZEF- Bonn) 10. WB 2015 report: Climate Change & Poverty – CIFOR analysis PEN & climate data (CIFOR) 11. How useful are environmental service models for decision making? (University of Southampton). Further analyses: CIFOR & partners
  16. 16.  Not without a big startup grant!  Sentinel sites discussion: larger scale, more extensive interest field (mismatch).  “Would you do PEN again?” Angelica Almeyda, PEN PhD student: “Yes, but only in the past!” Gathering more PEN (panel) data?
  17. 17. Outcomes & impact pathways • Help World Bank and statistical bureaus engaged in Living Standard Measurement Surveys (LSMS) to do a better job in (environmental) ‘bean counting’… • Joint project working with FAO, World Bank, PROFOR, IFRI, Univ. Copenhagen: develop forestry module for LSMS. • CIFOR pilot testing new forestry module in Indonesia (+Tanzania), Oct 2014
  18. 18.  Environmental income is key for rural small-holders in developing world is central claim: what policy impact?  But what is PEN non- random sample really representative of? So much tropics-wide variation  Are PEN results arguments for conservation? Perhaps, but not if forestland is abundant Final perspectives
  19. 19. The role of extractive incomes “More than 10,000 years after the agricultural revolution, millions of rural smallholders across the developing world may still derive as much income from foraging forests and wildlands as from cultivating crops” (Wunder, et al.World Development 2014)