1. Centre for Sustainable and Resilient Communities Seminar Series Spring Term Wednesday 4 February Janet Lowore, PhD student, CSRC ‘Honey Money: a sweeter way to help prevent deforestation and global warming?' 1315-1445 BSG/09 - with lunch

2. The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Four Main Findings ■ Ecosystems are being degraded faster then ever before ■ Human well-being has been improving (win) – but at a cost (lose) ■ Degradation of ecosystem is currently worsening ■ Reversing the trend needs major changes in policies and practices Options exist to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies with other ecosystem services (win – win) http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html Half of the topsoil on the planet has been lost in the last 150 years. http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and- degradation

3. Provisioning services – e.g. tangible things such as food, water and medicines Regulating services - e.g. prevention of floods, prevention of climate change Cultural services – e.g. recreation and beauty Supporting services - e.g. pollination services, soil retention and nutrient cycling. Why people need nature

4. Deforestation The world’s rain forests could completely vanish in a hundred years at the current rate of deforestation. Deforestation is the source of 15-20% of global carbon emissions http://wwf.panda.org

5. Reduce negative trade-offs ….. ‘win-win’ instead of ‘win-lose’? “The practice of extracting economically valuable, non- timber forest products leaving the forests structurally and functionally intact, has emerged as a possible means of reconciling the conflicting roles of tropical forests“, (Nepstad and Schwartzman 1992).

6. Win - locals benefit Win - conservation benefits

7. SW Highlands of Ethiopia

11. Conservation logic

12. Conservation logic and honey in Ethiopia

13. Why we lose at ‘win-win’

14. Taken from Sills et al 2011 in Shackleton et al 2011 Hard to commercialise Substitutable Inferior Unproductive Over-exploitation Elite capture Poverty traps Not wilderness

15. What about honey? Taken from Sills et al 2011 in Shackleton et al 2011 Hard to commercialise Substitutable Inferior Unproductive Over-exploitation Elite capture Poverty traps Not wilderness Possible to commercialise Preferred Productive Sustainable harvest Fair distribution of benefits Out of poverty Biodiversity maintained Not readily substituted

17. Conservation logic, commercial success – and the confounding factors 1. Opportunity cost – forests are good, but something else is better. 2. Other people – forests are good, but I am not in control.

18. Forests are good, something else is better

19. Coffee forestCloud forest Net annual income per ha in Birr (US$) Total smallholder agriculture production 3692 (246)4549 (303) NTFPs, including coffee in the coffee forest 8217 (547)1019 (68) 94% from honey in the Cloud forest Sustainable wood harvest (timber and fuelwood) 240 (16)207 (14) Taken from Competitive forests – making forests sustainable in South West Ethiopia James Peter Sutcliffe, Adrian Wood and Julian Meaton 2012

20. The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Four Main Findings ■ Humans are changing and damaging ecosystems faster then ever before ■ Overall human well-being has been improving – but at a cost. ■ The trend in the degradation of ecosystem is currently worsening ■ Reversing the trend needs major changes in policies and practices Options exist to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies with other ecosystem services. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html Half of the topsoil on the planet has been lost in the last 150 years. http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and- degradation

21. Forests are good, but I am not in control Who gains? Who decides?

24. Option Government owned, no PFM, no locally devolved rights, de facto open access, risk of incoming investors ‘taking’ the land, forest degradation Unacceptable to local communities PFM, with NTFP harvesting permitted, but with restrictions on timber harvesting and forest clearing Acceptable to local communities Full ownership with the freedom to manage forest, convert forest to farmland and/or harvest timber. Not offered to local communities In south-west Ethiopia

25. Evaluation of NTFP-PFM project The End of Project Evaluation recorded, “The project has had a positive impact on the local honey trade. This NTFP trade is now well established …. ”(NTFP-PFM 2013:35). The Project Impact Assessment Report reported a notable fall in forest encroachment and illegal harvesting and a notable increase in forest regeneration and the health of young seedlings(Bekele and Tesfaye 2013).

26. In summary Forest beekeeping performs well - commercial, livelihoods, biodiversity Alone cannot compete where agriculture is more profitable – need to consider wider forest benefits Tenurial arrangements must ensure that those who gain are those who decide

27. Zambia – a commercial success

29. Zambia – questions? Community members will conserve and protect forest resources if they receive the economic benefits from sustainable forest use? (Lecup and Nicholson 2009) 1.Are the benefits enough? (hanging in, stepping up, stepping out) 2.Who benefits? Who decides? 3.What are the trade-offs? 4.What is the cost? 5.Where is the ‘tipping point’?

30. Thank you for listening t © text and images Bees for Development