REDD+, Conservation, and Conversion

Sudarsono Soedomo

Abstract


The effectiveness of periodical payment for forested lands as an incentive system to stop a conversion of forested lands is analyzed. Four simple models are outlined and analyzed to investigate behavior of the land manager whether to maintain the lands remain forested or to convert them to other uses. The analysis is pure theoretical employing the optimal control theory. A key element to induce the land manager to adopt forest conservation rather than forest conversion is a combination of periodical payments for the forested lands and the desirable scrap value. Without the desirable scrap value, periodical payments of carbon stock, regardless of the tariff, cannot stop the conversion; the tariff affects only the time when the conversion will be conducted but it is not sufficient to induce the land manager not to convert the forested lands. On the basis of this analysis, then policy implication is outlined. In order to provide the desirable scrap value, then a policy change is required. However, its implementation very likely encounters serious challenges from the land manager. 

Keywords


periodical payments, scrap value, conversion, forested land, optimal control

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aziz AA, Dargusch P, Phinn S, Ward A. 2015. Using redd+ to balance timber production with conservation objectives in a mangrove forest in malaysia. Ecological Economics 120:108–116.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.014

Busch J, Ferretti-Gallon K, Engelmann J, Wright M, Austin KG, Stolle F, Turubanova S, Potapov PV, Margono B, Hansen MC, Baccini A. 2015. Reductions in emissions from deforestation from Indonesia's moratorium on new oil palm, timber, and logging concessions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112:1328–1333.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1412514112

Butler RA, Koh LP, Ghazoul J. 2009. REDD in the red: Palm oil could under- mine carbon payment schemes. Conservation Letters 2:67–73.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00047.x

Carlson KM, Heilmayr R, Gibbs HK, Noojipady P, Burns DN, Morton DC, Walker NF, Paoli GD, Kremen C. 2018. Effect of oil palm sustainability certification on deforestation and fire in Indonesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(1):121–126.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704728114

McNaughton SJ, Oesterheld M, Frank DA, Williams KJ. 1991. Primary and Secondary Production in Terrestrial Ecosystems. In: Comparative Analyses of Ecosystems. Cole J, Lovett G, Findlay S, editors. New York: Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3122-6_7

Corbera E, Estrada M, Brown K. 2010. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries: Revisiting the assumptions. Climatic Change 100(3-4):355–388.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9773-1

Fisher B, Edwards DP, Wilcove DS. 2014. Logging and conservation: Economic impacts of the stocking rates and prices of commercial timber species. Forest Policy and Economics 38:65–71.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.05.006

Fitzherbert EB, Struebig MJ, Morel A, Danielsen F, Brühl, CA, Donald PF, Phalan, B. 2008. How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23(10):538–545.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.012

Girma HM, Hassan RM, Hertzler G. 2012. Forest conservation versus con version under uncertain market and environmental forest benefits in Ethiopia: The case of Sheka forest. Forest Policy and Economics 21:101–107.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.01.001

Massarella K, Sallu SM, Ensor JE, Marchant R. 2018. REDD+, hype, hope and disappointment: The dynamics of expectations in conservation and development pilot projects. World Development 109:375–385.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.006

Morel AC, Morel BF. 2012. How could carbon credits for reducing defor- estation compete with returns from palm oil: A proposal for a more flexible redd valuation tool. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 31:11–28.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2011.565709

Nielsen MR, Theilade I, Meilby H, Nui NH, Lam NT. 2018. Can PES and REDD+ match Willingness to Accept payments in contracts for reforestation and avoided forest degradation? The case of farmers in upland Bac Kan, Vietnam. Land Use Policy 79:822–833.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.010

Persson UM. 2012. Conserve or convert? pantropical modeling of REDD-bioenergy competition. Biological Conservation 146(1):81–88.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.038

Rakatama A, Pandit R, Iftekhar S, Ma C. 2018. How to design more effective REDD+ projects-The importance of targeted approach in Indonesia. Journal of Forest Economics 33:25–32.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2018.10.003

Rossi V, Claeys F, Bastin D, Gourlet-Fleury S, Guizol P, Eba'a-Atyi R, Sonwa DJ, Lescuyer G, Picard N. 2017. Could REDD+ mechanisms induce log- ging companies to reduce forest degradation in Central Africa? Journal of Forest Economics 29:107–117.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.10.001

Sethi S, Thompson GL. 2000. Optimal Control Theory. New York: Springer.

Strassburg B, Turner RK, Fisher B, Schaeffer R, Lovett A. 2009. Reducing emissions from deforestation. The "combined incentives" mechanism and empirical simulations. Global Environmental Change 19(2):265–278.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.11.004

Tata HL, Noordwijk M, Ruysschaert D, Mulia R, Rahayu S, Mulyoutami E, Widayati A, Ekadinata A, Zen R, Darsoyo A, Oktaviani R, Dewi S. 2014. Will funding to reduce emissions from deforestation and (forest) degradation (REDD+) stop conversion of peat swamps to oil palm in orangutan habitat in tripa in Aceh, Indonesia? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 19:693–713.

Vijay V, Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Smith SJ. 2016. The impacts of oil palm on recent deforestation and biodiversity loss. PloS one 11(7):e0159668.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159668

Wilcove DS, Koh LP. 2010. Addressing the threats to biodiversity from oil- palm agriculture. Biodiversity and Conservation 19(4):999–1007

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9760-x


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ISSN : 2087-0469

E-ISSN : 2089-2063

Creative Commons License
This journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


visitors since November 2016