On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Janaki Alavalapati wrote: > Hello Jean-claude Eono: > The project which you described is interesting. I think I am missing > something there. When you wrote that the program is successful because > it is free, what do you mean by that? Are youth not being paid for their > labour contribution? The labour is drawn from the unemployment pool. The payement they receive is from (was from) the LEAP program. Basically it is a transfer from the Department of social security to the Department of Vocational employment and Training and Industrial Relations (DeVeTIR) who pays the dfference between the unemployment benefits and the training wage. The youth have to spent X amount hours in a college. IF so who is paying the youth? I think land owners > are paying. Landholders do not pay anyone. Since 1995, a contribution of $250/ha has been required, but between 1992 and 1995, this was not required. What are the potential alternate uses of that landbase? My surveys shows that although the idea was to plant on degraded type of soil, many actually plant on pasture and agricultural land. Of course, the areas are generally not large (leass than 3 ha. Others are along creeks for banks stabilisation. > My observation from Indian agroforestry adoption is that land owners are > highly responsive to the rate of return of the land base. I am not > saying that they do not consider non-timber values. But if those > benefits are external to these land owners, they put more weight on > their monetary benefit. In my surveys again which support previous surveys in other regions of Australia, landholders attach more importance to the non-timber values. This can easily be explained by the "fact" that the tree species planted will not be harvested for another 40 or 50 years minimum for optimal timber value. If the non-market benefits are external, they > have to be compensated to undertake tree planting until the net benefits > are zero! I am not sure I understand you here. They have many non-market benefits themselves. As explained above that is why they participate in the program. Many wanted to plant but could not afford it, and some wouls like to plant more. (arrest of land degradation, aesthetic value etc... > Janaki Alavalapati > Department of Rural Economy > University of Alberta > Edmonton, Canada >
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0