1. Carbon and livelihood outcomes from community forests are not necessarily correlated, meaning win-win, trade-off, and lose-lose scenarios are all possible depending on policy and context. 2. Larger community forest areas under community control and greater community autonomy in forest management are more likely to result in win-win outcomes for carbon sequestration and livelihoods. 3. When forest land is state-owned, communities overuse resources, but when land is community-owned, conservation is higher, indicating the need to compensate communities for reducing use of state forests.

1. Tradeoffs or Win Wins?

6. 80 Mill. Ha. increase 2002-08; 180 Mill. Ha. in 1980-2002 RRI 2008

7. RRI 2008

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

10. IFRI Data as of September 2008

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

18. Forest size related to all outcomes Other relationships ambiguous

20. Ownership of community forest land Community autonomy to match rules to resources

23. Two sets of outcomes on carbon and livelihoods: Panel 1 Low carbon, low livelihoods Panel 2: High carbon, high livelihoods

24. Two tradeoff outcomes on carbon and livelihoods Panel 3 Low carbon, high livelihoods Panel 4: High carbon, low livelihoods

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.

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

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

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

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