استفاده از سیستم های جایگزینی برای جنگل ابری اتیوپی باقی مانده و نقش و قهوه - تجزیه و تحلیل هزینه - منفعت

This paper presents a cost-benefit analysis of three different use systems for the remaining cloud forests in Ethiopia, which at present are being depleted at the rate of 8% per year. These use systems are a) traditional conversion to crop land, b) sustainable management of the forest (e.g. by growing high-quality, semi-forest coffee), and c) strict conservation. We find that under business as usual conversion to cropland yields the highest net present income value for the local population. Taking into account watershed services, sustainable forest use is in the best interests of the country for discount rates of 10% or lower. Taking into account the global benefits of biodiversity conservation and carbon storage, sustainable forest management also yields the highest total economic value while strict conservation does not pass a cost-benefit test even at a discount rate of 3%.

Considerable parts of the highlands of south-west Ethiopia are still covered by cloud forests, which are, however, being depleted at the alarming rate of 8% per year (FAO, 2003a and FAO, 2003b). This loss is of global importance as the east African mountains are among the most biologically diverse regions in the world. Cloud forests are generally considered to be concentrations of biodiversity with high levels of endemism. A special feature of the Ethiopian cloud forests is that they provide a habitat to the last wild populations of Arabica coffee originating from there and representing the genetic base for coffee plants growing on plantations all over the world.1 Since the genetic composition of coffee plants on these plantations is very similar, this renders them vulnerable to new pests and diseases. By contrast, the wild coffee populations growing in Ethiopia's cloud forest display a high genetic diversity, making them a valuable resource for breeding purposes. The literature on the environmental Kuznets curve initiated by Grossman and Krueger (1995) suggests that over time environmental degradation displays an inverted U-shaped pattern. The inference from this is that economic growth may eventually take care of one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss. A different view suggests that both conservation and the use of biodiversity are integral parts of, and necessary for, sustainable development. With support from the European Commission (EU), the Ethiopian government is therefore considering to stop further deforestation and conversion to arable land and to transform the cloud forests into protected parks. This initiative, however, conflicts with the interests of the local communities, half of their territory being covered by forest that they use notably to produce so-called semi-forest coffee. On the one hand, the collection of non-timber forest products and fuel wood generates additional income and provides a safety net for subsistence farmers living close to the forests. On the other, as arable land is scarce, farmers want to extend their agricultural fields into the forest.2 The objective of our study is accordingly to analyze whether the interests of the global community, the Ethiopian government, and local farmers can be reconciled. Three competing use systems stand out as possible scenarios for forest use: conversion to arable land, sustainable use of the forest with production of semi-forest coffee, and strict conservation of the forest as considered by the Ethiopian government. We calculate the income associated with each of the three alternative use systems to illustrate the private economic incentives for the local communities. Subsequently, we undertake an economic analysis of the three systems, taking national and global values into consideration. Our main findings are that, taking as given high discount rates of about 31% and higher, it is rational for the local population to convert the forest into cropland, since this yields a higher net present income value than sustainable forest management, while at discount rates of 30% and lower sustainable forest management yields the highest income provided that semi-forest coffee is grown in the forest and sold as premium coffee, and provided that future coffee prices stay at a sufficiently high level. At discount rates of 10% (and lower), as recommended for the evaluation of projects by the Ethiopian Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation, sustainable forest management is the best alternative from a national perspective, while strict protection yields a negative net national income value due to the cost of maintenance. Taking into account global environmental services of the forest, such as carbon storage and biodiversity, in particular as a gene pool for Arabica coffee, sustainable forest management still yields the highest total economic value and dominates strict conservation at all discount rates. Taking a combined look at the financial incentives of the local population and the total economic value of the forest, we finally discuss policy instruments, such as price premiums for semi-forest coffee and markets for environmental services that will achieve both the conservation of the cloud forests and the alleviation of poverty. This paper is organized as follows: The next section describes the main characteristics of the three competing forest use systems. Section 3 presents the income analysis for the local population. In Section 4 we provide an analysis of total economic value from local, national, and global perspectives. In Section 5 we wrap up our results and present some policy conclusions.

We have analyzed three alternative use systems for the remaining montane cloud forest in south-west Ethiopia with respect to both their financial returns and their total economic costs and benefits. These use systems are conversion to crop land, strict conservation, and sustainable use of the forest. The objective was to investigate whether conservation of biodiversity is potentially compatible with poverty alleviation in the Ethiopian highlands. The cost-benefit analysis shows that from a national perspective sustainable forest management is the most beneficial land-use option at discount rates lower than 10%. It generates high benefits in terms of income from differentiated coffee production and other forest products, but also from watershed services which indirectly may benefit farmers on land that has already been converted. At a 10% discount rate as used by the Ethiopian government sustainable forest use and land conversion yield about equal payoffs, but only if with improved methods of maize production are applied, which currently is unlikely to happen. From a global perspective there are additional benefits accruing from sustainable forest use: conservation of coffee-genetic diversity and the storage of carbon. The latter benefit can be even enlarged through strict forest protection due to enlarged carbon storage capacity of virgin forests compared to agro-forestry. Strict protection, however, stands a global cost benefit analysis only at discount rates of 3% and lower, and for an assessment of marginal CO2 damages higher than US$130. Such high values could only be justified under high risk aversion. Another global benefit is conservation of biodiversity. The latter value is low, however, compared to the value of carbon storage service. Both of these benefits accrue mainly to the global community rather than to the Ethiopian people. Relatively high payments for environmental services had to be paid by the international community to compensate farmers for foregone income through conversion of forest into farmland or at least through using the forest in a sustainable way. The results of the income analysis confirm what the annual deforestation rate of 8% already reflects: maize and timber production generate the largest cash flow to the farmers. Current incentives and institutional constraints induce farmers to continue converting forest to cropland. It is only the distortions on the maize and timber market that reduce the financial profitability of conversion and thus slow down deforestation. The local price for timber is about one quarter of its economic value. Likewise, due to a segmented market, the farm gate price for maize lies at 25% of its estimated value. Some farmers receive premium prices for certified organic fair-trade coffee and thus indirectly account for the positive external environmental effects associated with sustainable forest management. To some extent the price premium raises the financial profitability of sustainable use of the forest, but the current monetary incentive is not sufficiently high to make this form of use interesting to farmers. According to our estimates, a premium price of US$2/lb, as opposed to the current US$1.35/lb, would be necessary to tip the balance. Since strict protection does not survive a cost-benefit analysis, even under extremely low discount rates, the European Commission would be best advised to provide incentives for sustainable forest use. But also the Ethiopian government should be interested in saving the forest due to the positive externalities accruing from watershed services. Despite decades of international financial assistance for forest protection, tropical forests continue to disappear at an alarming rate. Failing urgent action, the majority of remaining tropical forests of the world will vanish in this century. International development organizations are calling for stronger global partnerships and the development of new sustainable financing mechanisms to support country-led forest sector reform programs. As part of its work on climate change, the World Bank has set up an innovative facility (the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)) to assist developing countries in their efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and land degradation (REDD). It has the dual objectives of building capacity for REDD in developing countries, and testing a program of performance-based incentive payments in some pilot countries, on a relatively small scale, in order to set the stage for a much larger system of positive incentives and financing flows in the future. It is expected that REDD, in one form or another, will be part of an international post Kyoto agreement (www.climateinvestmentfunds.org). So can coffee save Ethiopia's cloud forest and alleviate poverty at the same time? We conclude that it could help in doing so. It would serve as a vehicle for transferring payments from consumers to farmers with the objective of protecting global environmental benefits. Moreover, at its current level it already raises the incomes of those farmers who have successfully entered the niche market for differentiated coffee. To prevent further conversion, however, timber plantations are necessary. In addition, better conditions for private investment would facilitate entry to niche markets and increase the profitability of sustainable forest management in general by lowering discount rates. This could be achieved by improving the local financial infrastructure and tenure security. Moreover, cheaper and more reliable access to credit would not only raise the profitability of sustainable forest management by lowering farmers' discount rates, it would also facilitate switching to differentiated coffee production.44 The bottom line of our analysis is that sustainable use of the last Ethiopian forest should be an integral part of economic development in the forest areas. But a deforestation rate of 8% per year means that action has to be taken quickly.