valuation of forest produce final 8.12 - ied kaffrine vw · livelihood strategies. regrettably...

WORKINGPAPER–DONOTCITE

Rapid assessment Valuing four community reforestation projects by IED Afrique in the region of Kaffrine, Senegal

ExecutivesummaryForests provide variety of environmental services that contribute to householdwelfare and livelihoods. Buttherearewidespreadmisconceptionsabouttheimportanceofwildresources,assourcesofincomeandsafetynetstopoorhouseholds.Thisstemsfromalackofbasicdataonthetruecontributionofecosystemstoruralhouseholds.Inthisstudywemakeafirstattempttoquantifythelocaleconomicreturnstofourreforestationprojects,ledbytheNGOIEDAfriqueintheregionofKaffrine,Senegal.Indoingso,weaccountforthevalueofenergy,food,constructionmaterials,forageandotherNonTimberForestProducts(NTFPs)tosubsistenceorcashusesovera15-yearperiod.WefindthatthepresentvaluebenefitsareintheorderofFCFA56million,ofwhichthesustainableprovisionoffuelwoodaccountfor42%,constructiontimberfor32%,livestockforagefor2% and other NTFPs (cashew nuts, gum arabic and medicinal plants) for another 24%. The reforestationactivitiesalsocontributetocarbonsequestration,worthsomeFCFA2billionover15yearsintermsofavoidedglobaldamages.Onthewhole,thesizeandmagnitudeofthedirectbenefitstothelocalpopulationoutweighprojectimplementationcosts,resultinginaNetPresentValuebenefitofFCFA6.7million.Thisisanoteworthyfinding, especially considering that IED’s reforestation projects are also affecting key hydrological processesandsoilfunctions-thathasnotbeenquantifiedhere–andwhichareofvaluetolocalpopulations.Tableofcontents1.Introduction.......................................................................................................................................2Theimportanceofwildresourcestorurallivelihoods...............................................................................2Studysites..................................................................................................................................................3

2.Methodolgy.......................................................................................................................................5TheCBAdecisioncriteria............................................................................................................................5Estimatingbenefitsfromenhancedcarbonsequestration........................................................................6Socialcostofcarbon....................................................................................................................................7Estimationofbenefitsfromfuelwoodcollection.......................................................................................7

3.Tree-by-treedatainputs.....................................................................................................................7Acaciasenegalensis....................................................................................................................................7AcaciaSeyal................................................................................................................................................8AcaciaNilotica............................................................................................................................................9AnacardiumOccidentale............................................................................................................................9SterculiaSetigera......................................................................................................................................10BombaxCostatum....................................................................................................................................11EucalyptusCamaldulensis........................................................................................................................11ProsopisJuliflora......................................................................................................................................12ProjectCosts.............................................................................................................................................12

4.Results.............................................................................................................................................12Thevalueofenvironmentalincome.........................................................................................................13Thevalueofcarbonsequestration...........................................................................................................14NetpresentvaluebenefitofIEDprojectinterventionsinKaffrine..........................................................14

5.Caveatsandperspectives.................................................................................................................166.Conclusion........................................................................................................................................17References...........................................................................................................................................18Appendices..........................................................................................................................................24

VanjaWesterberg,26thofNovember2017


1.IntroductionCroplands, pastures, plantations and urban areas have strongly expanded in Senegal in therecent 20 years, especially in groundnut production areas and in the arid and semi-aridsubhumid zones of the country (Bakoum et al., 2012; Paeth, 2006). Cropland extension hasreplacedmainlygrass,shrubandforestland—achangethatamountstolanddegradationduetothelowecosystemvalueofcropscomparedtotheirformerstates(Nkonyaetal.2015).Sowetal.,(2015),estimatesthecostoflanddegradationduetoLandUseandCoverChange(LUCC)inSenegaltobeaboutUSD0.41billionorabout4%oftheGDP.Inadditionto landdegradationarisingfromLUC,Senegalalsofaces increasingvulnerabilitytoclimateextreemes,suchasfloodsanddroughts.Moreover,thedownstreampositionofseveralofSenegal’slargeriversanditslargelyflattopography1,leadstopoordrainageandproblemsofsoil salinity. It is estimated that 645,000haof land is affectedby salinity (DPS2004). This isabout6.8%of9.5millionhaagriculturalland(WorldBank2012).Respondingtotheneedtoplanforandadapttoclimatevariability,theBuildingResilienceandAdaptation to Climate Extremes andDisasters (BRACED) programme, led by IIED, IEDAfriqueandtheNEFconsortium,hasworkedtoincorporateclimatevariabilityindevelopmentplanninginMaliandSenegal.This isdonerecognizingthatlocalcommunitiesarebestplacedtodecidewhich climate change investments will strengthen their resilience, while building upon anongoingdecentralizationprocessinbothMaliandSenegalthroughdecentralizedclimatefunds(DCF).Theclosecollaborationbetween localgovernmentstructuresandcommunitiesensuresthatdecision-makingandaccesstothefundsisinthehandsofthosemostdirectlyaffectedandmostabletoidentifystrategiesforbuildinglocalresilience(IIEDblog)In Senegal, IED Afrique has implemented a large number of projects to increase climateresilienceandamongstthese,therestorationandtherehabilitationofecosystems2,basedonamixtureofnativeandexoticspecies (Diettaetal.,2007;NEF, IIEDand IEDAfrique2014).Thefollowing study focuses on these interventions, with a view to valuing their societal net-benefits.

The importance of wild resources to rural livelihoods While reforestation and restoration efforts can repair damaged ecosystem functions andcombatlanddegradation,wildhabitatssuchasnaturalforests,woodlands,wetlands,riversandgrasslandscanalsobeofdirectvaluetoruralhouseholds,providingenergy,food,constructionmaterials andmedicines both for subsistence and cash uses (see e.g. Sunderlin et al., 2005,Pouliot,M.& Treue, T. 2013, Angelsen et al., 2014). These natural endowments, ifmanagedefficiently, can provide a capital base—a foundation for greater economic viability, and astepping-stonebeyondmeresubsistence(WRI2005).Chao (2012)estimate that asmuchas90%of thosewho live inextreme ruralpovertyare tosomedegreereliantonforestsfortheirlivelihoods.Inaglobalmeta-studysynthesizing54casestudies, Vedeld et al. (2007) estimated that forests income contribute an average of 22% of

1Averagealtitudeislessthan50mabovesealevel2Thesocietyforecologicalrestorationdefinesrestorationas«theintentionalalterationofasitetoestablishadefinedindigenous,historicecosystem»andrehabilitationas«therepairofdamagedorblockedecosystemfunctionwiththeprimarygoalofraisingecosystemproductivityforthebenefitoflocalpeople»(Aronsonetal.,1993).IED’sreforestationprojectsservebothpurposes.


totalhousehold income,whileCIFOR’sPovertyandEnvironmentNetwork (PEN)suggests thatenvironmentalincomecontributes28percentoftotalincometohouseholdsinornearforests-afigurethatwasonlymarginallylowerthanthatofcropincome(Angelsenetal.,2014).There is thus increasing evidence thatwild resources are a critical element of poor people’slivelihood strategies. Regrettably however, the importance of natural ecosystems and non-cultivated habitats to household wellbeing is a poorly understood area in internationaldevelopmentandconservationplanning.Astheresearchforthispaperhasproven,dataonwildproductsandruralcommunities’ relianceonnature isvery limited.Forexample,useof forestproducts is rarely not captured throughhousehold surveys undertakenbyNational StatisticalOffices(suchastheWorldBanksLSMS,Surveysonlivingconditionsandintegratedhouseholdsurveys)andatthemacrolevel,dataonthecontributionofforestrytogrossdomesticproductisoftenaggregatedwithagricultureandfishingbecause‘dataonforestry’aresparse.With scarce data on the quantified dependence on nature and few systematic analyses toadequatelyguidepolicy,naturehasbeenisunderminedinrespectivelydevelopmentplanningandpovertyprescriptions. This leadstomisguidedand inequitable landmanagementpoliciesthatunderminetheimportanceofnaturalresourcesasincomesourcesandsafety-nettoruralhouseholds (FAO, CIFOR, International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) and WorldBank.2016).

To address this situation and contribute to an enhanced understanding of the real value offorest rehabilitation and restoration, the following study is an economic valuation of 4reforestationprojects,ledbyIEDAfrique,intheregionofKaffrineinSenegal.Weestimatetheadditional forest income that may be derived from products that can be harvested andcollected, including timber, NTFPs (gum arabic, medicinal plants, cashew nuts) and livestockfoddertolocalcommunities.

IEDAfriqueIEDAfriqueisanindependent,non-profitorganization,basedinSenegal,whichcapitalizesaboutfifteenyearsofexperienceinFrancophoneWestAfrica.ItpromotessustainabledevelopmentandimprovedlivelihoodsinAfrica,byusingparticipatoryprocessesandinnovativenovelresearchanddevelopmentmethods(http://www.iedafrique.org/-IED-Afrique-.html)

StudysitesIn the followingwe briefly outline themain features of the fourmain reforestation projectsundertaken as part of a series of Decentralised Climate Funds (DCF) under the BRACEDprogramme by IED Afrique. All projects started in 2016 or 2017 and cover a total of 81.5hectares(table1).

1. “Dimal” Création of fuelwood in the villages of the valley of Dimal, Gama, Ngordjilene Mouride and Korky Bambara, located in the borough of Keur Mbouki and the department of Birkilane. ThevillagesofDimal,Gama,Ngordjilen,MourideandKorkyBambarahaveastrongagriculturalorientation.Maincropsgrownincludecashew,lapastèque,beans,millet,cornandcotton.Thevillagesalsohavearichandvariedparklandincludingpastoralzonesand‘pistes’.However,theparkland is subject to a progressive degradation due to a significant exploitation of forestresources.Moreover,partsofDiamal, touches the coastal inlet andare thereforeexposed tosaltwater intrusion.Soilsalination ishaltedbythornyshrubssuchas lesidem, lesoumpet le


neb neb that are heavily exploited by the local population. The project aims to attenuatepressuresonthisvegetationthroughtheplantinganddensificationoffastgrowingtreespeciessuch as Ecaluptus amaldilensis and Prosopis juliflora. Ecaluptus camaldilensis and Prosopisjulifloramaybesustainablyusedbythelocalpopulationfordomesticuseandsaleoffuelwoodandconstructionpoles.Theprojectisimplementedover30hectares,withtheaimofensuringthereplantingandprotectingsome30’000plants.

2. “Mbeuleup” The restoration and the conservation of the community forest of Mbeuleup in the region of Kaffrine.Withtheaimofcombatingcontinuousdegradationthemaininterventionsconsistofenrichinganexisting30hectares forestlandwith rareandendemic tree species (AcaciaSenegal,AcaciaSeyal, AnacardiumOccident) and exotic species such as Ecaluptus camaldilensis and Prosopisjuliflora, alongside with the development of a tree nursery and education on reforestationtechniques. ThemunicipalityofMbeuleuphas8405 inhabitants. Themainbeneficiaries are5neighbouringvillages,countingapproximately5000inhabitants.

3. “Keur M’boucki” Reforestation and restoration of the banks of the tributary of the Saloum Inlet in the commune of Keur M'bouck The municipality of Keur M’boucki is affected by salination, deforestation, abandonment offallowperiods, combinedwith limitedavailabilityofagricultural inputsanduseofmanure,asmostof thepastoralactivity in thearea is characterizedby transhumance (no settlement). Inordertoaddressthissituation,IEDAfriqueandthemunicipalityhasbegunaprojecttoreforestand restore the banks of the tributary of the Saloum inlet over a 14 km distance. Thiscorresponds to some14hectaresof land, assuming that thebanksare10metersbroad. Thepurpose is to fight against wind erosion and salination through reforestation and bankrestorationandtoprotectthereforestedbanksagainstbushfire.

4. “Kahi” Restoration of the classified forest of Kaffrine ImplementedinthemunicipalityofKahiinKaffrine,theprojectinvolvestherestorationof12.5hectaresofforestlandtoenhanceavailabilityofNTFPanddeadwoodusedforfuelwood.Themainbeneficiariesare60membersofthe“associationdesfemmesforestièresdeKaffrine”andthesurroundingvillages,countingatotalpopulationof6000.15kmofwildfireprotectioncorridorshavealsobeenestablished.Table1:SummaryoftreespeciesusedinIED’srestorationinterventionsandaccountedforinthe

valuationstudy

CreationdeboisdeVillage,‘Dimal’

Restorationandconservationofthecommunityforestof

‘Mbeuleup’

ReforestationandrestorationofthebanksofthetributaryoftheSaloumInlet‘Keur

M’Boucki’

Restorationoftheclassifiedforestof

Kaffrine‘Kahi’Totalhectares

Hectaresperproject 30 25 14 12.5 81.5

Share Share Share ShareAnacardiumOccident 0.05 0.3 0 0.1 10.25

A.Senegal 0.05 0.25 0.2 0.2 13.05

A.Seyal 0 0.05 0.4 0.2 9.35

EucalyptusCamaldilensis 0.3 0.2 0 0.2 16.5

Prosopisjuliflora 0.6 0.1 0.4 0 26.1Others,distributedasfollowed(author’sownassumption)

Sterculiasetigera 0 0.03 0 0 0.75

Bombaxcostatum 0 0.03 0 0.2 3.5

A.Nilotica 0 0.04 0 0.1 2.25


2.MethodolgyRuralhouseholdsmakeuseofavarietyofsourcesofincomeandsubsistenceactivitiestomaketheir livings. Many of these are directly based on nature—such as fishing, hunting, andcollectingof firewood,herbs,orothernaturalproducts. Thesemaybe sold for cashoruseddirectlyforfood,heat,buildingmaterials,orinnumerableotherhouseholdneeds.This“environmentalincome”maybeboostedthroughtherestorationofnaturalecosystems.IntheKaffrineregionofSenegal,IEDAfriquehasusedarangeoftreespeciesintheirreforestationefforts. Each of these species has unique properties. In valuing the net-benefit from thereforestationactivities,wethustakeatree-by-treeapproach.Thismakessenseinthecontextof the study, which focuses on the provisioning ecosystem services generated by thereforestationprojects,inadditiontothesequestrationofcarbon.

TheCBAdecisioncriteriaInCostBenefitAnalysis,benefitsandcostsareexpressed inmonetarytermsandareadjustedfor the time value of money. The Net Present Value (NPV) is known as a reliable decisioncriterioninCBAsandlessvulnerabletogenerateambiguousresultscomparedtoothercriteria(Olschewski, 2006). To derive the NPV of a project intervention, costs are subtracted frombenefitsforeveryyearanddiscountedtoreflectthenet-benefitsinpresentvalueterms.Thesearethensummedforthewholetimehorizon(T)thatisbeingevaluated(equation1).

Equation 1 NPV = (B! − C!)/(1 + r)!!

!!!

Where,Bt=benefitattimet(inFCFAorFCFA/ha),Ctisthecostattimet,ristherealdiscountrate,andt(0,1,2,…to20),istheprojectdurationTinyears3.Ingeneral,policyinitiativeswithpositivenet present value shouldbe considered; the greater thenet present value, themorejustifiabletheinitiative.The analysis employ a time horizon (T) of 15 years, as this is a sufficiently long period forecosystem service benefit to materialise, but also sufficiently short to mitigate significantuncertaintiesaroundchangingmarketconditions,etc.Weassumeamodestdiscountrate®of2%,toaccountforthefactthatinflationhasnotbeenfactoredinthecashflowandassumingthattheIEDrestorationactivitieshavebeenfinancedatlowlendingrates.Costsinequation1,refertotheprojectimplementationandmanagementcostsincurredbyIEDAfrique.Quantifiedmonetarybenefits include enhanced carbon sequestration and additionalforestproductsthatcanbeharvested,consumedorsoldbylocalpopulationsasaresultoftherestoration interventions. The economic value of this environmental income is calculatedfollowingequation2:

3Sensitivityanalysismaybeconductedtodeterminetheimpactsofchangesinthediscountrate,costs,climaticvariablesandoutputprices,onNPV.Butthisisoutsidethescopeofthisassessment.


Equation 2 Environmental income = (p!q!)!

!!!− (p!x!)

!

!!!

Where environmental income is given by the revenue (price p times quantities q of all nproductsharvested) less totalvariablecosts (price timesquantitiesofallmpurchased inputs)employedtocollectorharvesttheproducts.Variablecostsareassumedtobenegligibleinthisanalysis, aswe do not have access to data on them. Information on prices and quantities ofharvested forest products, have been obtained from secondary literature and a semi-formalinterview with Mr Bocar Sall from the Senegalese department for the management andplanningofwater resources (Sall 2017). Informationon the costsof restoration interventionshas been obtained from IED’s Afrique project documents. All data and assumptions areexplainedinchapter3.

EstimatingbenefitsfromenhancedcarbonsequestrationTheAgriculture,ForestryandOtherLandUse(AFOLU)sectorisresponsibleforapproximatelyaquarter of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Smith et al., 2014). At the same time, theAFOULUsectoroffersconsiderablecarbonmitigationpotential fromsoilcarbonsequestrationandtheavoidanceofnewemissionssourcesfromfires.Estimates from carbon sequestration are calculated for each tree species reforested orregenerated using a combination of IPCC Tier 1 and 2methodology4from the Good PracticeGuidelines (IPCC, 2003). Total carbon sequestration resulting from a particular land use iscalculated as the aggregate of above ground and below ground carbon stocks, followingequation3to5.

Equation3.GW=MAI•D

Equation4.GTOTAL=GW•(1+R)

Equation5.ΔCFL=[GTOTAL•(1+R)]•CF

Where:

GW=Averageannualabovegroundbiomassincrementin,tonnesDM/ha/yr

MAI=Themeanannualincrement5(m3/ha/year)

ΔCFL=Averageannualchangeincarbonstocksperhectareinlivingbiomassinforestland,tonnesC/year

GTOTAL=Averageannualbiomassincrementaboveandbelowground,tonnesDM/ha/yearR=Root-shootratioof0.31forwoodland(obtainedfromMyint2017)

CF=Isthecarbonfraction(default0.5)oftonnesCinDM

D=Basicwooddensity,tonnesDM/m3

Finally,theannualchangeincarbonstocksshouldbeconvertedtounitsofCO2equivalentbymultiplyingitby3.67,whichistheratiooftheatomicmassofCO2eqtoC,respectively.

4Tier1usesdefaultvaluesoftheaverageannualincrementinabovegroundbiomass(GW).Tier2methodusescountryspecificdatatocalculatethegrossmeanannualbiomassincrement.Thecountry-specificdataisoftenlinkedtomerchantablevolumes,dataonbiomassexpansionfactorandbasicwooddensity.5TheMAI(MeanAnnualIncrement)isthevolumeofwoodgrowingononehectareofforestduringoneyear(m3/ha/year)onaveragesincetheforesthasbeenestablished.Foratreeplantation,theMAIisthepresenttotalgrowingstockvolumeofonehectaredividedbythetotalage.


Social cost of carbon Thebenefitsfromthemitigationofgreenhousegassesareusuallyvaluedusingthesocialcostof carbon. The social cost of carbon (SCC) estimates the discounted value of the damageassociatedwithclimatechangeimpactsthatwouldbeavoidedbyreducingcarbondioxide(CO2)emissions by one metric ton in a given year (Anthoff et al., 2009). These damages includedecreasedagriculturalproductivity,damagefromrisingsealevels,andharmtohumanhealth.WeuseUSD37(FCFA23’000)asanapproximationoftheSocialCostofCarbonfromEPA(2013)onthebasisofdamageestimatesfromDICE,FUND,andPAGE integratedassessmentmodels.Recent studieshowever, suggest thatUSD37 is a very conservativeestimateof the SCC, e.g.MooreetDiaz(2015)whoarguesforusingaSCCofUSD220/tonneCO2equivalent.

EstimationofbenefitsfromfuelwoodcollectionWiththeexceptionofprojects(inDimalandKeurM’Boucki)wherefastgrowingtimberspecies,E. Camaldilensis and P. Juriflora are introduced, we assume that firewood collected in thereforestedareasisrestrictedtodeadwood,soastoensurethesustainableforestmanagementofthereforestationefforts.In practice however it is also feasible to prune trees for additional fuelwood, although thiswouldtypicallycompromisetheavailabilityofNTFPs.Thus,toavoiddoublecounting,itisonlythecontributionofdeadwoodtohouseholdincomethatisaccountedfor,forallbutthe2exotictimberspeciesconsideredinthisanalysis.To estimate the quantity of deadwood collected by local population, we follow IPCC (2003)guidelines,assumingthatdeadwoodcorrespondsto11%oftotalavailablewoodybiomass.Aswoodybiomassisareadilymarketableproduct,weusethefarmgatemarketpriceoffuelwoodtoestimateitsvalue(usingequation2).Weassumethatfuelwoodsellsfor3.6FCFA/kg(similartothefuelwoodpriceinBenin(fromWesterbergetal.,2017).

3.Tree-by-treedatainputsThefollowingchapterinvestigatestheprovisioningservicesprovidedbyeachtreesspeciesthathave been favored by IED Afrique’s interventions. Since only secondary literature has beenused,estimatesaresubjecttouncertaintyanddoesnotaccountforallthelocallyappreciatedbenefits that the interventions may be yielding. As explained above, we use a tree-by-treeapproach.Thenet-benefitofagivenprojectisthereforeafunctionoftheareaoccupiedbyeachspecies and their respectiveper hectarebenefits (see spreadsheet formoredetail). Thedataandassumptionsusedissummarizedappendix1and2.

AcaciasenegalensisAcacia7 rabic7 is a wide spread, Sub-Saharan tree legume, reportedly important for thesustainabilityofopenparkland,agroforestryandalleycroppingsystems inSub-SaharanAfrica(Bationo,2007).A7rabic7growsinthegumbeltofAfrica,whichstretchesfromSenegalinthewesttoSomaliaintheeast(CBI2016).Itsgumisinternationallytradedandofhighquality.GumArabic is used in confectionary, beverages, pharmaceutical, artistic materials, printing, andpesticides. A. Senegal is also a source of fuelwood from older trees that no longer producesignificantorgoodqualitygum,andfodderforlivestock.


Yields of gum Arabic GumArabicyieldsarevariable,withaverageyieldscitedbetween150g/tree(inFAO1982)to250g/tree(inBoer2002). InHarmandetal., (2012)gumproductionvariedfrom0.1to0.5kgpertappedtree,correspondingto50-250kg/hawithadensityof500trees/ha(Harmanetal.2012). These numbers are in alignment with Rahim et al. (2007), who has analyzed theevolution of gum yieldswith trees age in the Kordofan state of Sudan (table 2). GumArabicfromcultivatedtreestypicallyincreaseuptotheageof15years,whereaftertheyleveloffandthenbegintodeclineafter20years.Thecollectionofgumstarts inthe5thyearafterplantingandcontinuesuntilthe25thyear.WehaveusedexperimentaldatafromRahimetal.,(2007),toestimatepotentialrevenuesthatlocalpopulationsinKaffrinemayenjoyfromtheharvestingofgumArabic.

Table2:GumArabicyieldsbyyear

Productionofgum8rabicaccordingtoageofthetree

GumArabicyieldSource:Rahimetal.,2007

HarvestofgumArabicperhectare(assuming400treesperha).

5thto9thyear 0.12kg/tree 48kg10thto20thyear 0.4kg/tree 160kg21stto25thyear 0.23kg/tree 92kg

Gum Arabic prices For the purpose of valuing the benefits of enhanced A.8rabic8reforestation, prices of localtradersbuyingfromcollectorsinSenegalhavebeenused.InMujawamariyaandBurger(2012)prices range from350FCFA/kg to900FCFA/kgdependingon theseason, the region it is soldandthequalityofthegum.Wood production for fuelwood Acacial Senegal is known to produce excellent fuelwood (Orwa et al., 2009) 5-year-old treeshavebeenreportedtohaveameanannualwoodvolumeincrementof5.4–5.9m³perhaperyear. In gum plantations wood production is only 0.5–1 m³ per ha per year, so as not tocompromisetheproductionofgumArabic(Boer2002). Protective functions (non-valued)

Appendix2 Senegal also has a number of protective functions. The deep taprootand extensive lateral root system of the tree makes it effective in reducingrunoff, increasing water infiltration, and trapping and stabilizing sediment(Barbier, 1992). Problems of downstream siltation in water reservoirs aretherebymitigated.Otherecosystemservicesincludethefixationofatmosphericnitrogenandimprovedsoilmoisture,whichcontributetorestoringsoilfertilityandincreasingcropyieldsinagroforestry(Ongetal.,1996,Ricomeetal.,2015).

AcaciaSeyalAcaciaSeyalisnativetoSenegalandtheSahelregionaswellaspartsofeasternandsouthernAfrica(Orwa,2009a).ItprovidesalowerqualitygumthanthatofA.Senegal,butisasourceoflivestockfodderandhasbeencitedasthepreferredchoiceforfirewoodinSenegal(Kazzi,M.,2016).AcaciaSeyalismoreovertoleranttoflooding,fire,saltysoils,andhighpHsoils(Orwaetal,2009a). Browse production Thebark fromA. Seyal is extensively used for feeding cattle, sheep and goats during thedryseason in Sahelian countries.When fresh, it is smooth and soft. During the dry season, thick


branchesareloppedandanimalsbrowsethebarkandeattheleaves.Thepodsandleavesarealsonutritiousandpalatabletolivestock(Orwaetal.,2009a). Browseproduct is influencedbyfactorssuchasclimate,soiltype,managementandhistoryofexploitation byman and animals. Leave and fruit production from the SahelianWest AfricanzoneisreportedinOtsyinaetal,rangingfrom0.7to3kgDMofleaves/tree/yearto0.1to2.5kgforpods.Ingeneral,fodderproductionfromtreesandshrubsdiffersignificantlyindifferentecological zones and according to tree density (Otsina et al., 1999). This study assumes anaveragefodderyield(pods,seedsandleaves)of5kg/tree. Prices for fodder from acacia trees Withnolocaldataonpricesforfodderfromacaciatrees,wehaveuseestimatesfromSibidéetal(2014)obtainedfromthemarketofKonainMali,whereabagoffodderfromF.Albidaweighing15kg,issoldatFCFA35,equivalentto2.3FCFA/kg.

Seyal Gum yield and price Seyalgum(talhagum)isdarkerandinferiorinqualitytothatofA.Senegal(gum9rabic)(Orwaetal.,2009).Usingdata fromNouretal., (2015) fromtheSouthKorfodanStateofSudanwepresume that theaverageyieldof gum talha is33gramper tree (conservativeestimate)andsellsatthesamepriceofgumarabic.

AcacianiloticaAcacianiloticaisnativetoAfrica,theMiddleEastandtheIndiansubcontinent.Itsdry,dehiscentfruitsarehighlyvaluedasfodderforpastorallivestock.

Browse production OntheBoranaPlateauinEthiopia,Atseduetal.,(1994)measuredfruitproductionfrommaturetreesfrom5differentsites.Fodderyieldsrangedfrom0to40kgDryMatterpertreeoverall,withanaverageof5.3kgDMpertreeperyear,or650kgDM/hainanopencanopyarea.Wepresume thatA.Nilotica fodder sells at the sameprice as fodderobtained fromother acaciatrees(using2.3FCFA/hafromSibidéetal.,2015)

Fuelwood Acacianiloticaisalsoappreciatedforitfuelwoodandhasbeenusedasapioneerspeciesinlandrehabilitationandasabarrier todesertification.TheMeanAnnual IncrementofA.Nilotica inplantedsemi-naturalforestinNorthAfricarangesbetween12and15m3/ha/year(FAO2006).Weuseaworkinghypothesisof13MAIwithapproximately150trees/ha,slightlydenserthaninopen canopy areas. Non-forage/timber uses include gum,tannin, traditional medicine andvertebratepoisons(TropicalForages2017)

Anacardiumoccidentale–CashewnutAnacardiuoccidentale iscultivatedfor itsnuts,andthewoodisalsopopularforfirewoodandcharcoal.Becauseof itsextremetoleranceofexternalconditions, ithasbeenplanted inpoorsoils to checkerosion.The tree canadapt toverydry conditionsas longas itsextensive rootsystemhasaccesstosoilmoisture.


Yields of cashew nuts Treesareplantedatawidespacing(6to10m)forcashewproduction. Inthisassessmentweassumeanaveragespacingof10m (=100 treesperhectare).Treesproduce fruitsbetween5and 30–40 years: one hectare typically yields between 200 to 800 kg of nuts dependingweather,soilqualitiesandhowtheplantationismanaged(Westerbergetal.,2017).Followingthe planting of cashew trees, we presume that their yields are similar to that of newlyestablishedcashewplantationsinBenin(figure1),plantedatanoptimalspacingdensityof10x10m(fromWesterbergetal.,2017).

Figure1:RelationshipbetweenCashewyieldsandageofthetrees

(fromWesterbergetal.,2017)

Cashew nut prices Withnolocaldataavailableonthemarketpriceforcashewnuts,wepresumethatcashewnutsaresoldforanaverageof600FCFA/kg,asinBeninin2016(Westerbergetal.,2017).

SterculiasetigeraLocally known as Mbepp, Sterculia setigera is a member of the family Sterculiaceae, amultipurposesavannahtreewithawideecologicalspreadintropicalAfrica.Itisfoundmostlyinthewild.Sterculiasetigeraisused intraditionalmedicine inSenegal (Sall2017)and isused inthe treatment of severe diarrhea, dysentery,and jaundice and as a painkiller (Zaruwa et al.,2016).AnalysesofS.setigerafor theirnutritionalcompositionhas revealed that theplanthashighcrudeprotein,fiber,aminoacids,minerals,carbohydrate,fatcontentsandthatitisrichinsodium,iron,zinc,manganese,vitaminA,B1,B2,B6,B12,andE(Noitangetal.,2009)WithoutdataontheyieldofS.setigerapods,seedsandleaves,weassumethattheproductionvalues are within the range of other tree species in West Africa (from Houérou 1980 andBaumer1992).On thisbasis,westipulate that theeach treeyieldsanaverageof2kgDMofleavesand50kgDMofpods,7yearsafterplanting

Economic value of S. setigera seeds and leaves AbagofS. setigera leavesof100gDMsells forapproximatelyFCFA25 (=250FCFA/kgDMofleaves) on local Senegaleesemarkets (Sall, 2017).Wedo not posses any data on themarketpriceofS.Setigeraseeds.However,weknowfromIduetal., (2008)thatthepodshaveahighcalorific value (7’000- 8’000 kJ/kg ofDM) in the order of that of from F. Albida trees (6’000-

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

kg/ha

Year

Yieldofcashewnuts


7’000KJ/kgDM)(Bernard2002).SincefodderfromF.Albidatreessellsfor2.3FCFA/kg(Sidibéetal.,2014),weusethesamepricetoinferthenutritionalvalueofS.Setigera.

BombaxcostatumThe silk cotton tree Bombax costatum is found in Sahelian-Sudanian and Guinean openwoodland and savannah lands. Its distribution is restricted to the11rabic11t zones of WestAfricafromSenegaltotheCentralAfricanRepublic(fromSenegaltocentralAfrica,fromGuineaacrossGhanaandNigeriatosouthernChad).Itisoftenfoundonrockyhillsorlateriticcrusts.Itcangrowupto25mhigh,buthardlyhigherthan6minthesahel(Orwaetal.,2009c). It isatruemultipurpose tree, providingmedicines, fibres, food, oil, timber (Tropical plant database2014)anditisparticularlyappreciatedforitsediblecalyx(Achigan-DakoE.2009).Thecalyxoftheflowersisusedin‘futo’orsaucesandtheyoungfruitiscutaroundAugustandSeptember,dried,andusedforthepreparationofmeals.

Economic value of calyx The market value of calyx varies between 750 FCFA/kg and 1000 FCFA/kg depending onwhethertheyaresold inthedryseasonorwetseason(Ouédraogoetal.,2014)andbetween400 FCFA/kg to 1000 FCFA/kg for Bissap Calyx (Mady 2010). As most calyx is typically soldshortlyafterharvestingtimeandwedonotknowthequalityofwhatmaybeharvested,weuseaconservativepriceof300FCFA/kg.Under favorableconditions,3-5kgCalyxper treecanbeobtainedfromthe10thyearonwards(Boericke,W.,2013).

Other services – Climate resilience, erosion control, fodder, medicine and Kapok (not valued) Leaveshighlydigestibleandeatenby livestock,butthetreeregeneratesquicklyaftergrazing.Thebark isusedforthetreatmentofskindiseases,yellowfeverandheadache. Thetreealsoservesprotective functions,beingeffective incontrollingerosionondry lateritic soilsand theleaf litter enhances soil fertility. Its tuberous roots act as water and sugar storage facilitiesduringlongdroughtperiods–avaluableservice,sincethetreeiswelladaptedforagroforestryorgrowthnearbysettlements.BombaxcostatumisalsovaluedforitsKapok(producing5-8gofkapokpertree).KapokwasformerlyexportedfromfrancophoneWestAfrica.Today,thefibreandotherproductsareonlytradedlocally.Regrettably,thespeciesissaidtobedisappearingfromtheSahelandGuineanwoodlandareasofitsrange(Burkil2004).Excessiveharvestingoffloweringbranchescontributestothedeclineofthespecies(Orwaetal.,2009c).

EucalyptusCamaldulensisThenaturalhabitatsofEucalyptusgenusextendacrosstheAustraliamainlandandsomespeciesinto New Guinea. Eucalyptusgenus is globally one of the most planted tree genera with anestimated 15million ha of eucalypt plantations worldwide of which over 2million ha are inAfrica,whereE.grandisandE.camaldulensisarethemostplantedspecies(Coppen2002).E.camaldulensisisusedaspulprawmaterialandfuelwood,aswellassawntimberandreconstitutedwoodproducts.InSenegal,E.camaldulensisismainlycultivatedtobesoldorusedforconstructionpolesattheendofitsrotation(Sall,2017).

Fuelwood and timber E. camaldulensis grow fast as an exotic,with amean annual incrementof 15m3/ha/year ormore(FAO1979).Moreover,athinningfromaninitial1000stems/hatolessthan700stems/haat 5 years provides posts, poles, fuelwood and pulpwood, leaving the better trees for the


productionofpolesattheendoftherotation(Orwaetal.,2009b).WethereforeassumethatE.camaldulensisisthinnedinyear5and6forfuelwood.TheothermajoreconomicoutputfromE.camaldulensisisthesaleofconstructionpoleswhentheyarecutattheendofatypicalrotationperiodof15years.Onepolesells forapproximately300FCFA (Sall2017). Thedensityof thewoodis900-980kg/m3(UgaldeetPerez2001).

ProsopisjulifloraProsopis Juliflora isanesteemed fuelwoodsource in several tropical countriesandvalued forthe shade and timber it can provide (National Academy of Sciences 1980). Prosopis julfloragrowsfast.Ona15-yearrotation,theexpectedyieldis75-100tonperha;ona10-yearrotation,it may be 50-60 ton per hectare (NAS 1980). Like E. camaldulensisit is used principally forconstructionpolesand fuelwood (MwangiandSwallow2005).Weassume that thinning’saremadeinyear5-6afterplantingandthatthetreesarefelledinyear15tobesoldforpoles(asabove).

SummaryofdataandassumptionsusedintheforestbenefitanalysisTableA1inAppendix1providesasummaryofthekeyparametersinfluencingtheeconomicbenefitsfromtherestorationandreforestationofthe8treespeciesconsideredinthisanalysis.

ProjectCostsThesuccessofrestorationprojects isconditionaloneffectivestakeholderparticipation,buy-inoflocalpopulations,state-of-theartknowledgeofrestorationtechniques,trainingandcapacitybuilding of local actors and other elements. As such, there are significant costs above andbeyond the actual costs associated with establishing nurseries and sourcingmaterials inputs(seeds,nurseries,plantingtools,…)fortherestorationinterventions.OnthebasisofIEDprojectdocuments,thepresentvalueproject implementationcostsforeachofthe4projects ‘Dimal’,Mbeuleup,KeurM’BouckiandKahi, are in theorderofbetweenFCFA8 to20million for thefirst 2 years of the interventions and the present value cost across the 4 projects isapproximately FCFA 48 million (table 1). A more detailed breakdown of the major costcomponentsforeachreforestationprojectisprovidedinappendix2.Table1:PresentvaluecostofIED’s4reforestationprojectsinKaffrine

Broadcostcategoriesacrossall4projects FCFAMaterialprojectinputs 18’859’000Awarenessraising,education,technicaltrainingandsupport 5’700’000Establishmentoffirebreaks 1’182’500Other(transportation,enclosures,zoning,hiredlabour,surveillancecontrol,hydrologicalworks,weedingandplantingmanagement…) 22’685’000TotalCostoverfirst2years 48’890’500TotalPresentValueCost 47’951’700

4.ResultsWhileproject investmentcostsare typically incurredwithin the first yearsofan intervention,benefits from ecosystem restoration attain to the long term. In the following chapter, we


consider theeconomic revenues thatmaybederived fromthe individual treespeciesused inthereforestationactivitiesandtheprojectspecificreturns.

ThevalueofenvironmentalincomeAsshowninfigure2,mostprovisioningservicesfromtrees,donotprovidevisibleyieldsuntil5-6 years after the trees have been planted. The timber species provide the majority of theirreturnwhentheyarecutformerchandise–inthiscase15yearsaftertheyhavebeenplanted.Thefiguresalsohighlighttheinterestinmixingspeciesthatyielddifferentbenefitsatdifferentmoments in time, helping communitiesdiversify income sources andhedgeagainst tree cropspecificrisks.

Figure2:Year-by-yearpresentvalueeconomicbenefitsfrom8differenttreespecies

Figure3showsthesumtotal inpresentvaluetermsof thestreamofbenefits foreachof thetreespeciesanalysedover15years.Theexpectedreturnsareforthemostpartintherangeof400’000FCFAto700’000FCFAperhacultivatedwithagivenspecies.

Figure3:Aggregatepresentvaluebenefitsfrom8keytreespeciesusedinIED’sreforestation

interventions

Whilenot suitable for timberharvesting, some slower growing species suchasA. Senegal,A.Occident,B.CostatumandS.Setigeramayprovidesubstantial revenues to local communitiesfrom theharvest ofNTFPs, such as cashewnuts and gumArabic.Our estimates suggest that

A.Seyal

A.Nilo,caA.OccidentASenegalB.CostatumE.camaldilensisP.JurifloraS.se,gera

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Year-by-yearben

efit(FCFA

/ha)

Year

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

A.Senegal A.seyal A.nilo.ca A.Occident B.costatum S.se.gera E.cameldilensis

P.Juriflora

FCFA

/hectare(T

=15years)

Fuelwood Timber Fodder NTFP(calyx,cashew,medicine….)


suchrevenuesareintheorderof400’000FCFA/haplantedwiththegiventreespecies.Indeedfigure3suggeststhatthemajorityofthethedirectbenefitsfromthetreesspeciesfavouredinIED’s restoration interventions derive from fuelwood, followed by timber, NTFPs and finallybrowseforageforanimals.

ThevalueofcarbonsequestrationThe restorationofdegraded soils and vegetation canmitigate theeffectof increasing carbondioxideconcentrationsintheatmosphere.Onthebasisoftheassumptionsoutlinedinappendix1 and methodology in section 2, our results suggest that IED Afrique’s recent reforestationinvestmentsinKaffrine,willresultinthesequestrationofanadditional108’110tonsofcarbondioxide equivalent emissions over the next 15 years. Using a social cost of carbon of FCFA23’000(USD37),theglobalbenefitintermsofavoidedemissionsamounttoFCFA2billion,orapproximately,FCFA24.7millionperhectarereforested.Regrettably, till this date, there are few effectivemechanisms for such global benefits to beharnessedatthelocallevel.Inthevoluntarycarbonmarketforexample,thesupplyofcarboncredits still exceed demand for these (Environmental Finance 2016) and figures from theEcosystemMarketplace’s 2017 State of the Voluntary CarbonMarket report shows that theaverage carbonprice for afforestation/reforestationprojectswas in theorderofUSD8.1pertonCO2eqin2016(ForestTrends2017)–farfromtheconservativesocialcostofcarbonofUSD37usedinthisstudy.

NetpresentvaluebenefitofIEDprojectinterventionsinKaffrineTable 5 and figure 5 to 8 summarizes the present value project costs and benefits relatingdirectlytothe4restorationinterventions inDimal,Mbeuleup,KeurMbouckiandKahi.Ascanbeseen formtable5,potentialenvironmental incometo local communities is in theorderofFCFA 55’000million over a 15-year period, over and above project implementation costs (of47’000 million FCFA) in present value terms (table 5), leading to a NPV benefit of FCFA 7.6billion.Acrossthe4projectsites,eachprojectprovidesmultiplerevenuesources(fromtimber,fuelwood, NTFPs and livestock feed). Overall, fuelwood account for 42% of the potentialeconomicrevenue,constructiontimberfor32%,livestockforagefor2%andotherNTFPs(gumArabic,cashew,etc)foranother24%.Additionally, it should be highlighted that since additional cash flows will enter into theeconomy, theycreateadditionaleconomicactivity throughbackwardand forward linkages toother sectors. Forward linkages for example include local traders,merchants, carpenters andfoodproducerswhoareengagedinfurthermarketingorenhancingthevaluederivedfromtheprimaryforestproducts.Theselinkagesgeneratemultipliereffects,wherebythetotalimpactofsmallholder productionmay be amplified by 10 to 20 (GEF 2009). When accounting for thecarbonsequestered,benefitslargelyexceedsthecosts–leadingtoaNetPresentValuebenefitofFCFA2billionovera15-yearperiodforthe4sitesinKaffrine.Table5:NetPresentValue(r=2%)fromIED’sreforestationinterventions

Creationdeboisdevillage,Dimal

RestaurationdelaforêtcommunautairedeMbeuleup

Restaurationdesbergesdel’affluentduSaloum–KeurMboucki

RestaurationforêtclasséedeKaffrine Total

PVbenefitperproject 17’079’694 14’560’716 5’587’176 6’417’660

54’641’375

PVcostperproject -8’762’265 -6’917’782 -21’232’425 -10’099’030 -47’951’730


NPV 7’247’720 6’223’055 -16’652’984 -4’313’103 7’629’873NPVincludingcarbonsequestration 865’331’881 563’512’760 311’290’412

269’565’495

2’009’700’550

Figure4:PVBenefits,PVCostsandPVNet-benefitfromIED’sreforestationprojectsinKaffrine(r=2%)

Figure5:ProjectspecificPVbenefitsandvalueofproductshare

For individual projects, such as KeurMboucki, the provisioning services do not outweigh theimplementation costs (figure 6). However, to the extent that this project aims to reducesalinationbylesseningpressureonexistingnativevegetation,farmerswillenjoyenhancedsoilfertilityrelativetothebaselineofcontinuedsoildegradationandsalination.Inthisregard,itisworth recalling thatweonly providepartial insight into themanyecosystem servicebenefitsprovidedbyIED’srehabilitationandrestorationprojects.Otherimportantbenefitsderivefromcultural or regulating ecosystem services, such as soil stabilisation, nitrogen fixation,groundwaterwaterpurificationandinfiltration,enhancedbiodiversityandtouristactivity.

-60,000,000

-40,000,000

-20,000,000

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

PVbenefit PVcost NPV

7'630'000FCFA

FCFA

(T=15)

Fodder

Timber

Fuelwood

NTFP

-

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

Dimal Mbeuleup KeurMboucki ForêtclasséedeKaffrine

Bene

fitinFCFA(T=15years)

NTFP Fuelwood Timber Fodder

16’980’76514’500’900

5’550’222

6’387’810 NTFPs

24%

Fuelwood42%

Timber32%

Fodder2%


Figure6:projectspecificPVbenefitsandPVcosts

Figure7:projectspecificPVbenefitsandPVcosts

5.CaveatsandperspectivesThis study is a preliminary and partial attempt to comprehensively assess the true economicvalueoftheecologicalrestorationandrehabilitation interventionsundertakenby IEDAfrique.Assuch,thestudyoffersseveralopportunitiesforimprovement.Firstly,thecurrentanalysishasfocusedonspeciesthatareknownbythecorrespondingauthortobeusedinthereforestation

17,079,69514,560,716

5,587,176 6,417,660

-8,762,265-6,917,782

-21,232,425

-10,099,029

-25,000,000

-20,000,000

-15,000,000

-10,000,000

-5,000,000

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

Dimal Mbeuleup KeurMboucki ForêtclasséedeKaffrine

PVBen

efita

ndCostsinFCFA(T=15years)

-30,000,000

-25,000,000

-20,000,000

-15,000,000

-10,000,000

-5,000,000

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15FCFA

Year

Fuelwood NTFP Timber Fodder ImplementaAoncosts


effortsbyIEDAfrique,atthetimeofwriting.Inevitablymorespecieshavebeenusedthanthoseaccounted forhere. Additionally, in relyingonsecondarydataand literature, ithasnotbeenpossible to capture the full range of provisioning services provided by every tree, nor theaccurateyieldsorpricesatwhichthegoodsellortradeinlocalmarkets.Therefore, a useful extension to the current studywouldbe the roll-out of expert interviewswith foresters to obtainmore robust estimates (and cross validations) of NTFP yields; villageandmarketsurveystoestablishlocalpricesforNTFPs,timberandfodder;andforestinventoriestogaugethe‘additionality’ofIEDAfriquesinterventions,intermsofnumbertreesplantedperhectare,theirsurvivalrateandthetreespecies.Since the reforestation activities have started in 2016 or 2017, the implementation ofrepresentative household surveys including forest enterprise budgets, could also be usedestablish a baseline of communities’ actual environmental income. Provided that a follow-upsurveyisundertakensome5to15yearsfromnow,itmaybeusedtoestimatetheimpactofthereforestation projects on overall community or household welfare. The impact assessment6shouldideallybedesignedusingexperimentalorquasi-experimentaltechniquestoensurethatanypotentialwelfareimpactcanbeattributedtotheinterventionsthemselves.Finally and as previously mentioned, the reforestation interventions evaluated here are alsocontributing to enhanced biodiversity and regulating ecosystem services such as waterpurification, groundwater infiltration, soil stabilisation and nitrogen fixation. In a morecomprehensive study, hydrological services can be quantified using Soil Water Assessment(SWAT7)orArtificialIntelligenceforEcosystemServices(ARIES8)toolsandfurthervaluedusingstatedpreference,revealedpreference,productionfunctionsoravoidedcostandmarketbasedvaluationmethods.

6.ConclusionInthecourseof2016and2017,thenotforprofitorganizationIEDAfriquehasbegunasetofreforestation activities in the regionof Kaffrine, in collaborationwith local and departmentalauthorities.Theimplementationcostsofsuchregenerativeactivitiesarenotnegligible,costingsomeFCFA48millionfor4projectscoveringsome82hectares.While the implementation costs associatedwithecosystem rehabilitationaremost significantwithin the first years of a project, they are likely to yield long-termbenefits to communities,wildlife and overall ecosystem integrity. More uncertainty intervenes when estimating suchbenefits over a longer time horizon, e.g. due to unpredictable climates and changingmarketconditions.Wethereforeusearelativelyshorttimehorizonof15-yearstoassesstheeconomicvaluesfromthereforestationactivities. Indoingso,wefindthatreforestationeffortsusingA.Nilotica,B.CostatumandS.Setigera,A.occident,E.CameldilensisandP. JurifloraA.Seyal,A.Senegal species, can provide an additional FCFA 55million in environmental income to localcommunities through the enhanced availability of fuelwood, timber and diverse non-timber

6Impactevaluationisanassessmentofhowaninterventionaffectsoutcomes,whethertheseeffectsareintendedorunintended.Aproperanalysisofimpactrequiresacounterfactualofwhatthoseoutcomeswouldhavebeenintheabsenceoftheintervention.7http://swat.tamu.edu/8http://aries.integratedmodelling.org/


forestproducts.Thevalueoftheseprovisioningecosystemservicesaremorethansufficienttooffsettheprojectinvestment costs, leading to a NPV of approximately FCFA 7 million, when using a modestdiscount rate of 2%. If we had accounted for multiplier effects and changes to hydrologicalservicesandsoilfertility,thelocalnet-benefitswouldinevitablyhavebeenseveralfoldshigher.Fromaglobalperspective,wefindthattheNPVbenefitfromIED’sinterventionsexceedFCFA2billion, when accounting for enhanced carbon sequestration and associated avoided globaldamages.As such, this study has helped enhance our understanding of forests’ role in climate changemitigationandlocaleconomicdevelopmentintheKaffrineregion,notably,asasourceofcashincome, energy and food security that contributes to household welfare and livelihoods. Ashighlighted by FAO, CIFOR, IFRI and the World Bank (2016), such services are especiallyimportantforthepoorestpeopleinmanyregions.Conclusively, itmay be argued that valuation efforts should not stop here. Research for thisstudy has proven that readily available data on tree products and prices are scarce. In thecontextofthe2030AgendaforSustainableDevelopment,bettersocioeconomicdataonforestsare needed in order to give adequate consideration to forest production and consumptionbenefits in conservation and policy planning. Better data may in term contribute to moretargeted and cost-effective development policies for accelerating the achievement the SocialDevelopmentGoals.

ReferencesAchigan-Dako,E.,(2009).TraditionalVegetablesinBenin.Publisher.DarwinInitiative;InternationalFoundationforScienceYear2009AkpoL.E.,I.Coly,D.Sarr,NgometS.Ndao,(2004).Modesd’utilisationdesterresetdiversitéfloristiquedansleterroirdelaNémaenzoneSemi-aride(Sénégal,Afriquedel’Ouest).Journalofagricultureandenvironmentforinternationaldevelopment,Vol.98,No.3(4).Angelsen,A.,Jagger,P.,Babigumira,R.,Belcher,B.,Hogarth,N.J.,Bauch,S.,Börner,J.,Smith-Hall,Appiah,M.,Blay,D.,Damnyag,L.,Dwomoh,F.K.,Pappinene,A.,Luukkanene,O.,(2009).DependenceonforestresourcesandtropicaldeforestationinGhana.Environ.Dev.Sustain.11,471–487.Aronson,J.,Floret,C.,LeFloch,E.,Ovalle,Pontanier,C.,(1993)RestorationandRehabilitationofDegradedEcosystemsinAridandSemi-AridLands.I.AViewfromtheSouth.JournalofRestorationEcology.AtseduM.,Coppock,D.L.,Detling,J.K.,(1994).FruitproductionofAcaciatortilisandA.niloticainsemi-aridEthiopia.AgroforestrySystems27:23-30,1994.1994KluwerAcademicPublishers.PrintedintheNetherlands.BakhoumC.,NdourB.,AkpoL.E.,(2012).TypologyofwoodystandsinSenegal:caseoftheGroundnutBasin.InternationalJournalofScienceandAdvancedTechnology(ISSN2221-8386,)Volume2No2February,http://www.ijsat.com,pp.26-35.Barbier,E.B.(1992).RehabilitatingGumArabicsystemsinSudan:Economicandenvironmentalimplications.EnvironmentalandResourceEconomics,2:341-352.


Bationo,F.(2007).Priseencompteduréseausociotechniquedemaintenancedanslaconceptiond’équipements:casdespetitesunitésdetransformationagroalimentairedespaysd’Afriquedel’ouest.Grenoble,INPG.Baumer,M.,(1992)TreesasbrowseandtosupportanimalproductioninLegumetreesandotherfoddertreesasproteinsourcesforlivestock.FOODANDAGRICULTUREORGANIZATIONOFTHEUNITEDNATIONSRome,1992.ISBN92-5-103203-3Bernard,C.,(2002).Faidherbiaalbida(Delile)A.Chev.[Internet]RecordfromPROTA4U.Oyen,L.P.A.&Lemmens,R.H.M.J.(Editors).PROTA(PlantResourcesofTropicalAfrica/Ressourcesvégétalesdel’Afriquetropicale),Wageningen,Netherlands.<http://www.prota4u.org/search.asp>.Accessed2November2017.Boer,E.,(2002).Acacia19rabic19(L.)Willd.[Internet]RecordfromPROTA4U.Oyen,L.P.A.&Lemmens,R.H.M.J.(Editors).PROTA(PlantResourcesofTropicalAfrica/Ressourcesvégétalesdel’Afriquetropicale),Wageningen,Netherlands.<http://www.prota4u.org/search.asp>Boericke,W.,(2013)PockeetManualofMateriaMedicaandPharmacology.BurkilH.M.(2004)TheUsefulPlantsofWestTropicalAfrica.Year1985–2004.PublisherRoyalBotanicGardens;Kew.http://www.aluka.org/CBI (2016). Exporting Gum Arabic to Europe. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Available from URL:https://www.cbi.eu/market-information/natural-food-additives/gum-arabic/.Cavendish,W.,2000.Empiricalregularitiesinthepoverty-environmentrelationshipofruralhouseholds:evidencefromZimbabwe.WorldDev.28(11),25.Chao,S.,2012.ForestPeoples:NumbersAcrosstheWorld.ForestPeoplesProgramme,Moreton-in-Marsh,U.K.Cisse,M.I.,&Kone,A.R.(1992).ThefodderroleofAcaciaalbida:Extentofknowledgeandprospectsforfutureresearch.In:VandenbeldtR.J.(Ed.).FaidherbiaalbidainWestAfricansemi-aridtropics.ProceedingsofaworkshopheldinNiamey,Niger,pp.29-37.Coppen,J.W.,Eucalyptus,Ed.,Taylor&Francis(2002),London,UK.Delgado-Matas,C.,andPukkala,T.,(2011).ComparisonoftheGrowthofSixEucalyptusSpeciesinAngola.InternationalJournalofForestryResearch.Volume2011(2011),ArticleID980259,9pagesDiattaS.,DoumaS.,HoumeyV.K.,BanoinM.etAkpoL.E.,(2007).Potentialderégénérationnaturelled’unligneuxfourrager(MaeruacrassifoliaForsk.)enzonesahélienne,RevueAfricainedeSantéetdeProductionsAnimales,E.I.S.M.V.deDakar,5(1-2):23-28.EnvironmentalFinance(2017).Lowprices,buthighhopesforthevoluntarycarbonmarket.6thofJune2016.FieldGibsonMediaLtd2017.AvailablefromURL:https://www.environmental-finance.com/content/analysis/low-prices-but-high-hopes-for-the-voluntary-carbon-market.htmlFAO(1979).FoodandAgricultureOrganizationofUnitedNation(FAO),EucalyptsforPlanting,FoodandAgricultureOrganizationofUnitedNation,1979.FAO(1982).TROPICALFORESTRESOURCESASSESSMENTPROJECT.FORESTRESOURCESOFTROPICALAFRICA.PARTI:REGIONALSYNTHESIS.AvailablefromURL:http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/ad909e/AD909E09.htmFAO(2006).Globalplantedforeststhematicstudy:resultsandanalysis,byA.DelLungo,J.BalandJ.Carle.


PlantedForestsandTreesWorkingPaper38.Rome.http://www.fao.org/forestry/12139-03441d093f070ea7d7c4e3ec3f306507.pdfFAO,CIFOR,IFRIandWorldBank(2016).Nationalsocioeconomicsurveysinforestry:guidanceandsurveymodulesformeasuringthemultiplerolesofforestsinhouseholdwelfareandlivelihoods,byR.K.Bakkegaard,A.Agrawal,I.Animon,N.Hogarth,D.Miller,L.Persha,E.Rametsteiner,S.WunderandA.Zezza.FAOForestryPaperNo.179.FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,CenterforInternationalForestryResearch,InternationalForestryResourcesandInstitutionsResearchNetwork,andWorldBank.FAO(2014)StateoftheWorld’sForests2014.Enhancingthesocioeconomicbenefitsfromforests.Rome(availableathttp://www.fao.org/3/a-i3710e.pdf).ForestTrends(2017).UnlockingPotential.StateoftheVoluntaryCarbonMarketsin2017.ForestTrends’EcosystemMarketplace.https://www.cbd.int/financial/2017docs/carbonmarket2017.pdfGEF(2009)Timberlandinvestment&emergingmarkets:Afreshreview&outlook.September2009,GlobalEnvironmentFund.Harmand,J.M.,Ntoupka,M.,Mathieu,B.,ForkongNjiti,C.,Tapsou,J.M.,Bois,J.,P.Thaler,P.,Peltier,R.,(2012).Gum20rabicproductioninAcacia20rabic20plantationsintheSudanianzoneofCameroon:Effectsofclimate,soil,tappingdateandtreeprovenance.BoisetForêtdesTropiques,2012,311(1).AvaiablefromURL:http://bft.cirad.fr/cd/BFT_311_21-33.pdfHouérou(1980).BrowseinAfrica.Thecurrentstateofknowledge.EditedbyH.N.LeHouérou.InternationalLivestockCentreforAfrica.AddisAbaba.Ethiopia.Illukpitya,P.,YanagidaJ.F.,2008.Roleofincomediversificationinprotectionnaturalforests:evidencefromruralhouseholdsinforestmarginsofSriLanka.Vol74(1),pp.51-62IIEDBlog.DecentralisingClimateFundsinMaliandSenegal.AvailablefromURL:https://www.iied.org/decentralising-climate-funds-mali-senegalKizitoF.,SeneM.,DragilaM.I.,LufafaA.,DiedhiouI.,DossaE.,CuencaR.,J.SelkerJ.,DickR.P.,2007.Soilwaterbalanceofannualcrop–nativeshrubsystemsinSenegal’sPeanutBasin:Themissinglink.Agriculturalwatermanagement90:137–148.Mady,C.,(2010).LiteraturereviewandBackgroundinformationofBissap.AfricanFoodTraditionrEvisitedbyResearch.AvaiablefromURLhttps://www.after-fp7.eu/content/download/4133/31061/version/4/file/Literature-review+of+Bissap.pdfMohammedS.A.Abdalla,IzeldinA.Babiker,AbubakrM.Idris,KamalF.Elkalifa.PotentialNutrientCompositionofAcaciaseyalFruitsasFodderforLivestockintheDryLandsinSudan.DevelopmentinAnalyticalChemistryVolume1,2014)Mujawamariya,G.,Burger,K.,Haese,M.,(2012).QualityofGumArabicinSenegal:LinkingtheLaboratoryResearchtotheFieldAssessment.QuarterlyJournalofInternational.Agriculture51(2012),No.4:357-383MwangiE.,Swallow,B.,(2005).InvasionofProsopisjulifloraandlocallivelihoods:CasestudyfromthelakeBaringoareaofKenya.ICRAFWorkingPaper–no.3.Nairobi:WorldAgroforestryCentre.AvailablefromURL:www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/WP13657.pdfNAS(1980).FirewoodCrops.Washington,DC:NationalAcademyofSciences,1980.


NationalAcademyofSciences(1980).Firewoodcrops.ScrubsandTreespeciesforEnergyProduction.ReportoftheAdHocPaneloftheAdvisoryCommitteeonTechnologicalInnovation.NationalAcademyofSciences,WashingtonDC.NEF,IIED,IED-AfriqueConsortium(2014).ProgrammeDevelopmentReport#5.Knowledgeonadaptationand the Reduction of Climate Risks and Disasters in Mali and Senegal – A summary Report. BuildingResilienceandAdaptationtoClimateExtremesandDisasters(BRACED)Nkonya,E.,Anderson,W.,Kato,E.,Koo,J.,Mirzabaev,A.,vonBraun,J.,&Meyer,S.(2015).Globalcostoflanddegradation.Springer(chapter6).Noitang,S.,S.A.Sooksai,T.FoophowandA.Petsom,2009.Proximateanalysisand21rabic-chemicalpropertiesofflourfromtheseedsofthechinachestnutSterculiamonospermaVentenat.Pak.J.Biol.Sci.,12:1314-1319.Nour,T.,Mohammed,E.Y.,Bekele,T.,(2015).TheEffectoftappingmethodsandsometreegrowthparametersonproductivityofAcaciaseyalinSouthKorfofanState,Sudan.InternationalJournalofAgriculture,Forestryandfisheries.3(2),44-51.Ong,C.,Black,C.R.,Marshall,F.M.,&Corlett,J.E.(1996).Principlesofresourcecaptureandutilizationoflightandwater.InOng,C.K.&Huxley,P.(Eds).Tree-cropinteractions:APhysiologicalApproach.London,UK:Oxon.OrwaC.,AMutua,KindtR,JamnadassR,SAnthony.(2009).AgroforestreeDatabase:atreereferenceandselectionguideversion4.0(http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sites/treedbs/treedatabases.asp)OrwaC.,AMutua,KindtR,JamnadassR,SAnthony.(2009a).AgroforestreeDatabase:atreereferenceandselectionguideversion4.0.AcaciaSeyal.AvailablefromURL:http://www.worldagroforestry.org/treedb/AFTPDFS/Acacia_seyal.PDFOrwaC.,AMutua,KindtR,JamnadassR,SAnthony(2009b).AgroforestreeDatabase:Atreereferenceandselectionguideversion4.www.worldagroforestry.org/treedb/AFTPDFS/Eucalyptus_camaldulensis.PDFOrwa,C.,Mutua,A.,KindtR.,JamnadassR.,Anthony,S.,(2009c).AgroforestreeDatabase:atreereferenceandselectionguideversion4.http://www.worldagroforestry.org/treedb/AFTPDFS/Bombax_costatum.PDFOrwaC.,Mutua,Kindt,R.,etal.,(2012).Simmondsiachinensis,AgroforestryDatabase:atreereferenceandselectionguideversion4.0Otsyina,R.M.,Norton,B.W.,Djimdé,M.,(1999).Foddertreesandshrubsinaridandsemi-aridlivestockproductionsystems.In:In‘XVIIIInternationalGrasslandCongress,vol.2,pp429-438.AvaiablefromURL:http://www.internationalgrasslands.org/files/igc/publications/1997/iii-429.pdfPaeth(2006).TheclimateoftropicalandnorthernAfrica-astatistical–dynamicalanalysisofthekeyfactorsinclimatevariabilityandtheroleofhumanactivityinfutureclimatechange.InbonnerMeterologischeAbhandlungen,61,340S.Kazzi,M.,(2016).ACaseStudyofthePerformance,Adoption,andDisseminationofImprovedClayCookStovesinRuralSenegal.SubmittedinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofMScofforestresources.UniversityofWashington.AvailablefromURL:http://depts.washington.edu/sefspcmi/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Kazzi-Thesis.pdfPouliot,M.,Treue,T.(2013).Ruralpeople’srelianceonforestsandthenon-forestenvironmentinWestAfrica:evidencefromGhanaandBurkinaFaso.WorldDevelopment,43:180–193.


Rahim,A.H.,vanIerland,E.C.,&Wesseler,J.(2007).Economicincentivesforabandoningorexpandinggum22rabicproductioninSudan.ForestPolicyandEconomics,10(1):36-47.Rayamajhi,S.,Smith-Hall,C.,Helles,F.,2012.EmpiricalevidenceoftheeconomicimportanceofCentralHimalayanforeststoruralhouseholds.ForestPolicyEcon.20,25–35Ricome,A.,Myint.M.,Westerberg,V.(2014).AneconomicvaluationofsustainablelandmanagementthroughagroforestryineasternSudan.ReportfortheEconomicsofLandDegradationInitiativebytheInternationalUnionforConservationofNature,Nairobi,Kenya.Sall,A.B.,(2017).PersonalcommunicationfromBocarAbdallahSall.IngénieurGénieRural.DirectiondelaGestionetdelaPlanificationdesRessourcesenEau(DGPRE)/MHA.Email:[email protected]é,Y.,Myint,M.,&Westerberg,V.(2014).AneconomicvaluationofagroforestryandlandrestorationintheKelkaForest,Mali.Assessingthesocio-economicandenvironmentaldimensionsoflanddegradation.ReportfortheEconomicsofLandDegradation.ByInternationalUnionforConservationofNature,Nairobi,Kenya.Availablefrom:www.eld-initiative.Sowetal.,(2015)Cost,DriversandActionAgainstLandDegradationinSenegal(chapter19)inGlobalcostoflanddegradation.EphraimNkonya,StefanMeyerandEdwardKatohttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-19168-3_19.pdfSunderlin,W.D.,Angelsen,A.,Belcher,B.,Burgers,P.,Nasi,R.,Santoso,L.,etal.(2005).Livelihoods,forests,andconservationindevelopingcountries:AnoverviewWorldDevelopment,33(9),pp.1383-1402Thiombiano(2014).ProductivitéetvaleuréconomiquedescalicesdeBombaxcostatumPellegr.&VuilletenzonesoudanienneduBurkinaFaso.BOISETFORÊTSDESTROPIQUES,2014,N°319(1)FOCUS/BOMBAXCOSTATUMTropicalForages(2017).Acacianilotica.AvailablefromURL:http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/Acacia_nilotica.htmTropicalplantdatabase(2014).Bombaxcostatum.UsefulTropicalPlantsDatabase2014byKenFern,webinterfacebyAjnaFern.AvailablefromURL:http://tropical.theferns.info/viewtropical.php?id=Bombax+costatumUgalde,L.,Pérez,O.,(2001)MEANANNUALVOLUMEINCREMENTOFSELECTEDINDUSTRIALFORESTPLANTATIONSPECIES.ForestPlantationsThematicPapers.http://www.fao.org/3/a-ac121e.pdfWesterberg,V.,Golay,A.,Houndekon,V.,Costa,L.,(2017)L’économiedeladégradationdesterresauBenin:CasdelacommunedeBantè.RapportpourL’initiativesurL’economiedeladegradationdelaterre.WorldResourcesInstitute(2005)incollaborationwithUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme,UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme,andWorldBank.2005.WorldResources2005:TheWealthofthePoor—ManagingEcosystemstoFightPoverty.Washington,DC:WRIZaruwa,M.Z.,Ibok,N.I.,Ibok,I.U.,Onyenonachi,E.C.,Danchal,C.,Ahmed,A.G.,…Sudi,I.Y.(2016).EffectsofSterculiasetigeraDel.StemBarkExtractonHematologicalandBiochemicalParametersofWistarRats.BiochemistryInsights,9,19–22.http://doi.org/10.4137/BCI.S36143Wunder,S.C.,2014.Environmentalincomeandrurallivelihoods:aglobal-comparativeanalysis.WorldDev.64(1),S12–S28.


AppendicesAppendix1–Summaryofdatainputsusedintheestimationofenvironmentalincomeandthevalueofcarbonsequestration

TableA1:Summaryofdatainputsusedintheeconomicanalysisofforestincomeandcarbon

sequestration

Prices UNIT Estimate

Fuelwood FCFA/ton 3600

GumArabicA.Senegal FCFA/kg 625

FodderfromA.SeyalandA.Nicoltinatrees FCFA/kg 2.3

PricepertimberpoleE.camaldilensis FCFA/pole 300

PricepertimberpoleP.Juriflora FCFA/pole 400

Cashewnuts FCFA/kg 600

BombaxcostatumCalyx FCFA/kg 300

SterculiaSetigeraseedsforfodder FCFA/kgDM 2.3

SterculiaSetigeraleaves(medicinal) FCFA/kgDM 200

NTFPyields

GumArabicyields 5thto9thyear kg/tree 0.1210thto20thyear kg/tree 0.4

21stto25thyear kg/tree 0.23Gum24rabicA.Seyal kg/tree 0.033FodderyieldfromAcaciaSeyal(bythe5thyear) kg/tree 5

FodderyieldfromA.Nicoltina(bythe5thyear) kg/tree 5.2

YieldofAcacianuts kg/haYield=-50+68*year–1.5*year2

S.Setigeraleaves(bythe7thyear) kg/tree 2

S.Setigeraseedsandpods(bythe7thyear) kg/tree 50

BombaxcostatumCalyx(bythe10thyear) kg/tree 2

Meanannualincrements(MAI) m3/ha/year 5

E.camaldulensis m3/ha/year 10

E.camaldulensis m3/ha/year 15

AnacardiumOccident m3/ha/year 4.1

AnacardiumOccident m3/ha/year 5

S.setigera m3/ha/year 4

A.Senegal m3/ha/year 5.6

A.Seyal m3/ha/year 5.6

A.Nilotica m3/ha/year 13

Prosopisjuliflora m3/ha/year 20

Other m3/ha/year 8


Carbon Unit CF–Thecarbonfraction tonnesC/tonneDM 0.5

R–Roottoshootratio dimensionless 0.31

DW–Deadwoodconversionfactor dimensionless 0.11X–ConversionfactorofatomicmassofCtoCO2equivalent dimensionless 3.67

D–Basicwooddensities D–AnacardiumOccident tonnesDM/m3 0.52

D–A.Senegal tonnesDM/m3 0.76D-A.Seyal tonnesDM/m3 0.68

D–E.Camaldulensis tonnesDM/m3 0.9

D–Other tonnesDM/m3 0.7

SCC–Socialcostofcarbon FCFA/tonneCO2eq 23000

Appendix2–DetailedbreakdownofreforestationprojectcostsTableA2:IEDprojectimplementationcostsoverthefirst2yearsoftheprojectduration

DIMAL–CreationoffuelwoodinthevillagesofDimal,Gama,NgorhjileneMourideandKorkyBambarainthedepartmentofBirkilane FCFA

Equipmentandtools(rakes,wheelbarrows,cuttingtorque,forks..) 1126000

Inputsusedinthereforestation(seeds,soil,phytosanitaryproducts,wateretc..) 2900000Awarenessrisingwithineachofthe4villagesconcernedtogetherwithofficialsfromtheagencyofforestandwater 400000

Transportationofinputs 400000

Delineationofzonestoberestoredandreforested 1200000

Holedigging 500000

Supportfortheplanting 2000000

Establishmentoffirebreaks 500000

TotalCost 9'026'000

PresentValueTotalCost(r=2%) 8’762’265

MBEULEUP–RestorationandconservationofthecommunityforestofMbeuleup FCFA

Equipmentandtools(rakes,wheelbarrows,cuttingtorque,forks…etc) 1126000

Inputsusedinthereforestation(seeds,soil,phytosanitaryproducts,wateretc..) 2900000

Awarenessraisingactivities 500000

Transportationofplantsandinputs 400000

Hiringoftechnicalagents 1200000

Identificationofzonestobereforested 500000

Constructionoffirebreaks 500000

TotalCost 7'126'000

PresentValueTotalCost(r=2%) 6'917'782


KEURMBOUCKI–ReforestationandrestorationofthebanksofthetributaryoftheSaloumInletinthecommuneofKeurM'bouck FCFA

Equipment,toolsandinputs 6881500

Awarenessraisingandeducation 2920000

Transportationofinputs 250000

Establishmentoftreenursery 4800000

Weeding,planting,management/maintenance 5320000

Other 1700000

TotalCost 21'871'500


KAHI-RestorationoftheclassifiedforestofKaffrineinKahi TOTALFCFA

Educationalactivities 531000

Awarenessraisingamongstvillagers 1349000

Establishmentofenclosures 2437500

Smallequipment(rakes,wheelbarrows,cuttingtorque,forks..) 755500

Largerequipment(donkeys,wagons) 200000

Gardien(paidlabour) 1320000

Plantproductionmaterial 2970000

Plantation 657500

Protection(firebreaksandweeding) 182500

TotalCost 10'403'000


valuation of forest produce final 8.12 - ied kaffrine vw · livelihood strategies. regrettably...

Documents