1. Second World Congress of Agroforestry Nairobi, Kenya, August 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

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 degradation are 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. Benefits generated by the use of the Cork Oak Agroforestry System
Stakeholders
Forest products and services
Private 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)

9. Costs related to the use of Cork Oak Agroforestry System
Stakeholders
Forest products and services
Private 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).

10. 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

11. 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

12. Valuation techniques Valuation 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 sequestration
Benefit transfer
Recreation
Opportunity cost
Biodiversity conservation

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

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

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

16. Results : IV. External Costs (EC)
Total external cost : $ 7/ha.

17. Results : V. Private Benefits (PB) and Social Benefits (SB)
Forest benefits are underestimated when ES are not considered
Degradation induces high social costs.

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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