Application of the “Climafor” baseline to determine leakage: the case of Scolel Té

  • B. H. J. De JongEmail author
  • E. Esquivel Bazán
  • S. Quechulpa Montalvo
Original paper


The acceptance of forestry-based project activities to mitigate greenhouse gases emissions has been subjected to a number of methodological questions to be answered, of which the most challenging are baseline establishment and identification of and measuring leakage. Here we pose hypotheses for and quantify leakage of the Scolel Té project in Chiapas, Mexico. In this project small-scale farmers are implementing forestry, agroforestry, and forest conservation activities, with carbon sequestration as one of the goals. The main leakage monitoring domain is defined as the area owned by the participating farmers or communities outside the area where the specific project activities take place. The null-hypothesis (no leakage) is that non-project land owned by the farmer or community will experience the same carbon stock changes as predicted by the regional baseline, specifically developed for the project. First we assessed the most likely causes and sources of leakage that may occur in the project. From this analysis, one type of leakage seems to be important, i.e., activity shifting. Second we estimated the leakage of a sample of participating farmers and communities. Actual land use was then compared with expected land use derived from the baseline. The Plan Vivo of each participant, complemented with readily available tools to identify the main sources and drivers of leakage are used to develop simple leakage assessment procedures, as demonstrated in this paper. Negative leakage was estimated to be negligible in this study. Incorporating these procedures already in the project planning stage will reduce the uncertainties related to the actual carbon mitigation potential of any forestry project.


Leakage assessment Plan Vivo Regional baseline 



This work was supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs through the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. Disclaimer: The views and opinions of the authors herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or the Environmental Protection Agency. We would like to thank Jayant Sathaye and Sandra Brown for their critical review of an earlier version of this manuscript. Thanks also to all the Scolel Té farmers who participated in the study, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and US Environmental Protection Agency for financing it.


  1. Aukland L, Moura Costa P et al (2003) A conceptual framework and its application for addressing leakage: the case of avoided deforestation. Climate Policy 3(2):123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker T (1999) Achieving a 10 percent cut in Europe’s carbon dioxide emissions using additional excise duties: coordinated, uncoordinated and unilateral action using the econometric model E3ME. Econ Syst Res 11(4):401–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown P (1998) Climate, biodiversity and forests. World Resource Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 35 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown S, Masera O et al (2000) Project-based activities. In Watson RT, Noble IR et al (eds) Land use, land-use change, and forestry; special report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ch. 5. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 283–338Google Scholar
  5. Brown S, Hall M et al (this issue) Baselines for land-use change in the tropics: application to avoided deforestation projects. Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global ChangeGoogle Scholar
  6. Castillo-Santiago MA, Hellier G et al (this issue) Carbon emissions from land-use change: a regional analysis of causal factors in Chiapas, México. Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global ChangeGoogle Scholar
  7. De Jong, Ben HJ, Tipper R, Taylor J (1997) A framework for monitoring and evaluation of carbon mitigation by farm forestry projects: example of a demonstration project in Chiapas, Mexico. Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global Change 2:231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Jong BHJ, Cairns MA et al (1999) Land-use change and carbon flux between the 1970s and 1990s in the central highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Environ Manage 23(3):373–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Jong BHJ, Ochoa-Gaona S et al (2000) Land-use/land-cover change and carbon flux in the Selva Lacandona, Mexico. Ambio 29(8):504–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Jong BHJ, Ochoa Gaona S, Montalvo SQ, Bazán EE, Hernández NP (2004) Economics of Agroforestry Carbon Sequestration. A Case Study from Southern Mexico. In: Alavalapati J, Mercer E (eds) Valuing Agroforestry Systems: Methods and Applications. Advances in Agroforestry 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 123–138Google Scholar
  11. De Jong BHJ, Hellier A et al (2005) Application of the “Climafor” approach to estimate baseline carbon emissions of a forest conservation project in the Selva Lacandona, Chiapas, Mexico. Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global Change 10:265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Felder S, Rutherford TF (1993) Unilateral CO2 reductions and carbon leakage: the effect of international trade in oil and basic materials. J Environ Econ Manage 25:162–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee HC, McCarl BA et al (2004) Leakage and comparative advantage implications of agricultural participation in greenhouse gas emission mitigation. Working paper 2004-1. 44 pp Scholar
  14. Murray BC, McCarl BA et al (2004) Estimating leakage from forest carbon sequestration programs. Land Econ 80(1):109–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schwarze R, John O et al (2002) Understanding and managing leakage in forest-based greenhouse-gas-mitigation projects. Phil Trans R Soc Lond A:1–15 (FirstCite e-publishing; © The Royal Society)Google Scholar
  16. Sohngen B, Brown S (2004) Measuring leakage from carbon projects in open economies: a stop timber harvesting project in Bolivia as a case study. Can J Forest Res 34:829–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tipper R, de Jong BHJ, Ochoa-Gaona S, Soto-Pinto ML, Castillo-Santiago MA, Montoya-Gómez G, March-Mifsut I (1998) Assessment of the Cost of Large Scale Forestry for CO2 Sequestration: Evidence from Chiapas, Mexico. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. 84 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. H. J. De Jong
    • 1
    Email author
  • E. Esquivel Bazán
    • 2
  • S. Quechulpa Montalvo
    • 2
  1. 1.Ecosur-VillahermosaVillahermosaMéxico
  2. 2.AmbioSan Cristóbal de las CasasMéxico

Personalised recommendations