The economics of the carbon sequestration potential of plantation forestry in south-western Uganda

References

• Alder D, Drichi P, Elungat D. 2003. Yields of Eucalyptus and Caribbean pine in Uganda. Consultancy report. Kampala: Uganda Forest Resources Management and Conservation Programme.
   Google Scholar
• Asquith NM, Vargas Rios MT, Smith J. 2002. Can forest-protection carbon projects improve rural livelihoods? Analysis of the Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project, Bolivia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 7: 323–337. doi: 10.1023/A:1024712424319
   Google Scholar
• Aune JB, Alene TA, Kamala PG. 2004. Carbon sequestration in rural communities. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 21: 169–179. doi: 10.1300/J091v21n01_04
   Google Scholar
• BioCarbon Fund. 2011. BioCarbon Fund experience: insights from Afforestation and Reforestation Clean Development Mechanism projects. Washington, DC: BioCarbon Fund.
   Google Scholar
• Brown S. 1997. Estimating biomass and biomass change in tropical forests: a primer. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
   Google Scholar
• Brown S. 2001. Measuring and monitoring carbon benefits for forest-based projects: experience from pilot projects. In: Sedjo RA, Toman M (eds), Can carbon sinks be operational? RFF workshop proceedings. Discussion Paper 01–26. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. pp 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Cacho OJ, Hean RL, Wise RM. 2003a. Carbon-accounting methods and reforestation incentives. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47: 153–179. doi: 10.1111/1467-8489.00208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacho OJ, Marshall GR, Milne M. 2003b. 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.
   Google Scholar
• Cacho OJ, Marshall GR, Milne M. 2005. Transaction and abatement costs of carbon-sink projects in developing countries. Environment and Development Economics 10: 597–614. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X05002056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacho OJ, Wise R, MacDicken K. 2004. Carbon monitoring costs and their effect on incentives to sequester carbon through forestry. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 9: 273–293. doi: 10.1023/B:MITI.0000029930.11262.b8
   Google Scholar
• Chomitz KM, Brenes E, Constantino L. 1999. Financing environmental services: the Costa Rican experience and its implications. Science of the Total Environment 240: 157–169. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00310-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong BHJ, Hellier A, Castillo-Santiago MA, Tipper R. 2005. Application of the ‘Climafor’ approach to estimate baseline carbon emissions of a forest conservation project in the Selva Lacandona, Chiapas, Mexico. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 10: 265–278. doi: 10.1007/s11027-005-7132-8
   Google Scholar
• de Jong BHJ, Tipper R, Montoya-Gómez G. 2000. An economic analysis of the potential for carbon sequestration by forests: evidence from southern Mexico. Ecological Economics 33: 313–327. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00162-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gittinger JP. 1982. Economic analysis of agricultural projects. Washington, DC: World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Glomsrød S, Wei T, Liu G, Aune JB. 2011. How well do tree plantations comply with the twin targets of the clean development mechanism? The case of tree plantations in Tanzania. Ecological Economics 70: 1066–1074. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graves PE. 2007. Environmental economics: a critique of benefit- cost analysis. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez VH, Zapata M, Sierra C, Laguado W, Santacruz A. 2006. Maximizing the profitability of forestry projects under the Clean Development Mechanism using a forest management optimization model. Forest Ecology and Management 226: 341–350. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hseu J-S, Buongiorno J. 1997. Financial performance of marple- birch stands in Wisconsin: value growth rate versus equivalent annual income. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 14: 59–66.
   Google Scholar
• IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2003. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Hayama: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. Available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf_files/GPG_LULUCF_FULL.pdf [accessed 4 September 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Kaboggoza J. 2011. Forest plantations and woodlots in Uganda. African Forest Forum Working Paper Series vol. 1, issue 17. Nairobi: African Forest Forum.
   Google Scholar
• Köthke M, Dieter M. 2010. Effects of carbon sequestration rewards on forest management—an empirical application of adjusted Faustmann formulae. Forest Policy and Economics 12: 589–597. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGroddy ME, Daufresne T, Hedin LO. 2004. Scaling of C:N:P stoichiometry in forests worldwide: implications of terrestrial Redfield-type ratios. Ecology 85: 2390–2401. doi: 10.1890/03-0351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montagnini F, Nair PKR. 2004. Carbon sequestration: an under exploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 61: 281–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MWLE (Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment). 2002. The National Forest Plan. Kampala: MWLE.
   Google Scholar
• Nabuurs GJ, Schelhaas MJ, Mohren GMJ, Field CB. 2003. Temporal evolution of the European forest sector carbon sink from 1950 to 1999. Global Change Biology 9: 152–160. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00570.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson KC, de Jong BHJ. 2003. Making global initiatives local realities: carbon mitigation projects in Chiapas, Mexico. Global Environmental Change 13: 19–30. doi: 10.1016/S0959-3780(02)00088-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholson W, Snyder C. 2008. Microeconomic theory: basic principles and extensions. Belmont, CA: Thomson Business and Economics.
   Google Scholar
• Olschewski R, Benítez PC. 2005. Secondary forests as temporary carbon sinks? The economic impact of accounting methods on reforestation projects in the tropics. Ecological Economics 55: 380–394. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.09.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orwa C, Mutua A, Kindt R, Samnadass R, Simons A. 2009. Agroforestry data base: a tree reference and selection guide version 4.0. Available at: http://www.worldagroforestry.org/af/treedb/ [accessed 4 September 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Pagiola S, Platais G. 2007. Payments for environmental services: from theory to practice. Washington, DC: World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer C, Silber T. 2009. Trade-offs between carbon sequestration and poverty alleviation: preliminary evidence from the N’Hambita Community Carbon Project in Mozambique. Research Papers in Environmental and Spatial Analysis 130. London: London School of Sconomics and Political Science.
   Google Scholar
• Perez C, Roncoli C, Neely C, Steiner JL. 2007. Can carbon sequestration markets benefit low-income producers in semi-arid Africa? Potentials and challenges. Agricultural Systems 94: 2–12. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfaff A, Kerr S, Lipper L, Cavatassi R, Davis B, Hendy J, Sanchez- Azofeifa GA. 2007. Will buying tropical forest carbon benefit the poor? Evidence from Costa Rica. Land Use Policy 24: 600–610. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rainforest Alliance. 2009. Trees for Global Benefits project: the Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda in Kampala, Uganda. Plan Vivo standard validation audit report. Kampala: Rainforest Alliance.
   Google Scholar
• Rawat L, Kamboj SK, Kandwal A. 2015. Biomass expansion factor and root-to-shoot ratio of some tree species of Punjab, India. Indian Forester 141: 146–153.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt-Harsh M, Evans TP, Castellanos E, Randolph JC. 2012. Carbon stocks in coffee agroforests and mixed dry tropical forests in the western highlands of Guatamala. Agroforestry Systems 86: 141–157. doi: 10.1007/s10457-012-9549-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiver BD, Brister GH. 1992. Tree and stand volume functions for Eucalyptus saligna. Forest Ecology and Management 47: 211–223. doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(92)90275-E
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shuifa K, Wagner EJ, Zhou L, Yali W, Yan Z. 2010. The situations and potentials of forest carbon sinks and employment creation from afforestation in China. International Forestry Review 12: 247–255. doi: 10.1505/ifor.12.3.247
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soto-Pinto L, Anzueto M, Mendoza J, Ferrer GJ, de Jong B. 2009. Carbon sequestration through agroforestry in indigenous communities of Chiapas, Mexico. Agroforestry Systems 78: 39–51. doi: 10.1007/s10457-009-9247-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tennigkeit C, Windhorst C. 2007. Current situation of AR CDM in East Africa. Report commissioned by the Overseas Plantation Centre for Pulpwood. Kampala: Unique Forestry Consultants.
   Google Scholar
• Tomich TP, de Foresta H, Dennis R, Ketterings Q, Murdiyarso D, Palm C, Stolle F, Suyanto, van Noordwijk M. 2002. Carbon offsets for conservation and development in Indonesia? American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 17: 125–137. doi: 10.1079/AJAA200219
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 1997. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf [accessed 4 September 2015].
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2007. Report of the conference of the parties on its thirteenth session. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf [accessed 4 September 2015].
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2008. Outcome of the Bonn climate change talks. Available at http://unfccc.int/meetings/bonn_june_2008/items/4378.php [accessed 4 September 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Vonada R, Tommie H, Waage S. 2011. Introduction to payments for ecosystem services: a reference book for Uganda. Kampala: Forest Trends and The Katoomba Group.
   Google Scholar
• Wise R, Cacho O. 2005. A bioeconomic analysis of carbon sequestration in farm forestry: a simulation study of Gliricidia sepium. Agroforestry Systems 64: 237–250. doi: 10.1007/s10457-004-3938-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong C, Roy M, Duraiappah AK. 2005. Connecting poverty and ecosystem services: a series of seven country scoping studies: Focus on Uganda. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
   Google Scholar