Sustainable forest management that aims at Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) includes
payments to landowners and can provide economic benefits over
alternative land uses such as oil palm plantations. If certain key
factors are resolved, REDD+ can simultaneously achieve economic and
social success while bringing ecological benefits and contributing to
climate change mitigation.
The objective of REDD+ is to provide an economic incentive to
landowners to manage their land in such a way that forests remain intact
and the carbon stays stored in the plants. Using the forests’ natural
ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere is a relatively affordable
and convenient way to contribute to climate change mitigation. Depending
on local ecosystem dynamics, socio-political conditions and relevant
alternative land uses, such as agriculture or oil palm plantations,
REDD+ payments can be economically competitive. The benefits of REDD+
are especially visible in cases where – besides payments for carbon
storage – other ecosystem services such as clean water provision and
biodiversity are considered in the equation. These findings are
particularly relevant for the local implementation of REDD+ projects
that rely on the support of the affected people.
In a recently published article in
Environmental Sustainability, researchers
from Wageningen University examine the economic costs and benefits from
several land use alternatives in secondary forests and oil palm
plantations in Kalimantan, Indonesia over a 20-year period. The
researchers quantify and compare revenues from sustainable timber
harvesting, palm oil production, and non-timber forest products like
rattan, a plant used for its fiber. They use data from peat land and
from land on mineral soils. Peat soils have a significantly higher
carbon content as compared to other soils, which makes land conversion
on peat land particularly impactful for the climate. The researchers
look at the amount of CO
2 that is either (a) released into
the atmosphere in cases where land is converted from forest into palm
oil plantations, or (b) absorbed into plant biomass through the growth
of vegetation. To calculate costs for carbon emissions, an amount of
five dollars per ton of released CO
2 ($/t CO
2)is used. This price is a conservative estimate given that the average carbon price in 2011 for REDD+ projects was $12/t CO
2.
The researchers find that REDD+ payments of only three dollars per ton of avoided CO
2 emissions
makes sustainable forest management on peat lands financially more
attractive than establishing oil palm plantations. Conversion of peat
land forests through logging leads to ongoing CO
2 emissions
from the exposed soil. Most oil palm plantations in Kalimantan are
established in exactly these areas. Another finding is that even on
less carbon-rich mineral soils, REDD+ payments of $7/t CO
2 will incentivize landowners to keeping and maintaining the forest than compared to converting the land to oil palm plantations.
Decades of intensive logging have led to vast areas of degraded
grasslands in Indonesia. The researchers find that converting these
degraded grasslands into oil palm plantations can have significant
benefits for society. Cultivating these areas constitutes a big
opportunity to both satisfy the demand for palm oil and withdraw carbon
from the atmosphere. In this scenario, no deforestation takes place and
biologically less valuable areas turn into productive lands that yield
economic revenues while having a positive effect on the climate by
absorbing carbon.
There is enough degraded land in most of Indonesia on non-peat mineral
soils to swap the currently unused palm oil licenses from peat land
forests to degraded grasslands. However, ownership of such land on
mineral soils is more dispersed than ownership of peat land. This, among
other factors, leads to higher costs, and has so far impeded political
initiatives to switch locations for large-scale plantation licenses.
Therefore, oil palm plantations are currently planted on the
economically least attractive and ecologically most vulnerable sites –
the peat land forests. This shows that investment decisions are not
solely made based on economic calculations but that other factors such
as the accessibility of land and political conditions drive land use
change.
Four major insights came out of the study. First, REDD+ is instrumental
to promote better land use. However, other measures need to be included
to reach socially optimal land use. Aggregated economic incentives for
multiple ecosystem services, not only carbon storage, will lead to
increased competitiveness over other land uses. Second, an institutional
framework for effective local land management is necessary to ensure
clear land tenure, monitoring of land use changes, and enforcement of
regulations. Third, local stakeholder interests need to be taken into
account. Potential impacts on the ability of local people to use the
forest through REDD+ projects need to be communicated to them.
Furthermore, timing is essential since the affected people may not be
able to forego revenues from forest use until they receive the first
REDD+ payments. Fourth, designing and implementing REDD+ projects needs
to be done in accordance to local ecosystem dynamics. For instance, if
an area on a peat dome is drained in order to be prepared for an oil
palm plantation, the groundwater table in the adjacent peat land forest
will drop as well. This leads to forest degradation and increased CO
2 emissions outside the plantation boundaries.
REDD+ payments can offer a competitive land use alternative that
provides social, ecologic, and economic benefits to all stakeholders
while contributing to climate change mitigation. However, there is a
need for a locally adapted regulatory framework that takes into account
the complex ecosystem dynamics for REDD+ to fulfill its climate
objective. Awareness of cultural and institutional factors is essential
for the effective and successful planning of REDD+ projects for local
ecosystem management as economic incentives. Mechanisms other than
carbon payments need to be included to yield the societally optimal land
use scenario. While only speaking for the researched area in
Kalimantan, Indonesia, this paper shows that economic models can serve
local land use planning processes. This insight is particularly relevant
for policymakers who can contribute to grounding political
decision-making on clearly defined factors that illuminate economic,
ecological, and social impacts of land use policies.
http://environment.yale.edu