Implications of carbon forestry for local livelihoods and leakage
- First Online:
- 278 Downloads
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.
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.
An agent-based, general equilibrium model simulates scenarios that deconstruct the sources of leakage and livelihood outcomes.
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.
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.
KeywordsPayments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Agent-based models General equilibrium models Mexico REDD+
- Angelsen A (2007) Forest cover change in space and time: combining the von Thunen and forest transition theories. World Bank Policy Res. Work. Pap. 4117Google Scholar
- 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, 320pGoogle Scholar
- Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot LV (2012) Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. CIFOR, Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle 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 DCGoogle Scholar
- 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 pGoogle 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, KenyaGoogle Scholar
- Chomitz KM (2007) At loggerheads: agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests. The World Bank, Washington D.C., 284 ppGoogle 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. 5Google 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 pGoogle 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, IndonesiaGoogle 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 203–238Google 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
- Smale M (ed) (2005) Valuing crop biodiversity: on-farm genetic resources and economic change. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI). CABI, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
- Springate-Baginski O, Wollenberg E (eds) (2010) REDD, forest governance and rural livelihoods: the emerging agenda. CIFOR, Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle 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 19:265–278Google Scholar
- Van Kooten GC (2012) Climate change, climate science and economics: prospects for a renewable energy future. Springer, DordrechtGoogle 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 65:834–852Google Scholar
- Zilberman D, Lipper L, McCarthy N (2008) When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor? Environ Dev Econ 13:255–278Google 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 126:67–80Google Scholar