Climatic Change

, Volume 75, Issue 1–2, pp 241–271 | Cite as

A Sustainability Framework for Enhancing the Long-Term Success of Lulucf Projects

  • Reinhard MadlenerEmail author
  • Carmenza Robledo
  • Bart Muys
  • Javier T. Blanco Freja


Collateral impacts of land use and land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) projects, especially those concerning social and environmental aspects, have been recognized as important by the Marrakech Accords. The same applies to the necessity of assessing and, if possible, of quantifying the magnitude of these impacts. This article aims to define, clarify and structure the relevant social, economic and environmental issues to be addressed and to give examples of indicators that ought to be included in the planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and ex post evaluation of LULUCF projects. This is being done by providing a conceptual framework for the assessment of the sustainability of such projects that can be used as a checklist when dealing with concrete projects, and that in principle is applicable to both Annex I and non-Annex I countries. Finally, a set of recommendations is provided to further develop and promote the proposed framework.


Clean Development Mechanism Kyoto Protocol Land Tenure Sustainable Forest Management Project Developer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abell, D. F. and Hammond, J. S.: 1979, ‘Cost dynamics: Scale and experience effects’, in Strategic Market Planning: Problems and Analytical Approaches, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Ch. 3, pp. 103–170.Google Scholar
  2. Aerts, R., Wagendorp, T., November, E., Behailu, M., Deckers, J., and Muys, B.: 2004, ‘Ecosystem thermal buffer capacity as an indicator of the restoration status of protected areas in the Northern Ethiopian highlands’, Restoration Ecology 12(4), 586–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., et al.: 2002, Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (UK)/Northampton (Mass., USA).Google Scholar
  4. Bator, F. M.: 1958, ‘The anatomy of market failure’, Quarterly J. of Economics 72(3), 351–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blank Leland, T. and Tarquin, A. J.: 2002, Ingeniería Económica, 4th Ed., McGrawHill, New York, April.Google Scholar
  6. Blaser, J. and Hussein, S. A.: 2000, ‘Mitigating Natural Disasters Through Effective Forest and Non-Forest Policies’, paper presented at the IUCN World Conservation Congress, Amman, Jordan, 4–11 October 2000.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, P.: 1998, Climate, Biodiversity and Forests, Issues and Opportunities Emerging from the Kyoto Protocol, World Resources Institute/IUCN, Washington, DC, U.S.A./Gland, Switzerland, p. 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brundtland, B. (ed.): 1987, Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jäger, J., and Mitchell, R. B.: 2003, ‘Knowledge systems for sustainable development’, PNAS 100(14), 8068–8091.Google Scholar
  10. Castañeda, F.: 2000, ‘Criteria and Indicators for sustainable forest management: International processes, current status and the way ahead’, Unasylva 51(203), 34–40.Google Scholar
  11. Castañeda, F.: 2001, ‘Collaborative action and technology transfer as means of strengthening the implementation of national-level criteria and indicators’, in Raison, R. J., Brown, A. G., and Flinn, D. W. (eds.), Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon, IUFRO Research Series 7, pp. 145–163.Google Scholar
  12. Castro, R. and Mokate, K.: 1998, Evaluación Económica y Social de Proyectos de Inversión, Ediciones Uniandes, Bogotá, Colombia, April.Google Scholar
  13. CCBA: 2004, Climate, Community & Biodiversity Project Design Standards (Draft 1.0), The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Scholar
  14. CIFOR: 1999, The CIFOR Criteria and Indicators Generic Template, The Criteria & Indicators Toolbox Series No. 2, Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, p. 53.Google Scholar
  15. Dixit, A. K. and Pindyck, R. S.: 1994, Investment under Uncertainty, Princeton University Press, Princeton/NJ.Google Scholar
  16. Dutschke, M., Schlamadinger, B., Wong, J., and Rumberg, M.: 2004, Value and Risks of Expiring Carbon Credits from CDM Afforestation and Reforestation, Hamburg Institute of International Economics – HWWA Discussion Paper No. 290, August.Google Scholar
  17. EcoSecurities: 2003, ‘Evaluation of the carbon offset potential of the ‘Proyecto Modelo Alternativo de Financiación para el Manejo Sostenible de los Bosques de San Nicolás, Antioquia, Colombia”, in Modelo Alternativo de Financiación para el Manejo Sostenible de los Bosques de San Nicolás, ITTO Project PD 54/99.2, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (EMPA), Duebendorf, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  18. FAO/ITTO: 1995, Report of the FAO/ITTO Expert Consultation on Harmonization of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management, FAO, Rome, 13–16 November 1995.Google Scholar
  19. FERN: 2001, Behind the Logo, An Environmental and Social Assessment of Forest Certification Schemes. Report prepared by Fern, Moreton-in-Marsh/U.K., based on case studies by WWF France, Taiga Consulting, Taiga Rescue Network, Robin Wood, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Fern, Finnish Nature League and Greenpeace International, May, p. 60.Google Scholar
  20. Freeman, A. M.: 1993, The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, Theory and Methods, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  21. Frey, B.: 1996, Der Begriff “Nachhaltigkeit” in der deutschen Forstgesetzgebung, Unveröffentliche Studie des Lehrstuhls für Forstpolitik und Forstgeschichte der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Freising.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. FSC: 2000, FSC Principles & Criteria of Forest Stewardship, Forest Stewardship Council, Scholar
  23. Garcia-Quijano, J. F., Deckmyn, G., Moons, E., Proost, S., Ceulemans, R., and Muys, B.: 2005, ‘An integrated decision support framework for the prediction and evaluation of efficiency, environmental impact and total social cost of domestic and international forestry projects for greenhouse gas mitigation: Description and case studies’, Forest Ecology and Management 207(1–2), 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hahn-Schilling, B., Heuveldop, J., and Palmer, J.: 1994, A comparative study of evaluation systems for sustainable forest management (including principles, criteria and indicators)’, in Heuveldop J. (ed.), Assessment of Sustainable Tropical Forest Management (A Contribution to the Development of Concept and Procedure). Bundesforschungsanstalt für Forst- und Holzwirtschaft, Hamburg, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
  25. Hargreaves, K. J., Milne, R., and Cannell, M. G. R.: 2003, ‘Carbon balance of afforested peatland in Scotland’, Forestry 76, 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Higman, S., Mayers, J., Bass, S., Judd, N., and Nussbaum, R.: 2005, The Sustainable Forestry Handbook, 2nd Ed., Earthscan, London, p. 288.Google Scholar
  27. Holvoet, B. and Muys, B.: 2004, ‘Sustainable forest management worldwide: A comparative assessment of standards’, International Forestry Review 6(2), 99–122.Google Scholar
  28. Hornborg, C.: 1999, Comparison of Forest Certification Schemes and Standards in Finland, Sweden and Norway (Summary). Helsinki Department of Forest Ecology, p. 6.Google Scholar
  29. IGBP/IHDP: 1999, Land-Use and Land-Cover Change (LUCC) Implementation Strategy. IGBP Report No. 48/IHDP Report No. 10, Stockholm/Bonn (
  30. IPCC: 2000, Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer, Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, J.-W. Martens et al. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/U.K.Google Scholar
  31. ITTO: 1998, Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical Forests, ITTO Policy Development Series No. 7, International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Yokohama, Japan, July, pp. 23.Google Scholar
  32. ITTO: 1999, Alternative Financing Model for Sustainable Forest Management in San Nicolás, ITTO Project Document PD54/99 (F) Rev. 2, International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Yokohama, Japan.Google Scholar
  33. ITTO: 2002, ITTO Guidelines for the Restoration, Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded and Secondary Tropical Forests, ITTO Policy Development Series No. 13, International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Yokohama, Japan, November, p. 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ITTO: 2004, Revised ITTO Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Tropical Forests Including Reporting Format, ITTO Policy Development Series No. 15, International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Yokohama, Japan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jobbágy, E. G. and Jackson, R. B.: 2004, ‘Groundwater use and salinization with grassland afforestation’, Global Change Biology 10, 1299–1312.Google Scholar
  36. Kelly, K.: 1998, ‘A systems approach to identifying decisive information for sustainable development’, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 109(2), 452–464.Google Scholar
  37. Koellner, T. and Sell, J.: 2005, Demand and Supply for Ecosystem Services from Tropical Forests,
  38. Lammerts van Bueren, E. M. and Blom, E. M.: 1997, Hierarchical Framework for the Formulation of Sustainable Forest Management Standards, Principles, Criteria, Indicators, Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, The Netherlands, p. 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Madlener, R., Robledo, C., Muys, B., Hektor, B., and Domac, J.: 2003, ‘A sustainability framework for enhancing the long-term success of LULUCF projects’, CEPE Working Paper No. 29, Centre for Energy Policy and Economics (CEPE), Zurich, Switzerland, December.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Matson, P., Gower, S., Volkmann, C. Billow, C., and Grier, C.: 1992, ‘Soil nitrogen cycling and nitrous oxide flux in a Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir forest, Effects of fertilization, irrigation and carbon addition’, Biogeochemistry 18, 101–117.Google Scholar
  41. Merbatu, D.: 1998, ‘Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual review’, Env. Impact Assess. Rev. 18(6), 493–520.Google Scholar
  42. Muys, B. and Garcia, J.: 2002, ‘Conceptual framework for choosing indicators’, in Schweinle, J. (ed.), The Assessment of Environmental Impacts Caused by Land Use in the Life Cycle Assessment of Forestry and Forest Products, Final report of Working Group 2 “Land Use” of COST Action E9, Mitteilungen der Bundesforschungsanstalt für Forst- und Holzwirtschaft 209, 15– 20.Google Scholar
  43. Muys, B., Emmer, I., Garcia-Quijano, J.F., Van Orshoven, J., Schwaiger, H., Schlamadinger, B., and Bird, N.: 2005, ‘ENCOFOR: A decision support framework for environment and community based CDM afforestation/reforestation projects’, in International Conference on the Multifunctionality of Landscapes: Evaluation and Decision Support, Giessen, Germany, 18–19 May 2005. Book of Abstracts, p. 220.Google Scholar
  44. NABU: 2000, Vergleich ökologischer Standards der Waldzertifizierung von FSC und PEFC. Nabu, Bonn, p. 9.Google Scholar
  45. Nsenkyiere, E. O. and Simula, M.: 2000, Comparative Study on the Auditing Systems of Sustainable Forest Management, International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Yokohama, Japan, p. 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Orlando, B. M. and Smeardon, L. (eds.): 1999, Report of the Eleventh Global Biodiversity Forum. Exploring Synergy Between the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Gland/Switzerland and Cambridge/UK, p. 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Parris, T. M. and Kates, R. W.: 2003, ‘Characterizing a sustainability transition: Goals, targets, trends and driving forces’, PNAS 100(14), 8068–8073.Google Scholar
  48. Peet, J. and Bossel, H.: 2000, ‘An ethics-based systems approach to indicators of sustainable development’, Int. J. Sust. Dev. 3, 221–238.Google Scholar
  49. Penman, J., Gytarsky, M., Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Kruger, D., Pipatti, R., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K., and Wagner, F.: 2003, ‘Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry’, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (IPCC-NGGIP).Google Scholar
  50. Peters, C. M.: 1999, ‘Ecological research for sustainable non-wood forest products exploitation: an overview’, in Sunderland, T. C. H., Clark, L. E., and Vantomme, P. (eds.), Non-Wood Forest Products of Central Africa: Current Research on Issues and Prospects for Conservation and Development, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome, p. 277.Google Scholar
  51. Peters, C. M., Garcia Quijano, J. J., Content, T., Van Wyk, G., Holden, N. M. Ward, S. M., and Muys, B.: 2004, ‘A new land use impact assessment method for LCA: Theoretical fundaments and field validation’, in Halsberg, N. (ed.), Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Proceedings from the 4th International Conference, October 6–8 2003, Bygholm, Denmark, DIAS Report Animal Husbandry No. 61, 143–156.Google Scholar
  52. Robledo, C. and Blaser, J.: 2001, Social Issues in Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. An Introduction Based on Some Experiences in Developing Countries,
  53. Rogers, E. M.: 1995, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Ed., The Free Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ruitenbeek, J. and Carter, C.: 1998, Rational Exploitations: Economic Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Tropical Forests, CIFOR Occasional Paper 17, CIFOR, Jakarta, p. 54.Google Scholar
  55. Sathaye, J. A., Andrasko, K., Makundi, W., La Rovere, E. L., Ravindranath, N. H., Melli, A., Rangachari, A., Imaz, M., Gay, C., Friedmann, R., Goldberg, B., van Horen, C., Simmonds, G., and Parker G.: 1999, ‘Concerns about climate change mitigation projects: Summary of findings from case studies in Brazil, India, Mexico and South Africa’, Environmental Science & Policy 2(2), 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schlamadinger, B. and Marland, G.: 2000, Land Use and Global Climate Change. Forests, Land Management, and the Kyoto Protocol, Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, p. 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schulze, E.-D., Valentini, R., and Sanz, M.-J.: 2002, ‘The long way from Kyoto to Marrakesh: implication of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations for global ecology’, Global Change Biol. 8(6), 505–518.Google Scholar
  58. Scott, D. F. and Lesch, W.: 1997, ‘Streamflow responses to afforestation with Eucalyptus grandis and Pinus patula and to felling in the Mokobulaan experimental catchments, South Africa’, Journal of Hydrology 199: 360–377.Google Scholar
  59. Shanley, P., Pierce, A. R., Laird, S. A., and Guillén, S. A.: 2002, Tapping the Green Market. Management and Certification of Non-Timber Forest Production, Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
  60. Smith, J. and Scherr, S.: 2002, ‘Forest carbon and local livelihoods: Assessment of opportunities and policy recommendations’, CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 37, Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research, p. 45.Google Scholar
  61. UNDP: 2000, Bioenergy Primer. Modernized Biomass Energy for Sustainable Development, New York: United Nations Development Programme, Ch. 3 ‘Socioeconomic issues’, p. 49–64, 79.Google Scholar
  62. UNFCCC: 1992, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, A/AC.237/18, 9 May.Google Scholar
  63. UNFCCC: 1997, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
  64. UNFCCC: 2002a, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Seventh session, held at Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 2001. Part One: Proceedings. Document FCCC/CP/2002/13 (Marrakech Accords), 21 Jan. 2002,
  65. UNFCCC: 2002b, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Seventh Session, held at Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 2001. Addendum. Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties. Volumes I–IV. Documents FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add. 1-4 (Addenda to the Marrakech Accords), 21 Jan 2002,
  66. UNFCCC: 2004a, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Ninth Session, Held at Milan from 1 to 12 December 2003, Addendum, Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Ninth Session, Document FCCC/CP/2003/6/Add. 2, 30 March 2004.Google Scholar
  67. UNFCCC: 2004b, Report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism, Annex 3 ‘Draft consolidated tools for demonstration of additionality’, CDM-EB-15, 3 September 2004.
  68. UNFCCC: 2005, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Tenth Session, held at Buenos Aires from 6 to 18 December 2004, Addendum, Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Tenth session, Document FCCC/CP/2004/10/Add. 2, 19 April 2005.Google Scholar
  69. Verbeiren, S., Muys, B., and Ceulemans, R.: 2000, Contribution of the Forestry and Wood Sector to CO 2 Emission Reduction within the Flemish Climate Policy. Evaluation Criteria for Forestry Projects (in Dutch), Final report of the research project AMINAL/MNB/BVO/TWOL99/mjp99-ini9, p. 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vine, E. L., Sathaye, J., and Makundi, W.: 1999, Guidelines for the Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, Verification, and Certification of Forestry Projects for Climate Change Mitigation, LBNL Report No. 41877, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, March.Google Scholar
  71. Vine, E. L., Sathaye, J. A., and Makundi, W. R.: 2001, ‘An overview of guidelines and issues for the monitoring, evaluation, verification, and certification of forestry projects for climate change mitigation’, Global Environmental Change 11(3), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. World Bank: 2004, Sustaining Forests. A Development Strategy, The World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reinhard Madlener
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carmenza Robledo
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bart Muys
    • 4
  • Javier T. Blanco Freja
    • 5
  1. 1.Centre for Energy Policy and Economics (CEPE)Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Technology and Society Laboratory and Wood LaboratoryEMPA – Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and ResearchDuebendorfSwitzerland
  3. 3.IntercooperationBerneSwitzerland
  4. 4.Laboratory for Forest, Nature and Landscape ResearchKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  5. 5.Santafe de BogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations