This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
2007 period, whereas 17.6% of the forest below 1,000 m was lost during that period. Te main land use that replaced forest on mineral soil was agroforestry (31%), with oil palm being the second-largest land-use, replacing forest (19%). Overall, how- ever, 81% of forest loss on mineral soils was converted to land uses other than oil palm.


Te net present value land-use analyses indicate that for all land uses that replaced forest on mineral soils in the Leuser Ecosys- tem (except for oil palm), the net present value is lower than that of the value of avoided CO2


Deforestation on peat soil was driven almost exclusively by palm oil (79%). Te economic analysis shows that the value of avoided deforestation CO2


emissions from above and below ground car- emissions from deforestation.


In other words, 81% of the deforestation on mineral soils could probably have been avoided during the 1985-2007 period if a REDD mechanism had been in place.


bon is higher than that of all other land uses, including that of oil palm plantations (USD 7,832 /ha) for which the range of carbon values are almost entirely higher (USD 7,420-22,094 / ha). Te variation with forest on mineral soil is that here the be- low ground carbon losses over a 25-year period are included as well. But there are still considerable measuring challenges for be- low ground carbon because subsidence, water management, and oxidization across time all have an impact on emissions and no standardized measurement procedures exist as of yet. But, like for forest on mineral soils, if a REDD mechanism had been in place much of the forest loss could perhaps have been avoided.


Figure 5: Values of various land uses on mineral soils (top) and peat (bottom). Values for carbon were calculated according to Butler et al. 2009 model (see Figure 4) using a discount rate of 6.5% and voluntary market prices (mean USD 13.33t/CO2


, range


USD 9.43-17, forest carbon report). Under the fixed scenario the carbon price remains constant during the 25-year period and under the appreciation scenario the price increases with 5% each year during the 25-year period. Net present values for the different land uses are from the Tata and van Noordwijk (2010) and were calculated with a discount rate of 6.5% for a 25-year period. For the carbon calculations potential payments for carbon in land uses other than natural forest were not included be- cause payments for these are still largely under discussion.


63


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84
Produced with Yudu - www.yudu.com