Sven Wunder

Poverty Alleviation and Tropical Forests—What Scope for Synergies?

Abstract This paper explores the “state-of-the-art” of the two-way causal links between poverty alleviation and natural tropical forests. Microimpacts of rising poverty can increase or slow forest loss. At the macrolevel, poverty also has an ambiguous effect, but it is probable that higher income stimulates forest loss by raising demand for agricultural land. The second question is what potential forest-led development has to alleviate a countrys poverty, in terms of producer benefits, consumer benefits and economy-wide employment. Natural forests widely serve as “safety nets” for the rural poor, but it proves difficult to raise producer benefits significantly. Urban consumer benefits from forest, an important target for pro-poor agricultural innovation, are limited and seldom favor the poor. Absorption of (poor) unskilled labor is low in forestry, which tends to be capital-intensive. Natural forests may thus lack comparative advantage for poverty alleviation. There are few “win–win” synergies between natural forests and national poverty reduction, which may help to explain why the loss of tropical forests is ongoing. This may have important implications for our understanding of “sustainable forest development” and for the design of both conservation and poverty-alleviation strategies.

Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation

Tropical deforestation is estimated to cause about one-quarter of anthropogenic carbon emissions, loss of biodiversity, and other environmental services. United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change talks are now considering mechanisms for avoiding deforestation (AD), but the economic potential of AD has yet to be addressed. We use three economic models of global land use and management to analyze the potential contribution of AD activities to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. AD activities are found to be a competitive, low-cost abatement option. A program providing a 10% reduction in deforestation from 2005 to 2030 could provide 0.3–0.6 Gt (1 Gt = 1 × 105 g) CO2·yr−1 in emission reductions and would require

Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries?

0.4 billion to

Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence

1.7 billion·yr−1 for 30 years. A 50% reduction in deforestation from 2005 to 2030 could provide 1.5–2.7 Gt CO2·yr−1 in emission reductions and would require

ECOTOURISM AND ECONOMIC INCENTIVES AN EMPIRICAL APPROACH

17.2 billion to

Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis

28.0 billion·yr−1. Finally, some caveats to the analysis that could increase costs of AD programs are described.

The dynamics of deforestation and economic growth in the Brazilian Amazon

Many of the services supplied by nature are externalities. Economic theory suggests that some form of subsidy or contracting between the beneficiaries and the providers could result in an optimal supply of environmental services. Moreover, if the poor own resources that give them a comparative advantage in the supply of environmental services, then payments for environmental services (PES) can improve environmental and poverty outcomes. While the theory is relatively straightforward, the practice is not, particularly in developing countries where institutions are weak. This article reviews the empirical literature on PES additionality by asking, “Do payments deliver environmental services, everything else being equal, or, at least, the land-use changes believed to generate environmental services?” We examine both qualitative case studies and rigorous econometric quasi-experimental analyses. We find that government-coordinated PES have caused modest or no reversal of deforestation. Case studies of smaller-scale, user-financed PES schemes claim more substantial impacts, but few of these studies eliminate rival explanations for the positive effects. We conclude by discussing how the dearth of evidence about PES impacts, and unanswered questions about institutional preconditions and motivational “crowding out,” limit the prospects for using international carbon payments to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation.

The Value of Tropical Forest to Local Communities: Complications, Caveats, and Cautions

Based on observations from all three tropical continents, there is good reason to believe that poor service providers can broadly gain access to payment for environmental services (PES) schemes, and generally become better off from that participation, in both income and non-income terms. However, poverty effects need to be analysed in a conceptual framework looking not only at poor service providers, but also at poor service users and non-participants. Effects on service users are positive if environmental goals are achieved, while those on non-participants can be positive or negative. The various participation filters of a PES scheme contain both pro-poor and anti-poor selection biases. Quantitative welfare effects are bound to remain small-scale, compared to national poverty-alleviation goals. Some pro-poor interventions are possible, but increasing regulations excessively could curb PES efficiency and implementation scale, which could eventually harm the poor. Prime focus of PES should thus remain on the environment, not on poverty.

Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics

Abstract Within the new array of ‘green’ products and services, ecotourism claims to combine environmental responsibility with the generation of local economic benefits that will have both a development impact and serve as conservation incentives. Economic incentives are imperative for nature conservation, particularly in remote and ill-monitored regions where a weak presence of the state hinders the use of alternative tools of environmental regulation. In the following, the link between tourism, local benefits and conservation is conceptualised and analysed empirically, using data from the Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve in the Ecuadorian Amazon region, near the border of Colombia and Peru. Three Cuyabeno indigenous groups have developed different modes of tourism participation, ranging from autonomous operations to pure salary employment. A quantification of local cash flows from tourism allows for a comparative analysis of income structure, spending, and the impacts on local development and on conservation attitudes. It is concluded that in the whole study area, tourism has actually provided significant additional income. Counter to common belief, the mode of participation is less decisive for local income generation than the tourist attraction of the natural site, the degree of tourism specialisation and the level of local organisation. However, as a conservation incentive, the effectiveness of tourism income depends on the incentive structure inherent in the mode of participation, and on the substitution versus complementarity of other productive activities: only if tourism changes labour and land allocation decisions, will it have a local conservation impact. It is discussed under which circumstances the conjectured link between tourism, local incomes and conservation is likely to be effective. This leads to some general lessons for government policies, for the design of integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs), and to a number of site-specific recommendations for improving incentive structures.

Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa: policies, incentives, and options for the rural poor

Summary This paper presents results from a comparative analysis of environmental income from approximately 8000 households in 24 developing countries collected by research partners in CIFOR’s Poverty Environment Network (PEN). Environmental income accounts for 28% of total household income, 77% of which comes from natural forests. Environmental income shares are higher for low-income households, but differences across income quintiles are less pronounced than previously thought. The poor rely more heavily on subsistence products such as wood fuels and wild foods, and on products harvested from natural areas other than forests. In absolute terms environmental income is approximately five times higher in the highest income quintile, compared to the two lowest quintiles.