Second World Congress of Agroforestry Nairobi, Kenya, 23-28 August 2009

Session 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

OutlineIntroductionObjectivesMethodsResultsConclusions

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 rightsMain activities : cork stripping, livestock

grazing, fuelwood collectionAnimal production insures more than half of the

household’s income (Chebil & al. 2008).

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 degradation are not consideredNon market benefits and off site effects are not

usually consideredNeed for compromises in order to

maximize the social values and benefits.

Objectives To compare between private and social values

generated by the Tunisian cork oak forests. Assess the external costs associated with the

resulting forest degradation. Value the environmental services provided by the

country’s cork oak forests. To identify appropriate economic instruments for the

purpose of attaining greater sustainability of forest management.

Methods : Private Benefits (PB) vs Social Benefits (SB)

PB : Benefits to public owner + Consumption by local population of common resources at low or no price (semi public goods)

SB : Gains which accrue to the Tunisian society which is wholly affected by the cork oak production and consumption of private and local benefits.

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

Benefits generated by the use of the Cork Oak Agroforestry SystemBenefit Stakeholders Forest products and

servicesPrivate benefits (PBFA)

Government Cork (C), Fuelwood sales (Fs), Hunting fees (H), Mushrooms (Mu), and Myrtle (My)

Private benefits (PBLU) Local forest users

Acorns (A), Grazed forage (Gf), Fuelwood collected (Fc), Snails (S), and Honey (H)

External benefits (EB) Tunisian society and global community

Recreation (R), Prevention of erosion (Pe), Carbon sequestration (Cs), Biodiversity conservation (Bc)

Costs related to the use ofCork Oak Agroforestry SystemCost Stakeholders Forest products and

servicesPrivate costs (PCFA)

Government Management costs (Mc), Degradation of forest cover (Dfc)

Private costs (PCLU)

Local users Reduced forage potential (Rfp), Costs of firewood collection (Cfc)

External costs (EC)

Tunisian society and global community

Erosion due to forest degradation (Efd), Carbon emissions (Ce), loss of recreation opportunities (Lro), biodiversity degradation (Bd).

Linking Cork Oak Production to Social Benefits

Watershed protection

Reduced dam sedimentation

Carbon sequestrati

on

Gain in agricultural

income

BiodiversityOpportunity cost of cork

oak production

Reduced carbon emissions

value at carbon shadow

price

RecreationSocial welfare

enhanced

WTP for visiting forests

Linking Cork Oak Forest Degradation to Social Costs

Overgrazing Reduced forage potential

Soil erosion Increased dam sedimentation

Tree cutting, forest degradation

and lack of regeneration

Cost of forage

substitute

Loss of agricultural

income

Forest fires

Resource depletion

Reduced potential of cork

and acorns

Loss of current

and future cork and acorns

revenues

Valuation techniquesValuation techniques

Goods and services

Market price Cork, fuelwood, hunting, mushrooms, snails, myrtle and honey.

Residual value issued from production account of livestock husbandry

Forage grazing and acorns.

Value of changes in production

Overgrazing, degradation of forest cover and erosion

Shadow price Carbon sequestrationBenefit transfer RecreationOpportunity cost Biodiversity conservation

Results : I. Private Benefits (PB)

Private benefits attained $96.8 / ha.

Equally distributed among the State (forest owner) and the local population.

Results : II. Private Costs (PC)

Private costs attained $ 33.4 / ha.

The overuse of common resources results in the induced private costs.

Results : III. External Benefits (EB)• External benefits estimate was $ 24.9 /ha.

Results : IV. External Costs (EC)

Total external cost : $ 7/ha.

Results : V. Private Benefits (PB) and Social Benefits (SB)

• Forest benefits are underestimated when ES are not considered• Degradation induces high social costs.

Conclusions (I)

◦Market failure factors are mainly due to the lack of exchange prices. Need to develop a National Accounting System

◦Economic valuation is a key issue for the use of appropriate economic instruments Each product and service should be well measured Service providers and users should be well identified

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.

Private and Social economic could be enhanced by a sustainable use ($/ha) through compensation ($/ha, 2005)

• Farmers better off: more profit from sustainable use• Public owner and society are better off: avoid higher loss from current practice