1. Alternate Approaches
2. Base theoretical study (Buekering and Cesar, 2002)
2.1. Reason for study
2.1.1. severe threat of deforestation for timber and NTFPs
2.2. objective
2.2.1. determine TEV of Leuser Ecosystem and evaluate the consequences of deforestation
2.3. Dynamic simulation model
2.3.1. conservation scenario
2.3.1.1. no cutting of trees
2.3.1.2. timber revenue 0
2.3.1.3. ntfp revenue - yes
2.3.1.4. eco tourism- max developed
2.3.1.5. Conservation funds; carbon sequestration funds - high
2.3.1.6. natural functions maintained for local use
2.3.2. deforestation scenario
2.3.2.1. Maximum cutting of trees
2.3.2.2. high timber revenue
2.3.2.3. NTFPs yes
2.3.2.4. no ecotourism developed
2.3.2.5. Conservation funds; carbon sequestration funds - minimal
2.3.2.6. natural functions maintained for local use declined
2.3.3. selective use scenario
2.3.3.1. Reduced and controlled cutting of trees; replanting of trees
2.3.3.2. timber revenue - yes
2.3.3.3. NTFP revenue - yes
2.3.3.4. eco tourism- minimal development
2.3.3.5. Conservation funds; carbon sequestration funds - lesser funds
2.3.3.6. natural functions maintained for local use partially maintaned
2.4. Stakeholders
2.4.1. Regency level
2.4.1.1. 11 regencies
2.4.2. Societal level
2.4.2.1. local communities (households, small-scale farmers and entrepreneurs)
2.4.2.2. local government (body that maintains infrastructure and collect taxes)
2.4.2.3. elite logging and plantation industry
2.4.2.4. national government (law enforcing body)
2.4.2.5. international community (representing global concerns for poverty, climate change and biodiversity loss)
2.5. Methodology
2.5.1. Impact pathway approach
2.5.1.1. defining the boundaries of the study
2.5.1.1.1. TEV in 3 scenarios
2.5.1.1.2. temporal boundary - 2000-2030
2.5.1.1.3. geographical boundaries
2.5.1.2. Identifying impacts that are economically significant
2.5.1.2.1. location, timing and reversibility of the effect
2.5.1.2.2. the potential effect on the natural, human, chemical and physical environment
2.5.1.2.3. whether the effect is positive or negative
2.5.1.3. Physically quantifying the significant impacts
2.5.1.3.1. dynamic simulation model was developed
2.5.1.4. Calculating monetary values and conducting a sensitivity analysis
2.5.1.4.1. nine categories
2.5.2. Calculating the overall value
2.5.2.1. cost and benefits vary over time
2.5.2.1.1. c&b needs to be converted to NPVs by discounting
2.5.2.1.2. apply different discount rates
2.5.2.2. sensitivity analysis
2.5.2.2.1. all effects can't be expressed in monetary terms; qualitative assessment is also used
2.6. Impact on ecological functions & services because of deforestation
2.6.1. Reduction in water: increase floods and droughts
2.6.2. increased erosion
2.6.3. reduced pest control and pollination
2.6.4. reduction of primary and secondary forest
2.6.5. Socio- economics effects of physical impact
2.6.5.1. Drinking & industrial losss
2.6.5.1.1. production function and market price
2.6.5.2. fish catch
2.6.5.2.1. production function and market price
2.6.5.3. mortality and infrastructure
2.6.5.3.1. human capital approach and market price
2.6.5.4. agricultural production
2.6.5.4.1. production function and market price
2.6.5.5. damage costs and lost production
2.6.5.5.1. production function and market price
2.6.5.6. tourist days & wtp spending
2.6.5.6.1. Contingent valuation and market price
2.6.5.7. wtp for biodiversity
2.6.5.7.1. contingent valuation and international funds
2.6.5.8. substitute costs and collection time
2.6.5.8.1. market price
2.6.5.9. Cost of climate change
2.6.5.9.1. IPCC standard values
2.7. Benefits of Leuser ecosystem
2.7.1. Water supply
2.7.2. fishery
2.7.3. flood and drought prevention
2.7.4. agriculture and plantations
2.7.5. hydroelectricity
2.7.6. tourism
2.7.7. biodiversity
2.7.8. carbon sequestration
2.7.9. fire prevention
2.7.10. NTFPs
2.7.11. Timber
3. Conceptual Framework of Total Economic Valuation (TEV)
3.1. Dynamic approach can be used for Cost- Benefit under TEV technique.
3.2. Variables of TEV
3.2.1. Direct use value
3.2.1.1. Timber, fuelwood, NTFPs, Tourism, Recreation, Fodder, Biochemicals, Oxygen, Water
3.2.2. Indirect use value
3.2.2.1. Watershed protection, fire prevention, flood control, water & nutrient recycling, carbon sequestration, soil fertility replacement, erosion protection
3.2.3. Option use value
3.2.3.1. Conserved habitat, Biodiversity, Medicinal plants, educational, scientific information
3.2.4. Bequest value
3.2.4.1. Habitats, climate change,biodiveristy
3.2.5. Existence value
3.2.5.1. Habitats, endangered species, biodiversity
3.3. Valuation of non-use products of forests is important for appropriate estimation of value of forests.
3.4. Fixation of discount rates are very important - best rate is between 2-4%
3.5. Stakeholders importance
3.5.1. local
3.5.2. national
3.5.3. international