IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v7y2018i4p138-d183211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forest Carbon Gain and Loss in Protected Areas of Uganda: Implications to Carbon Benefits of Conservation

Author

Listed:
  • Belachew Gizachew

    (Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Høgskoleveien 8, 1431 Ås, Norway)

  • Svein Solberg

    (Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Høgskoleveien 8, 1431 Ås, Norway)

  • Stefano Puliti

    (Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Høgskoleveien 8, 1431 Ås, Norway)

Abstract

Uganda designated 16% of its land as Protected Area (PA). The original goal was natural resources, habitat and biodiversity conservation. However, PAs also offer great potential for carbon conservation in the context of climate change mitigation. Drawing on a wall-to-wall map of forest carbon change for the entire Uganda, that was developed using two Digital Elevation Model (DEM) datasets for the period 2000–2012, we (1) quantified forest carbon gain and loss within 713 PAs and their external buffer zones, (2) tested variations in forest carbon change among management categories, and (3) evaluated the effectiveness of PAs and the prevalence of local leakage in terms of forest carbon. The net annual forest carbon gain in PAs of Uganda was 0.22 ± 1.36 t/ha, but a significant proportion (63%) of the PAs exhibited a net carbon loss. Further, carbon gain and loss varied significantly among management categories. About 37% of the PAs were “effective”, i.e., gained or at least maintained forest carbon during the period. Nevertheless, carbon losses in the external buffer zones of those effective PAs significantly contrast with carbon gains inside of the PA boundaries, providing evidence of leakage and thus, isolation. The combined carbon losses inside the boundaries of a large number of PAs, together with leakage in external buffer zones suggest that PAs, regardless of the management categories, are threatened by deforestation and forest degradation. If Uganda will have to benefit from carbon conservation from its large number of PAs through climate change mitigation mechanisms such as REDD+, there is an urgent need to look into some of the current PA management approaches, and design protection strategies that account for the surrounding landscapes and communities outside of the PAs.

Suggested Citation

  • Belachew Gizachew & Svein Solberg & Stefano Puliti, 2018. "Forest Carbon Gain and Loss in Protected Areas of Uganda: Implications to Carbon Benefits of Conservation," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:138-:d:183211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/4/138/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/4/138/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. B D Spracklen & M Kalamandeen & D Galbraith & E Gloor & D V Spracklen, 2015. "A Global Analysis of Deforestation in Moist Tropical Forest Protected Areas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Stibniati Atmadja & Louis Verchot, 2012. "A review of the state of research, policies and strategies in addressing leakage from reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+)," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 311-336, March.
    3. Cuenca, Pablo & Arriagada, Rodrigo & Echeverría, Cristian, 2016. "How much deforestation do protected areas avoid in tropical Andean landscapes?," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 56-66.
    4. Brian Blankespoor & Susmita Dasgupta & David Wheeler, 2017. "Protected areas and deforestation: new results from high‐resolution panel data," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(1), pages 55-68, February.
    5. Petursson, Jon Geir & Vedeld, Paul & Sassen, Marieke, 2013. "An institutional analysis of deforestation processes in protected areas: The case of the transboundary Mt. Elgon, Uganda and Kenya," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 22-33.
    6. Nakakaawa, Charlotte & Moll, Ricarda & Vedeld, Paul & Sjaastad, Espen & Cavanagh, Joseph, 2015. "Collaborative resource management and rural livelihoods around protected areas: A case study of Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1-11.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Juliet Katusiime & Brigitta Schütt, 2023. "Towards Legislation Responsive to Integrated Watershed Management Approaches and Land Tenure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-27, January.
    2. James Omoding & Gretchen Walters & Edward Andama & Salete Carvalho & Julien Colomer & Marina Cracco & Gerald Eilu & Gaster Kiyingi & Chetan Kumar & Council Dickson Langoya & Barbara Nakangu Bugembe & , 2020. "Analysing and Applying Stakeholder Perceptions to Improve Protected Area Governance in Ugandan Conservation Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-25, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Petursson, Jon Geir & Vedeld, Paul, 2017. "Rhetoric and reality in protected area governance: Institutional change under different conservation discourses in Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 166-177.
    2. Kuralbayeva, Karlygash, 2021. "Forest carbon offsets over a smart ledger," SocArXiv hxtkg, Center for Open Science.
    3. Bård Harstad & Torben K. Mideksa, 2017. "Conservation Contracts and Political Regimes," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(4), pages 1708-1734.
    4. Javier Martínez-Vega & David Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2022. "Protected Area Effectiveness in the Scientific Literature: A Decade-Long Bibliometric Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, June.
    5. Pablo Cuenca & Juan Robalino & Rodrigo Arriagada & Cristian Echeverría, 2018. "Are government incentives effective for avoided deforestation in the tropical Andean forest?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, September.
    6. Nakakaawa, Charlotte & Moll, Ricarda & Vedeld, Paul & Sjaastad, Espen & Cavanagh, Joseph, 2015. "Collaborative resource management and rural livelihoods around protected areas: A case study of Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1-11.
    7. Christianson, Anne B. & Montgomery, Rebecca & Fleischman, Forrest & Nelson, Kristen C., 2022. "Exploring wildlife disservices and conservation in the context of ecosystem-based adaptation: A case study in the Mt. Elgon region, Uganda," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    8. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D. & Sinoga, J.D., 2022. "Moderate effectiveness of multiple-use protected areas as a policy tool for land conservation in Atlantic Spain in the past 30 years," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    9. Gakou-Kakeu, Josiane & Di Gregorio, Monica & Paavola, Jouni & Sonwa, Denis Jean, 2022. "REDD+ policy implementation and institutional interplay: Evidence from three pilot projects in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    10. Changjun Gu & Pei Zhao & Qiong Chen & Shicheng Li & Lanhui Li & Linshan Liu & Yili Zhang, 2020. "Forest Cover Change and the Effectiveness of Protected Areas in the Himalaya since 1998," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-24, July.
    11. Gwenolé Le Velly & Céline Dutilly, 2016. "Evaluating Payments for Environmental Services: Methodological Challenges," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    12. Fisher, J.A. & Cavanagh, C.J. & Sikor, T. & Mwayafu, D.M., 2018. "Linking notions of justice and project outcomes in carbon offset forestry projects: Insights from a comparative study in Uganda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 259-268.
    13. Carlos Mestanza-Ramón & Demmy Mora-Silva & Giovanni D’Orio & Enrique Tapia-Segarra & Isabel Dominguez Gaibor & José Fernando Esparza Parra & Carlos Renato Chávez Velásquez & Salvatore Straface, 2022. "Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining (ASGM): Management and Socioenvironmental Impacts in the Northern Amazon of Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, June.
    14. Azevedo-Ramos, Claudia & Moutinho, Paulo, 2018. "No man’s land in the Brazilian Amazon: Could undesignated public forests slow Amazon deforestation?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 125-127.
    15. Cisneros, Elías & Börner, Jan & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2022. "Impacts of conservation incentives in protected areas: The case of Bolsa Floresta, Brazil," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    16. Pan, Wenqi & Kim, Man-Keun & Ning, Zhuo & Yang, Hongqiang, 2020. "Carbon leakage in energy/forest sectors and climate policy implications using meta-analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    17. Leijten, Floris & Sim, Sarah & King, Henry & Verburg, Peter H., 2021. "Local deforestation spillovers induced by forest moratoria: Evidence from Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Nandini Velho & Rachakonda Sreekar & William F. Laurance, 2016. "Terrestrial Species in Protected Areas and Community-Managed Lands in Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-11, October.
    19. Fischer, Richard & Lippe, Melvin & Dolom, Priscilla & Kalaba, Felix Kanungwe & Tamayo, Fabian & Torres, Bolier, 2023. "Effectiveness of policy instrument mixes for forest conservation in the tropics – Stakeholder perceptions from Ecuador, the Philippines and Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    20. L. Kiely & D. V. Spracklen & S. R. Arnold & E. Papargyropoulou & L. Conibear & C. Wiedinmyer & C. Knote & H. A. Adrianto, 2021. "Assessing costs of Indonesian fires and the benefits of restoring peatland," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:138-:d:183211. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.