Tropical deforestation is estimated to cause about one-quarter of anthropogenic carbon emissions, loss of biodiversity, and other environmental services. United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change talks are now considering mechanisms for avoiding deforestation (AD), but the economic potential of AD has yet to be addressed. We use three economic models of global land use and management to analyze the potential contribution of AD activities to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. AD activities are found to be a competitive, low-cost abatement option. A program providing a 10% reduction in deforestation from 2005 to 2030 could provide 0.3- 0.6 Gt (1 Gt = 1 X 10’5 g) CO2’yr-1 in emission reductions and would require $0.4 billion to $1.7 billion.yr-1 for 30 years. A 50% reduction in deforestation from 2005 to 2030 could provide 1.5-2.7 Gt CO2’yr-1 in emission reductions and would require $17.2 billion to $28.0 billion.yr-1. Finally, some caveats to the analysis that could increase costs of AD programs are described.
Tag: costs
Public policies to reduce inappropriate tropical deforestation
This paper explains the ways in which, and the extent to which, public policy measures might be used to reduce inappropriate tropical deforestation.Inappropriate deforestation is a signifanct problem: 1. deforestation generally causes negative externalities that generate cost to society not reflected in exixting prices and has long term consequences that individual producers rarely consider. 2. The relativie importance of the negative externalities tends to grow over time if an increasing proportion of deforestation occurs in areas that have only marginal value for agriculture but that sequester large amount of carbon, have fragile soils, or are high in biodiversity. The process of deforestation must be analysed at two levels: agents and causes. How certain causes can be manipulated to influence the behaviour of agents, so as to lessen the rate of inappropriate deforestation is discussed.
Total ecosystem carbon stocks of tropical peat forests and greenhouse gas emissions from their disturbance
Because of their unique biodiversity and inordinately large carbon stocks, tropical peat forests are considered key wetland ecosystems for conservation and restoration. Despite this recognition continued deforestation and land cover change result in these ecosystems becoming significant sources of greenhouse gases. There is a strong need for accurate quantification of carbon stocks and emissions at scales relevant for participation in carbon markets and nationally determined contributions. Based upon analyses of 125 forests in 4 continents (Asia, Oceania, the Americas) there was a broad range in peat depths (19–1414 cm) with total ecosystem carbon stocks (TECS) ranging from 172 to 9379 Mg C ha−1 (mean of 2137 Mg C ha−1). Among the 47 sampled sites known to be tidally-influenced (i.e., blue carbon ecosystems), TECS ranged from 206 to 5591 Mg C ha−1 with a mean of 1979 Mg C ha−1. Those sites with deep peats (> 7 m depth) have a mean TECS of 4620 ± 395 Mg C ha−1 and we know of no ecosystems with an equivalent ecosystem carbon stock. Peat soils composed a mean of 86 % of TECS, and peat depths were strongly correlated with soil carbon stocks at continental and global scales (R2 > 0.80) suggesting inventories that include measurement of peat depth can accurately estimate carbon stocks. Degradation of peat landscapes comes with high ecological and social costs including the largest greenhouse gas emissions from any forest land use globally. The social carbon costs to future generations associated with the conversion of tropical peat forests to oil palm plantations is conservatively estimated to be nine times the value of the palm oil generated from the conversion. Such costs and values of the tropical peat forests underscore the importance of the conservation and restoration of these wetlands for future generations – an important element of sustainability.
Pulpwood plantations as carbon sinks in Indonesia: methodological challenge and impact on livelihoods
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was created under the Kyoto Protocol, in order to help industrialized countries achieve their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reduction targets at a lower cost. A second objective of the CDM is to help developing countries achieve sustainable development. To become eligible these projects have to demonstrate their additionality, and have a positive impact on local communities’ livelihoods. But the methodologies that have been proposed seem unsatisfactory, and the social impacts are often debated. This paper provides new insights on these methodologies, their weaknesses and potential improvements, and explores the social impacts of an afforestation/reforestation CDM activity with a high carbon sequestration potential. We studied a large-scale pulpwood plantation in Indonesia, which is perceived as a way to sequestrate great quantities of carbon in a short time, and as an alternative to natural forest supplies for the domestic pulp industry. We collected complete data on the establishment and production costs, and the carbon sequestration potential. We also took advantage of our ongoing research on the Indonesian Pulp & Paper (P&P) sector to interpret these results, and evaluate the relevance of widely used and proposed methodologies for additionality assessment. Finally, research on site allowed us to obtain data on the plantation’s impact on the people living nearby. According to our research, fast-growing tree plantations face production costs far higher than revenues gained from the sale of carbon credits, even with a relatively important carbon sequestration. But calculations made according to usual methodologies can be misleading. We show that context analysis is more relevant, and that profitability calculations lead to wrong conclusions. From a social point of view, pulpwood plantation projects could increase livelihoods in the short term, but this depends very much on the opportunities for locals to combine employment in the plantation with land uses generating higher incomes per hectare.
A standard framework for assessing the costs and benefits of restoration: introducing The Economics of Ecosystem Restoration (TEER)
While the policy momentum behind ecosystem restoration has never been stronger, restoration finance remains insufficient. A crucial information gap to unlock finance is the lack of robust and consistent data on the costs and benefits of restoration. This is due in part to the wide variety of contexts, interventions and objectives of restoration projects, and to the absence of well-defined standards and protocols for cost and benefit data collection. To fill this gap, we developed a standard framework to assess the costs and benefits of restoration projects and specific restoration interventions. The associated template for data collection, which was tested for usability during a piloting phase, is the first output of The Economics of Ecosystem Restoration (TEER), a multi-partner initiative under the aegis of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. It is the first attempt ever to improve the robustness and comparability of data on the economics of ecosystem restoration collected from the field at a global scale. Widespread adoption of this framework and associated template by a wide range of organizations implementing or financing restoration would allow for standardised data to be fed into a jointly owned database of restoration costs and benefits and serve as a basis for the further investigation of the economics of ecosystem restoration, including cost-benefits analysis. Better information on costs and benefits will help to inform acurate budgeting access to finance for restoration projects, and make them more likely to achieve their set goals and desired quantitative outcomes (e.g. area restored).