A bottom-up approach to estimating cost elements of REDD+ pilot projects in Tanzania

Carbon Balance and Management

Tom Blomley¹  Timm Tennigkeit²  Christian Held²  Eduard Merger² 

[1] LTS International Ltd., Pentlands Science Park, Bush Loan, Penicuik, Nr. Edinburgh, EH26 0PL, Scotland, UK;UNIQUE forestry and land use, Schnewlinstrasse 10, 79098, Freiburg, Germany

关键词: Institutional costs;    Transaction costs;    REDD+ implementation costs;    Opportunity costs;    REDD+ cost elements;    REDD+ economics;   

Others  :  792379
DOI  :  10.1186/1750-0680-7-9

 received in 2012-05-22, accepted in 2012-07-22,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Several previous global REDD+ cost studies have been conducted, demonstrating that payments for maintaining forest carbon stocks have significant potential to be a cost-effective mechanism for climate change mitigation. These studies have mostly followed highly aggregated top-down approaches without estimating the full range of REDD+ costs elements, thus underestimating the actual costs of REDD+. Based on three REDD+ pilot projects in Tanzania, representing an area of 327,825 ha, this study explicitly adopts a bottom-up approach to data assessment. By estimating opportunity, implementation, transaction and institutional costs of REDD+ we develop a practical and replicable methodological framework to consistently assess REDD+ cost elements.

Results

Based on historical land use change patterns, current region-specific economic conditions and carbon stocks, project-specific opportunity costs ranged between US$ -7.8 and 28.8 tCO_xxxx for deforestation and forest degradation drivers such as agriculture, fuel wood production, unsustainable timber extraction and pasture expansion. The mean opportunity costs for the three projects ranged between US$ 10.1 – 12.5 tCO₂. Implementation costs comprised between 89% and 95% of total project costs (excluding opportunity costs) ranging between US$ 4.5 - 12.2 tCO₂ for a period of 30 years. Transaction costs for measurement, reporting, verification (MRV), and other carbon market related compliance costs comprised a minor share, between US$ 0.21 - 1.46 tCO₂. Similarly, the institutional costs comprised around 1% of total REDD+ costs in a range of US$ 0.06 – 0.11 tCO₂.

Conclusions

The use of bottom-up approaches to estimate REDD+ economics by considering regional variations in economic conditions and carbon stocks has been shown to be an appropriate approach to provide policy and decision-makers robust economic information on REDD+. The assessment of opportunity costs is a crucial first step to provide information on the economic baseline situation of deforestation and forest degradation agents and on the economic incentives required to halt unsustainable land use. Since performance based REDD+ carbon payments decrease over time (as deforestation rates drop and for each saved ha of forest payments occur once), investments in REDD+ implementation have a crucial role in triggering sustainable land use systems by investing in the underlying assets and the generation of sustainable revenue streams to compensate for opportunity costs of land use change. With a potential increase in the land value due to effective REDD+ investments, expenditures in an enabling institutional environment for REDD+ policies are crucial to avoid higher deforestation pressure on natural forests.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Merger et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wertz-Kannounnikoff : Estimating the costs of reducing forest emissions - A review of methods. In Working Paper, vol. 42. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia; 2008.
• [2]Stern N: The Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; 2006.
• [3]Eliasch J: The Eliasch Review - Climate Change: Financing Global Forests. UK Office of, Climate Change; 2008.
• [4]IPCC: WG 3 Chapter 9 ‘Forestry’ in Working Group III Report: Mitigation of Climate Change. In IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA; 2007.
• [5]Boucher D: What REDD can do: The Economics and Development of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. In Draft for external review (June). Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative – Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington D.C., USA; 2008.
• [6]Kindermann G, Obersteiner M, Sohngen B, Sathaye J, Andrakso K, Rametsteiner E, Schlamadinger B, Wunder S, Beach R: Global cost estimates for reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA (PNAS) 2008, 105:10302-10307.
• [7]Dyer N, Counsell S: McREDD: How McKinsey ‘cost curves are distorting REDD. In Rainforest Foundation Climate and Forests Policy Brief. The Rainforest Foundation UK, London, UK; 2010:12.
• [8]IPCC: Good practice Guidance for Land use, Land Use Change and Forestry. Insitute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan; 2003:632.
• [9]Godoy F, Tabor K, Burgess ND, Boniface P, Mbilinyi BP, Kashaigili JJ, Steininger MK: Deforestation and CO2 emissions in coastal Tanzania from 1990 to 2007. Environ Conserv 2011, 39:62-71.
• [10]Munishi PKT, Mringi S, Shirima DD, Linda SK: The role of the Miombo Woodlands of the Southern Highlands of Tanzania as carbon sinks. J Ecol Nat Enviro 2010, 2:261-269.
• [11]Shirima D, Munishi P, Lewis S, Burgess N, Marshall A, Balmford A, Swetnam R, Zahabu E: Carbon storage, structure and composition of Miombo woodlands in Tanzania's Eastern Arc Mountains. Afr J Ecol 2011, 49:332-342.
• [12]Geist HJ, Lambin EF: What drivers tropical deforestation? - A meta-analysis of proximate and underlying causes of deforestation based on subnational case study evidence. In LUCC Report Series No 4. LUCC International Project Office, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; 2001:136.
• [13]Rademaekers K, Eichler L, Berg J, Obersteiner M, Havlik P: Study on the evolution of some deforestation drivers and their potential impacts on the costs of an avoiding deforestation scheme. ECORYS Nederland BV, Rotterdam, Netherlands; 2010:114.
• [14]Fisher B, Lewis SL, Burgess ND, Malimbwi RE, Munishi PK, Swetnam RD, Turner RK, Willcock S, Balmford A: Implementation and opportunity costs of reducing deforestation and forest degradation in Tanzania. Nat Climate Change 2011.
• [15]Zahabu E: Ground Forest Carbon Assessment of the Masito Ugalla Ecosystem Pilot Area pp. 24. Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania; 2011:24.
• [16]Chaposa: Charcoal Potential in Southern Africa (Chaposa). Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 2002:88.
• [17]Malimbwi RE, Zahabu E, Kajembe GC, Luoga E: Contribution of Charcoal Extraction to Deforestation: Experience from CHAPOSA Research Project. Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania; 2000.
• [18]United Republic of Tanzania: Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Tanzania Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP). Forestry and Beekeeping Division Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; 2010.
• [19]Olsen N, Bishop J: The financial cost of REDD: Evidence from Brazil and Indonesia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland; 2009.
• [20]Grieg-Gran M: The cost of avoiding deforestation: report prepared for the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change. IIED, London, UK; 2006.
• [21]Chomitz KM, Buys P, Luca GD, Thomas TS, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S: At Loggerheads? Agricultural Expansion, Poverty Reduction, and Environment in the Tropical Forests. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA; 2006.
• [22]Pagiola S, Bosquet B: Estimating the costs of REDD at the country level. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA) 2009, 18062:1-22.
• [23]Fisher B, Lewis SL, Burgess ND, Malimbwi RE, Munishi PK, Swetnam RD, Turner RK, Willcock S, Balmford A: Implementation and opportunity costs of reducing deforestation and forest degradation in Tanzania - Supplementary information. Nat Climate Change 2011.
• [24]UNFCCC: A/R methodological tool "Tool for estimation of chnage in soil organic carbon stocks due to the implementation of A/R CDM project activities" (Version 01.1.0). (Board CE ed. UNFCCC, ; 2011:11.
• [25]Wildlife Works Carbon LLC: Project description (PD) for validation of "The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase I - Rukinga Sanctuary". Wildlife Works Carbon LLC, ; 2011.
• [26]Smith GR, McCarl BA, Li C, Reynolds JH, Hammerschlag R, Sass RL, Parton WJ, Ogle SM, Paustian K, Holtkamp J, Barbour W: Harnessing Farms and Forests in the low-carbon economy - How to create, measure and verify GHG offsets. The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Durham and London; 2007.
• [27]Nepstad D, Soares-Filho B, Merry F, Moutinho P, Oliveira-Rodriguez H, Bowman M, Schwartzman S, Almeida O, Rivero S: The costs and benefits of reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon. Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, MA, USA; 2007.
• [28]Grieg-Gran M: The cost of avoiding deforestation: Update of the report prepared for the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change. In Paper commissioned by the Office of Climate Change as background work to its report Climate Change: Financing Global Forests (The Eliasch Review). IIED, London, UK; 2008.
• [29]Angelsen A: Policies for reduced deforestation and their impact on agricultural production. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA (PNAS) 2010, 107:19639-19644.
• [30]Tennigkeit T, Kahrl F, Woelcke J, Newcombe K: Agricultural carbon sequestration in Sub-Saharan Africa: economics and institutions. The World Bank, Waschingto, DC, USA; 2010.
• [31]Antinori C, Sathaye J: Assessing transaction costs of project-based greenhouse gas emissions trading. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, C.A., USA; 2007.
• [32]The World Bank: BioCarbon Fund Experience - Insights from Afforestation and Reforestation Clean Development Mechanism Projects. The World Banks BioCarbon Fund, Washington, DC, USA; 2012.
• [33]Merger E, Pistorius T: Effectiveness and legitimacy of forest carbon standards in the OTC voluntary carbon market. Carbon Balance Manage 2011, 6:12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Galik CS, Baker JS, Grinnell JL: Transaction costs and forest management carbon offset potential. Climate change policy partnership Duke University, Durham, NC; 2009.
• [35]Ekins P, Kesicki F, Smith AZP: Marginal abatement costs curves: A call for caution. University College London, London, UK; 2011.
• [36]Tanzania Natural Resource Forum: REDD Realities: Learning from REDD pilot projects to make REDD work. Tanzania Tanzania Natural Resource Forum, Arusha; 2011.
• [37]United Republic of Tanzania: National Framework for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). Vice President’s Office (Environment) and Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; 2009.
• [38]White D, Minang P: Estimating the opportunity costs of REDD+ − A training manual. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA; 2011:262.
• [39]Harja D, Dewi S, van Nordwijk M, Ekadinata A, Rahmanulloh A: REDD Abacus SP - User Manual and Software. World Agroforestry Centre - ICRAF, SEA Regional Office, Bogo, Indonesia; 2011:89.
• [40]Kesicki F, Strachan N: Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves: confronting theory and practice. Environ Sci Policy 2011, 14:1195-1204.