This paper assesses quantification methods for carbon leakage from forestry activities for their suitability in leakage accounting in a future Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) mechanism. To that end, we first conducted a literature review to identify specific pre-requisites for leakage assessment in REDD. We then analyzed a total of 34 quantification methods for leakage emissions from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), the Climate Action Reserve (CAR), the CarbonFix Standard (CFS), and from scientific literature sources. We screened these methods for the leakage aspects they address in terms of leakage type, tools used for quantification and the geographical scale covered. Results show that leakage methods can be grouped into nine main methodological approaches, six of which could fulfill the recommended REDD leakage requirements if approaches for primary and secondary leakage are combined. The majority of methods assessed, address either primary or secondary leakage; the former mostly on a local or regional and the latter on national scale. The VCS is found to be the only carbon accounting standard at present to fulfill all leakage quantification requisites in REDD. However, a lack of accounting methods was identified for international leakage, which was addressed by only two methods, both from scientific literature.
References
[1]
Swallow, B.M.; Thompson, D.Y.; Cerbu, G.A. Locating REDD: A global survey and analysis of REDD readiness and demonstration activities. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 168–180, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.09.007.
[2]
Angelsen, A. The 3 REDD ‘I’s. J. For. Econ. 2010, 16, 253–256.
[3]
Murdiyarso, D.; Masera, O.; van Laake, P.; de Jong, B.H.J.; Frumhoff, P.; Dutschke, M.; Trines, E.; Bird, N.; Skutsch, M. Clearing the way for reducing emissions from tropical deforestation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10, 322–334, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.08.009.
[4]
Palmer, C. Property rights and liability for deforestation under REDD+: Implications for ‘permanence’ in policy design. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 571–576, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.10.011.
[5]
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry; Verardo, D.J., Dokken, D.J., Ravindranath, N.H., Bolin, B., Noble, I.R., Watson, R.T., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; pp. 571–576.
[6]
Murray, B.C. Leakage from an Avoided Deforestation Compensation Policy: Concepts, Empirical Evidence, and Corrective Policy Options. Working Paper of Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions 2008, 08–02.
[7]
Chomitz, K.M. Baseline, leakage and measurement issues: How do forestry and energy projects compare?. Clim. Policy 2002, 2, 35–49.
[8]
Olander, J.; Niles, J.; Schwarze, R. Understanding and managing leakage in forest-basedgreenhouse-gas-mitigation projects. Philos. Trans. A 2002, 360, 1685–1703, doi:10.1098/rsta.2002.1040.
[9]
Myers Madeira, E.C. Policies to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) in Developing Countries; Foerster, A., Atwater, S., Eds.; Resources for the Future: Washington DC, USA, 2008; pp. 35–49.
[10]
Willcock, S.; Balmford, A.; Turner, R.K.; Swetnam, R.D.; Munishi, P.K.; Malimbiwi, R.E.; Burgess, N.D.; Lewis, S.L.; Fisher, B. Implementation and opportunity costs of reducing deforestation and forest degradation in Tanzania. Naasast. Clim. Change 2011, 1, 161–164, doi:10.1038/nclimate1119.
[11]
Herold, M. An assessment of national forest monitoring capabilities in tropical non-Annex I countries: Recommendations for capacity building. The Prince’s Rainforests Project: London,UK; the Government of Norway: Oslo, Norway, 2009.
[12]
Brown, S.; Moura Costa, P.; Aukland, L. A conceptual framework and its application for addressing leakage: The case of avoided deforestation. Clim. Policy 2003, 3, 123–136.
[13]
Yasué, M.; Ebeling, J. Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create climatic, conservation and human development benefits. Philos. Trans. B 2008, 363, 1917–1924, doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.0029.
[14]
Wunder, S. How should we deal with leakage? In Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications; Ed. Angelsen, A., Ed.; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2008; pp. 161–164.
[15]
McCarl, B.A.; Gan, J. Measuring transnational leakage of forest conservation. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 423–432, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.032.
[16]
Andrasko, K.; Beach, R.H.; Sohngen, B. Avoided deforestation as a greenhouse gas mitigation tool: Economic issues. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, 1368–1375, doi:10.2134/jeq2007.0288. 18574167
[17]
Andrasko, K.; Sathaye, J.A. Special issue on estimation of baselines and leakage in carbon mitigation forestry projects. Mitig. Adapt Strat Glob. Change 2007, 12, 963–970, doi:10.1007/s11027-006-9057-2.
[18]
Fry, I. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: Opportunities and pitfalls in developing a new legal regime. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 2008, 17, 166–182, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9388.2008.00597.x.
[19]
Drabik, D.; De Gorter, H. Components of carbon leakage in the fuel market due to biofuel policies. Biofuels 2011, 2, 119–121, doi:10.4155/bfs.11.8.
[20]
Sohngen, B.; Sun, B. Set-asides for carbon sequestration: Implications for permanence and leakage. Clim. Change 2009, 96, 409–419, doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9628-9.
[21]
Brown, S.; Sohngen, B. Measuring leakage from carbon projects in open economies: A stop timber harvesting project in Bolivia as a case study. Can. J. For. Res. 2004, 34, 829–839, doi:10.1139/x03-249.
[22]
Lee, H.; McCarl, B.A.; Murray, B.C. Estimating leakage from forest carbon sequestration programs. Land Econ. 2004, 80, 109–124, doi:10.2307/3147147.
[23]
Rodrigues, A.S.L.; Ewers, R.M. Estimates of reserve effectiveness are confounded by leakage. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23, 113–116, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.11.008. 18280005
[24]
Michaelowa, A.; Butzengeiger, S.; Dutschke, M. A spatial approach to baseline and leakage in CDM forest carbon sinks projects. Clim. Policy 2006, 5, 517–530, doi:10.3763/cpol.2005.0540.
[25]
Masripatin, N.; Ridwan, M.; Hero, J.; Makundi, W.; Dasanto, B.D.; Perdinan, H.; Wasrin, U.R.; Boer, R. Assessment of carbon leakage in multiple carbon-sink projects: A case study in Jambi province, Indonesia. Mitig. Adapt Strat Glob. Change 2007, 12, 1169–1188, doi:10.1007/s11027-006-9058-1.
[26]
Sales, R.F.; Pulhin, F.B.; Lasco, R.D. Analysis of leakage in carbon sequestration projects in forestry: A case study of upper magat watershed, Philippines. Mitig. Adapt Strat Glob. Change 2007, 12, 1189–1211, doi:10.1007/s11027-006-9059-0.
[27]
Sedjo, R.; Mendelsohn, R.; Sohngen, B. Forest management, conservation, and global timber markets. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1999, 81, 1–13, doi:10.2307/1244446.
[28]
Sedjo, R.; Sohngen, B. Potential carbon flux from timber harvests and management in the context of a global timber market. Clim. Change 2000, 44, 151–172, doi:10.1023/A:1005568825306.
[29]
Murray, B.C.; Wear, D.N. Federal timber restrictions, interregional spillovers, and the impact on US softwood markets. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2004, 47, 307–330, doi:10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00081-0.
[30]
Gan, J.; Zhang, J. Who will meet China’s import demand for forest products? World Dev. 2007, 35, 2150–2160, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.02.005.
[31]
Lambin, E.F.; Meyfroidt, P. Forest transition in Vietnam and displacement of deforestation abroad. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 16139–16144, doi:10.1073/pnas.0904942106. 19805270
[32]
Lambin, E.F.; Rudel, T.K.; Meyfroidt, P. dt, P.; Rudel, T.K.; Lambin, E.F. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 20917–20922, doi:10.1073/pnas.1014773107. 21078977
[33]
Maness, T.; Ristea, C. Opportunities, challenges and markets for forest carbon offset projects. For. Chron. 2009, 85, 715–718.
[34]
Verchot, L.; Dutschke, M.; Merger, E. Options for REDD+ voluntary certification to ensure net GHG benefits, poverty alleviation, sustainable management of forests and biodiversity conservation. Forests 2011, 2, 550–577, doi:10.3390/f2020550.
[35]
Bendana, M.; Chokkalingam, U.; Hamilton, K. State of the Forest Carbon Market 2009. Taking Root and Branching Out; Market Report by Ecosystem Marketplace; Ecosystem Marketplace: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
[36]
Ambrosi, P.; Kossoy, A. States and Trends of the Carbon Market 2010; Carbon Finance at The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
[37]
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): Approved Large-Sale and Small-Scale Afforestation and Reforestation Methodologies; UNFCCC: Bonn, Germany, June. 2011. Available online: http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/index.html (accessed on 01 June 2011).
[38]
Forest Project Protocol Version 3.2; Climate Action Reserve: Los Angeles, CA, USA, June. 2011. Available online: http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/forest/current/ (accessed on 18 June 2011).
[39]
The Verified Carbon Standard (VCS). Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use (AFOLU) Methodologies and Modules; VCS: Washington, DC, USA, June. 2011. Available online: http://www.v-c-s.org/methodologies/find-a-methodology?title= (accessed on 15 June 2011).
[40]
The CarbonFix Standard Version 3.1; Carbon Fix Standard: Stuttgart, Germany, June. 2011. Available online: http://www.carbonfix.info/CarbonFix-Standard.html (accessed on 18 June 2011).
[41]
McCall, M.K.; Skutsch, M.M. Reassessing REDD: Governance, markets and the hype cycle. An editorial comment. Clim. Change 2010, 100, 395–402, doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9768-y.
[42]
Angelsen, A. Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues,Options and Implications; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2008.
[43]
Azar, C.; Persson, U.M. Preserving the world’s tropical forests: A price on carbon may not do. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 210–215, doi:10.1021/es902629x. 19950945
[44]
The Verified Carbon Standard (VCS). Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Requirements; VCS: Washington, DC, USA, 19 October. 2011. Available online: http://www.v-c-s.org/sites/v-c-s.org/files/AFOLU%20Requirements%2C%20v3.1_1.pdf ？？(accessed on 15 June 2011).
[45]
Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): Definition of Renewable Biomass; UNFCCC: Bonn, Germany. 2006. Available online: http://cdm.unfccc.int/EB/Meetings/023/eb23_repan18.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2011).
