Discussion

2.5.1. Forest dependency

Forest dependency is often measured only based on the share of forest income.

We think that environmental income should be considered as well when defining forest dependency, as fishing and hunting strongly depend on healthy forest ecosystems. The latter was also advocated by Vedeld et al. (2007). Therefore we include data on both the forest-related and environmental income. Additionally, we should also consider that environmental and climatic conditions such as rainfall and phenological cycles severely affect production and collection patterns. Therefore high levels of income heterogeneity can occur within one year or during subsequent years. In this respect, McSweeney (2002), Godoy et al. (2002) and Coomes et al. (2004) made similar observations.

The share of forest-related income is 3.9% over all study groups, ranging between 1.0% for the far-from-market Kichwa and 9.6% for the far-from-market Shuar (Table 2.4). Even though forest-related income might be underestimated, as explained in the previous section, it is still very low when compared to other studies, such as those by McSweeney (2002) in Honduras and Uberhuaga et al.

(2012) in Bolivia that provide higher values with 3.0-47.0% and 18.0-24.0%, respectively. Noticeable in all studies are large deviations between the studied groups, which can be partly explained with respect to timber sale. Other factors include the accounting of firewood and NTFPs, which differs considerably between the different groups.

If we consider both, forest-related income and environmental income, percentages range from 5.1% for both Colonist groups, to 7.9% for Shuar close-to market, 15.1% for the Kichwa close-close-to-market, 17.7% for the Shuar far-from-market and 26.9% for the Kichwa far-from-far-from-market. However, this is still very low when compared to other studies, as for example those by Godoy et al. (2002) in Bolivia and Honduras, who calculated environmental-related income shares of 17.0% up to 45.0% (including bush-meat and fisheries). The comparably low weight of forest-related (environmental) income in our study can be explained mainly with the high off-farm income provided by the oil companies. Over all study groups, NTFPs account for only 0.1% of the total income; Colonists did not report NFTPs at all. Even taking into account the uncertainties in data acquisition, the importance of NFTPs must be rated as very low. Uberhuaga et al. (2012) presented comparable values for the Bolivian lowlands, where NTFPs represent less than 1% of the total household income. In Ecuador, Grimes et al.

(1994) reported a potential average net annual value of US$ 115 from NTFPs, which corresponds to a comparably small percentage.

Taking a look at income diversification (Table 2.4), we see that both Colonist groups and Shuar close-to-market have a relatively high coefficient of specialization between 0.50 and 0.48, followed by Shuar far-from-market (0.38) and Kichwa close-to market (0.33). The lowest degree of specialization – or in other words, the highest income diversification – is represented by the Kichwa far-from-market (0.24). This indicates that Colonists but also Shuar close-to-market have a stronger close-to-market-orientation and are less dependent on forest and environmental income.

2.5.2. Implications for the design of REDD+ projects

Our data shed light over strategies to promote deforestation avoidance under REDD+. The communities chosen for our study were those interested in REDD+

participation to generate additional income. They are characterized by low deforestation rates between 0.3% and 0.01% for the decade 2000-2010 (HIVOS-FEPP, 2012), low cash-related forest-dependency, and high off-farm income, even though there are differences between the ethnic groups and the distance-to-markets. Moreover, a high percentage of households of these communities have a secondary house outside the community. This indicates that communities engaging in REDD+ are those with low dependency on forest-related cash income, where the pressure on forests is already comparably low, so that there is only little effect on deforestation avoidance under REDD+. We could even say that communities participating in REDD+ obtain some extra income for forests that would have been maintained anyway without additional incentives. To give an example, the community “Ruminahui” with a projected deforestation rate of 0.3% (the highest among our communities), equivalent to 3 ha per year for 2020 (HIVOS-FEPP, 2012), and considering the lowest carbon stock of 161.79 t/ha (593.7 tCO2/ha) (MAE, 2013) with an average fix REDD+ carbon price of US$

7.2/tCO2e (Goldstein et al., 2014), the community could gain in a ten-year payment contract 8,976.7 US$/year or 690.5 US$ year per family. These values represent the 70% of the total calculated value following Evans et al. (2013).

However other costs such as insurance and monitoring should be also added.

Communities with higher deforestation rates (1.8% deforestation rate in the Northeastern Amazon for the period 1996-2002 in Mena et al., 2006) and potentially higher revenues from REDD+ showed no interest in participating in the REDD+ pilot project. These communities are probably engaged in more profitable activities such as logging or do not have land rights over occupying territories. Other reasons are the difficulty to enter REDD+ projects when compared to the National Scheme Sociobosque and the anti-REDD lobbying (Reed, 2011).

Considering the targeted long-term perspectives of REDD+ frameworks, we must take into account that off-farm income provided by oil companies is only temporal. After oil exploitation, the companies will leave the region and temporal labor will likely decline. This will reduce off-farm income possibilities and probably set higher pressures on forest resources, as can be seen in other regions where oil companies already left.

When implementing REDD+, we must also consider that before the current oil exploitation the region has already experienced coffee, cacao and cattle ranching booms (Erazo, 2011) and also the influence of governmental policies, availability of credits, and engagement of NGOs have changed over time. These external factors have immense impacts on livelihoods, income generation, and land use.

Therefore livelihood strategies in the Northeastern Amazon cannot be explained through traditional land-use decision-making processes (Pichon, 1997a; Rudel et al., 2002; Barbieri et al., 2005). In this context we must understand that all study groups still undertake shifting cultivation with almost 40% of the selected households practicing cut-and-mulch on a regular basis. As long as the population density is not too high, traditional land use practices are considered sustainable as they conserve soil fertility, encourage food security, and minimize negative impacts on species diversity (Siren, 2007). Therefore they should be incorporated in REDD+ schemes and enough land should be kept to ensure this.

The same applies for hunting, fishing and firewood collection, which should be permitted at least to a certain extent. Moreover, REDD+ should be part of an overall development strategy aiming at income diversification. Due to the high fluctuation of market prices of perennial cash crops, but also carbon prices, subsistence income from various sources remains particularly important in the long term.

With respect to diversity of the forests, we must consider that Colonist and Shuar communities practiced selective timber extraction in the past, so that most of the valuable trees have already been logged. In contrast, Kichwa have larger territories where most of the valuable trees are still present. Therefore REDD+

could be a suitable instrument to protect these rich forests on Kichwa lands in the future.

Apart from deforestation avoidance, there is the possibility of forest reforestation under REDD+. However, in our study region this option is limited to pasturelands of Shuar and Kichwa communities. Cattle ranging is not a traditional land use practice of these ethnicities. It is promoted by the Ecuadorian government who donates animals and provides cheap credits for livestock production (III Censo Nacional Agropecuario 2012- INEC, 2012). As cattle ranging negatively affects biodiversity and soil conditions (Pichon, 1996; Rudel et al., 2002) and at the same time only generates a small proportion of the total income, pasturelands could be converted to forests. In contrast, cattle ranging plays a crucial role for the Colonists as a coping strategy during times of economic crisis. Moreover, livestock ownership provides them access to loans. Therefore converting

pastureland to forests is not a promising strategy for them. Here, introducing agroforestry systems and including them into REDD+ schemes could achieve enhancement of carbon stocks.