IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

An integrated decision support tool for the prediction and evaluation of efficiency, environmental impact and total social cost of forestry projects in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol

Listed author(s):
  • Bart Muys Stef Proost


    (K.U.Leuven, Laboratory for Forest, Nature and Landscape Research,)

  • Gaby Deckmyn

    (University of Antwerp,Department of Biology)

  • Ellen Moons


    (K.U.Leuven, C.E.S., Energy, Transport and Environment)

  • Juan Garcia Quijano

    (K.U.Leuven, Laboratory for Forest, Nature and Landscape Research,)

  • Stef Proost


    (K.U.Leuven, C.E.S., Energy, Transport and Environment)

  • Reinhart Ceulemans

    (University of Antwerp,Department of Biology)

For the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, governments of annex I countries need to develop strategies and policies for greenhouse gas reduction. Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) offer CO2 emission reduction opportunities both home and abroad. Selection of effective forestry opportunities is a complex decision process based on multiple information concerning the greenhouse gas emission reduction potential, the environmental impacts and the cost efficiency of potential scenarios. In this paper, a decision support framework to evaluate forestry scenarios for greenhouse gas emission reduction was presented and tested on five different scenarios (existing and new multifunctional forest in Flanders, Belgium, energy crop with short rotation poplar, energy crop with annually harvested Miscanthus, forest plantation in the subtropics, and conservation of tropical rainforest). The framework is organized as a serial connection of a carbon accounting module, an environmental module and an economic module. Modules include a combination of models and quantitative assessments procedures. In order to make scenarios comparable, the environmental and economic modules calculate their outputs on a functional unit basis of 1 ton CO2 emission reduction. The framework is universally applicable, straightforward, transparent and quantitative. Data requirements are medium, but applicability is fairly complex due to the interdisciplinary character of the tool. Further developments would require automated data flows between models and a user interface. As to the results of the scenario analysis, the only attractive possibility for sinks in Flanders is the establishment of new multifunctional forests. This even yields a net benefit because it replaces the generally loss-making agriculture and, in addition, yields other environmental and recreational benefits. The establishment of bioenergy plantations is a very efficient way of reducing CO2 as far as land occupation and environmental impacts are concerned. However, it also turns out to be a very expensive option. Plantation forestry in the tropics is advantageous when evaluated over longer periods of time. Conservation of tropical forest does not come into consideration as a CDM project, but is nevertheless economically attractive for Flanders since the cost per ton CO2 emission reduction is in the neighborhood of the world market price.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by KU Leuven, Department of Economics - Research Group Energy, Transport and Environment in its series Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series with number ete0306.

in new window

Length: 29 pages
Date of creation: Apr 2003
Handle: RePEc:ete:etewps:ete0306
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Naamsestraat 69, 3000 Leuven

Phone: +32-(0)16-32 67 25
Fax: +32-(0)16-32 67 96
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ete:etewps:ete0306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (library EBIB)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.