1 / 6

Partner presentations – some preliminary PEN findings

This presentation presents preliminary findings from the PEN workshop in Bogor, March 2009, focusing on forest income and its relationship to poverty. It highlights the high forest income share in comparison to other sources and discusses the poverty profile associated with forest dependence. The importance of different forest products and their pricing is also explored, along with the role of the forest as a safety net during shocks. The presentation concludes by addressing data issues and the need for further analysis.

amberboyd
Télécharger la présentation

Partner presentations – some preliminary PEN findings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Partner presentations – some preliminary PEN findings PEN workshop, Bogor, March 2009

  2. Forest income and poverty • Forest income share higher than all, except 2, predicted • From 10-60 % • Average 25 % (Khaled &Pablo leading the prophet race) • +8% more than you guessed. Some of you should be very surprised. • If high: one single commercial product • Brazil nut in B&B, Acai (Brazil), Tung oil (China)

  3. Poverty profile • Absolute forest income (forest use): • More for the rich for all except Marie • Relative forest income (forest dependence) • About half had a clear pro-poor profile

  4. Which forest products • Fuelwood listed as most important in 2/3 of cases • Pricing? • Sawnwood important in some • Underestimating wood, it’s not only for the rich guys? • Few NTFPs products dominate • NTFP-inflation? • Coding artifact? • After all, forest is mainly wood?

  5. Safety net and shocks • Limited role • Reflect direct response • Some exceptions (e.g. Ethiopia and Bangladesh) • Need more detailed statistical analysis • Do hh experiencing shocks have higher forest income, cet.par. ? • Strong seasonality in most studies • Interesting for further studies

  6. Some more points • Many data issues remain: • Cleaning • Coding • Pricing • Better analysis to test hypotheses

More Related