Synergy potential between climate change mitigation and forest conservation policies in the Indonesian forest sector: implications for achieving multiple sustainable development objectives

  • Ken’ichi MatsumotoEmail author
  • Tomoko Hasegawa
  • Kanako Morita
  • Shinichiro Fujimori
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Climate Change Mitigation, Adaption, and Resilience


There has been growing interest in achieving multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by identifying effective interactions or synergy potential among measures/policies on sustainable development. The simultaneous implementation of climate change mitigation (SDG 13) and forest protection (SDG 15) is an example of an interaction where the measures/policies that contribute to both goals can be identified and the overlaps eliminated. However, there are limited studies that quantitatively evaluate the synergy potential in the forest sector. This study is the first attempt to examine the synergy potential in the forest sector in Indonesia focusing on climate change mitigation and forest protection. We evaluated four scenarios that differentiated climate and forest policy options and assessed the effectiveness of implementing these two policies simultaneously by 2030, using a computable general equilibrium model and a land-use model. We found that the additional efforts needed for emission reduction were larger for the scenario not considering forest protection than for that considering forest protection. This caused differences in the mitigation measures introduced and the resulting land use that depended on the scenario. Consequently, mitigation costs would be reduced by implementing mitigation and forest protection policies simultaneously, suggesting that the synergy effect in the forest sector in Indonesia does exist. This also implies simultaneous contributions to SDGs 13 and 15 (Targets 13.2 and 15.2). To realize such synergies, which have not yet been considered, it is necessary for policymakers to fill the institutional gaps between the policies/strategies of mitigation and forest conservation and enforce the policies for SDGs.


Climate change mitigation Forest conservation Synergy Indonesia AFOLU model Computable general equilibrium model 



This research was supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (S-14) of the Ministry of the Environment, JSPS KAKENHI Grant number 18K11754 and 18K11800, and the Integrated Research Program for Advancing Climate Models (TOUGOU program) of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. We thank Leonie Seabrook, PhD, from Edanz Group ( for editing a draft of this manuscript.


  1. Austin K, Alisjahbana A, Darusman T et al (2014) Indonesia’s forest moratorium: impacts and next steps. World Resour Inst Work Pap 1–15Google Scholar
  2. Austin KG, Mosnier A, Pirker J et al (2017) Shifting patterns of oil palm driven deforestation in Indonesia and implications for zero-deforestation commitments. Land Use Policy 69:41–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babatunde KA, Begum RA, Said FF (2017) Application of computable general equilibrium (CGE) to climate change mitigation policy: a systematic review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 78:61–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastos Lima MG, Kissinger G, Visseren-Hamakers IJ et al (2017) The Sustainable Development Goals and REDD+: assessing institutional interactions and the pursuit of synergies. Int Environ Agreem Polit Law Econ 17:589–606. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhan M, Sharma D, Ashwin AS, Mehra S (2017) Policy forum: nationally-determined climate commitments of the BRICS: at the forefront of forestry-based climate change mitigation. For Policy Econ 85:172–175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boer R (2001) Economic assessment of mitigation options for enhancing and maintaining carbon sink capacity in Indonesia. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 6:257–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boer R, Wasrin UR, Perdinan BD et al (2007) Assessment of carbon leakage in multiple carbon-sink projects: a case study in Jambi Province, Indonesia. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 12:1169–1188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruinsma J, Bödeker G, Schmidhuber J et al (2006) World agriculture: towards 2030/2050. Food Agric Organ Interim Rep June 2006, pp 1–71Google Scholar
  9. Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (2015) The Banking Environment Initiative (BEI) and Consumer Goods Forum (CGF)’s “Soft Commodities” compact. Accessed 09 Oct 2018
  10. Chamorro A, Minnemeyer S, Sargent S (2017) Exploring Indonesia’s long and complicated history of forest fires. In: Glob. For. Watch. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  11. Coca N (2018) Despite government pledges, ravaging of Indonesia’s forests continues. In: Yale Environ. 360. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  12. Consumer Goods Forum (2018) Towards zero net deforestation. Accessed 03 May 2018
  13. Convention on Biological Diversity (2018a) Climate change and biodiversity. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  14. Convention on Biological Diversity (2018b) Forest biodiversity. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  15. Danone (2016) Fighting deforestation: public and private solutions. Accessed 09 Oct 2018
  16. De Boer P, Paap R (2009) Testing non-nested demand relations: linear expenditure system versus indirect addilog. Stat Neerl 63:368–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim (2010) Indonesia’s greenhouse gas abatement cost curve. Accessed 12 May 2018
  18. Di Gregorio M, Nurrochmat DR, Paavola J et al (2017) Climate policy integration in the land use sector: mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development linkages. Environ Sci Policy 67:35–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Food and Agriculture Organization (2018) FAOSTAT: land use total. Accessed 16 Oct 2018
  20. Fujimori S, Masui T, Matsuoka Y (2012) AIM/CGE [basic] manual. Cent Soc Environ Syst Res NIES Discuss Pap Ser 2012-01, pp 1–74Google Scholar
  21. Fujimori S, Hasegawa T, Masui T, Takahashi K (2014a) Land use representation in a global CGE model for long-term simulation: CET vs. logit functions. Food Secur 6:685–699. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fujimori S, Masui T, Matsuoka Y (2014b) Development of a global computable general equilibrium model coupled with detailed energy end-use technology. Appl Energy 128:296–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fujimori S, Kubota I, Dai H et al (2016) Will international emissions trading help achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement? Environ Res Lett 11:104001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graham V, Laurance SG, Grech A, Venter O (2017) Spatially explicit estimates of forest carbon emissions, mitigation costs and REDD+ opportunities in Indonesia. Environ Res Lett. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R et al (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342:850–853. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hasegawa T, Matsuoka Y (2015) Climate change mitigation strategies in agriculture and land use in Indonesia. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 20:409–424. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hasegawa T, Fujimori S, Takahashi K, Masui T (2015) Scenarios for the risk of hunger in the twenty-first century using Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environ Res Lett 10:014010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hasegawa T, Fujimori S, Boer R et al (2016a) Land-based mitigation strategies under the mid-term carbon reduction targets in Indonesia. Sustain 8:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hasegawa T, Fujimori S, Masui T, Matsuoka Y (2016b) Introducing detailed land-based mitigation measures into a computable general equilibrium model. J Clean Prod 114:233–242. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoa NT, Hasegawa T, Matsuoka Y (2014) Climate change mitigation strategies in agriculture, forestry and other land use sectors in Vietnam. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 19:15–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoberg G, St-Laurent GP, Schittecatte G, Dymond CC (2016) Forest carbon mitigation policy: a policy gap analysis for British Columbia. For Policy Econ 69:73–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Indonesia National Council on Climate Change (2012) Indonesia’s technology needs assessment for climate change mitigation 2012. = da. Accessed 12 Nov 2013
  33. Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (2017) A pathway to zero deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Accessed 09 Oct 2018
  34. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Accessed 14 Jan 2018
  35. Jilani T, Hasegawa T, Matsuoka Y (2015) The future role of agriculture and land use change for climate change mitigation in Bangladesh. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 20:1289–1304. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jong HN (2018) Five years after zero-deforestation vow, little sign of progress from Indonesian pulp giant. In: Mongabay. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  37. Krasner SD (1982) Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables. Int Organ 36:185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lucas PL, van Vuuren DP, Olivier JGJ, den Elzen MGJ (2007) Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Environ Sci Policy 10:85–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Margono BA, Potapov PV, Turubanova S et al (2014) Primary forest cover loss in Indonesia over 2000–2012. Nat Clim Change 4:730–735. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Matsumoto K (2015) Energy structure and energy security under climate mitigation scenarios in China. PLoS One 10:e0144884. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Matsumoto K, Andriosopoulos K (2016) Energy security in East Asia under climate mitigation scenarios in the 21st century. Omega 59:60–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Matsumoto K, Tachiiri K, Kawamiya M (2016) Impact of climate model uncertainties on socioeconomics: a case study with a medium mitigation scenario. Comput Oper Res 66:374–383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Matsumoto K, Tachiiri K, Kawamiya M (2018) Evaluating multiple emission pathways for fixed cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from global-scale socioeconomic perspectives. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 23:1–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ministry of Environment (2010) Indonesia second national communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Accessed 02 May 2018
  45. Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2017) Indonesia third national communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Accessed 02 May 2018
  46. Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2018) The state of Indonesia’s forests 2018. Ministry of Environment and Forestry, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  47. Moeliono M, Gallemore C, Santoso L et al (2014) Information networks and power: confronting the “wicked problem” of REDD+ in Indonesia. Ecol Soc 19:9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morita K, Matsumoto K (2018a) Synergies among climate change and biodiversity conservation measures and policies in the forest sector: a case study of Southeast Asian countries. For Policy Econ 87:59–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morita K, Matsumoto K (2018b) REDD+ financing to enhance climate change mitigation and adaptation and biodiversity co-benefits: lessons from the Global Environment Facility. AGRIVITA J Agric Sci 40:118–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. New York Declaration on Forests Global Platform (2014) New York Declaration on Forests. Accessed 04 Oct 2018
  51. Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M (2016) Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534:320–322. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pacheco P, Komarudin H (2017) Implementing commitments to the Indonesian palm oil sector. ETFRN News 58:184–190Google Scholar
  53. Pawar KV, Rothkar RV (2015) Forest conservation and environmental awareness. Proced Earth Planet Sci 11:212–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pirard R, Gnych S, Pacheco P, Lawry S (2015) Zero-deforestation commitments in Indonesia: governance challenges. CIFOR 132:1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pistorius T, Reinecke S, Carrapatoso A (2017) A historical institutionalist view on merging LULUCF and REDD+ in a post-2020 climate agreement. Int Environ Agreem Polit Law Econ 17:623–638. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pradhan BB, Shrestha RM, Hoa NT, Matsuoka Y (2017) Carbon prices and greenhouse gases abatement from agriculture, forestry and land use in Nepal. Glob Environ Change 43:26–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ravindranath NH (2007) Mitigation and adaptation synergy in forest sector. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 12:843–853. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ren X, Weitzel M, O’Neill BC et al (2018) Avoided economic impacts of climate change on agriculture: integrating a land surface model (CLM) with a global economic model (iPETS). Clim Change 146:517–531. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Republic of Indonesia (2016) First nationally determined contribution. Accessed 02 May 2018
  60. Riahi K, van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E et al (2017) The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob Environ Change 42:153–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rovani R (2018) Sustainable Development Goals in forestry sector. Accessed 28 May 2018
  62. Sands RD, Förster H, Jones CA, Schumacher K (2014) Bio-electricity and land use in the Future Agricultural Resources Model (FARM). Clim Change 123:719–730. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sathaye JA, Makundi WR, Andrasko K et al (2001) Carbon mitigation potential and costs of forestry options in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Philippines and Tanzania. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 6:185–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sayer J, Margules C, Boedhihartono AK et al (2015) Landscape approaches; what are the pre-conditions for success? Sustain Sci 10:345–355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sayer JA, Margules C, Boedhihartono AK et al (2017) Measuring the effectiveness of landscape approaches to conservation and development. Sustain Sci 12:465–476. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schebek L, Mizgajski JT, Schaldach R, Wimmer F (2018) Land-use change and CO2 emissions associated with oil palm expansion in Indonesia by 2020. In: Otjacques B, Hitzelberger P, Naumann S, Wohlgemuth V (eds) From science to society. Springer International Publishing, Basel, pp 49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Siagian UWR, Yuwono BB, Fujimori S, Masui T (2017) Low-carbon energy development in Indonesia in alignment with Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) by 2030. Energies 10:52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stafford-Smith M, Griggs D, Gaffney O et al (2017) Integration: the key to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain Sci 12:911–919. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Suwarno A, van Noordwijk M, Weikard HP, Suyamto D (2018) Indonesia’s forest conversion moratorium assessed with an agent-based model of Land-Use Change and Ecosystem Services (LUCES). Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 23:211–229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 (2018) About TFA 2020. Accessed 09 Oct 2018
  71. United Nations (2018) Sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss. Accessed 04 Oct 2018
  72. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (2015) The global mechanism supports forest and landscape restoration processes. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  73. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (2018) Global land outlook. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  74. United Nations Forum on Forests (2018) UN Forum on Forests. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  75. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2018a) Introduction to land use. Accessed 20 Oct 2018
  76. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2018b) NDC registry (interim). Accessed 04 Oct 2018
  77. Van Kooten GC (2018) The challenge of mitigating climate change through forestry activities: what are the rules of the game? Ecol Econ 146:35–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M et al (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Change 109:5–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vauhkonen J, Packalen T (2018) Uncertainties related to climate change and forest management with implications on climate regulation in Finland. Ecosyst Serv. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wijaya A, Chrysolite H, Ge M et al (2017) How can Indonesia achieve its climate change mitigation goal? An analysis of potential emissions reductions from energy and land-use policies. World Resources Institute. World Resour Inst Work Pap September 2017, pp 1–36Google Scholar
  81. Xu Z, Smyth CE, Lemprière TC et al (2018) Climate change mitigation strategies in the forest sector: biophysical impacts and economic implications in British Columbia, Canada. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 23:257–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Fisheries and Environmental SciencesNagasaki UniversityNagasakiJapan
  2. 2.Center for Social and Environmental Systems ResearchNational Institute for Environmental StudiesTsukubaJapan
  3. 3.Forestry and Forest Products Research InstituteTsukubaJapan
  4. 4.Graduate School of EngineeringKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations