Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Yellow-Eyed Penguin conservation measures

Although an estimated US$6 billion is invested annually in our planet’s biological diversity, little research has been conducted on which conservation treatments work best or provide best value for money. Conserving biodiversity efficiently depends on identifying conservation treatments which provide greatest return on investment. Where controlled experiments are not possible, panel econometric techniques can be used to determine the effectiveness of conservation treatments. A long-running Yellow-Eyed Penguin (Megadyptes antipodes) nest count in New Zealand presents a golden opportunity to compare the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of three commonly used conservation treatments—trapping of introduced predators, revegetation, and intensive management. Following ecological theory, we specify a density-dependent population growth rate. We control for year effects and site characteristics such as land cover, slope, and elevation. We confront the possibility of selection bias in treatment with site fixed effects and with an instrumental variable based on site accessibility. Of the three treatments analyzed, only intensive management is significantly correlated with increases in site-level penguin population growth rate. We estimate the marginal cost of providing yellow-eyed penguins through intensive management to be NZ$68,600 per nest.Environmental Economics and Policy,

Implementation of national and international REDD mechanism under alternative payments for environemtal services: theory and illustration from Sumatra

This paper develops an analytical model of a REDD+ mechanism with an international payment tier and a national payment tier, and calibrate land users' opportunity cost curves based on data from Sumatra. We compare the avoided deforestation and cost-eciency of government purchases across the two types of contracts fixed price and opportunity cost, and across two government types "benevolent" and "budget maximizing". Our paper shows that a fixed-price scheme is likely to be more efficient than an opportunity-cost compensation scheme at low international carbon prices, when the government is "benevolent" or when variation in opportunity cost within land users is high relative to variation in opportunity cost across land users. Thus, a PES program which pays local communities or land users based on the value of the service provided by avoided deforestation may not only distribute REDD revenue more equitably than an opportunity cost-based payment system, but may be more cost-efficient as well.

What drives deforestation and what stops it? A meta-analysis of spatially explicit econometric studies

Abstract We have constructed a comprehensive database of 117 spatially explicit econometric studies of deforestation published in peer-reviewed academic journals from 1996-2013. We present a metaanalysis of what drives deforestation and what stops it, based on the signs and significance of 5909 coefficients in 554 multivariate analyses. We find that forests are more likely to be cleared where economic returns to agriculture and pasture are higher, either due to more favorable climatological and topographic conditions, or due to lower costs of clearing forest and transporting products to market. Timber activity, land tenure security, and community demographics do not show a consistent association with either higher or lower deforestation. Population is consistently associated with greater deforestation, and poverty is consistently associated with lower deforestation, but in both cases endogeneity makes a causal link difficult to infer. Promising approaches for stopping deforestation include reducing the intrusion of road networks into remote forested areas; targeting protected areas to regions where forests face higher threat; tying rural income support to the maintenance of forest resources through payments for ecosystem services; and insulating the forest frontier from the price effects of demand for agricultural commodities. JEL Codes: Q15,Q23,Q2

Structuring national and sub-national economic incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation in Indonesia

We estimate the impacts that alternative national and sub-national economic incentive structures for reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD+) in Indonesia would have had on greenhouse gas emissions and national and local revenue if they had been in place from 2000-2005. The impact of carbon payments on deforestation is calibrated econometrically from the pattern of observed deforestation and spatial variation in the benefits and costs of converting land to agriculture over that time period. We estimate that at an international carbon price of $10/tCO2e, a “basic voluntary incentive structure” modeled after a traditional payment-for-ecosystem-services (PES) program would have reduced emissions nationally by 62 MtCO2e/yr, or 8% below the without-REDD+ reference scenario (95% CI: 45-76 MtCO2e/yr; 6-9%), while generating a programmatic budget shortfall. By making four policy improvements—paying for net emission reductions at the scale of an entire district rather than site-by-site, paying for reductions relative to estimated business-as-usual levels rather than historical levels, sharing a portion of district-level revenues with the national government, and sharing a portion of the national government’s responsibility for costs with districts—an “improved voluntary incentive structure” would have reduced emissions by 175 MtCO2e/yr, or 22% below the reference scenario (95% CI: 136-207 MtCO2e/yr; 17-26%), while generating a programmatic budget surplus. A “regulatory incentive structure” such as a cap-and-trade or symmetric tax-and-subsidy program would have reduced emissions by 211/yr, or 26% below the reference scenario (95% CI: 163-247 MtCO2e/yr; 20-31%), and would not have required accurate predictions of business-as-usual emissions to guarantee a programmatic budget surplus.Climate change, land-use change, REDD+, reference levels, economic incentives

What determines the effectiveness of national protected area networks?

More than 15% of global terrestrial area is under some form of protection and there is a growing impetus to increase this coverage to 30% by 2030. But not all protection is effective and the reasons some countries\u27 protected areas (PAs) are more effective than others\u27 are poorly understood. We evaluate the effectiveness of national PA networks established between 2000 and 2012 globally in avoiding forest loss, taking into account underlying deforestation threats using a combination of matching methods and cross-sectional regressions. We then assess which demographic, agricultural, economic, and governance factors are most strongly associated with national PA effectiveness using machine learning methods. We estimate that national PAs established between 2000 and 2012 reduced deforestation in those areas by 72%, avoiding 86 062 km² of forest loss. The effectiveness of national PAs varied by strictness of protection based on International Union for Conservation of Nature category. Strictly PAs reduced forest loss by 81% compared to what would have occurred without protection, while less strictly PAs reduced forest loss by 67%. Thus, the 26% of new PAs that were strictly protected contributed 39% of the total forest loss avoided within PAs between 2000 and 2012. If every country\u27s PAs were as effective as the country with the most effective PAs within the same region, they would have increased the area of deforestation avoided by 38%, saving a further 119 082 km² of forest. Part of the variation in PA effectiveness across countries is explained by the placement of PA in areas facing higher deforestation threat. Countries with lower agricultural activity, higher economic growth and better governance are most strongly associated with greater country-level PA effectiveness

No Forest Left Behind

Mitigating climate change by reducing deforestation should involve incentives for countries that currently have high forest cover and low deforestation rates

National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics.

Better land stewardship is needed to achieve the Paris Agreement's temperature goal, particularly in the tropics, where greenhouse gas emissions from the destruction of ecosystems are largest, and where the potential for additional land carbon storage is greatest. As countries enhance their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement, confusion persists about the potential contribution of better land stewardship to meeting the Agreement's goal to hold global warming below 2°C. We assess cost-effective tropical country-level potential of natural climate solutions (NCS)-protection, improved management and restoration of ecosystems-to deliver climate mitigation linked with sustainable development goals (SDGs). We identify groups of countries with distinctive NCS portfolios, and we explore factors (governance, financial capacity) influencing the feasibility of unlocking national NCS potential. Cost-effective tropical NCS offers globally significant climate mitigation in the coming decades (6.56 Pg CO2e yr-1 at less than 100 US$ per Mg CO2e). In half of the tropical countries, cost-effective NCS could mitigate over half of national emissions. In more than a quarter of tropical countries, cost-effective NCS potential is greater than national emissions. We identify countries where, with international financing and political will, NCS can cost-effectively deliver the majority of enhanced NDCs while transforming national economies and contributing to SDGs. This article is part of the theme issue 'Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions'

Land-based measures to mitigate climate change : potential and feasibility by country

Acknowledgements The design of this study and the data generated was guided by expert consultations and relied on the help of many. We thank all those who contributed: Sierra Gladfelter, Jo House, Mercedes Bustamante, Susan Cook-Patton, Sara Leavitt, Nick Wolff, and Thomas Worthington. We thank M.-J. Valentino at Imaginary Office for helping to design the first three figures. This work was supported by the authors’ institutions and funding sources, including the Climate and Land-use Alliance, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Food Quality, and the EU H2020 projects VERIFY and ENGAGE (grant agreement no. 821471).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Effects of Demand-Side Restrictions on High-Deforestation Palm Oil in Europe on Deforestation and Emissions in Indonesia

13-C-AJFF-PU-29, 36This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Please cite this article as:Jonah Busch et al 2022 Environ. Res. Lett. 17 014035. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac435eDemand-side restrictions on high-deforestation commodities are expanding as a climate policy, but their impact on reducing tropical deforestation and emissions has yet to be quantified. Here we model the effects of demand-side restrictions on high-deforestation palm oil in Europe on deforestation and emissions in Indonesia. We do so by integrating a model of global trade with a spatially explicit model of land-use change in Indonesia. We estimate a European ban on high-deforestation palm oil from 2000 to 2015 would have led to a 8.9% global price premium on low-deforestation palm oil, resulting in 21 374 ha yr 121 (1.60%) less deforestation and 21.1 million tCO2 yr 121 (1.91%) less emissions from deforestation in Indonesia relative to what occurred. A hypothetical Indonesia-wide carbon price would have achieved equivalent emission reductions at $0.81/tCO2. Impacts of a ban are small because: 52% of Europe\u2019s imports of high-deforestation palm oil would have shifted to non-participating countries; the price elasticity of supply of high-deforestation oil palm cropland is small (0.13); and conversion to oil palm was responsible for only 32% of deforestation in Indonesia. If demand-side restrictions succeed in substantially reducing deforestation, it is likely to be through non-price pathways

Securing the climate benefits of stable forests

Stable forests – those not already significantly disturbed nor facing predictable near-future risks of anthropogenic disturbance – may play a large role in the climate solution, due to their carbon sequestration and storage capabilities. Their importance is recognized by the Paris Agreement, but stable forests have received comparatively little attention through existing forest protection mechanisms and finance. Instead, emphasis has been placed on targeting locations where deforestation and forest degradation are happening actively. Yet stopping deforestation and forest degradation does not guarantee durable success, especially outside the geographic scope of targeted efforts. As a result, today's stable forests may be at risk without additional efforts to secure their long-term conservation. We synthesize the gaps in existing policy efforts that could address the climate-related benefits derived from stable forests, noting several barriers to action, such as uncertainty around the level of climate services that stable forests provide and difficulties describing the real level of threat posed. We argue that resource and finance allocation for stable forests should be incorporated into countries’ and donors’ comprehensive portfolios aimed at tackling deforestation and forest degradation as well as resulting emissions. A holistic and forward-looking approach will be particularly important, given that success in tackling deforestation and forest degradation where it is currently happening will need to be sustained in the long term