, Volume 41, Supplement 1, pp 78–89 | Cite as

Potential Biodiversity Benefits from International Programs to Reduce Carbon Emissions from Deforestation

  • Juha SiikamäkiEmail author
  • Stephen C. Newbold


Deforestation is the second largest anthropogenic source of carbon dioxide emissions and options for its reduction are integral to climate policy. In addition to providing potentially low cost and near-term options for reducing global carbon emissions, reducing deforestation also could support biodiversity conservation. However, current understanding of the potential benefits to biodiversity from forest carbon offset programs is limited. We compile spatial data on global forest carbon, biodiversity, deforestation rates, and the opportunity cost of land to examine biodiversity conservation benefits from an international program to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation. Our results indicate limited geographic overlap between the least-cost areas for retaining forest carbon and protecting biodiversity. Therefore, carbon-focused policies will likely generate substantially lower benefits to biodiversity than a more biodiversity-focused policy could achieve. These results highlight the need to systematically consider co-benefits, such as biodiversity in the design and implementation of forest conservation programs to support international climate policy.


Forests Carbon Biodiversity Conservation REDD Priorities 



We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Mistra Foundation’s Climate Policy Research Program (Clipore). Thanks also to two anonymous referees for valuable comments.


  1. Angelsen, A. 2008. Moving ahead with REDD: Issues, options and implications, 156. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, T.M., R.A. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M. Hoffmann, J.F. Lamoreux, C.G. Mittermeier, J.D. Pilgrim, et al. 2006. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313: 58–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Busch, J., F. Godoy, W.R. Turner, and C.A. Harvey. 2011. Biodiversity co-benefits of reducing emissions from deforestation under alternative reference levels and levels of finance. Conservation Letters 4: 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Commission of the European Communities. 2008. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Addressing the challenges of deforestation and forest degradation to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss, Brussels, COM 645/3. Accessed 1 Sept 2011.
  5. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. COP 10 Decision X/2, Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. Accessed 1 Sept 2011.
  6. Donato, D.C., J.B. Kauffman, D. Murdiyarso, S. Kurnianto, M. Stidham, and M. Kanninen. 2011. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience 4: 293–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2005. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. Progress towards sustainable forest management. FAO Forestry Paper 147, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
  8. Gibbs, H.K., S. Brown, J.O. Niles, and J.A. Foley. 2007. Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: Making REDD a reality. Environmental Research Letters 2: 045023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gorte, R.W., and J.L. Ramseur. 2010. Forest carbon markets: potential and drawbacks. Congressional Research Service, 17. CRS Report RL34560.Google Scholar
  10. Government of Brazil. 2008. National Plan on Climate Change. Interministerial Committee on Climate Change, Decree No. 6263 of November 21, 2007. Accessed 1 Sept 2011.
  11. Harvey, C.A., B. Dickson, and C. Kormos. 2010. Opportunities for achieving biodiversity conservation through REDD. Conservation Letters 3: 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffmann, M., C. Hilton-Taylor, A. Angulo, M. Böhm, T.M. Brooks, S.H.M. Butchart, K.E. Carpenter, J. Chanson, et al. 2010. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330: 1503–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. In Intergovernmental panel on climate change, ed. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, 996. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. IUCN. 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Accessed 12 Oct 2009.
  15. IUCN and UNEP-WCMC. 2010. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA): Annual Release. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. Accessed 11 Dec 2010.
  16. Keith, H., B.G. Mackey, and D.B. Lindenmayer. 2009. Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon-dense forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 11635–11640.Google Scholar
  17. Kindermann, G.E., I. McCallum, S. Fritz, and M. Obersteiner. 2008a. A global forest growing stock, biomass and carbon map based on FAO statistics. Silva Fennica 42: 387–396.Google Scholar
  18. Kindermann, G.E., M. Obersteiner, B. Sohngen, J. Sathaye, K. Andrasko, E. Rametsteiner, B. Schlamadinger, S. Wunder, et al. 2008b. Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 10302–10307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Macauley, M., and R. Sedjo. 2011. Forests in climate policy: Technical, institutional and economic issues in measurement and monitoring. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15: 499–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McInnes, L., A. Purvis, and C.D.L. Orme. 2009. Where do species’ geographic ranges stop and why? Landscape impermeability and the Afrotropical avifauna. Proceedings of Royal Society B: Biology 276: 3063–3070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Naidoo, R., and T. Iwamura. 2007. Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: Implications for conservation priorities. Biological Conservation 140: 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Niekisch, M., P. Raven, N.S. Sodhi, O. Venter, and S.L. Pimm. 2009. Biodiversity and REDD at Copenhagen. Current Biology 2009: 974–976.Google Scholar
  23. Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D. Burgess, G.V.N. Powell, E.C. Underwood, J.A. D’amico, I. Itoua, et al. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on Earth. BioScience 51: 933–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Palmer, C., and S. Engel. 2009. Avoided deforestation: Prospects for mitigating climate change. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Pan, Y., R.A. Birdsey, J. Fang, R. Houghton, P.E. Kauppi, W.E. Kurz, O.L. Phillips, A. Shvidenko, et al. 2011. A large and persistent carbon sink in the World’s forests. Science 333: 988–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parker, L., and J. Blodgett. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions: Perspectives on the top 20 emitters and developed versus developing nations. Report RL32721, 20. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  27. Pereira, H.M., P.W. Leadley, V. Proenca, R. Alkemade, J.P.W. Scharlemann, J.F. Fernandez-Manjarres, M.B. Araujo, P. Balvanera, et al. 2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330: 1496–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pounds, J.A., M.A. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma, J.A. Consuegra, M.P. Fodgen, P.N. Foster, E. La Marca, K.L. Masters, et al. 2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439: 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Republic of Indonesia. 2009. National economic, environment and development study (NEEDS) for climate change Indonesia country study. FINAL REPORT, National Council on Climate Change (NCC) of the Republic of Indonesia, December 2009. Accessed 1 Sept 2011.
  30. Rodrigues, A.S.L., J.D. Pilgrim, J.F. Lamoreux, M. Hoffman, and T.M. Brooks. 2006. The value of the IUCN red list for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schipper, J., J.S. Chanson, F. Chiozza, N.A. Cox, M. Hoffman, V. Katariya, J. Lampourex, A.S.L. Rodrigues, et al. 2008. The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: Diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322: 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sohngen, B. 2009. Assessing the economic potential for reducing deforestation in developing countries. In Avoided deforestation: Prospects for mitigating climate change, ed. Palmer, C and S. Engel, 258. Oxon: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Google Scholar
  33. Spalding, M.D., H.E. Fox, G.R. Allen, N. Davidson, Z.A. Ferda, M. Finlayson, B.S. Halpern, and K.D. Martin. 2007. Marine ecoregions of the world: A bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience 57: 573–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomas, C.D., A. Carmon, G.E. Green, M. Bakkeness, L. Beaumont, Y. Collingham, B.F.N. Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, et al. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. UNFCCC. 2008. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Thirteenth Session, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007 Addendum, Part Two: Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1, 14 March 2008. Accessed 1 Sept 2011.
  36. UNFCCC. 2011a. Summary of GHG Emissions for European Union (27). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Accessed 8 Sept 2011.
  37. UNFCCC. 2011b. Summary of GHG Emissions for Germany. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Accessed 8 Sept 2011.
  38. USGS and NASA. 2009. Global land survey 2005. Sioux Falls, SD: USGS Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS).Google Scholar
  39. van der Werf, G.R., D.C. Morton, R.S. DeFries, J.G.J. Olivier, P.S. Kasibhatla, R.B. Jackson, and G.J. Collatz. 2009. CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nature Geoscience 2: 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Venter, O., W.F. Laurance, T. Iwamura, K.A. Wilson, R.A. Fuller, and H.P. Possingham. 2009. Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity. Science 326: 1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Resources for the FutureWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations