Carbon mitigation potential and costs of forestry options in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Philippines and Tanzania

  • J.A. Sathaye
  • W.R. Makundi
  • K. Andrasko
  • R. Boer
  • N.H. Ravindranath
  • P. Sudha
  • S. Rao
  • R. Lasco
  • F. Pulhin
  • O. Masera
  • A. Ceron
  • J. Ordonez
  • X. Deying
  • X. Zhang
  • S. Zuomin
Article

DOI: 10.1023/A:1013398002336

Cite this article as:
Sathaye, J., Makundi, W., Andrasko, K. et al. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (2001) 6: 185. doi:10.1023/A:1013398002336

Abstract

This paper summarizes studies of carbon (C) mitigation potential and costs of about 40 forestry options in seven developing countries. Each study uses the same methodological approach – Comprehensive Mitigation Assessment Process (COMAP) – to estimate the above parameters between 2000 and 2030. The approach requires the projection of baseline and mitigation land-use scenarios. Coupled with data on a per ha basis on C sequestration or avoidance, and costs and benefits, it allows the estimation of monetary benefit per Mg C, and the total costs and carbon potential. The results show that about half (3.0 Pg C) the cumulative mitigation potential of 6.2 Petagram (Pg) C between 2000 and 2030 in the seven countries (about 200× 106 Mg C yr-1) could be achieved at a negative cost and the remainder at costs ranging up to $100 Mg C-1. About 5 Pg C could be achieved, at a cost less than $20 per Mg C. Negative cost potential indicates that non-carbon revenue is sufficient to offset direct costs of these options. The achievable potential is likely to be smaller, however, due to market, institutional, and sociocultural barriers that can delay or prevent the implementation of the analyzed options.

barriers Brazil carbon (C) China climate change mitigation potential costs forestry forest protection forestation India Indonesia Mexico the Philippines Tanzania 

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.A. Sathaye
    • 1
  • W.R. Makundi
    • 1
  • K. Andrasko
    • 2
  • R. Boer
    • 3
  • N.H. Ravindranath
    • 4
  • P. Sudha
    • 4
  • S. Rao
    • 5
  • R. Lasco
    • 6
  • F. Pulhin
    • 6
  • O. Masera
    • 7
  • A. Ceron
    • 7
  • J. Ordonez
    • 7
  • X. Deying
    • 8
  • X. Zhang
    • 8
  • S. Zuomin
    • 8
  1. 1.Energy Analysis DepartmentLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Office of Atmospheric ProgramsU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashington D.CUSA
  3. 3.Department of Geophysics and MeteorologyBogor Agricultural UniversityBogorIndonesia
  4. 4.Center for Ecological SciencesIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  5. 5.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyNew DelhiIndia
  6. 6.College of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of the PhilippinesLos BanosPhilippines
  7. 7.Instituto de EcologiaUniversidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Campus MoreliaPatzcuaroMexico
  8. 8.Forest Ecology and Environment Institute, Chinese Academy of ForestryBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations