IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/masfgc/v23y2018i4d10.1007_s11027-017-9746-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lost benefits and carbon uptake by protection of Indian plantations

Author

Listed:
  • Asbjørn Aaheim

    (CICERO)

  • Anton Orlov

    (CICERO)

  • Rajiv Kumar Chaturvedi

    (Indian Institute of Science)

  • Priya Joshi

    (Indian Institute of Science)

  • Anitha Sagadevan

    (Indian Institute of Science)

  • N.H. Ravindranath

    (Indian Institute of Science)

Abstract

There is a range of problems in assessing how protection of a specific forest to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) affect global emissions of greenhouse gases. This paper shows how knowledge and information about the biophysical characteristics of forests can be combined with theories of forest management and economic behaviour to derive the impacts on global emissions of REDD+. A modelling experiment from India, where 10% of the forest plantations in eight different regions are protected, shows that the biophysical characteristics of forests are decisive for the global impacts on emissions. In regions with slow-growing forests, agents in the non-protected forests are able to increase their output significantly to fill the demand from the protected forests. This opportunity is strictly limited in regions with fast-growing forests. Therefore, prices increase far more in regions with fast-growing forests than in slow-growing forests. Over time, the markets for Indian forestry products contribute to reduce the resulting price differences across regions. When the carbon uptake from protected forests approaches zero, the leakage of emissions to other Indian forests is between 20 and 40%. Only a small part of this is international leakage. Combining different models also helps to identify knowledge gaps, and to distinguish gaps that potentially may be filled with data and new knowledge, and gaps due to different angling of modelling biophysical processes and modelling of economic behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • Asbjørn Aaheim & Anton Orlov & Rajiv Kumar Chaturvedi & Priya Joshi & Anitha Sagadevan & N.H. Ravindranath, 2018. "Lost benefits and carbon uptake by protection of Indian plantations," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 485-505, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:masfgc:v:23:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s11027-017-9746-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11027-017-9746-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11027-017-9746-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11027-017-9746-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gan, Jianbang & McCarl, Bruce A., 2007. "Measuring transnational leakage of forest conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 423-432, December.
    2. Brian C. Murray & Bruce A. McCarl & Heng-Chi Lee, 2004. "Estimating Leakage from Forest Carbon Sequestration Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 109-124.
    3. Detlef Vuuren & Elmar Kriegler & Brian O’Neill & Kristie Ebi & Keywan Riahi & Timothy Carter & Jae Edmonds & Stephane Hallegatte & Tom Kram & Ritu Mathur & Harald Winkler, 2014. "A new scenario framework for Climate Change Research: scenario matrix architecture," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 373-386, February.
    4. Brian O’Neill & Elmar Kriegler & Keywan Riahi & Kristie Ebi & Stephane Hallegatte & Timothy Carter & Ritu Mathur & Detlef Vuuren, 2014. "A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 387-400, February.
    5. Louise Aukland & Pedro Moura Costa & Sandra Brown, 2003. "A conceptual framework and its application for addressing leakage: the case of avoided deforestation," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 123-136, June.
    6. Elmar Kriegler & Jae Edmonds & Stéphane Hallegatte & Kristie Ebi & Tom Kram & Keywan Riahi & Harald Winkler & Detlef Vuuren, 2014. "A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 401-414, February.
    7. Asbjørn Aaheim & Ranjith Gopalakrishnan & Rajiv Chaturvedi & N. Ravindranath & Anitha Sagadevan & Nitasha Sharma & Taoyuan Wei, 2011. "A macroeconomic analysis of adaptation to climate change impacts on forests in India," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 229-245, February.
    8. Kristie Ebi & Stephane Hallegatte & Tom Kram & Nigel Arnell & Timothy Carter & Jae Edmonds & Elmar Kriegler & Ritu Mathur & Brian O’Neill & Keywan Riahi & Harald Winkler & Detlef Vuuren & Timm Zwickel, 2014. "A new scenario framework for climate change research: background, process, and future directions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 363-372, February.
    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. García, Jorge H. & Orlov, Anton & Aaheim, Asbjørn, 2018. "Negative leakage: The key role of forest management regimes," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 8-13.

    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. Gabriele Standardi, 2023. "Exploring market-driven adaptation to climate change in a general equilibrium global trade model," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 1-29, February.
    2. Lanzi, Elisa & Dellink, Rob & Chateau, Jean, 2018. "The sectoral and regional economic consequences of outdoor air pollution to 2060," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 89-113.
    3. McManamay, Ryan A. & DeRolph, Christopher R. & Surendran-Nair, Sujithkumar & Allen-Dumas, Melissa, 2019. "Spatially explicit land-energy-water future scenarios for cities: Guiding infrastructure transitions for urban sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 880-900.
    4. Richard Taylor & Ruth Butterfield & Tiago Capela Lourenço & Adis Dzebo & Henrik Carlsen & Richard J. T. Klein, 2020. "Surveying perceptions and practices of high-end climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 65-87, July.
    5. Roson, Roberto & Damania, Richard, 2016. "Simulating the Macroeconomic Impact of Future Water Scarcity an Assessment of Alternative Scenarios," Conference papers 332687, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    6. Enrica De Cian & Ian Sue Wing, 2016. "Global Energy Demand in a Warming Climate," Working Papers 2016.16, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    7. Tom Wilson & Irina Grossman & Monica Alexander & Phil Rees & Jeromey Temple, 2022. "Methods for Small Area Population Forecasts: State-of-the-Art and Research Needs," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 865-898, June.
    8. Victor Nechifor & Matthew Winning, 2017. "The impacts of higher CO2 concentrations over global crop production and irrigation water requirements," EcoMod2017 10487, EcoMod.
    9. Dugan, Anna & Mayer, Jakob & Thaller, Annina & Bachner, Gabriel & Steininger, Karl W., 2022. "Developing policy packages for low-carbon passenger transport: A mixed methods analysis of trade-offs and synergies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    10. Carl-Friedrich Schleussner & Joeri Rogelj & Michiel Schaeffer & Tabea Lissner & Rachel Licker & Erich M. Fischer & Reto Knutti & Anders Levermann & Katja Frieler & William Hare, 2016. "Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(9), pages 827-835, September.
    11. D. J. Rasmussen & Scott Kulp & Robert E. Kopp & Michael Oppenheimer & Benjamin H. Strauss, 2022. "Popular extreme sea level metrics can better communicate impacts," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Zheng, Zhoumin & Xu, Nuo & Khan, Mohsin & Pedersen, Michael & Abdalgader, Tarteel & Zhang, Lai, 2024. "Nonlinear impacts of climate change on dengue transmission in mainland China: Underlying mechanisms and future projection," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 492(C).
    13. Hongliang Zhang & Jianhong E. Mu & Bruce A. McCarl & Jialing Yu, 2022. "The impact of climate change on global energy use," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 1-19, January.
    14. Francesco Lamperti & Valentina Bosetti & Andrea Roventini & Massimo Tavoni, 2019. "The public costs of climate-induced financial instability," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(11), pages 829-833, November.
    15. Julien CALAS & Antoine GODIN & Julie MAURIN (AFD) & and Etienne ESPAGNE (World Bank), 2022. "Global biodiversity scenarios: what do they tell us for biodiversity-related socioeconomic impacts?," Working Paper 1a39419b-ef1d-4b82-a7be-d, Agence française de développement.
    16. Juliette N. Rooney-Varga & Florian Kapmeier & John D. Sterman & Andrew P. Jones & Michele Putko & Kenneth Rath, 2020. "The Climate Action Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 51(2), pages 114-140, April.
    17. Moyer, Jonathan D. & Hedden, Steve, 2020. "Are we on the right path to achieve the sustainable development goals?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    18. Jerome Dumortier & Miguel Carriquiry & Amani Elobeid, 2021. "Impact of climate change on global agricultural markets under different shared socioeconomic pathways," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 963-984, November.
    19. Ansari, Dawud & Holz, Franziska & Al-Kuhlani, Hashem, 2020. "Energy Outlooks Compared: Global and Regional Insights," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 9(1), pages 21-42.
    20. Kemp-Benedict, Eric & Carlsen, Henrik & Kartha, Sivan, 2019. "Large-scale scenarios as ‘boundary conditions’: A cross-impact balance simulated annealing (CIBSA) approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 55-63.

    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:spr:masfgc:v:23:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s11027-017-9746-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.