1. Sven Wunder & Nick Hogarth PEP, Edinburgh, 27 May 2015 Identifying the environmental poor: a pantropical study on household economics and livelihoods

2. Poverty Environment Network (PEN) is …  pan-tropical collection of uniform, quarterly data by  mainly PhD student partners on  household economics+ : what contribution of forest and environmental resources?  CIFOR-coordinated; highly collaborative (N,S)  => “Cavendish (2000) cloned”: replicating single influential study – env income debate  => huge ‘bean-counting+’ exercise: income sources  => basic, not policy research – but policy framing

3. PEN field sites 24 countries, 33 partners, 58 sites, 360 villages, 8,000+ households. Data collected 2006–2010

4. PEN sample: a delicate balance  Three criteria for site selection: 1.Within a tropical or sub-tropical developing region, 2.Some access to forests (0 < forest cover < 100%) 3.Smallholder landscapes  Site selection was opportunistic (PhD students) – with some posterior gap-filling (e.g. West Africa)  Within sites: stratified village selection (along pre- defined gradients), random hh selection in villages Broadly representative of smallholder-dominated tropical and sub-tropical landscapes with moderate-to- good access to forest resources. Probably a slight bias toward areas with “good forests” (vis-a-vis “rural developing world” baseline )

5. PEN methods Research tools are online: http://www.cifor.org/pen http://www.cifor.org/pen  Summarized in Angelsen et al. (eds.) 2011 book (available for free download from CIFOR website)  ESRC (UK) positive evaluation 2012: methods and capacity building may be more important than PEN results Ex: PEN prototype questionnaires available in 8 languages

6.  Peer-reviewed journal articles: >50  Books: 1  Book chapters/sections: 7  Conference papers & presentations: >100  PhD theses: >15  Masters theses: 4  Working papers & reports: 6  Newsletters & bulletins: 26  Policy briefs: 2 PEN-related publications

7. World Development Special Issue Free download online: www.cifor.org/pen + World Development (open access)www.cifor.org/pen

8. ~22% ~6.4% T = 27.5% => Clearly supports “high env. income” hypothesis – …much more than some of us had thought!

9. The role of extractive incomes: “More than 10,000 years after the Agricultural Revolution started, millions of rural smallholders across the developing world may still derive as much income from foraging forests and wildlands as from cultivating crops” ( Wunder, Angelsen, Belcher World Development 201 4 )

10. Income share from forests and environment (not country representative!)

11. Forest and environmental income shares by product type Forest income (%)Other environmental income (%) Food20.939.6 Fuel37.221.8 Structural and fiber 33.315.5 Medicines, resins and dyes 5.15.8 Other3.517.3 (fodder) Total100

12. Forest and environmental income shares by wealth status

13. Gender: Men generated at least as much forest income as women do (with product variations). Shocks: Forests less important as “safety nets” than portrayed in case-study literature (other shock responses key). Tenure: More income from state than private or community forests (absolutely and per-ha). Deforestation: Poorest farmers clear much less forest than smallholder middle class (investment). Climate variability: farmers may cope with climate anomalies (also) by increased foraging Some myth-busting findings

14. 1.Analysis of fuelwood & charcoal in rural livelihoods (lead: Pam Jagger, U N. Carolina/ CIFOR Assoc). 2.Migration, land-cover & climate change (Kathleen Neuman, Wageningen). * 3.Local tenure institutions and forest benefit sharing (Krister Andersson, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder). 4.Local tenure institutions, forest product types, and income share (e.g. poor, ethnic minorities, women etc.) (Marty Luckert, University of Alberta). 5.Theoretical model on safety-net uses of NTFPs (Emily Perge, Columbia Univ.). * Further analyses: CIFOR & partners

15. 6.What share of hh nutrition comes from forest foods at PEN sites? (Amy Ickowitz et al., CIFOR) 7.Relative importance of bushmeat food supply (Martin Reinhardt, Univ. Copenhagen). 8.Seasonality’s impact on livelihood portfolios – ag vs. foraging (Frederik Noack, CIFOR/ UCSB) 9.Safety net response strategies to different types of shocks (Jan Börner, ZEF-Bonn) 10. How useful are envir. service models for decision making? (Simon Wilcock, U. Southampton). * Further analyses: CIFOR & partners cont’d

16. Outcomes & impact pathways Help World Bank and statistical bureaus engaged in Living Standard Measurement Surveys (LSMS) to do a better job in (environmental) ‘bean counting’…  Joint project working with FAO, World Bank, PROFOR, IFRI, Univ. Copenhagen: develop forestry module for LSMS.  CIFOR pilot testing new forestry module in Indonesia (+Tanzania), March 2015  Contribute to WB report for Paris UNFCCC COP on climate change and poverty

17. Digital uptake: Monitoring & evaluating download data of PEN papers (World Development) from CIFOR website Outcomes & impact pathways

18.  Environmental income is key for rural small- holders in developing world => central claim  “But what is PEN non-random sample really representative of?” So much tropics-wide variation… => More representative of rural tropics than IFRI data set  Are PEN results arguments for conservation? Perhaps, but not when forestland is abundant  Could PEN have been new-born into today’s CIFOR? Maybe not, as for 3 yr it was purely core-funded research time (no donors!) Final perspectives

19. www.cifor.org/pen