Slowing the reduction, or increasing the accumulation, of organic carbon stored in biomass and soils has been suggested as a potentially rapid and cost-effective method to reduce the rate of atmospheric carbon increase1. The costs of mitigating climate change by increasing ecosystem carbon relative to the baseline or business-as-usual scenario has been quantified in numerous studies, but results have been contradictory, as both methodological issues and substance differences cause variability2. Here we show, based on 77 standardized face-to-face interviews of local experts with the best possible knowledge of local land-use economics and sociopolitical context in ten landscapes around the globe, that the estimated cost of increasing ecosystem carbon varied vastly and was perceived to be 16–27 times cheaper in two Indonesian landscapes dominated by peatlands compared with the average of the eight other landscapes. Hence, if reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) and other land-use mitigation efforts are to be distributed evenly across forested countries, for example, for the sake of international equity, their overall effectiveness would be dramatically lower than for a cost-minimizing distribution.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $17.42 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: the Stern Review (Cambridge Univ. press, Cambridge, 2007).
Lubowski, R. N. & Rose, S. K. The potential for REDD+: key economic modeling insights and issues. Rev. Env. Econ. Policy 7, 67–90 (2013).
Fletcher, R., Dressler, W., Büscher, B. & Anderson, Z. R. Questioning REDD+ and the future of market‐based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 30, 673–675 (2016).
Kremen, C. et al. Economic incentives for rain forest conservation across scales. Science 288, 1828–1832 (2000).
Santilli, M. et al. Tropical deforestation and the Kyoto Protocol. Climatic Change 71, 267–276 (2005).
Sills, E. O. et al. REDD+ on the Ground: A Case Book of Subnational Initiatives across the Globe (CIFOR, Bogor, 2014).
Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015).
Grieg-Gran, M. The Cost of Avoiding Deforestation: Update of the Report Prepared for the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change (International Institute for Enviroment and Development, London, 2008).
Jack, B. K., Leimona, B. & Ferraro, P. J. A revealed preference approach to estimating supply curves for ecosystem services: use of auctions to set payments for soil erosion control in Indonesia. Conserv. Biol. 23, 359–367 (2009).
Börner, J. et al. Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: scope and equity implications. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1272–1282 (2010).
Kindermann, G. et al. Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 10302–10307 (2008).
Ickowitz, A., Sills, E. & de Sassi, C. estimating smallholder opportunity costs of REDD+: a pantropical analysis from households to carbon and back. World Dev. 95, 15–26 (2017).
IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2014).
Fisher, B. et al. Implementation and opportunity costs of reducing deforestation and forest degradation in Tanzania. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 161–164 (2011).
Rose, S. K. et al. Land-based mitigation in climate stabilization. Energ. Econ. 34, 365–380 (2012).
Larjavaara, M., Kanninen, M., Alam, S. A., Mäkinen, A. & Poeplau, C. CarboScen: a tool to estimate carbon implications of land-use scenarios. Ecography 7, 894–900 (2017).
Hooijer, A. et al. Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences 9, 1053–1071 (2012).
Huijnen, V. et al. Fire carbon emissions over maritime southeast Asia in 2015 largest since 1997. Sci. Rep. 6, 26886 (2016).
Beer, J. Advantages, disadvantages and desirable characteristics of shade trees for coffee, cacao and tea. Agroforest. Syst. 5, 3–13 (1987).
Clough, Y. et al. Land-use choices follow profitability at the expense of ecological functions in Indonesian smallholder landscapes. Nat. Commun. 7, 13137 (2016).
World Governance Indicators (The World Bank Group, Washington DC, 2016).
Myers, R., Sanders, A. J., Larson, A. M. & Ravikumar, A. Analyzing Multilevel Governance in Indonesia: Lessons for REDD+ from the Study of Landuse Change in Central and West Kalimantan Report No. 202 (CIFOR, Bogor, 2016).
Sanders, A. J., da Silva Hyldmo, H., Ford, R. M., Larson, A. M. & Keenan, R. J. Guinea pig or pioneer: translating global environmental objectives through to local actions in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia’s REDD+ pilot province. Global Environ. Change 42, 68–81 (2017).
Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2015: OECD Countries and Emerging Economies (OECD, Paris, 2013).
Norman, M. & Nakhooda, S. The State of REDD+ Finance CGD Climate and Forest Paper Series No. 5 (Center for Global Development, Washington DC, 2014).
Lamb, A. et al. The potential for land sparing to offset greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 488–492 (2016).
Ravikumar, A., Gonzales, J., Kowler, L. F. & Larson, A. M. Building Future Scenarios: Governance, Land Use and Carbon Management at the Landscape Scale (CIFOR, Bogor, 2014).
Ravikumar, A., Larjavaara, M., Larson, A. & Kanninen, M. Can conservation funding be left to carbon finance? Evidence from participatory future land use scenarios in Peru, Indonesia, Tanzania, and Mexico. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 014015 (2017).
Poeplau, C. et al. Temporal dynamics of soil organic carbon after land-use change in the temperate zone—carbon response functions as a model approach. Global Change Biol. 17, 2415–2427 (2011).
Wei, X., Shao, M., Gale, W. & Li, L. Global pattern of soil carbon losses due to the conversion of forests to agricultural land. Sci. Rep. 4, 4062 (2014).
Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Wang, M. M. H., McGarvey, J. C. & LeBauer, D. S. Carbon dynamics of mature and regrowth tropical forests derived from a pantropical database (TropForC-db). Global Change Biol. 22, 1690–1709 (2016).
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, Geneva, 2006).
Linstone, H. A. & Turoff, M. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications Vol. 29 (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1975).
Nordhaus, W. D. Discounting in economics and climate change; an editorial comment. Climatic Change 37, 315–328 (1997).
Hillis, D. M. & Bull, J. J. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42, 182–192 (1993).
R Development-Core-Team. R: A Language and environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2008).
Sohngen, B. & Mendelsohn, R. An optimal control model of forest carbon sequestration. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 85, 448–457 (2003).
We thank the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) for funding, A. Pienimäki and P. E. Rengifo for pivotal contributions on carbon and land-use data, C. Bergroth, E. Willberg, D. Gaveau, H. Yaen and S. Tuominen for assistance with land-use and carbon data, L. F. Kowler, J. Gonzales Tovar, Y. Saden, A. Lorens, M. Habib, M. H. Kijazi, I. A. Torrijos, T. Trench, R. Myers, A. Ravikumar and A. A. Monge Monge for assistance in selecting and arranging the interviews, K. Korhonen-Kurki, A. Rautiainen, S. Rantala and P. Ojanen for discussions and comments on the manuscript, S. Thompson for linguistic editing and the 71 interviewed experts of whom the following were willing to reveal their names listed in alphabetic order: E. Järvinen, D. R. Kisanga, A. M. Quijano, K. M. Muombwa, A. Puhalainen and P. E. Rengifo.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Boxes 1–2, Supplementary Tables 1–10, Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Methods.
Contains the borders of the ten landscapes in the WGS-84 coordinate system. Note that Indonesia West is composed of two separate parts.
Contains carbon-density (Mg ha-1) datasets for the seven landscapes for which the used carbon densities were computed by taken a weighted mean from a dataset.
About this article
Cite this article
Larjavaara, M., Kanninen, M., Gordillo, H. et al. Global variation in the cost of increasing ecosystem carbon. Nature Clim Change 8, 38–42 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0015-7
Combining carbon pricing with LPG subsidy for promoting preservation and restoration of Uttarakhand forests
Journal of Environmental Management (2019)
Unrelenting games: Multiple negotiations and landscape transformations in the tropical peatlands of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia
World Development (2019)
Environmental Research Letters (2019)