 Thank you for coming here. My presentation is on common property force management and it's an implication for rate. That's a case study from Ethiopia, prepared by myself, Randolph Stone from Portland State University and Alamo from Alassane University. My presentation outline is as follows, introduction, some literature on force management, trade and livelihoods, methodology on the data and empirical strategy issues and discussion and finally the conclusion. To give you some background on climate change, as you know, this is far out the most environmental problem facing humanity today and around 70 to 20% of this global greenhouse gas emissions can be really attributed to deforestation and forest degradation. And this is due to, again, the problem of, you know, this deforestation for various purpose, forest degradation for various purpose, burning of biomass for cooking and heating. These are the key contributors to climate change. But we know that forest display in number of routes, like adaptation to climate change, especially in the case of water management, conserve a caravan or help in reducing, you know, this global warming, coming to the case of Africa or Ethiopia, we know that most of the rural population depend on a variety of these forest resources, timber and non-timber forest protectors. And the challenge is how to reduce this problem of deforestation and forest degradation in order to use foresters for, you know, adaptation or mitigating climate change without really compromising the livelihood of the people. There are so many factors indicated as cause for deforestation or forest degradation in Ethiopia, for example, a poorly defined property right is one of the main cause. And to give you a background on the forest status of our country, some 4.6% of the forest cover and a 0.8% or something like 140 to 160 or 180 depending on the source, hectares of forest are deforested each year. So, recognizing this problem, forest proclamation was issued in 2007, and forest policy was also approved in the same year, and both documents allow a variety of national arrangements for investment in forests, like CPF and private or loss and on-farm trees, like that. But it's now that a more promising additional arrangement is common property, because various literature show that it is efficient in terms of, you know, direct household-level benefits, and it's because better management generally increase the forest value, both, you know, the timber and non-timber forest products. But such a vision of common property forest management is insufficient given, you know, the importance of this better management for climate change. For example, some studies show that adoption of this common property forest management are important for red. But there is still a little understanding between CPF and climate change by various stakeholders. So, what's objective is just to add to the limited literature, which are not really rigorous, like the one by Chattanoagral in 2009, which is published in PINAS, is one, by just examining the link between CPF and carbon stock in the study area. Again, just to give you background on the link between this forest management trade and livelihoods, the increased focus on the relation between the forest governments and red has highlighted really the importance of commonly owned and managed forests. And the concern is that, there are concerns that red plants will, you know, centralize forest control and harm the very poor people who are really dependent on the forest. That's because it's unlikely that the carbon revenue obtained from that will be able to replace this incentive, or the social gains from community forest is by far greater than the position of revenue from carbon, as some say. But on the other hand, some scholars argue that community forest can give multiple outcomes. There are multiple outcomes in the form of like benefits to the householders, biodiversity conservation in terms of carbon storage. And the literature also showed that effective CPF would be forced to restrict the collection. There are a number of literatures on this one. It also shows that it has a positive impact in reducing deforestation and conserving foresters. That implies clearly defined and enforced property rights to forest land resources is considered to be a precondition for effective implementation of red programs. And I grew up in Angerchen in 2009. I've also discussed in detail, you know, the role of local level conditions in the red. When you say this local level conditions, it refers to, you know, the normals and the catchers, the attitudes and so on. And this, for instance, clear boundaries of forestry, local autonomy in designing clear and enforceable routes for access and use of foresters, things like monitoring and sanctioning routes. A lot of initial indicators are very important for the successful implementation of a red plus. And there are also other literatures on this. Some studies also show the importance of creating awareness for red plus initiative to be successful against study from Tanzania. And some found that this red plus is less successful because the local community in the eastern section of Madagascar, for instance, are still unaware of these red issues. So the empirical evidence on the link between this carbon stock and socioeconomic characteristics are also very limited. I think, Jimmy from Tanzania, amount of carbon sequestered by three some farmers is also dependent on household characteristics, things like education, sex of the household and so on. And some socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals are the most dependent on the forest and some are afraid that it may affect the livelihood of these people because of the introduction of these restrictive measures. So in order to reduce this deforestation for forest degradation, the other thing is in addition to the micro level, the micro level should be under, I mean, should be stressed. I mean, like the underline, we call them the underline causes. These are, you know, the population, for example, and poverty and land use rights and others should be considered. So, though recently the issue of red has attracted, you know, carry emissions and there is still a growing empirical literature on that, to our knowledge, the available evidences are mainly discreet and largely qualitative in nature. So our aim is just to add to the limited literature on red and forest management. So what's the methodology done? We have data collected for the project entitled household forest values under varying management regions in Ethiopia. So the purpose was to look at, you know, the forest values under different types of property rights regions. So we try to use that data for this purpose, even though it has some limitations. So the sample sites were selected based on sites selected for the sustainable land management program, run by the World Bank, and I think GIZ also. And we, after purpose selecting the sites, we use a simple random sampling technique to select the households to be interviewed. So originally 600 households, but for our purpose we selected only some 350 households where there is this data of all nations that are collected. And both household level and community level were collected. And we have different information on that, like forest cover, biomass availability, density, agroecology, household characteristics and so on. Another important thing in this exercise was the estimation of carbon stock, which was estimated by one of the team members, Forrester. And there are different estimation developed for tropical countries, the Brown Italy, Brown 1997, Pearson 2005, which I'm not familiar with, because that is estimated by one of the Forresters. And he used one of these, which is considered to be the best for giving carbon estimation or carbon stock, as it considers the diameter, the height of the trees, and diameter of breast heights. So, though he gave us three different estimation based on the three techniques, we choose one, which according to him is based on giving the real estimates or closer to that. This is the carbon stock, which I mean showing the variation among the steady size. Cavalry is the lowest administrative unit in Ethiopia. And also the carbon stocks per hectare is different from side to side, ranging from 0.08 to 119 tons per hectare. The empirical strategy is we just use a simple oil less carbon stock here per capita versus you know, CPFM, other exogenous community level variables and agroecological zones. And finally, we have the disarmament cell. So, the CPFM index is based on perception of householders. And in order to get that index, we use a factor analysis. And we got one factor with eigenvalue greater than one. And the limitation of this is there are some variables which wanted to be included in the analysis, but because of lack of data, we were not able to include dots like grazing density, the presence of integers for forest development and so on. So, we use a simple oil less method for forest emission. We have different specifications like per capita or per hectare versus initial and other conditioning variables. The results show that the local level issues has a positive and significant effect on the level of carbon stock. And this is basically, you know, there are a list of costumes and it's from that we get, you know, this indicator. I can say that it refers to monitoring enforcement. Some of them refers to the allocation, some of them refers to, you know, the fairness in the distribution of products and the awareness among the members of the community. So, we can say that enforcing a system of rules and regulation may have a positive implication for forest conditions. Then, increasing the awareness of households as some literature also indicates is very important for the successful implementation of right. In this case, many to target development agencies or village leaders just to transfer the message. Also, a fair and acceptable system of, you know, the access and distribution of forest resources for the sustainable management of forest is also important. It has to be clear. Evidence also shows that policies that empower communities and that have clear access in the extraction rules are also effective. So, in general, we can say that, though we need to know which aspect of forest management is really very important for the carbon stock, in general, we can say the strong level of local level issues are necessary to improve the forest condition and his level of carbon stock. A number of conditions variables are also significant. Forest density, which is important for the carbon stock. So, high population relative to the forest area may reduce the carbon stock and they need to consider the role of the role of the role of the population in selecting sites for, for rate, for example. Forest area, as also indicated by another paper, Chatter and Agral, is also another important factor in affecting, you know, carbon stock and need to increase, need to consider really how to increase the current forest area just by plantation or rehabilitated degraded forest and so on. We, we try to include, you know, how far is the household from the, from, from, from the town, but we got a mixed result for different estimations. Agroecological factors need to be considered again here and things like altitude is also very important and there is also variation across regions as the coefficient for the demivirable show. So, conclusions, I have already stated that strong level, local level issues are important to increase carbon stock and improve tree cover by improving tree cover and consequently enhance, you know, the total carbon stock. It is necessary to consider the role of the population in selecting areas for rate implementation. Areas where the forest density is low seems a good candidate for, for, for red. And it's also important to have a policy that tries to increase forest cover, so maybe plantation at a larger scale or just by considering other degraded areas. And the other, the role of agricultural factors may be, may be, may be considered, but it really requires further study because we were not serious in classifying the regions into these different agricultural zones. While there are still a lot of things to be done in this area, like which, which aspects of forest management may be important for rate and also things like the issue of leakage, that is, that is, when you restrict, you know, communities to, to, from, from, from using, you know, the resources from the particular forest, then it is possible that those households or communities may go to the other, neighboring foresters and we call that a show of leakage. These things, how the, you know, forest management can be used to avoid this kind of leakage is another important factor. Thank you.