Economics of Multiple Use Cork Oak Woodlands: Two Case Studies of Agroforestry Systems

  • P. Campos
  • H. Daly-Hassen
  • P. Ovando
  • A. Chebil
  • J. L. Oviedo
Part of the Advances in Agroforestry book series (ADAG, volume 6)


Jerez (Spain) and Iteimia (Tunisia) cork oak agroforestry systems have close natural environments but they differ in land property rights, labour market and economic development contexts. These human induced differences result in similarities and dissimilarities on natural resources multiple use management. In this study we apply a simplified agroforestry accounting system (AAS) in two publicly owned cork oak agroforestry systems (COAS) for an average year, assuming steady state situation, without considering both environmental outputs (private and public) and government expenditures. The study objectives are to analyse the multiple Jerez and Iteimia agroforestry system activities intra-relationships taking into account intermediate outputs and to estimate a set of on-site cork oak agroforestry economic indicators related to single activity and the COAS as whole aggregated activities. In addition, in order to estimate separately the Iteimia open access grazing resource rent and the household's self-employed labour cost, we propose a simulated pricing approach trade-off as an alternative to close substitute goods pricing method. The study results show that Jerez generates a commercial capital income loss and employees receive competitive wage rate, while undertakes a significant investment on agroforestry natural resources conservation and improvements. Opposite to Jerez, Iteimia actual management offers a positive capital income and a high household self-employed labour income on hectare basis, mainly from livestock and, in a less extent, other agroforestry land uses carried out in the local subsistence-economy. The noteworthy dependence of Iteimia households on cork oak multiple use, with a current negative impact on that resources conservation, make household subsistence-economy highly sensitive to nature conservationist policies and measures.


Agroforestry accounting system income Jerez Spain Iteimia Tunisia 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BCT (Banque Centrale de Tunisie) (2003) Rapport Annuel 2002. BCT, TunisiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Mansoura A, Garchi S, Daly H (2001) Analyzing forest users' destructive in Northern Tunisia. Land Use Policy 18(2):153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berzborn S (2007) The household economy of pastoralists and wage-labourers in the Richtersveld, South Africa. J Arid Environ 70(4):672–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campos P (2004) Towards a sustainable global economy for Mediterranean agro-forestry systems. In: Schnabel S, Gonçalves A (eds.) Sustainability of Agro-silvo-pastoral Systems. Dehesas and Montados. Adv Geoecology, vol. 37. Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen, Germany, pp13–28Google Scholar
  5. Campos P, Caparrós A (2006) Social and private total Hicksian incomes of multiple use forests in Spain. Ecol Econ 57(4):545–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campos P, Salgado JFM (1987) Informe forestal de los Montes de Propios de Jerez de la Frontera. Instituto de Economía y Geografía Aplicada, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, MadridGoogle Scholar
  7. Campos P, Rodríguez Y, Caparrós A (2001) Towards the Dehesa total income accounting: theory and operative Monfragüe study cases. Invest Agrar Sist Recur for special issue 1:45–69Google Scholar
  8. Campos P, Sanjurjo E, Caparrós A (2005a) Spain. In: Merlo M, Croitoru L (eds.) Valuing Mediterranean Forests: Towards Total Economic Value. CAB International, Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Campos P, Oviedo P, Ovando P (2005b) La cadena de la economía del corcho en los Montes de Propios de Jerez de la Frontera. Revista Española de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros 208:83–113Google Scholar
  10. Campos P, Ovando P, Rodriguez Y (2005c) Comparative analysis of the EAA/EAF and AAS Agroforestry Accounting Systems: Theoretical Aspects. In: Mosquera R, Riguero A, McAdan J (eds.) Silvopastoralism and Sustainable Land Management. (ABI publishing, Wallingford, pp 324–329Google Scholar
  11. Campos P, Daly H, Oviedo JL et al. (2008) Accounting for single and aggregated forest incomes: application to public cork oak forests in Jerez (Spain) and Iteimia (Tunisia). Ecol Econ 65:76–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chebil A, Campos P, Ovando P et al. (in press) The total commercial income from cork oak forest Agroforestry system in the region of Iteimia, Tunisia. In: Zapata-Blanco S (ed) Alcornocales e industria corchera: hoy, ayer y mañana Cork oak woodlands and cork industry: present, past and future. Museu del Suro de Palafrugell, Palafrugell, Spain. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  13. Delang CO (2006) Not just minor forest products: the economic rationale for the consumption of wild food plants by subsistence farmers. Ecol Econ 59(1):64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DGF (DirecçÃo Geral das Florestas) (2006). Obtained from the Associacion Portuguesa de Cortiça (APCOR) 2007. Cork Production — Area of Cork Oak Forest. Cited 23 May 2007
  15. Ellatifi M (2005) Marocco. In: Merlo M, Croitoru L (eds.) Valuing Mediterranean Forests: Towards Total Economic Value. CAB International, Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2006) Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network Farm Return Data Definitions Accounting years 2006, 2007. RI/CC 1256 rev. 4. European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. Eurostat (2000) Manual on Economic Accounts for Agriculture and Forestry EAA/EAF 97 (Rev.1.1). European Communities, Brussels/LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organitation) (2001) North Africa. In: Global Forest Resources. Assessment 2000. Main Report. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  19. INS (Institut National de la Statistique—Tunisie) (2000) Enquête nationale sur le budget, la con-sommation et les niveaux de vie des ménages. INS, TunisiaGoogle Scholar
  20. Mahapatra AK, Tewari DD (2005) Importance of non-timber forest products in the economic valuation of dry deciduous forests of India. Forest Policy Econ 7(3):455–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin M, Espejo M, Plaza J, et al. (1987) Cálculo de la carga ganadera en la dehesa. In: Campos P, Martin M (eds.) Conservación y desarrollo de las dehesas portuguesa y española. Secretaria General Técnica, MAPA, Madrid, pp 239–258Google Scholar
  22. Pulido F, Díaz M (2003) Dinámica de la regeneración natural del arbolado de encina y alcornoque. In: Pulido F, Campos P, Montero G (eds.) La gestión forestal de la dehesa. Junta de Extremadura/IPROCOR, Mérida, pp 39–62Google Scholar
  23. Rodríguez Y, Campos P, Ovando P (2004) Commercial economy in a public Dehesa in Monfragüe Shire. In: Schnabel S, Gonçalves A (eds.) Sustainability of Agro-silvo-pastoral Systems. Dehesas and Montados. Adv in Geoecology, vol 37. Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen, Germany, pp 85–96Google Scholar
  24. Scarascia-Mugnozza G, Oswald H, Piussi P et al. (2000) Forest of the Mediterranean region: gaps in knowledge and research needs. Forest Ecol Manag 132:97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schejtman A (1980) Economía campesina: lógica interna, articulación y persistencia, Revista de la CEPAL 11:121–140Google Scholar
  26. Stiti B, Sebei H, Khaldi A (2004) Evaluation de la régénération et analyse de la croissance du chêne liège dans la forêt de Ain Snoussi, Tunisie. Paper presented at the 4th Meeting of the IOBC/WPRS Working Group on Integrated Protection in Oak Forests, Hammamet, Tunisia, 5–8 October 2004Google Scholar
  27. Torres E, Montero G (2000) Los alcornocales del macizo del Aljibe y sierras del Campo de Gibraltar. Secretaría General Técnica Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación, MadridGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Campos
    • 1
  • H. Daly-Hassen
    • 2
  • P. Ovando
    • 1
  • A. Chebil
    • 2
  • J. L. Oviedo
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Economics and Geography of Spanish National Research Council(CSIC)Spain
  2. 2.Tunisian Research Institute of Rural EngineeringWater and Forest (INRGREF)ArianaTunisia
  3. 3.FPI scholar at the centre of Forestry Research (CIFOR-INIA)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations