Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 60, Issue 3, pp 189–197 | Cite as

Carbon sequestration in a tropical landscape: an economic model to measure its incremental cost

  • G.E. Shively
  • C.A. Zelek
  • D.J. Midmore
  • T.M. Nissen


Farm level rates of carbon sequestration are derived for timber and agroforestry systems based on Paraserianthes falcataria. An economic model is used to measure the incremental cost of carbon storage, based on the opportunity cost of land diverted from annual crop production. The method is applied to the Manupali watershed, in the Philippine province of Bukidnon, to estimate carbon storage potential and carbon storage costs at a landscape scale. Carbon storage via land use modification is calculated to cost between $3.30 per ton on fallowed lands and $62.50 per ton on land that otherwise supports high value cropping. Carbon storage through agroforestry is less costly than via a pure tree-based system; a strong argument for the role of agroforestry rather than forestry per se, in re-forestation projects.

Farm forestry Land conversion Marginal cost Paraserianthes falcataria Philippines 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams D.M., Alig R., McCarl B., Callaway J. and Winnett S. 1999. Minimum cost strategies for sequestering carbon in forests. Land Economics. 75: 360–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asian Development Bank 1991. Appraisal of the forest plantations sector project in the Philippines. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines.Google Scholar
  3. Bin L. 1994. The impact assessment of land use change in the watershed area using remote sensing and GIS: A case study of the Manupali watershed, the Philippines. Masters Degree Thesis. School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
  4. Brown S. 1997. Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests-A Primer. FAO Forestry Paper Number 134.Google Scholar
  5. Brown S., Sadhe J., Cannell M., and Kauppi P. E. 1996. Management of forests for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. In: Working Group II, Second Assessment Report, Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Bruce J.P., Lee H. and Haites E.F. 1996. The social costs of climate change: Greenhouse damage and the benefit of control. Climate change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Chapter 6, pp 178–224. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  7. Coxhead I., Shively G.E. and Shuai X. 2002. Development Policies, Resource Constraints, and Agricultural Expansion on the Philippine Land Frontier. Environment and Development Economics 7: 341–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dudek J. and LeBlanc A. 1990. Offsetting new CO2 emissions: A rational first greenhouse policy step. Contemporary Policy Issues. 8: 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Enquist B. and Niklas K. 2002. Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science. 295: 1517–1520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frumhoff P.C., Goetze D.C. and Harner J.J. 1998. Linking Solutions to Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss through the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Heath L.S., Birdsey R.A., Row C. and Plantinga A.J. 1996. Carbon pools and fluxes in U.S. forest products. NATO ASI Series 1(40): 271–78.Google Scholar
  12. Houghton J.T. 1996. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  13. Houghton J.T., Callender B.A. and Varney S.K. (eds), 1992. Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  14. Manne A.S. and Richels R.G. 1991. Global CO2 emission reductions-the impacts of rising costs. Energy Journal. 12: 87–108.Google Scholar
  15. Nissen T.M. and Midmore D.J. 1999. Aboveground and belowground competition between intercropped cabbage and young Eucalyptus torelliana. Agroforestry Systems 46: 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nissen T.M., Midmore D.J. and Keeler A.G. 2001. Biophysical and economic tradeoffs of intercropping timber with food crops in the Philippine uplands. Agricultural Systems 67: 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Poudel D.D., Midmore D.J. and Hargrove W.L. 1998. An analysis of commercial vegetable farms in relation to sustainability in the uplands of Southeast Asia. Agricultural Systems 58: 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reddy S. and Price C. 1999. Carbon sequestration and conservation of tropical forests under uncertainty. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 50: 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shively G.E. and Zelek C.A. 2002. Linking economic policy and environmental outcomes at a watershed scale. Philippine Journal of Development 29: 101–125.Google Scholar
  20. Smith J. and Scherr S.J. 2002. Forest Carbon and Local Livelihoods: Assessment of Opportunities and Policy Recommendations. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 37. Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta, Indonesia.Google Scholar
  21. Trexler M. and Haugen C. 1995. Keeping it Green: Tropical Forestry Opportunities for Mitigating Climate Change. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Uriarte T. and Pinol A. 1996. Tree volume, yield prediction and economic rotation of Albizia falcataria in Mindanao Philippines.Journal of Tropical Forest Scienc. 8: 289–299.Google Scholar
  23. Watson R.T., Zinyowera M.C. and Moss R.H. (eds), 1998. The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  24. West L.T., Lawrence K.S., Dayot A.A., Tomas L.M. and Yeck R.D. 1997. Micromorphology and soil development as indicators of ash age on Mindinao, the Philippines. pp. 335–343. In: Shoba S. Miedena R. and Gerasimova M. (eds), Soil Micromorphology: Studies on Soil Diversity, Diagnostics, Dynamics. 10th International Working Meeting on Soil Micromorphology, Moscow, Russia 8-13 July 1996. Sub-commission on Soil Micromorphology, Interantional Society of Soil Science, Moscow-Wageningen.Google Scholar
  25. Zelek C.A. and Shively G.E. 2003. Measuring the opportunity cost of carbon sequestration in tropical agriculture. Land Economics 79: 342–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • G.E. Shively
    • 1
  • C.A. Zelek
    • 2
  • D.J. Midmore
    • 3
  • T.M. Nissen
    • 4
  1. 1.Agricultural EconomicsPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.USDA-NRCSIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Biological and Environmental SciencesCentral Queensland UniversityRockhamptonAUS
  4. 4.Natural Resources and Environmental StudiesUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations