Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:59:58.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Carbon offsets for conservation and development in Indonesia?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Thomas P. Tomich*
Affiliation:
Principal Economist and Global Coordinator of the Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Programme, International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya
Hubert de Foresta
Affiliation:
Forest Ecologist and Charge de Recherches, Institute for Research and Development (IRD), Montpellier, France
Rona Dennis
Affiliation:
Researcher with the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia
Quirine Ketterings
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Daniel Murdiyarso
Affiliation:
Deputy Minister, State Ministry for the Environment, Republic of Indonesia
Cheryl Palm
Affiliation:
Senior Scientist, Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme (TSBF), Nairobi, Kenya
Fred Stolle
Affiliation:
Doctoral student in the Remote Sensing Laboratory, Catholic University of Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Suyanto
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economist, ICRAF, SE Asia Regional Program, Bogor, Indonesia
Meine van Noordwijk
Affiliation:
Principal Scientist, ICRAF SE Asia Regional Program, Bogor, Indonesia.
*
T.P. Tomich (t.tomich@cgiar.org).
Get access

Abstract

The logic of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and other such ‘carbon (C) offsets’ rests on the notion that the opportunity cost of reducing C emissions is lower in developing countries, creating opportunities for mutually beneficial C trading. While the CDM may offer significant gross financial benefits, there has been little analysis of the opportunity costs of foregone resource exploitation and development opportunities. In addition to assessing the potential for net benefits, this paper also considers the practical implications for design and implementation of C offsets for forest conservation and agroforestation in Indonesia. Virtually nothing is known about these administrative factors, and their associated costs, which can also play a decisive role in feasibility of C offset schemes. Data are from field studies in the lowlands of the Indonesian island of Sumatra, where forests and derived land uses are broadly representative of the lowland humid tropical rainforest systems of insular South-East Asia. These data are the basis for assessing the trade-offs between natural forest protection for C sequestration and conversion to other land uses to meet national development objectives that directly affect people's livelihoods. Carbon stocks are analyzed in terms of ‘time-averaged’ C, an indicator developed for this project. Opportunity costs of land-use alternatives are estimated using standard techniques for economic assessment of investment projects in developing countries. The study finds that imputed timber values are a significant share of the opportunity costs of forest conservation, even for conservative estimates of timber prices. The question of compensating for these foregone values raises complex questions regarding the political economy of Indonesia, since property rights over these resources are highly contentious. These controversies over property rights are also examined within the context of recurrent smoke pollution from land fires in Indonesia, that (among other problems) contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. This smoke is symptomatic of deeper political and institutional problems that raise questions about the permanence of C storage through land-use practices in Indonesia. In comparison to forest conservation, C offsets through agroforestation seem more feasible in Indonesia because property rights over timber from planted trees would be easier to establish and enforce than property rights over timber from natural forests. Although results in this paper look promising, there is still much to be learned about implementation costs, even for the ‘easier’ case of agroforestation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Baer, P., Harte, J., Haya, B., Herzog, A.V., Holdren, J., Hultman, N.E., Kammen, D.M., Norgaard, R.B., and Raymond, L.. 2000. Equity and greenhouse gas responsibility. Science 289:2287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Chomitz, K.M. 2000. Evaluating carbon offsets from forestry and energy projects: how do they compare? Development Research Group, World Bank, Washington, DC. Manuscript.Google Scholar
3.Chomitz, K.M., Brenes, E., and Constantino, L.. 1999. Financing Environmental Services: The Costa Rican Experience and its Implications. Development Research Group, World Bank, Washington, DC. Manuscript.Google Scholar
4.Cooper, R.N. 2000. International approaches to global climate change. The World Bank Research Observer 15(2): 145172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Dauvergne, P. 1998. The political economy of Indonesia's 1997 forest fire. Australian J. International Affairs 52(1):1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.EEPSEA and WWF. 1998. New estimates place damage from Indonesia's 1997 fires at $4.4 billion. Economy and Environment Program for SE Asia, Singapore, and World Wide Fund for Nature, Washington, DC. Press release 29 05.Google Scholar
7.Fay, C., de Foresta, H., Sirait, M., and Tomich, T.P.. 1998. A policy breakthrough for Indonesian farmers in the Krui Damar agroforests. Agroforestry Today 10(2):2526.Google Scholar
8.Garrity, D.P., Soekardi, M., van Noordwijk, M., de la Cruz, R., Pathak, R., Gunasena, H.P.M., Van So, N., Huijun, G., and Majid, N.M.. 1997. The Imperata grasslands of tropical Asia: area, distribution, and typology. Agroforestry Systems 36 (1–3):329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Jepma, C.J., and Munasinghe, M.. 1998. Climate Change Policy: Facts, Issues, and Analyses. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
10.Kerr, R.A. 2000. Can the Kyoto climate treaty be saved from itself? Science 290:920921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Ketterings, Q.M., Tri Wibowo, T., van Noordwijk, M., and Penot, E.. 1999. Farmers' perspectives on Slash-and-Burn as a land clearing method for small-scale rubber producers in Sepunggur, Jambi Province, Sumatra, Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management 120:158169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Lashof, D., and Hare, B.. 1999. The role of biotic carbon stocks in stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at safe levels. Environ. Sci. Policy 2:101109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.MacDicken, K. 1999. Implications of the Kyoto Protocol on forest management in developing countries: Paying for non-commercial forest values. Impacts 3(2): 1, 3. Newsletter of the BIOTROP-GCTE Impacts Centre for Southeast Asia, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
14.Makarim, N. 1999. Interview by Thomas P. Tomich on 16 April 1999. In Tomich, T.P., Thomas, D.E., and van Noordwijk, M. (eds.). Abstracts and Key Policy Issues, Methodology Workshop on Environmental Services and Land Use Change, Bridging the Gap Between Policy and Research. 31 May–2 June. Chiang Mai, Thailand. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry Southeast Asia Regional Programme and Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Indonesia Consortium, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
15.Michon, G., and de Foresta, H.. 1995. The Indonesian agroforest model. Forest resource management and biodiversity conservation. In Halladay, P. and Gilmour, D.A. (eds.). Conserving Biodiversity Outside Protected Areas. The Role of Traditional Agro-ecosystems. The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, p. 90106.Google Scholar
16., Monke, E., and Pearson, S.R.. 1989. The Policy Analysis Matrix for Agricultural Development. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
17.Morgan, M.G. 2000. Managing carbon from the bottom up. Science 289:2285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Palm, C.A., Woomer, P.L., Alegre, J., Castilla, C., Cordeiro, K., Hairiah, K., Kotto-Same, J., Moukam, A., Njomgang, R., Ricse, A., Rodrigues, V., and van Noordwijk, M.. 1998. Carbon sequestration and trace gas emissions in Slash-and-Burn and alternative land uses in the tropics. Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Phase II Final Report. Alternative to Slash-and-Burn Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
19.Sathaye, J.A., Andrasko, K., Makundi, W., La Rovere, E.L., Ravindranath, N.H., Melli, A., Rangachari, A., Imaz, M., Gay, C., Friedman, R., Goldberg, B., van Horen, C., Simmonds, G., and Parker, G.. 1999. Concerns about climate change mitigation projects: Summary of findings from case studies in Brazil, India, Mexico, and South Africa. Environ. Sci. Policy 2:187198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Scholz, U. 1983. The Natural Regions of Sumatra and their Agricultural Production Pattern: A Regional Analysis. Central Research Institute for Food Crops, Ministry of Agriculture, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
21.Sedjo, R., Sohngen, B., and Jagger, P.. 1998. Carbon sinks in the post-Kyoto world, Parts I and II. Weathervane. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. Web site http://www.weathervane.rff.org/features/featureO5O.html. Viewed 23 03 1999.Google Scholar
22.Smith, J., and Scherr, S.. 2001. Capturing the Value of Forest Carbon for Local Livelihoods. Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. Manuscript.Google Scholar
23.Stolle, F., and Tomich, T.P.. 1999. The 1997–1998 fire event in Indonesia. Nature and Resources 35(3):2230.Google Scholar
24.Tomich, T.P., Kuusipalo, J., Menz, K., and Byron, N.. 1997. Imperata Economics and Policy. Agroforestry Systems 36 (1–3):233261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Budidarsono, S., Gillison, A., Kusumanto, T., Murdiyarso, D., Stolle, F., and Fagi, A.M. (eds.). 1998a. Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn in Indonesia: Summary Report and Synthesis of Phase II. ASB-Indonesia Report Number 8. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry Southeast Asia Regional Programme and Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Indonesia Consortium, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
26.Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Vosti, S.A., and Witcover, J.. 1998b. Agricultural Development with Rainforest Conservation Methods for Seeking Best Bet Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn, with Applications to Brazil and Indonesia. Agric. Econ. 19:159174.Google Scholar
27.Tomich, T.P., Fagi, A.M., de Foresta, H., Michon, G., Murdiyarso, D., Stolle, F., and van Noordwijk, M.. 1998c. Indonesia's fires: Smoke as a problem, smoke as a symptom. Agroforestry Today 10(1):47.Google Scholar
28.Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Budidarsono, S., Gillison, A., Kusumanto, T., Murdiyarso, D., Stolle, F., and Fagi, A.M.. 2001. Agricultural intensification, deforestation, and the environment: Assessing tradeoffs in Sumatra, Indonesia. In Lee, D.R. and Barrett, C.B., (eds.). Tradeoffs or Synergies? Agricultural Intensification. Economic Development, and the Environment. CAB International. Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
29.UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank. 1994. Global Environmental Facility: independent evaluation of the pilot phase. United Nations Development Programme, New York, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, and the World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank, Washington. DC.Google Scholar
30.van Noordwijk, M., Tomich, T.P., Winahyu, R., Murdiyarso, D., Suyanto, S., Partoharjono, S., and Fagi, A.M. (eds.). 1995. Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn in Indonesia: Summary Report of Phase 1. ASB-Indonesia Report No. 4. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry Southeast Asia Regional Programme and Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Indonesia Consortium, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
31.van Noordwijk, M., Hairiah, K., and Sitompol, S.M.. 2000. Reducing uncertainties in the assessment at national scale of C stock impacts of land use change. In Magcale-Macandon, D. (ed.). Proceedings of the IGES workshop on GHG inventories for Asia-Pacific region. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan, p. 151163.Google Scholar
32.Vosti, S.A., Witcover, J., Gockowski, J., Tomich, T.P., Carpentier, C.L., Faminow, M., Oliveira, S., and Diaw, C.. 2000. Socioeconomic Issues Linked to Best Bet Land Use Systems. Working group on economic and social indicators: Report on methods for the ASB matrix. Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
33.Watson, R.T., Noble, I.R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N.H., Verardo, D.J., and Doken, D.J. (eds.). 2000. Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
34.WRI, UNEP, UNDP, and the World Bank. 1998. World Resources 1998–99. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, United Nations Development Programme, New York, and the World Bank, Washington, DC. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar