IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0156481.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Where REDD+ Financially Out-Competes Oil Palm in Floodplain Landscapes Using a Fine-Scale Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Nicola K Abram
  • Douglas C MacMillan
  • Panteleimon Xofis
  • Marc Ancrenaz
  • Joseph Tzanopoulos
  • Robert Ong
  • Benoit Goossens
  • Lian Pin Koh
  • Christian Del Valle
  • Lucy Peter
  • Alexandra C Morel
  • Isabelle Lackman
  • Robin Chung
  • Harjinder Kler
  • Laurentius Ambu
  • William Baya
  • Andrew T Knight

Abstract

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) aims to avoid forest conversion to alternative land-uses through financial incentives. Oil-palm has high opportunity costs, which according to current literature questions the financial competitiveness of REDD+ in tropical lowlands. To understand this more, we undertook regional fine-scale and coarse-scale analyses (through carbon mapping and economic modelling) to assess the financial viability of REDD+ in safeguarding unprotected forest (30,173 ha) in the Lower Kinabatangan floodplain in Malaysian Borneo. Results estimate 4.7 million metric tons of carbon (MgC) in unprotected forest, with 64% allocated for oil-palm cultivations. Through fine-scale mapping and carbon accounting, we demonstrated that REDD+ can outcompete oil-palm in regions with low suitability, with low carbon prices and low carbon stock. In areas with medium oil-palm suitability, REDD+ could outcompete oil palm in areas with: very high carbon and lower carbon price; medium carbon price and average carbon stock; or, low carbon stock and high carbon price. Areas with high oil palm suitability, REDD+ could only outcompete with higher carbon price and higher carbon stock. In the coarse-scale model, oil-palm outcompeted REDD+ in all cases. For the fine-scale models at the landscape level, low carbon offset prices (US $3 MgCO2e) would enable REDD+ to outcompete oil-palm in 55% of the unprotected forests requiring US $27 million to secure these areas for 25 years. Higher carbon offset price (US $30 MgCO2e) would increase the competitiveness of REDD+ within the landscape but would still only capture between 69%-74% of the unprotected forest, requiring US $380–416 million in carbon financing. REDD+ has been identified as a strategy to mitigate climate change by many countries (including Malaysia). Although REDD+ in certain scenarios cannot outcompete oil palm, this research contributes to the global REDD+ debate by: highlighting REDD+ competitiveness in tropical floodplain landscapes; and, providing a robust approach for identifying and targeting limited REDD+ funds.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicola K Abram & Douglas C MacMillan & Panteleimon Xofis & Marc Ancrenaz & Joseph Tzanopoulos & Robert Ong & Benoit Goossens & Lian Pin Koh & Christian Del Valle & Lucy Peter & Alexandra C Morel & Isa, 2016. "Identifying Where REDD+ Financially Out-Competes Oil Palm in Floodplain Landscapes Using a Fine-Scale Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0156481
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156481
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0156481
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0156481&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0156481?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leventon, Julia & Kalaba, Felix K. & Dyer, Jen C. & Stringer, Lindsay C. & Dougill, Andrew J., 2014. "Delivering community benefits through REDD+: Lessons from Joint Forest Management in Zambia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 10-17.
    2. Delacote, Philippe & Palmer, Charles & Bakkegaard, Riyong Kim & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2014. "Unveiling information on opportunity costs in REDD: Who obtains the surplus when policy objectives differ?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 508-527.
    3. Kimberly M. Carlson & Lisa M. Curran & Gregory P. Asner & Alice McDonald Pittman & Simon N. Trigg & J. Marion Adeney, 2013. "Carbon emissions from forest conversion by Kalimantan oil palm plantations," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 283-287, March.
    4. Broch, Stine Wamberg & Strange, Niels & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2013. "Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 78-86.
    5. repec:dau:papers:123456789/12951 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Cacho, Oscar J. & Milne, Sarah & Gonzalez, Ricardo & Tacconi, Luca, 2014. "Benefits and costs of deforestation by smallholders: Implications for forest conservation and climate policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 321-332.
    7. Abram, Nicola K. & Meijaard, Erik & Ancrenaz, Marc & Runting, Rebecca K. & Wells, Jessie A. & Gaveau, David & Pellier, Anne-Sophie & Mengersen, Kerrie, 2014. "Spatially explicit perceptions of ecosystem services and land cover change in forested regions of Borneo," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 116-127.
    8. Pagiola, Stefano & Bosquet, Benoit, 2009. "Estimating the costs of REDD at the country level," MPRA Paper 13726, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. A. Baccini & S. J. Goetz & W. S. Walker & N. T. Laporte & M. Sun & D. Sulla-Menashe & J. Hackler & P. S. A. Beck & R. Dubayah & M. A. Friedl & S. Samanta & R. A. Houghton, 2012. "Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(3), pages 182-185, March.
    10. -, 2009. "The economics of climate change," Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones) 38679, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    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. Ranjan, Ram, 2021. "Land use decisions under REDD+ incentives when warming temperatures affect crop productivity and forest biomass growth rates," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Cadman, Tim & Sarker, Tapan & Muttaqin, Zahrul & Nurfatriani, Fitri & Salminah, Mimi & Maraseni, Tek, 2019. "The role of fiscal instruments in encouraging the private sector and smallholders to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: Evidence from Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-1.

    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. Rulli, Maria Cristina & Casirati, Stefano & Dell’Angelo, Jampel & Davis, Kyle Frankel & Passera, Corrado & D’Odorico, Paolo, 2019. "Interdependencies and telecoupling of oil palm expansion at the expense of Indonesian rainforest," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 499-512.
    2. Cunha, Felipe Arias Fogliano de Souza & Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Cosenza, Carlos Alberto Nunes & Lucena, André F.P., 2016. "The implementation costs of forest conservation policies in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 209-220.
    3. Shi, Yusheng & Sasai, Takahiro & Yamaguchi, Yasushi, 2014. "Spatio-temporal evaluation of carbon emissions from biomass burning in Southeast Asia during the period 2001–2010," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 272(C), pages 98-115.
    4. Gilbert Ahamer, 2022. "Why Biomass Fuels Are Principally Not Carbon Neutral," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-39, December.
    5. Susanne Olbrisch & Erik Haites & Matthew Savage & Pradeep Dadhich & Manish Kumar Shrivastava, 2011. "Estimates of incremental investment for and cost of mitigation measures in developing countries," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 970-986, May.
    6. Cecilia Luttrell & Erin Sills & Riza Aryani & Andini Desita Ekaputri & Maria Febe Evinke, 2018. "Beyond opportunity costs: who bears the implementation costs of reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation?," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 291-310, February.
    7. Guillaume Lestrelin & Jean-Christophe Castella & Qiaohong Li & Thoumthone Vongvisouk & Nguyen Dinh Tien & Ole Mertz, 2019. "A Nested Land Uses–Landscapes–Livelihoods Approach to Assess the Real Costs of Land-Use Transitions: Insights from Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, January.
    8. West, Thales A.P. & Grogan, Kelly A. & Swisher, Marilyn E. & Caviglia-Harris, Jill L. & Sills, Erin O. & Roberts, Dar A. & Harris, Daniel & Putz, Francis E., 2018. "Impacts of REDD+ payments on a coupled human-natural system in Amazonia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 68-76.
    9. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    10. Li, Aijun & Du, Nan & Wei, Qian, 2014. "The cross-country implications of alternative climate policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 155-163.
    11. Strand, Jon, 2011. "Carbon offsets with endogenous environmental policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 371-378, March.
    12. Bosetti, Valentina & Carraro, Carlo & Duval, Romain & Tavoni, Massimo, 2011. "What should we expect from innovation? A model-based assessment of the environmental and mitigation cost implications of climate-related R&D," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1313-1320.
    13. Richard S. J. Tol & In Chang Hwang & Frédéric Reynès, 2012. "The Effect of Learning on Climate Policy under Fat-tailed Uncertainty," Working Paper Series 5312, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    14. Fujii, Hidemichi & Managi, Shunsuke, 2013. "Which industry is greener? An empirical study of nine industries in OECD countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 381-388.
    15. Pycroft, Jonathan & Vergano, Lucia & Hope, Chris & Paci, Daniele & Ciscar, Juan Carlos, 2011. "A tale of tails: Uncertainty and the social cost of carbon dioxide," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 5, pages 1-29.
    16. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.
    17. Hahn Robert, 2010. "Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-19, July.
    18. Wei, Yu & Wang, Yizhi & Vigne, Samuel A. & Ma, Zhenyu, 2023. "Alarming contagion effects: The dangerous ripple effect of extreme price spillovers across crude oil, carbon emission allowance, and agriculture futures markets," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    19. Golub, Alexander (Голуб, Александр), 2018. "Methodological Issues of Assessing Investment Risks in Projects Weakening the Dependence of the Russian Economy on Natural Resources and Providing a Transition to Low-Carbon Development [Методологи," Working Papers 071802, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    20. Bommier, Antoine & Lanz, Bruno & Zuber, Stéphane, 2015. "Models-as-usual for unusual risks? On the value of catastrophic climate change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-22.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0156481. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.