Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T06:24:08.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distinguishing potential and effective additionality of forest conservation interventions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2024

Philippe Delacote Open the ORCID record for Philippe Delacote [Opens in a new window] ,
Gwenolé Le Velly Open the ORCID record for Gwenolé Le Velly [Opens in a new window]  and
Gabriela Simonet
Philippe Delacote*
Affiliation:
AgroParisTech-INRAe BETA, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France Climate Economics Chair. Palais Brongniart, Paris, France
Gwenolé Le Velly
Affiliation:
CNRS, INRAe, Institut Agro, CEE-M, Université Montpellier, Montpellier, France
Gabriela Simonet
Affiliation:
Independent researcher, Annecy, France
*
*Corresponding author: Philippe Delacote; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The additionality of forest conservation interventions is frequently questioned. In particular, they are often considered to be located in places where forests are not threatened, which points to the existence of location biases. Revisiting this location bias concept, we conceptually distinguish potential and effective additionality and theoretically consider how the objectives of the implementer affect the siting choice of the forest conservation interventions and their additionality. Our theoretical intuition is that the choices of the implementers are influenced by the quality of institutions. Our results show that (1) the implementer's objective and local institutions may lead the implementer to select a site with low development potential and low forest threat, and (2) the selection of a site with low development potential, which is frequently presented as a location bias, does not necessarily preclude additionality.

Keywords

additionalityconservationdeforestation

JEL classification

Q23: Forestry Q56: Environment and Development • Environment and Trade • Sustainability • Environmental Accounts and Accounting • Environmental Equity • Population Growth Q28: Government Policy
Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 29 , Issue 6 , December 2024 , pp. 518 - 538
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Albers, HJ (2022) Protected area network expansion and management: economics to improve conservation outcomes. Environmental and Resource Economics 83, 955–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers, HJ and Robinson, EJZ (2013) A review of the spatial economics of non-timber forest product extraction: implications for policy. Ecological Economics 92, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers, HJ, Preonas, L, Capitán, T, Robinson, EJZ and Madrigal-Ballestero, R (2020a) Optimal siting, sizing, and enforcement of marine protected areas. Environmental and Resource Economics 77, 229–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers, HJ, White, B, Robinson, EJZ and Sterner, E (2020b) Spatial protected area decisions to reduce carbon emissions from forest extraction. Spatial Economic Analysis 15, 280–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers, HJ, Chang, CH, Dissanayake, STM, Helmstedt, KJ, Kroetz, K, Dilkina, B, Zapata-Morán, I, Nolte, C, Ochoa-Ochoa, LM and Spencer, G (2023) Anticipating anthropogenic threats in acquiring new protected areas. Conservation Biology 38, e14176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alix-Garcia, J and Wolff, H (2014) Payment for ecosystem services from forests. Annual Review of Resource Economics 6, 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amin, A, Choumert-Nkolo, J, Combes, J-L, Combes Motel, P, Kéré, EN, Ongono-Olinga, J-G and Schwartz, S (2019) Neighborhood effects in the Brazilian Amazônia: protected areas and deforestation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 93, 272–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bareille, F, Wolfersberger, J and Zavalloni, M (2023) Institutions and conservation: the case of protected areas. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 118, 102768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boltz, M, Delacote, P and Houngbedji, K (2024) Deforestation and development: how do forests and population living standards coevolve. In KF Zimmermann (ed.), Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börner, J, Baylis, K, Corbera, E, Ezzine-de-Blas, D, Honey-Rosés, J, Persson, UM and Wunder, S (2017) The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development 96, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulte, EH, Lipper, L, Stringer, R and Zilberman, D (2008) Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives. Environment and Development Economics 13, 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, R, Hansen, M, Olken, B, Potapov, P and Sieber, S (2012) The political economy of deforestation in the tropics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 127, 1707–1754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrilho, CD, Demarchi, G, Duchelle, AE, Wunder, S and Morsello, C (2022) Permanence of avoided deforestation in a Transamazon REDD+ project (Pará, Brazil). Ecological Economics 201, 107568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerbu, GA, Swallow, BM and Thompson, DY (2011) Locating REDD: a global survey and analysis of REDD readiness and demonstration activities. Environmental Science Policy 14, 168–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabé-Ferret, S, Delacote, P, Missirian, A and Voia, A (2024) Payments for forest conservation are a cost-effective way to fight climate change. Mimeo, Toulouse School of Economics. Pre-print available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FZtmbOcBimlfXOjZhqIFF9n-sM1meh/view.Google Scholar
Chervier, C and Costedoat, S (2017) Heterogeneous impact of a collective payment for environmental services scheme on reducing deforestation in Cambodia. World Development 98, 148–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiroleu-Assouline, M, Poudou, J-C and Roussel, S (2018) Designing REDD+ contracts to resolve additionality issues. Resource and Energy Economics 51, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delacote, P and Angelsen, A (2015) Reducing deforestation and forest degradation: leakage or synergy?. Land Economics 91, 501–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delacote, P and Simonet, G (2013) Readiness and avoided deforestation policies: on the use of the REDD fund. Working Papers 2013–12, Chaire Economie du climat, Paris-Dauphine University, CDC Climat.Google Scholar
Delacote, P, Palmer, C, Bakkegaard, RK and Thorsen, BJ (2014) Unveiling information on opportunity costs in REDD: who obtains the surplus when policy objectives differ?. Resource and Energy Economics 36, 508–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delacote, P, Robinson, EJZ and Roussel, S (2016) Deforestation, leakage and avoided deforestation policies: a spatial analysis. Resource and Energy Economics 45, 192–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delacote, P, Le Velly, G and Simonet, G (2022) Revisiting the location bias and additionality of REDD+ projects: the role of project proponents status and certification. Resource and Energy Economics 67, 101277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchelle, AE, Simonet, G, Sunderlin, WD and Wunder, S (2018) What is REDD+ achieving on the ground?. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 32, 134–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncanson, L, Liang, M, Leitold, V, Armston, J, Krishna Moorthy, SM, Dubayah, R, Costedoat, S, Enquist, BJ, Fatoyinbo, L, Goetz, SJ, Gonzalez-Roglich, M, Merow, C, Roehrdanz, PR, Tabor, K and Zvoleff, A (2023) The effectiveness of global protected areas for climate change mitigation. Nature Communications 14, 2908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engel, S and Palmer, P (2008) Payments for environmental services as an alternative to logging under weak property rights: the case of Indonesia. Ecological Economics 65, 799–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, S, Pagiola, S and Wunder, S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65, 663–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezzine-de-Blas, D, Wunder, S, Ruiz-Pérez, M and Moreno-Sanchez, RdP (2016) Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PloS one 11, e0149847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Filewod, B and McCarney, G (2023) Avoiding carbon leakage from nature-based offsets by design. One Earth 6, 790–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groom, B and Palmer, C (2010) Cost-effective provision of environmental services: the role of relaxing market constraints. Environment and Development Economics 15, 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guizar-Coutiño, A, Jones, JPG, Balmford, A, Carmenta, R and Coomes, DA (2022) A global evaluation of the effectiveness of voluntary REDD+ projects at reducing deforestation and degradation in the moist tropics. Conservation Biology 36, e13970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, T, Grillos, T, Bremer, LL, Murtinho, F and Shapiro, E (2019) Collective PES: more than the sum of individual incentives. Environmental Science Policy 102 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joppa, LN and Pfaff, A (2009) High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLOS ONE 4, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keles, D, Delacote, P, Pfaff, A, Qin, S and Mascia, MB (2020) What drives the erasure of protected areas? Evidence from across the Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Economics 176, 106733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keles, D, Pfaff, A and Mascia, MB (2023) Does the selective erasure of protected areas raise deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon?. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 10, 1121–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, L, Sills, E and Cheshire, H (2014) Targeting areas for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) projects in Tanzania. Global Environmental Change 24, 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazunda, J and Shively, G (2015) Measuring the forest and income impacts of forest user group participation under Malawi's Forest Co-management Program. Ecological Economics 119, 262–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montoya-Zumaeta, JG, Wunder, S and Tacconi, L (2021) Incentive-based conservation in Peru: assessing the state of six ongoing PES and REDD+ initiatives. Land Use Policy 108, 105514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newburn, D, Reed, S, Berck, P and Merenlender, A (2005) Economics and land-use change in prioritizing private land conservation. Conservation Biology 19, 1411–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newburn, D, Berck, P and Merenlender, AM (2006) Habitat and open space at risk of land-use conversion: targeting strategies for land conservation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88, 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, VTH, McElwee, P, Le, HTV, Nghiem, T and Vu, HTD (2022) The challenges of collective PES: insights from three community-based models in Vietnam. Ecosystem Services 56, 101438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldekop, JA, Sims, KRE, Karna, BK, Whittingham, MJ and Agrawal, A (2019) Reductions in deforestation and poverty from decentralized forest management in Nepal. Nature Sustainability 2, 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ollivier, H (2012) Growth, deforestation and the efficiency of the REDD mechanism. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 64, 312–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, C, Souza, GI, Laray, E, Viana, V and Hall, H (2020) Participatory policies and intrinsic motivation to conserve forest commons. Nature Sustainability 3, 620–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasgaard, M and Mertz, O (2016) Desirable qualities of REDD+ projects not considered in decisions of project locations. Environmental Research Letters 11, 114014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfaff, A and Robalino, J (2012) Protecting forests, biodiversity, and the climate: predicting policy impact to improve policy choice. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 28, 164–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfaff, A, Robalino, J, Herrera, D and Sandoval, C (2015) Protected areas’ impacts on Brazilian Amazon deforestation: examining conservation – development interactions to inform planning. PLOS ONE 10, e0129460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pham, VT, Roongtawanreongsri, S, Ho, TQ and Tran, PHN (2023) Impact of payments for forest environmental services on households’ livelihood: a case study in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Environment and Development Economics 28, 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qin, S, Golden Kroner, RE, Cook, C, Tesfaw, AT, Braybrook, R, Rodriguez, CM, Poelking, C and Mascia, MB (2019) Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement as a threat to iconic protected areas. Conservation Biology 33, 1275–1285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, EJZ, Albers, HJ, Ngeleza, G and Lokina, RB (2014) Insiders, outsiders, and the role of local enforcement in forest management: an example from Tanzania. Ecological Economics 107, 242–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, EJZ, Albers, HJ, Lokina, R and Meshack, C (2015) Allocating community-level payments for ecosystem services: initial experiences from a REDD pilot in Tanzania. Technical report, Environment for Development Initiative.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, EJZ, Somerville, S and Albers, HJ (2019) The economics of REDD through an incidence of burdens and benefits lens. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 13, 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggiero, PGC, Metzger, JP, Reverberi Tambosi, L and Nichols, E (2019) Payment for ecosystem services programs in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: effective but not enough. Land Use Policy 82, 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacre, E, Pressey, RL and Bode, M (2019) Costs are not necessarily correlated with threats in conservation landscapes. Conservation Letters 12, e12663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, PC, Roe, BE and Sohngen, B (2018) Additionality when REDD contracts must be self-enforcing. Environmental and Resource Economics 69, 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samii, C, Lisiecki, M, Kulkarni, P, Paler, L, Chavis, L, Snilstveit, B, Vojtkova, M and Gallagher, E (2014) Effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on deforestation and poverty in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 10, 1–95.Google Scholar
Segerson, K (2022) Group incentives for environmental protection and natural resource management. Annual Review of Resource Economics 14, 597–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, KRE (2014) Do protected areas reduce forest fragmentation? A microlandscapes approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 58, 303–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visconti, P, Pressey, RL, Segan, DB and Wintle, BA (2010) Conservation planning with dynamic threats: the role of spatial design and priority setting for species’ persistence. Biological Conservation 143, 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, TAP, Börner, J, Sills, EO and Kontoleon, A (2020) Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 24188–24194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, TAP, Wunder, S, Sills, EO, Börner, J, Rifai, SW, Neidermeier, AN, Frey, GP and Kontoleon, A (2023) Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science 381, 873–877.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wunder, S (2015) Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 117, 234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, S, Börner, J, Ezzine-de-Blas, D, Feder, S and Pagiola, S (2020) Payments for environmental services: past performance and pending potentials. Annual Review of Resource Economics 12, 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar