Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Trade-offs between carbon sequestration and poverty alleviation: preliminary evidence from the N'Hambita Community Carbon Project in Mozambique

By Charles Palmer and Tilmann Silber


This paper assesses trade-offs between carbon sequestration and farmers’ incomes from land-use systems implemented in a community-based project, in Mozambique. Systems either focus on carbon sequestration or combine sequestration with cash crop cultivation. The latter provide carbon payments with potential income from cash crop sales. Compared with sequestration-only systems those that combine sequestration and cash crop production have higher net benefits, although they are less cost-effective and have less carbon-sequestration potential. Interplanting with faidherbia albidia provides the most attractive balance among competing policy goals. Carbon payments contribute to cash income and may enable smallholders to overcome initial project investment costs

Topics: HD100 Land Use, HN Social history and conditions. Social problems. Social reform, GE Environmental Sciences
Publisher: Department of Geography and Environment, The London School of Economics and Political Science
Year: 2009
OAI identifier:
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles


  1. A Modelling Framework for Quantifying Carbon Sequestration in Forest Ecosystems, Alterra-rapport No. 1068,
  2. (2005). Above-Ground Biomass Accumulation in Fallow Fields at the N’hambita Community-Mozambique, MSc dissertation,
  3. (2006). Agricultural Intensification on Mozambique: Infrastructure, Policy and Institutional Framework – When Do Problems Signal Opportunities?
  4. (2005). Application of the “climafor” approach to estimate baseline carbon emissions of a forest conservation project in selva Lacandona, Chiapas, Mexico’ Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change doi
  5. (2002). Bullet or Fools’ Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and Their Impact on the Poor, London: Institute for Environment and Development,
  6. (2007). Can carbon sequestration markets benefit lowincome producers in semi-arid Africa? Potentials and challenges’, doi
  7. (2002). Can forest-protection carbon projects improve rural livelihoods? Analysis of the Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project, Bolivia’, Mitigation and Adaption Strategies for Global Change,
  8. (2005). Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America’, World Development, doi
  9. (2003). Capturing the value of forest carbon for local livelihoods’ World Development, doi
  10. (2007). Carbon Crediting Technical Note 1, retrieved 2008-06-25 from,
  11. (2008). Carbon Sequestration and biodiversity of re-growing miombo woodlands in Mozambique’, doi
  12. (2005). Carbon sequestration in rural communities’, doi
  13. (2004). Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems’, doi
  14. (2007). CDM in Africa and the Nairobi Framework of Action,
  15. (2007). Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. Human Development Report doi
  16. (2006). Community Land Use and Carbon Management: N’hambita Pilot Project. doi
  17. (2008). Community Land Use and Carbon Management: N’hambita Pilot Project. Final Report, retrieved 2009-06-16 from,
  18. (2000). Consulting, An Evaluation Study of FRP’s Carbon Sequestration Project in
  19. (2007). Edinburgh, Tree Species Descriptions for Land Use Options, retrieved 2008-06-25 from,
  20. (2007). Environmental Economics: A Critique of Benefit-Cost Analysis, doi
  21. (2006). External Evaluation of the Miombo Community Land Use and Carbon Management N’hambita Pilot Project,
  22. (1999). Financing environmental services: the Costa Rican experience and its implications’, doi
  23. (2008). Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges’, Natural Resources Forum 32, doi
  24. (2004). Growing, Agfacts No. H6.1.10,
  25. (2005). How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America’, World Development, doi
  26. (2000). How developing countries can benefit from policies to control climate change’,
  27. (2001). Introduction to Environmental Economics, doi
  28. (2008). Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Forestry Carbon Services: Empirical Evidence from Mozambique, mimeo, doi
  29. (2003). Mango growing in Kenya, Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre,
  30. (2003). Marking global initiatives local realities: carbon mitigation projects in Chiapas Mexico’, doi
  31. (2004). Measuring the Socio-economic Impact of Carbon Sequestration on Local Communities: An Assessment Study with Specific Reference to the N’hambita Pilot Project in Mozambique, MSc dissertation,
  32. (2002). Mitigating climate change by planting trees: the transaction costs trap’, doi
  33. (2008). Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives’, doi
  34. (2002). Potential carbon mitigation and income in developing countries from changes in use and management of agricultural and forest lands’, doi
  35. (1999). Reverse phenology and dry-season water uptake by Faidherbia albida doi
  36. (2005). Secondary forests as temporary carbon sinks? The economic impact of accounting methods on reforestation projects in the tropics’, doi
  37. (2004). Small-scale Cashew Nut Processing, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
  38. (2003). Smallholder Agroforestry Projects: Potential for Carbon Sequestration and Poverty Alleviation, ESA Working Paper No. 03-06, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
  39. (2007). State of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2007: Picking Up Steam, London: New Carbon Finance, and Washington DC: Ecosystem Marketplace,
  40. (2007). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Cambridge: doi
  41. (2008). The fate of the tropical forest: Carbon or cattle?’, doi
  42. (2005). The Plan Vivo Experience with Carbon Service Provision and the Potential Lessons for Watershed Service Projects,
  43. (2005). Transaction and abatement costs of carbon-sink projects in developing countries’, doi
  44. (1998). What Makes Agricultural Intensification Profitable for Mozambican Smallholders? An Appraisal
  45. (2002). When Economic Reform Goes Wrong: Cashews doi
  46. (2007). Will buying tropical forest carbon benefit the poor? Evidence from Costa Rica’, Land Use Policy, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.