Private and Social Values derived from a Tunisian cork oak agroforestry production system

1. Second World Congress of AgroforestryNairobi, Kenya, 23-28 August 2009Session 31A :Rewards for Environmental Services of Agroforestry Private and Social Values derived from a Tunisian cork oak agroforestry production system Hamed Daly-Hassen and Ameur Ben Mansoura INRGREF, Tunisia Dalyhassen.hamed@iresa.agrinet.tn

2. Outline Introduction Objectives Methods Results Conclusions

3. Introduction : The Cork Oak Forest The second most important forest cover in Tunisia, and one of the world’s hot spots in biodiversity conservation. Lack of clearly defined property rights Main activities : cork stripping, livestock grazing, fuelwood collection Animal production insures more than half of the household’s income (Chebil & al. 2008).

4. Failure to consider full economic values Farmers and local forest users maximize their current commercial incomes from an intensive use of natural resources at present (subsistence economy) Costs of degradationare not considered Non market benefits and off site effects are not usually considered Need for compromises in order to maximize the social values and benefits.

6. Assess the external costs associated with the resulting forest degradation.

7. Value the environmental services provided by the country’s cork oak forests.

9. Private Economic Value (PEV) vs. Social Economic Value (SEV) PEV = PB - PC With: PB = Private Benefts, and PC = Private Costs Wheras : SEV = (PB + EB) – (PC + EC) With: PB and PC as above, and EB = External Benefits, and EC = External Costs

10. Benefitsgenerated by the use of the Cork OakAgroforestry System

11. Costsrelated to the use ofCork OakAgroforestry System

12. Linking Cork Oak Production to Social Benefits Watershed protection Gain in agricultural income Reduced dam sedimentation Carbon sequestration Reduced carbon emissions value at carbon shadow price Recreation WTP for visiting forests Social welfare enhanced Biodiversity Opportunity cost of cork oak production

13. Linking Cork Oak Forest Degradation to Social Costs Overgrazing Cost of forage substitute Reduced forage potential Soil erosion Increased dam sedimentation Loss of agricultural income Tree cutting, forest degradation and lack of regeneration Loss of current and future cork and acorns revenues Reduced potential of cork and acorns Resource depletion Forest fires

14. Valuation techniques

15. Results : I. Private Benefits (PB) Private benefits attained $96.8/ ha. Equally distributed among the State (forest owner) and the local population.

16. Results : II. Private Costs (PC) Private costs attained $ 33.4/ ha. The overuse of common resources results in the induced private costs.

20. Conclusions (II) Payment for environmental services : Involvement of downstream water users. More resources are needed from the global community concerned by carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation. Compensation for loss of income. Comparison with the cost of degradation. It can be fully covered by the resource rent.

22. Public owner and society are better off: avoid higher loss from current practice