Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of carbon forestry for local livelihoods and leakage

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Annals of Forest Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

• Context

An inequitable distribution of the costs and benefits of carbon forestry could undermine its role in tackling climate change, but safeguarding local livelihoods could undercut its effectiveness.

• Aims

We simulate a reforestation program in a densely populated locality in central Mexico to analyze indirect land-use change, or leakage, associated with the program and its implications for local livelihoods.

• Methods

An agent-based, general equilibrium model simulates scenarios that deconstruct the sources of leakage and livelihood outcomes.

• Results

Simulations reveal how conditions linking land, labor, and food markets determine the costs and benefits of reforestation and simultaneously the potential for leakage. Leakage is lowest in remote and poorly integrated localities where declining wages foster local food production while discouraging consumption. Since leakage is tied to consumption, there is a trade-off between the program’s effectiveness and an equitable outcome.

• Conclusion

An ideal strategy could target those localities with few remaining forests, where a program might lead to agricultural intensification rather than expanding the agricultural frontier. Alternatively, the scheme could incorporate remaining forests to avoid deforestation while encouraging reforestation. An uneven distribution of costs and benefits, where some stakeholders may draw benefits from others’ losses, could nevertheless set the stage for conflict. Acknowledging these trade-offs should help design a politically feasible program that is effective, efficient, and equitable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angelsen A (2007) Forest cover change in space and time: combining the von Thunen and forest transition theories. World Bank Policy Res. Work. Pap. 4117

  • Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Kanninen M, Sills E, Sunderlin WD, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S (eds) (2009) Realising REDD+. National strategy and policy options. Centre for International and Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia, 320p

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot LV (2012) Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond I M, Grieg-Gran S, Wertz-Kanounnikoff P, Hazlewood P, Wunder S, Angelsen A (2009) Incentives to sustain forest ecosystem services: a review and lessons for REDD. Nat. Resour. Issues No 16. International Institute for Environment and Development, London UK, with CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, and World Resources Institute, Washington DC

  • Brown K, Adger W.N, Boyd E, Elizalde EC, Shackley S (2004) How do CDM projects contribute to sustainable development? Tech. Rep. 16. Tyndall Centre, Norwich, 54 p

  • Busch J, Lubowski RN, Godoy F, Steininger M, Yusuf AA (2012) Structuring economic incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation within Indonesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:1062–1067

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns M, Haggerty PK, Alvarez R, de Jong BHJ, Olmsted I (2000) Tropical Mexico’s recent land-use change: a region’s contribution to the global carbon cycle. Ecol Apl 10:1426–1441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerbu G, Minang P, Swallow B, Meady V (2009) Global Survey of REDD Projects: What Implications for Global Climate Objectives? ASB Policy Brief No 12 . ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, Nairobi, Kenya

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomitz KM (2007) At loggerheads: agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests. The World Bank, Washington D.C., 284 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer G, Taylor JE (2011) The corn price surge: impacts in rural Mexico. World Dev 39:1878–1887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer G, Taylor JE, Boucher S (2006) Subsistence response to market shocks. Am J Agric Econ 88:279–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer G, Matthews R, Meyfroydt P (2012) Is there an ideal REDD+ program? An analysis of policy trade-offs. PLoS One 7:e52478. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052478

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65:663–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairhead J, Leach M, Scoones I (2012) Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? J Peasant Stud 39:237–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grieg-Gran M, Porras I, Wunder S (2005) How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Dev 33:1511–1527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertel TW, Golub AA, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Plevin RJ, Kammen DM (2010) Effects of US maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: estimating market-mediated responses. Biosci 60:223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2000) Land-use change and forestry. In: Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B, Ravindranath HH, Verado DJ, Dokken DJ (eds) Land use. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Ch. 5

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC, Geneva, 104 p

  • Jack BK, Kousky C, Sims KRE (2008) Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad USA 105:9465–9470

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jagger P, Sills EO, Lawlor K, Sunderlin WD (2010) A guide to learning about livelihood impact of REDD+ projects. Occas. Pap. 56, CIFOR Bogor, Indonesia

  • Kinderman G, Obersteiner M, Sohngen B, Sathatye J, Andrasko K, Rametsteiner E, Schlamadinger B, Wunder S, Beach R (2008) Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proc Natl Acad USA 105:10302–10307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijnik M (2010) Carbon capture and storage in forests. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge. In: Hester RE, Harrison RM (eds) Carbon capture: sequestration and storage, vol 29, Issues in Environmental Science and Technology., pp 203–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijnik M, Halder P (2013) Afforestation and reforestation projects in South and South-East Asia under the CDM: trends and development opportunities. Land Use Policy 31:504–515. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol. 2012.08.014

  • Nijnik M, Oskam A, Nijnik A (2012) Afforestation for the provision of multiple ecosystem services. Int J For Res. doi:10.1155/2012/295414

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev 33:237–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravaillion M (2001) The mystery of the vanishing benefits: an introduction to impact evaluation. The World Bank Econ Rev 15:115–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze R, Niles JO, Olander J (2002) Understanding and managing leakage in forest-based GHG-mitigation projects. Phil Trans Math Phys Eng Sci 360:1685–1703

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sierra R, Rusman E (2006) On the efficiency of environmental service payments: a forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 59:131–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smale M (ed) (2005) Valuing crop biodiversity: on-farm genetic resources and economic change. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI). CABI, Wallingford

  • Springate-Baginski O, Wollenberg E (eds) (2010) REDD, forest governance and rural livelihoods: the emerging agenda. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia

    Google Scholar 

  • Strassburg B, Turner K, Fisher B, Schaeffer R, Lovett A (2009) Reducing emissions from deforestation: the ‘combined incentives’ mechanism and empirical simulations. Glob Environ Chang 19:265–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Kooten GC (2012) Climate change, climate science and economics: prospects for a renewable energy future. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econ 65:834–852

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilberman D, Lipper L, McCarthy N (2008) When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor? Environ Dev Econ 13:255–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Bossio DA, van Straaten O, Verchot LV (2008) Climate change mitigation: a spatial analysis of global land suitability for clean development mechanism afforestation and reforestation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 126:67–80

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments and funding

This research falls under the FP7 “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation through Alternative Land Uses in Rainforests of the Tropics” project (REDD-ALERT) and the COST Action FP0703 “Expected Climate Change and Options for European Silviculture”. Financial support was provided by the European Commission, Grant Agreement 226310. We are also grateful for the support provided by the Scottish Government under the RESAS Programme, and to J. Edward Taylor, Deborah Roberts, and to reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abt Associates, Inc., El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

    George A. Dyer

  2. Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Group, The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, Scotland, UK

    Maria Nijnik

Authors
  1. George A. Dyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Nijnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Nijnik.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Erwin Dreyer

Contribution of the co-authors

Both co-authors have made substantial contribution to the content: George Dyer developed the model, analysed results, and wrote most of the paper. Maria Nijnik provided the policy framework, contributed to the analysis, and wrote the paper. Both co-authors have approved the paper and agreed to its publication in this journal. Any research in the paper not carried out by the author is fully acknowledged in the manuscript. There are no conflicting interests pertaining to this manuscript.

Electronic supplementary materials

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 72 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dyer, G.A., Nijnik, M. Implications of carbon forestry for local livelihoods and leakage. Annals of Forest Science 71, 227–237 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-013-0293-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-013-0293-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation