IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v85y2017ip1p95-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Financial viability and carbon payment potential of large-scale silvicultural intensification in logged dipterocarp forests in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Ruslandi,
  • Romero, C.
  • Putz, F.E.

Abstract

To sustain timber yields from selectively logged tropical forests, silvicultural treatments beyond reduced-impact logging are often recommended but seldom implemented outside of research areas. To determine the extent to which financial constraints justify the reluctance of Indonesian forest industries to intensify their silviculture at operational scales, we develop a series of scenarios to compare the financial viability of enrichment planting along cleared lines through twice logged forest (TPTJ) with the common practice of selective logging alone (TPTI). Because TPTJ also increases carbon stocks relative to the logged-only option, we consider carbon payments in some scenarios. With a discount rate of 6% and a cutting cycle of 30years, TPTJ yields higher net present values (NPVs) than TPTI (US$442 vs $145/ha, respectively). TPTJ still provides higher NPVs than TPTI with discount rates up to 8% and cutting cycles of 25–30years. With carbon payments of US$9.6/Mg CO2e, TPTJ maintains a positive NPV with discount rates up to 13%. In contrast, TPTI has positive NPVs with discount rates up to 12% with cutting cycles of 25–30years. At all discount rates with positive NPVs, TPTJ yields higher NPVs than TPTI for all comparisons with equal cutting cycle durations (US$69–3,370/ha vs. US$68–393/ha). Given its substantial impacts on forest structure and composition, the more intensive TPTJ treatment should be implemented in only small and appropriately selected portions of managed landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruslandi, & Romero, C. & Putz, F.E., 2017. "Financial viability and carbon payment potential of large-scale silvicultural intensification in logged dipterocarp forests in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 95-102.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:85:y:2017:i:p1:p:95-102
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.09.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934117302691
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.09.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keefe, K. & Alavalapati, J.A.A. & Pinheiro, C., 2012. "Is enrichment planting worth its costs? A financial cost–benefit analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 10-16.
    2. Irawan, Silvia & Tacconi, Luca & Ring, Irene, 2013. "Stakeholders' incentives for land-use change and REDD+: The case of Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 75-83.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Irawan, Silvia & Widiastomo, Triyoga & Tacconi, Luca & Watts, John D. & Steni, Bernadinus, 2019. "Exploring the design of jurisdictional REDD+: The case of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Lee, Joung Hun & Kubo, Yuki & Fujiwara, Takahiro & Septiana, Ratih Madya & Riyanto, Slamet & Iwasa, Yoh, 2018. "Profit Sharing as a Management Strategy for a State-owned Teak Plantation at High Risk for Illegal Logging," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 140-148.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lei Yan & Xubin Lei & Kairong Hong & Hui Li & Mengyuan Chen, 2022. "Improving Farmer Willingness to Participate in the Transfer of Land Rights in Rural China: A Preference-Based Income Distribution Scheme," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-22, March.
    2. Cunha, Felipe Arias Fogliano de Souza & Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Cosenza, Carlos Alberto Nunes & Lucena, André F.P., 2016. "The implementation costs of forest conservation policies in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 209-220.
    3. Sataporn Roengtam & Agustiyara Agustiyara & Achmad Nurmandi, 2023. "Making Network Governance Work in Forest Land-Use Policy in the Local Government," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, August.
    4. Yang, Hongqiang & Li, Xi, 2018. "Potential variation in opportunity cost estimates for REDD+ and its causes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 138-146.
    5. Sheng, Jichuan & Hong, Qiu & Han, Xiao, 2019. "Neoliberal conservation in REDD+: The roles of market power and incentive designs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    6. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Ma, Chunbo & Iftekhar, Sayed, 2017. "The costs and benefits of REDD+: A review of the literature," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 103-111.
    7. Cacho, Oscar J. & Milne, Sarah & Gonzalez, Ricardo & Tacconi, Luca, 2014. "Benefits and costs of deforestation by smallholders: Implications for forest conservation and climate policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 321-332.
    8. Hein, Jonas & Meijer, Karen & Rodríguez de Francisco, Jean Carlo, 2015. "What is the potential for a climate, forest and community friendly REDD+ in Paris?," Briefing Papers 3/2015, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    9. Meine Noordwijk & Fahmuddin Agus & Sonya Dewi & Herry Purnomo, 2014. "Reducing emissions from land use in Indonesia: motivation, policy instruments and expected funding streams," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 677-692, August.
    10. Andrew McGregor & Edward Challies & Peter Howson & Rini Astuti & Rowan Dixon & Bethany Haalboom & Michael Gavin & Luca Tacconi & Suraya Afiff, 2015. "Beyond Carbon, More Than Forest? REDD+ Governmentality in Indonesia," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(1), pages 138-155, January.
    11. Xiaomin Guo & Chuanglin Fang, 2021. "Integrated Land Use Change Related Carbon Source/Sink Examination in Jiangsu Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, November.
    12. Sheng, Jichuan & Tang, Weizong & Zhu, Bangzhu, 2019. "Incentivizing REDD+: The role of cost-sharing mechanisms in encouraging stakeholders to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    13. Grilli, Gianluca & Jonkisz, Jaroslaw & Ciolli, Marco & Lesinski, Jerzy, 2016. "Mixed forests and ecosystem services: Investigating stakeholders' perceptions in a case study in the Polish Carpathians," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 11-17.
    14. Neudert, Regina & Olschofsky, Konstantin & Kübler, Daniel & Prill, Laura & Köhl, Michael & Wätzold, Frank, 2018. "Opportunity costs of conserving a dry tropical forest under REDD+: The case of the spiny dry forest in southwestern Madagascar," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 102-114.
    15. Lee, Joung Hun & Kubo, Yuki & Fujiwara, Takahiro & Septiana, Ratih Madya & Riyanto, Slamet & Iwasa, Yoh, 2018. "Profit Sharing as a Management Strategy for a State-owned Teak Plantation at High Risk for Illegal Logging," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 140-148.
    16. Toumbourou, Tessa, 2020. "Using a Delphi approach to identify the most efficacious interventions to improve Indonesia’s forest and land governance," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    17. Ekawati, Sulistya & Subarudi, & Budiningsih, Kushartati & Sari, Galih Kartika & Muttaqin, Muhammad Zahrul, 2019. "Policies affecting the implementation of REDD+ in Indonesia (cases in Papua, Riau and Central Kalimantan)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Aggarwal, Ashish & Brockington, Dan, 2020. "Reducing or creating poverty? Analyzing livelihood impacts of forest carbon projects with evidence from India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    19. Gallemore, Caleb & Guisinger, Amy & Kruuse, Mikkel & Ruysschaert, Denis & Jespersen, Kristjan, 2018. "Escaping the “Teenage” Years: The Politics of Rigor and the Evolution of Private Environmental Standards," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 76-87.
    20. Tacconi, Luca & Muttaqin, Muhammad Zahrul, 2019. "Reducing emissions from land use change in Indonesia: An overview," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:85:y:2017:i:p1:p:95-102. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.