Forest benefits. Ecosystem Services. Forest benefits -- Carbon Sequestration Ecosystem services

Transcription

1 Forest beefits Carbo Sequestratio Ecosystem services Goods vs. Services Timber (goods) vs. No-timber (goods & services) Private vs. Public Private are divisible ad excludable Local - Regioal - Global Forest type (Mature secodary maaged platatios agroforestry) Coditios ad processes through which forest ecosystems, ad the species that make them up, sustai ad fulfill huma life (Daily 1997) Removig air pollutio, cyclig utriets, geeratig soils, watershed fuctios, biodiversity, carbo sequestratio, moderatig weather extremes, protectig from atural disasters, aesthetic beauty, maitaiig a health eviromet Forest beefits Ecosystem Services Goods vs. Services Timber (goods) vs. No-timber (goods & services) Private vs. Public Private are divisible ad excludable Local - Regioal - Global Not traded i markets Not priced Not valued i Decisios by profit-maximizig firms Cost-beefit aalysis of alterative policies Forest type (Mature secodary maaged platatios agroforestry) 1

2 Valuatio Valuatio Idetify Empirical evidece Quatify Value i terms of commo metric ($$$) Idetify, empirical evidece, quatify, value i terms of commo metric ($$$) Why To show that atural ecosystems are importat ad to esure that are icluded i decisiomakig To describe the relative importace of differet ecosystems To help make (or to critique) policy decisios, for example to help set paymet levels for ladowers To desig markets for ecosystem services, for example, carbo or forest certificatio Watershed Services? Services of forested watersheds Services Soil erosio cotrol Soil quality improved Water quatity icreased Streamflow stabilized less droughts & floods Sedimetatio decreased Producers (Policy / Maagemet / Laduse) Parks ad protected areas Productio forests public & private Agroforestry ad cotour farmig Cosumers (beeficiaries) Farmig & Fishig Idustrial & Residetial Water Use Navigatio & Shippig Productivity & Health Hydropower productio Caveats alterative lad use time lags meso-scale: < 500km 2 medium itesity evets 2

3 Scietific debate Public belief that forests are essetial for water supply is coveiet for foresters ad for evirometalists (c.f. Kaimowitz 2004) Myth-bustig is a good strategy for publishig ad gaiig ifluece (c.f. Spilsbury & Nasi 2006) Smoke ad Mirrors It is ievitable that, i the absece of a truly scietific basis for hydrology, myths ad legeds will be promulgated ad, with time, will become accepted with all the authority of folklore. (McCulloch ad Robiso) Forests ad Floods: Drowig i Fictio or Thrivig o Facts? (CIFOR/FAO) The hydrological beefits from forest preservatio are poorly uderstood ad likely to be highly variable. They may also be fewer tha popularly assumed. (Chomitz & Kumari) The ghost of deforestatio seems to reappear every time a ew catastrophic flood or drought occurs somewhere i the world. (Adreassi) Three myths: forests icrease ruoff, regulate flows, ad reduce erosio. (Calder) Separate myth from reality, ad avoid wastig public fuds o tree platig uder the headig of reforestatio, without restorig the hydrological regime of a real forest (va Noordwijk et al) Though the effects of dowstream sedimetatio will typically be egative, they may ofte be of little practical sigificace. The literature o water quatity impacts is sparse at best (Aylward) A scietist s perspective o the popular beliefs of the hydrological role of humid forests ad the aquatic impacts of forestry (Chappel) Ca forests "provide" water: Widespread myth or scietific reality? (Sadstrom) All water users ca beefit from access to better iformatio ad data i order to make well-iformed trade-off decisios o a soud scietific basis, rather tha o traditioally held covictios. (Kaosa-Ard) Vital ecosystem service Gap betwee sciece & policy There seems to be a growig tedecy owadays to emphasise the more egative aspects of forests, such as their higher water use ad their iability to prevet extreme floods rather tha their protective values (ehaced water quality, moderatio of most peak flows, carbo sequestratio) (Bruijzeel 2004) People do all sorts of thigs that are ot cosidered i watershed experimets: set fires; create cattle, vehicle ad huma trails with various degrees of compactio; lop trees for fodder ad NTFPs; graze cattle; collect fire-wood; collect litter; remove cattle dug ad so o. A juta of hydrologists with experiece primarily i arid regios seems determied to show that forests i the humid tropics do ot provide valuable watershed services. 1 Lad use, as Iflueced by policy & other factors 4 Public Debate & Policy Decisios Forest & watershed fuctios 2 3 Watershed services, as valued by people 3

4 Explaiig the gap Explaiig the gap 1. Realistic, feasible, ad likely lad uses Remaiig forest is o steeper slopes ad more easily degraded soil Natural forest is ofte heavily used Deforestatio implies roads, mix of lad maagemet techiques Cumulative ad large-scale chages Policy is oly oe determiat of lad use 3. Watershed services: values are affected by: Discoutig (iitial impacts have greater weight i welfare fuctio) Joitess (quatity + quality; budle of characteristics associated with ative forests, deforestatio, ad reforestatio) Adjustmet (people ca ad will adjust, but is costly) Property rights (loss aversio meas that dislike ay chage) Distributio ad equity issues Study Site Ruteg Park, Flores Tropical Watershed Services: A Local Perspective ~ Subhredu K. Pattaayak Associate Professor, Duke Uiversity Adjuct Associate Professor, NCSU 4

5 Drought Mitigatio Ruteg Park Forest Hydrology of Ruteg ΔDrought coditio (ΔBaseflow) Baseflow = Raifall - ET - Stormflow - Iterceptio - GW Forests effect ET, Iterceptio ad Stormflow Data from Departmets of Soil ad Water; Meteorology; ad Public Works ad Agriculture ΔDrikig & Cookig ΔFarmig ΔChild Health Priyato s (1996) water balace model 37 watersheds ad sub-watershed 2500 mm raifall; 40% stays as baseflow may areas subject to deforestatio iduced droughts ΔEcoomic Welfare Forest Hydrology of Ruteg: Baseflow Socio-demographics of Ruteg Duke; ADB; Idoesia Miistry of Forestry Kramer et al., 1996 Socio-ecoomic survey cesus stats, focus-groups, pre-tests, demographics, bio-physical profile, farm budget, labor allocatios Ruteg household characteristics low icomes; little educatio mostly agriculture coffee ad rice; usig labor small, steep farms icrease i droughts (46%) 5

6 CASE I: Forest Baseflow & Farm Profits Baseflow & Farm Profits: Positive Correlatio Forest baseflow used i farmig estimate farm profits correlate Farm Profits ad Forest Baseflow Profit = F(prices, capital, baseflow [policy]) positive correlatio, cotrollig for other factors other factors idetified by ecoomic theory [ecoometrics] Elasticity of profit w.r.t baseflow = 1.19 Margial profit from baseflow = $0.4/mm Spatial variatio - distributio by couties Margial Values ($/mm) # Households media miimum maximum Borog Elar Lagke Rembog Pembat u Borog Pembat u Elar Pembat u Lambaled Pembat u Rut eg CASE II: Baseflow & Water Collectio Costs Forest baseflow affects water collectio estimate uit collectio costs correlate Collectio Cost ad Forest Baseflow Uit Cost = F(baseflow [policy], regioal factors, household factors) egative correlatio, cotrollig for other factors other factors idetified by ecoomic theory [ecoometrics] Forest Baseflow & Collectio Costs Uit collectio costs of water Average educatio (years) Average umber of illess (cout) Aual Baseflow (mm) Regio-Team dummy (1 = regio 1; 0 = otherwise) Regio-Team dummy (1 = regio 2; 0 = otherwise) Regio-Team dummy (1 = regio 3; 0 = otherwise) Regio-Team dummy (1 = regio 4; 0 = otherwise) Regio-Team dummy (1 = regio 5; 0 = otherwise) Regio-Team dummy (1 = regio 6; 0 = otherwise) Regressio Costat coefficiets N = 392, Adjusted R2 =

7 or greater CASE III: Forest Baseflow & Child Dysetery Forest Baseflow & Child Dysetery Forest baseflow affects local health estimate childre s dysetery rates correlate Dysetery Icidece ad Forest Baseflow Dysetery = F (household factors, village factors, baseflow [policy]) + error egative correlatio, cotrollig for other factors other factors idetified by ecoomic theory [ecoometrics] child dysetery icidece age male adult educatio household illess rate family size village desity distace to earest tow cout of household durables poorest quality house total aual hh expediture forest baseflow secodary forest area logit coefficiets N = 995, Pseudo R2 = 0.14 Child malaria rates i buffer zoe Child Malaria Rates 0-15% 15% - 25% 25% - 35% 35% - 50% 50% or greater o tows roads rivers Primary Forest Cover Primary Forest Cover tows roads rivers Ruteg o Ruteg Natioal Park Ruteg Ruteg Natioal Park Iteg o Borog o Iteg Borog 7

8 Regressio results of forest malaria model Secodary Forest Cover 0-10 Secodary Forest Cover or greater tows roads rivers itercept primary forest secodary forest Coef Cohort 1 p-value Coef Cohort 2 p-value Cohort 3 Coef p-value Cohort 4 Coef p-value Ruteg Ruteg Natioal Park male lahir wealth caregiver s illess caregiver s age cliic idex poor housig Iteg Borog village area age0_5_dum age5_10_dum Pseduo-R N = ,106 Summary empirical fidigs Summary Positively correlated with malaria i childre: secodary forest cover mother s illess poorest quality housig Negatively correlated with malaria i childre: primary forest cover level of cliics (village) wealth Policy implicatios: uiteded health beefits of protected areas coservatio of primary forests i malaria-proe areas Key hypotheses hidde beefits higher farm profits lower water collectio costs lower rates of child dysetery Policy Implicatios lobby for larger public budget based o hidde beefits cosider full set of costs ad beefits more tropical forests, budlig coservatio with developmet 8