Annals of Forest Science

, Volume 71, Issue 2, pp 227–237 | Cite as

Implications of carbon forestry for local livelihoods and leakage

  • George A. Dyer
  • Maria NijnikEmail author
Original Paper



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.


Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Agent-based models General equilibrium models Mexico REDD+ 


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.

Supplementary material

13595_2013_293_MOESM1_ESM.doc (72 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 72 kb)


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot LV (2012) Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. CIFOR, Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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 109:1062–1067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 10:1426–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Chomitz KM (2007) At loggerheads: agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests. The World Bank, Washington D.C., 284 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Dyer G, Taylor JE (2011) The corn price surge: impacts in rural Mexico. World Dev 39:1878–1887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dyer G, Taylor JE, Boucher S (2006) Subsistence response to market shocks. Am J Agric Econ 88:279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65:663–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fairhead J, Leach M, Scoones I (2012) Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? J Peasant Stud 39:237–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 33:1511–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 60:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Jack BK, Kousky C, Sims KRE (2008) Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad USA 105:9465–9470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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 105:10302–10307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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 33:237–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ravaillion M (2001) The mystery of the vanishing benefits: an introduction to impact evaluation. The World Bank Econ Rev 15:115–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schwarze R, Niles JO, Olander J (2002) Understanding and managing leakage in forest-based GHG-mitigation projects. Phil Trans Math Phys Eng Sci 360:1685–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sierra R, Rusman E (2006) On the efficiency of environmental service payments: a forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 59:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smale M (ed) (2005) Valuing crop biodiversity: on-farm genetic resources and economic change. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI). CABI, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Springate-Baginski O, Wollenberg E (eds) (2010) REDD, forest governance and rural livelihoods: the emerging agenda. CIFOR, Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Van Kooten GC (2012) Climate change, climate science and economics: prospects for a renewable energy future. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Zilberman D, Lipper L, McCarthy N (2008) When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor? Environ Dev Econ 13:255–278Google Scholar
  35. 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

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abt Associates, Inc.El Colegio de MexicoMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences GroupThe James Hutton InstituteScotlandUK

Personalised recommendations