Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Subscribe now for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The economic evaluation of carbon storage and sequestration as ecosystem services of mangroves: a case study from southeastern Brazil

The economic evaluation of carbon storage and sequestration as ecosystem services of mangroves: a... International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 1, 29–35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2014.963676 The economic evaluation of carbon storage and sequestration as ecosystem services of mangroves: a case study from southeastern Brazil Gustavo Calderucio Duque Estrada*, Mário Luiz Gomes Soares, Viviane Fernadez and Paula Maria Moura de Almeida Faculdade de Oceanografia, Departamento de Oceanografia Biológica, Núcleo de Estudos em Manguezais, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524, 4023-E Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil (Submitted 31 July 2013; accepted 5 September 2014; edited by John Smith) Although mangroves are recognized by high capacity of carbon storage and sequestration, few studies have been dedicated to determine the monetary value of this ecosystem service. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to assign monetary values to this service in a protected area (Southeastern Brazil). This economic valuation was performed considering preexisting estimates of carbon storage and sequestration in the aboveground biomass of these forests and average transaction values of carbon credits. The mean values of the service of carbon sequestration varied according to the physiographic type from 19.00 ± 10.00 −1 −1 −1 −1 US$ ha yr (basin forests, high intertidal) to 82.28 ± 32.10 US$ ha yr (fringe forests, low intertidal). Considering the −1 area occupied by each physiographic type, the service of carbon sequestration may be worth up to 455,827 US$ yr . In regard −1 −1 to carbon storage, 3,477,041 US$ are stored in these forests, and values between 104,311 and 208,622 US$ ha yr can be considered as the annual maintenance cost of this service. The income generated by future projects for the maintenance of carbon-related functions may represent a major advance for the conservation of this ecosystem. Keywords: mangrove; monetary value; ecosystem services; carbon sequestration; REDD 1. Introduction the conservation of mangroves. This appeal is even greater since climate change is intensifying (Parry et al. 2007) and Mangroves are coastal forest ecosystems that occur in the international agreements are being signed to reduce and sheltered intertidal zones of the tropical and subtropical offset the emissions of greenhouse gases. regions of the world. They are globally recognized to be of After the Kyoto Protocol, it has become possible for extreme ecological, economic, social, and cultural impor- Certified Emission Reduction from Clean Development tance because of the variety of goods and services they Mechanism (CDM) projects to originate from actions provide, reaching an estimated annual economic value of −2 involving activities of land use, land use change, and more than USD 900,000 km (UNEP-WCMC 2006). forestry. These projects are proposed by companies in Some of the most important goods and services provided partnership with governments and non-governmental orga- by mangroves include the protection of the coastline from nizations in developing countries. However, thus far, only the energy of the winds and waves and the conservation of reforestation and afforestation activities are considered fishing and biodiversity in the coastal and adjacent estuary eligible, and conservation or forest management activities waters (Ewel et al. 1998; Mazda et al. 2005; Nagelkerken in natural systems are not included. Therefore, in the case et al. 2008). of mangroves growing in protected areas, carbon seques- The increased emissions of greenhouse gases, in the tration rates related to tree growth over time cannot be recent decades, has enhanced the society’s perception of converted into official carbon credits in the context of the the social and economic damage that may be caused by Climate Convention, until the Reducing Emissions from climate changes, leading to an increasing interest in mini- Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) methodol- mizing the potential impacts of these changes (Parry et al. ogy is included in the post-Kyoto period. 2007). In this sense, the large contribution of forest and REDD’s intention is that developing countries may be wetland conversion to the global anthropogenic emissions financially rewarded for keeping carbon stored in their of greenhouse gases (17% – van der Werf et al. 2009) natural forests, preventing the economic growth of these draws attention to the need for their conservation and countries to happen at the expense of environmental ser- understanding of their role in carbon sequestration. In the vices promoted by such forests. Although unofficial, the case of mangroves, although there is still considerable contribution of REDD to the volume of tons of CO traded uncertainty in the estimates of the carbon balance in this in voluntary carbon markets has increased over time (Diaz ecosystem (Bouillon et al. 2008), recent studies have et al. 2011). These voluntary transactions are being carried shown their potential for carbon storage (Donato et al. out in an attempt to secure a market reserve after the 2011; McLeod et al. 2011). Thus, the function of carbon regulation of REDD in the ambit of the Climate storage and sequestration adds another reason in favor of *Corresponding author. Email: gustavo.estrada@uerj.br © 2014 Taylor & Francis 30 G.C.D. Estrada et al. Convention. Diaz et al. (2011) showed that in 2007, the annual temperature of 23.5°C and average annual rainfall volume of CO (sum of all greenhouse gas emissions of 1067 mm, with the months of the highest rainfall 2e equivalent to the potential contribution of CO to the between January and March and the driest months greenhouse effect) negotiated from REDD projects was between June and August (Estrada et al. 2008). The tidal 1.2 million tCO , while in 2010, this value increased to regime is microtidal with a range of less than 2 m. 2e 19.5 million tCO . This increase was not observed in Because of the existence of an extensive coastal plain, the 2e afforestation and reforestation projects, which went from structure of the mangrove forests in Guaratiba varies accord- 3.5 million tCO in 2007 to 5.8 million tCO in 2010. ing to the frequency of tidal flooding and to the relative 2e 2e The aim of this study is to assign monetary values to position of the sources of continental drainage (river and the service provided by mangrove ecosystems regarding groundwater). These factors enable the identification of carbon storage and sequestration in a protected area, con- three physiographic types: fringe (high frequency of tidal sidering approaches related to the CDM and REDD. flooding); basin (intermediate-to-low frequency); and transi- tion with salt flats, where mangroves develop a shrub growth form due to the low frequency of tidal flooding and the 2. Methods resulting high salinity (Estrada et al. 2013). According to these authors, such forests are characterized by a gradient of 2.1. Study area reduction of the structural development from the fringe to the The mangrove of the Guaratiba State Biological Reserve transition forests (Table 1). In the same direction, interstitial (Figure 1), located in the Sepetiba Bay, southeast coast of water salinity increases (Table 1) as a response to a gradually Brazil (23.00°S, 43.57°W), was used as a case study. lower tidal flooding frequency. Among the species found in Almeida et al. (2011) estimated the total area of man- this region, R. mangle and A. schaueriana alternate as domi- groves in this protected area to be 4290 ha, with 3356 ha nants in the fringe, basin, and transition forests, depending on of mangrove forests and 934 ha of salt flats. Three typical the prevailing environmental conditions. The contribution of mangrove species are found in the study area: Avicennia L. racemosa is considerably low, with the exception of some schaueriana, Laguncularia racemosa, and Rhizophora transition forests located upstream of the Piracão river. mangle. The climate in Guaratiba is defined by an average Figure 1. Map of the study area (Biological Reserve of Guaratiba, SE-Brazil), indicating the distribution of mangrove forests, salt flats, and water bodies. Table 1. Mean (± standard deviation) structural parameters and mean interstitial water salinity of the mangrove forests of the Biological Reserve of Guaratiba (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) per physiographic type. Data obtained from Estrada et al. (2013) under permission. a −1 b Physiographic type n Density (trunks ha ) Mean dbh (cm) Mean height (m) Mean salinity Fringe 21 5895 ± 9399 10.1 ± 3.8 7.4 ± 2.3 35.3 ± 7.3 Basin 31 10,260 ± 8554 5.8 ± 2.0 5.0 ± 1.8 40.9 ± 7.5 Transition 18 19,001 ± 14,426 3.0 ± 1.6 2.0 ± 1.2 42.2 ± 10.1 a b Notes: Sample size (number of plots); From measurements taken seasonally (once in each season) between 2008 and 2010. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 31 2.2. Carbon storage and sequestration independent variable (Table 2). The rates of carbon sequestration were calculated from the increment of To conduct this study, data on carbon storage and seques- AGB resulting from growth and recruitment and presented tration in the aboveground biomass (AGB) were obtained −1 −1 as tC ha year . Since two of the four authors we cite as from Estrada (2013). Since this reference is a PhD thesis in a source for carbon sequestration monetary values use Portuguese, we present below a detailed summary of its CO instead of C, we also present in Table 3 the rates of methodology. Carbon storage was estimated from 94 plots −1 −1 carbon sequestration in tCO ha year , which includes (mean size of 250 m ), the same plots that were used by the atomic molecular mass of O . The means of carbon Estrada et al. (2013) for structural characterization. Those storage and sequestration per physiographic type are pre- plots were established along the gradients of tidal flooding sented in Tables 3 and 4. frequency (see Estrada et al. 2013 for microtopography data) and distributed into 16 transects that extended from the margin of the estuary (low intertidal zone) to the salt flat (high intertidal zone). The plots were classified into physio- 2.3. Mangrove area estimation graphic types according to the height above mean sea level In order to proceed with the valuation for the system as a and the distance from the water body. At each plot, AGB whole, the values of carbon storage and sequestration were was estimated from specific allometric models developed multiplied by the area (total and by physiographic type) of by Soares and Schaeffer-Novelli (2005)and Estrada et al. the study area. Area estimation had a global accuracy of (2014). Those models were developed from regression ana- 77% and was presented previously by Almeida et al. lysis and estimate AGB of each tree from height, dbh (2011) and was based on the method of object-based (diameter at breast height, or 130 cm), and basal area. classification, using eCognition software, IKONOS ima- From the several types of allometric models presented by gery (from 2002) and field data. The physiographic types those authors for each species, the most precise and accu- were mapped considering both spectral differences (in rate ones were selected (lowest standard error of estimation response to structural characteristics) and distance from – SEE; highest coefficient of determination R )(Table 2). the estuary and salt flat. The areas determined by these The AGB of the whole plot was obtained from the sum of authors were: total = 3356 ha; fringe = 305 ha; the biomass of each tree. Carbon storage was then con- basin = 2470 ha; and transition = 582 ha. verted from AGB considering a carbon content of 45%, as suggested by Twilley et al. (1992), and presented as −1 tC ha . Means of carbon storage per physiographic type 2.4. Monetary valuation of carbon storage and (Fringe = 31; Basin = 41; Transition = 22) were calculated sequestration considering the same classification of the plots presented by Estrada et al. (2013). The monetary values for carbon storage and sequestration Carbon sequestration in the AGB was estimated in 30 were calculated using two approaches: the first one took of the 94 plots used for carbon storage (Fringe = 12; into account the carbon sequestration rates derived from the Basin = 12; Transition = 06). The permanent plots were increment of AGB, following the reasoning applied to the monitored annually, between 2003 and 2012. Since height CDM and proposed by Kairo et al. (2009); and the second is more variable throughout the time and less precise than one tookintoaccount the conservationofcarbonstorage in dbh, AGB estimation for carbon sequestration was the protected area, according to the reasoning applicable to restricted to allometric models that present dbh as the REDD and proposed by Medeiros et al. (2011). Table 2. Allometric models used to estimate aboveground biomass (AGB, in grams) of live and dead trees and subsequent calculation of carbon storage and sequestration. Species Allometric model R SEE AGB of live trees A. schaueriana Ln(TOTAL) = 4.8017 + 2.5282 x Ln(dbh) 0.994 0.187 b 2 L. racemosa Ln(TOTAL) = 14.2536 + 0.4985 x Ln(BA x Ht) 0.987 0.194 b,c L. racemosa Ln(TOTAL) = 5.2394 + 2.2792 x Ln(dbh) 0.986 0.204 b 2 R. mangle Ln(TOTAL) = 14.9105 + 0.5261 x Ln(BA x Ht) 0.991 0.171 b,c R. mangle Ln(TOTAL) = 5.2985 + 2.4810 x Ln(dbh) 0.989 0.182 AGB of dead trees A. schaueriana Ln(TR + MBr) = 4.4117 + 2.5578 x Ln(dbh) 0.992 0.227 L. racemosa Ln(TR + MBr) = 4.9308 + 2.2951 x Ln(dbh) 0.989 0.181 R. mangle Ln(TR + PR) = 4.9851 + 2.5142 x Ln(dbh) 0.984 0.227 a b c Notes: Developed by Estrada et al. (2014); Developed by Soares and Schaeffer-Novelli (2005); Used only for carbon sequestration; R = adjusted coefficient of determination; SEE = standard error of estimation; dbh = diameter at breast height (cm); Ht = height (m); BA = basal area (m ); TOTAL = total AGB of a tree; TR + MBr = AGB of the trunk + main branches; TR + PR = AGB of the trunk + prop roots. 32 G.C.D. Estrada et al. The prices assigned for carbon or CO incorporated or maintained in the vegetation were obtained from Hamilton et al. (2010) and Diaz et al. (2011), who reviewed the global market for forest carbon, Kairo et al. (2009), who studied mangrove forests plantations in Kenya, and Medeiros et al. (2011), who analyzed the value of the carbon storage in the Brazilian conservation units. Hamilton et al. (2010), while performing an analysis on the global forest carbon market (taking as reference 226 forest projects in 40 countries) in voluntary and regular markets, observed that the prices for forest carbon credits −1 −1 ranged from US$ 0.65 tCO to around US$ 50 tCO . 2e 2e In approximately 20 years, the weighted average of the prices of carbon, considering the volume of tons of CO in −1 each project, was US$ 7.88 tCO . Diaz et al. (2011) 2e updated this analysis and found that the average price of offsets through the primary markets for forest carbon −1 increased from US$ 3.80tCO in 2008 to US$ 2e −1 −1 4.50tCO in 2009 and US$ 5.50tCO in 2010. 2e 2e Because of the increasing importance of REDD, the market has established, as a fundamental requirement for a wide appreciation among buyers, that the projects should provide benefits for both biodiversity and local commu- nities. Thus, the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity (CCB) certificate, conceived by the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance, a consortium of international non-governmental organizations, has been increasingly considered. The CCB certification standards do not gen- erate tradable credits but assess social and environmental issues, and the generation of co-benefits for local communities. Around 53% of all the projects that take into account co-benefits and were evaluated on the basis of the CCB standards also received the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) certification (Diaz et al. 2011) that specifically assesses the carbon calculations and methodological- related issues. Hence, besides the average market value −1 of US$ 5.50tCO in 2010, for Guaratiba, the median 2e −1 price for the VCS standard (US$ 8.50tCO ) was also 2e used. Kairo et al. (2009) used the estimate published by −1 Niles et al. (2002) of US$ 10.00tC for mangrove forest plantations in Kenya. This price was set by Niles et al. (2002) as the default for the reforestation interventions of degraded areas in order to avoid deforestation and for sustainable agricultural practices. Medeiros et al. (2011) used the standard value of US$ −1 18.00tC , quoted as an average of the value of forest carbon transactions in the major global markets. In addi- tion to the carbon storage value, annual rental taxes were also estimated for the current study. According to these authors, rental taxes should be considered for the compen- sation of the economic activities that could not be devel- oped in the areas reserved for conservation due to legal restrictions; that is, it could be set from the opportunity cost of capital in real terms, discounted for inflation. The rental rates corresponded to 3 or 6% of the total carbon storage value and were also applied in the present study. Table 3. Monetary values of the service of carbon sequestration based on the average prices of carbon credits presented by Diaz et al. (2011), Hamilton et al. (2010), Medeiros et al. (2011), and Kairo et al. (2009). Fringe forests (n = 48) Basin forests (n = 46) Transition forests (n = 22) Min. Mean ± SD Max. Min. Mean ± SD Max. Min. Mean ± SD Max. −1 −1 a Carbon sequestration (tC Ha yr ) 0.64 2.64 ± 1.03 4.63 0.46 1.90 ± 1.00 4.10 0.26 2.39 ± 1.45 5.31 −1 −1 a CO sequestration (tCO ha yr ) 2.35 9.68 ± 3.78 16.98 1.69 6.97 ± 3.67 15.03 0.95 8.76 ± 5.32 19.47 2 2 −1 −1 Monetary value (US$ ha yr ) b −1 Diaz et al. (2011) : 8.5 US$ tCO 19.95 82.28 ± 32.10 144.30 14.34 59.22 ± 31.17 127.78 8.10 74.49 ± 45.19 165.50 −1 Hamilton et al. (2010): 7.88 US$ tCO 18.49 76.28 ± 29.76 133.78 13.29 54.90 ± 28.89 118.46 7.51 69.06 ± 41.90 153.42 −1 Diaz et al. (2011): 5.5 US$ tCO 12.91 53.24 ± 20.77 93.37 9.28 38.32 ± 20.17 82.68 5.24 48.20 ± 29.24 107.09 −1 Medeiros et al. (2011): 18 US$ tC 11.52 47.52 ± 18.54 83.34 8.28 34.20 ± 18.00 73.80 4.68 43.02 ± 26.10 95.58 −1 Kairo et al. (2009): 10 US$ tC 6.40 26.40 ± 10.30 46.30 4.60 19.00 ± 10.00 41.00 2.60 23.90 ± 14.50 53.10 −1 c Total area monetary value (US$ yr ) 1949 17,398 ± 6894 43,933 11,364 12,521 ± 4962 315,666 1512 15,750 ± 6241 96,228 a b c Notes: Based on Estrada (2013) data; Considering only VCS projects; Based on Almeida et al. (2011) data. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 33 Table 4. Monetary values of the service of carbon storage and annual cost of maintenance of the carbon storage (annual rental tax), based on the approach of Medeiros et al. (2011). Fringe forests Basin forests Transition forests Total −1 a Carbon storage (tC ha ) 92.56 60.70 25.87 – Area (ha) 304.46 2470.33 581.46 3356.24 Total area carbon storage (tC) 28,181.58 149,946.27 15,041.11 193,168.95 Monetary value (US$) 507,268 2,699,033 270,740 3,477,041 −1 (Medeiros et al. 2011: 18 US$ tC ) Annual rental tax (3%) 15,218 80,971 8122 104,311 Annual rental tax (6%) 30,436 161,942 16,244 208,623 a b Notes: Based on Estrada (2013)data; Based on Almeida et al. (2011) data. 3. Results The economic value (US$ 3.5 million) of carbon sto- rage in the 3356 ha of the Guaratiba mangrove forests The mean values of the service of carbon sequestration −1 −1 would be higher if belowground biomass (roots) and soil varied from 19.00 ± 10.00 US$ ha yr in the basin −1 −1 were included. If the best estimates in the literature for the forests to 82.28 ± 32.10 US$ ha yr in the fringe forests −1 : average of the carbon storage in roots (54.95 tC ha (Table 3). Considering the total area occupied by each values compiled by Komiyama et al. 2008) and soil physiographic type in Guaratiba, we obtain values of up −1 −1 −1 (552.4 tC ha : global average for a depth of 1 m pre- to 43,933 US$ yr in the fringe forests; 315,666 US$ yr −1 sented by Chmura et al. 2003) of mangroves are applied to in the basin forests; and 96,228 US$ yr in the transition the Guaratiba mangrove forests, the economic value for forests. Thus, the total value of the Guaratiba mangrove −1 the maintenance of carbon storage would increase up to forests would be up to 455,827 US$ yr . US$ 40,168,423. Regarding the value of carbon storage, we estimate However, it would still be possible to question whether that US$ 3.5 million are stored in the AGB of the the preservation of the Guaratiba mangroves would be Guaratiba mangrove forests and that between 104,000 −1 economically viable in the face of other possibilities of and 209,000 US$ yr would be the amount for the annual use. In this regard, Siikamäki et al. (2012)demonstrated maintenance cost (or rental tax) of this storage (Table 4). −1 −1 that, up to a value of 10 US$ tCO (37 US$ tC ), REDD projects in mangroves are economically viable in compar- 4. Discussion ison with the reduction of emissions in the industrial and The maximum values found for carbon sequestration rate energy sectors, which determines the price of carbon credits in the three physiographic types in Guaratiba (Table 3) of the European Union’s Emissions Trading System – EU −1 were close to the value found by Kairo et al. (2009) for a ETS: between 10 and 20 US$ tCO . Therefore, consider- 12-year-old plantation of R. mucronata in Kenya (44.42 ing that the estimation of US$ 40 million for the Guaratiba −1 −1 US$ ha yr ) if the monetary value per ton of seques- mangroves was derived from an average carbon value of 18 −1 tered carbon presented by the same authors was used. If US$ tC (Medeiros et al. 2011), we could suggest that their the average values were considered, this proportion would conservation, only for the maintenance of the carbon sto- decrease to 35–45% of the value of Kairo et al. (2009). rage, is economically viable. If we also consider that man- This difference could be explained, in part, by the lower groves provide a wide variety of goods and services (Ewel age of the managed forests that were considered by these et al. 1998; Mazda et al. 2005; Nagelkerken et al. 2008), the authors, since young forests tend to present higher pro- economic value of this ecosystem would be greater. Besides ductivity levels than mature forests (Kira & Shidei 1967; the values of direct or indirect use, the values of non-use, Whittaker & Woodwell 1967; Binkley et al. 2002). The related to the very existence of the system and to the fact that transition forests presented higher mean values of intention that it remains preserved as a legacy for future carbon sequestration (and thus higher monetary values for generations (Soares 2002), should also be acknowledged. this service) than basin forests and higher maximum The protected areas of Brazil are managed by the muni- values than both fringe and basin forests despite being cipal, state, or federal government and generally lack finan- exposed to lower tidal flooding frequency and higher cial resources, which limits the ability to manage them. The salinity (Estrada et al. 2013; Table 1) is surprising and Guaratiba State Biological Reserve is managed by the Rio indicates that other factors not related to edaphic condi- de Janeiro State Government, through its Environmental tions may be driving this pattern. A possible explanation Institute, but it has no resources of its own and a poor for this pattern is that transition forests are younger than infrastructure, which translates into a low management basin and fringe forests and hence present higher produc- capacity of the area. This limitation makes it highly vulner- tivity, as mentioned before. This hypothesis, which is able to urban expansion, since it is located in the metropo- partially supported by Estrada et al. (2013), will be tested litan area of Rio de Janeiro, on the route of one of the main in future studies. expansion areas of the city of Rio de Janeiro. Thus, the 34 G.C.D. Estrada et al. payment for the service of carbon storage and sequestration, References directly and/or through the payment of annual rental taxes, Almeida PMM, Soares MLG, Estrada GCD, Fernandez V, Santos DMC, Machado MRO, Estevam MRM, Rodrigues DP. 2011. could generate an annual revenue between 117,169 and −1 A aplicação de sistemas de informação geográfica no mapea- 593,609 US$ yr considering annual rental taxes and the mento de tipos fisiográficos de manguezais. Paper presented monetary value of the service of carbon sequestration. Such at: XIV Congresso Latino-Americano de Ciências do Mar; resources could be applied on the improvement of the Balneário Camboriú-SC, Brazil. reserve management infrastructure, reducing the vulnerabil- Beymer-Farris BA, Bassett TJ. 2012. The REDD menace: resur- gent protectionism in Tanzania’s mangrove forests. Glob ity to the impacts caused by urban expansion. Environ Chang. 22:332–341. Even if raising financial resources for the conservation Binkley D, Stape JL, Ryan MG, Barnard HR, Fownes J. 2002. of the entire ecosystem seems beneficial, several authors Age-related decline in forest ecosystem growth: an indivi- (McAfee 1999; Igoe & Brockington 2007; Kosoy & dual-tree, stand-structure hypothesis. Ecosystems. 5:58–67. Corbera 2010; Büscher et al. 2012; Corbera 2012) warn Bouillon S, Borges AV, Castañeda-Moya E, Diele K, Dittmar T, Duke NC, Kristensen E, Lee SY, Marchand C, Middelburg about the dangers of changing the logic of conservation by JJ, et al. 2008. Mangrove production and carbon sinks: a the commodification of certain ecosystem functions. The revision of global budget estimates. Glob Biogeochem change consists of replacing the old ethical and inter-gen- Cycles. 22:1–12. erational argument that nature needs to be managed and Büscher B, Sullivan S, Neves K, Igoe J, Brockington D. 2012. protected for the survival of ecosystems and species, with Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capital. Nat Social. 23:4–30. one that prioritizes some elements of nature that seem Chmura GL, Anisfeld SC, Cahoon DR, Lynch JC. 2003. Global useful to humans. Assigning a monetary value to an eco- carbon sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils. Glob system service heavily depends on scientific measure- Biogeochem Cycles. 17:1–12. ments and threatens to compromise other sources of Corbera E. 2012. Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in valuation, such as those from local communities that payments for ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 4:612–619. depend directly on the forests. Thus, because of the De Paula EA, Morais MJ. 2012. O conflito está no ar: povos da power asymmetries, the valuation process may generate Floresta e espoliação sob o capitalismo verde. Paper pre- socio-environmental conflicts between those interested in sented at: 36º Encontro Anual da ANPOCS. Resumos do carbon storage and the communities (Jindal 2004;De 36º Encontro Anual da ANPOCS; Águas de Lindóia, Brazil. Paula & Morais 2012; Packer 2012), as described by Diaz D, Hamilton K, Johnson E. 2011. State of the forest carbon markets 2011: from canopy to currency. Washington (DC): Beymer-Farris and Bassett (2012) for the mangrove forests Ecosystem Marketplace/Forest Trends; p. 70. in Tanzania. We thus position ourselves cautiously with Donato DC, Kauffman JB, Murdiyarso D, Kurnianto S, Stidham respect to the market mechanisms and to the possibility of M, Kanninen M. 2011. Mangroves among the most carbon- offsetting emissions. As suggested by Corbera (2012), a rich forests in the tropics. Nat Geosci. 4:293–297. global fund of ecological debt could be constituted where Estrada GCD. 2013. Análise espaço-temporal do sequestro e do estoque de carbono na biomassa aérea de manguezais [Ph.D. the developed countries finance the development with thesis]. Rio de Janeiro (RJ): Programa de Pós-Graduação em conservation in developing countries, as long as the latter Ecologia/Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. develop their own environmental agendas and are not Estrada GCD, Callado CH, Soares MLG, Lisi CS. 2008. Annual conditioned to the carbon market. growth rings in the mangrove Laguncularia racemosa In the present study, monetary values were assigned to (Combretaceae). Trees. 22:663–670. Estrada GCD, Soares MLG, Chaves FO, Cavalcanti VF. 2013. the service provided by the mangroves of Guaratiba regard- Analysis of the structural variability of mangrove forests ing of carbon storage and sequestration, considering the through the physiographic types approach. Aquat Bot. reasoning of both CDM and REDD. The results showed 111:135–143. that the economic values of this ecosystem service vary Estrada GCD, Soares MLG, Santos DMC, Fernandez V, Almeida according to the physiographic type (fringe, basin, and tran- PMM, Estevam MRM, Machado MRO. 2014. Allometric models for aboveground biomass estimation of the mangrove sition forests) and to the area occupied by each physiographic Avicennia schaueriana. Hydrobiologia. 734:171–185. type. Based on these results, it is highly recommended that Ewel KC, Zheng S, Pinzón ZS, Bourgeois JA. 1998. future studies about the economic valuation of carbon storage Environmental effects of canopy gap formation in high – in mangroves take into account the spatial variability of the rainfall mangrove forests. Biotropica. 30:510–518. system (e.g., different physiognomies, physiographic types, Hamilton K, Chokkalingam U, Bendana M. 2010. State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2009: taking Root & Branching Out. or successional stages). Since developing countries generally Washington (DC): Ecosystem Marketplace/Forest Trends; p. lack financial resources to sustain long-term environmental management actions, the income resulting from REDD or Igoe J, Brockington D. 2007. Neoliberal conservation: a brief CDM projects could be an important way of improving the introduction. Conserv Soc. 5:534–561. conservation status of mangroves. Jindal R. 2004. Measuring the socio-economic impact of carbon sequestration on local communities: an assessment study with specific reference to the Nhambita pilot project in Mozambique [dissertation]. Edinburgh: Department of Funding Resource Management, University of Edinburgh. The authors are thankful to International Foundation for Science Kairo JG, Wanjiru C, Ochiewo J. 2009. Net pay: economic and Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica for providing financial analysis of a replanted mangrove plantation in Kenya. J support. Sustain For. 28:395–414. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 35 Kira T, Shidei T. 1967. Primary production and turnover of Packer L. 2012. Inside a champion. an analysis of the Brazilian organic matter in different forest ecosystems of the Western development model. Publication series on democracy. Rio de Pacific. Jpn J Ecol. 17:70–87. Janeiro (RJ): Heinrich Böll Foundation. From Nature to Komiyama A, Ong JE, Poungparn S. 2008. Allometry, biomass, Natural Capital. How New Legal and Financial Mechanisms and productivity of mangrove forests: a review. Aquat Bot. Create a Market for the Green Economy; p. 114–128. 89:128–137. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson Kosoy N, Corbera E. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as CE. 2007. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ. 69:1228–1236. vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth Mazda Y, Kobashi D, Okada S. 2005. Tidal-scale hydrodynamics assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate within mangrove swamps. Wetl Ecol Manag. 13:647–655. change. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; McAfee K. 1999. Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and p. 976. green developmentalism. Environ Plan Soc Space. Siikamäki J, Sanchirico JN, Jardine SL. 2012. Global economic 17:203–219. potential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from man- McLeod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Björk M, Duarte grove loss. P Natl Acad Sci-Biol. 109:14369–14374. CM, Lovelock CE, Schlesinger WH, Silliman BR. 2011. A Soares MLG. 2002. Ética e Sustentabilidade. Rio de Janeiro (RJ): blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding E-Papers Serviços Editoriais. Parte II, Ética e conservação da of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. diversidade biológica; p. 99–132. Front Ecol Environ. 9:552–560. Soares MLG, Schaeffer-Novelli Y. 2005. Above-ground biomass Medeiros R, Young CEF, Pavese HB, Araújo FFS. 2011. of mangrove species. I. Analysis of models. Estuar Coast Contribuição das unidades de conservação brasileiras para a Shelf Sci. 65:1–18. economia nacional: sumário Executivo. Brasília DF, Brazil: Twilley RR, Chen RH, Hargis T. 1992. Carbon sinks in man- United Nations Environment Program-World Conservation groves and their implications to carbon budget of tropical Monitoring Center; p. 44. coastal ecosystems. Water Air Soil Pollut. 64:265–288. Nagelkerken I, Blaber SJM, Bouillon S, Green P, Haywood M, [UNEP-WCMC] United Nations Environment Project-World Kirton LG, Meynecke JO, Pawlik J, Penrose HM, Sasekumar Conservation Monitoring Centre. 2006. Shoreline protection A, Somerfield PJ. 2008. The habitat function of mangroves and other ecosystem services from mangroves and coral for terrestrial and marine fauna: a review. Aquat Bot. reefs. Cambridge (UK): UNEP-WCMC; p. 33. 89:155–185. van der Werf GR, Morton DC, De Fries RS, Olivier JGJ, Niles JO, Brown S, Pretty J, Ball A, Fay J. 2002. Potential Kasibhatla PS, Jackson RB, Collatz GJ, Randerson JT. 2009. carbon mitigation and income in developing countries from CO emissions from forest loss. Nat Geosci. 2:737–738. changes in use and management of agricultural and forest Whittaker RH, Woodwell GM. 1967. Surface area relations of lands. Phil Trans R Soc Lond A. 360:1621–1639. woody plants and forest communities. Am J Bot. 54:931–939. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management Taylor & Francis

The economic evaluation of carbon storage and sequestration as ecosystem services of mangroves: a case study from southeastern Brazil

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/the-economic-evaluation-of-carbon-storage-and-sequestration-as-hPpQ5Zt4Mj

References (37)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
ISSN
2151-3732
eISSN
2151-3740
DOI
10.1080/21513732.2014.963676
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2015 Vol. 11, No. 1, 29–35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2014.963676 The economic evaluation of carbon storage and sequestration as ecosystem services of mangroves: a case study from southeastern Brazil Gustavo Calderucio Duque Estrada*, Mário Luiz Gomes Soares, Viviane Fernadez and Paula Maria Moura de Almeida Faculdade de Oceanografia, Departamento de Oceanografia Biológica, Núcleo de Estudos em Manguezais, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524, 4023-E Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil (Submitted 31 July 2013; accepted 5 September 2014; edited by John Smith) Although mangroves are recognized by high capacity of carbon storage and sequestration, few studies have been dedicated to determine the monetary value of this ecosystem service. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to assign monetary values to this service in a protected area (Southeastern Brazil). This economic valuation was performed considering preexisting estimates of carbon storage and sequestration in the aboveground biomass of these forests and average transaction values of carbon credits. The mean values of the service of carbon sequestration varied according to the physiographic type from 19.00 ± 10.00 −1 −1 −1 −1 US$ ha yr (basin forests, high intertidal) to 82.28 ± 32.10 US$ ha yr (fringe forests, low intertidal). Considering the −1 area occupied by each physiographic type, the service of carbon sequestration may be worth up to 455,827 US$ yr . In regard −1 −1 to carbon storage, 3,477,041 US$ are stored in these forests, and values between 104,311 and 208,622 US$ ha yr can be considered as the annual maintenance cost of this service. The income generated by future projects for the maintenance of carbon-related functions may represent a major advance for the conservation of this ecosystem. Keywords: mangrove; monetary value; ecosystem services; carbon sequestration; REDD 1. Introduction the conservation of mangroves. This appeal is even greater since climate change is intensifying (Parry et al. 2007) and Mangroves are coastal forest ecosystems that occur in the international agreements are being signed to reduce and sheltered intertidal zones of the tropical and subtropical offset the emissions of greenhouse gases. regions of the world. They are globally recognized to be of After the Kyoto Protocol, it has become possible for extreme ecological, economic, social, and cultural impor- Certified Emission Reduction from Clean Development tance because of the variety of goods and services they Mechanism (CDM) projects to originate from actions provide, reaching an estimated annual economic value of −2 involving activities of land use, land use change, and more than USD 900,000 km (UNEP-WCMC 2006). forestry. These projects are proposed by companies in Some of the most important goods and services provided partnership with governments and non-governmental orga- by mangroves include the protection of the coastline from nizations in developing countries. However, thus far, only the energy of the winds and waves and the conservation of reforestation and afforestation activities are considered fishing and biodiversity in the coastal and adjacent estuary eligible, and conservation or forest management activities waters (Ewel et al. 1998; Mazda et al. 2005; Nagelkerken in natural systems are not included. Therefore, in the case et al. 2008). of mangroves growing in protected areas, carbon seques- The increased emissions of greenhouse gases, in the tration rates related to tree growth over time cannot be recent decades, has enhanced the society’s perception of converted into official carbon credits in the context of the the social and economic damage that may be caused by Climate Convention, until the Reducing Emissions from climate changes, leading to an increasing interest in mini- Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) methodol- mizing the potential impacts of these changes (Parry et al. ogy is included in the post-Kyoto period. 2007). In this sense, the large contribution of forest and REDD’s intention is that developing countries may be wetland conversion to the global anthropogenic emissions financially rewarded for keeping carbon stored in their of greenhouse gases (17% – van der Werf et al. 2009) natural forests, preventing the economic growth of these draws attention to the need for their conservation and countries to happen at the expense of environmental ser- understanding of their role in carbon sequestration. In the vices promoted by such forests. Although unofficial, the case of mangroves, although there is still considerable contribution of REDD to the volume of tons of CO traded uncertainty in the estimates of the carbon balance in this in voluntary carbon markets has increased over time (Diaz ecosystem (Bouillon et al. 2008), recent studies have et al. 2011). These voluntary transactions are being carried shown their potential for carbon storage (Donato et al. out in an attempt to secure a market reserve after the 2011; McLeod et al. 2011). Thus, the function of carbon regulation of REDD in the ambit of the Climate storage and sequestration adds another reason in favor of *Corresponding author. Email: gustavo.estrada@uerj.br © 2014 Taylor & Francis 30 G.C.D. Estrada et al. Convention. Diaz et al. (2011) showed that in 2007, the annual temperature of 23.5°C and average annual rainfall volume of CO (sum of all greenhouse gas emissions of 1067 mm, with the months of the highest rainfall 2e equivalent to the potential contribution of CO to the between January and March and the driest months greenhouse effect) negotiated from REDD projects was between June and August (Estrada et al. 2008). The tidal 1.2 million tCO , while in 2010, this value increased to regime is microtidal with a range of less than 2 m. 2e 19.5 million tCO . This increase was not observed in Because of the existence of an extensive coastal plain, the 2e afforestation and reforestation projects, which went from structure of the mangrove forests in Guaratiba varies accord- 3.5 million tCO in 2007 to 5.8 million tCO in 2010. ing to the frequency of tidal flooding and to the relative 2e 2e The aim of this study is to assign monetary values to position of the sources of continental drainage (river and the service provided by mangrove ecosystems regarding groundwater). These factors enable the identification of carbon storage and sequestration in a protected area, con- three physiographic types: fringe (high frequency of tidal sidering approaches related to the CDM and REDD. flooding); basin (intermediate-to-low frequency); and transi- tion with salt flats, where mangroves develop a shrub growth form due to the low frequency of tidal flooding and the 2. Methods resulting high salinity (Estrada et al. 2013). According to these authors, such forests are characterized by a gradient of 2.1. Study area reduction of the structural development from the fringe to the The mangrove of the Guaratiba State Biological Reserve transition forests (Table 1). In the same direction, interstitial (Figure 1), located in the Sepetiba Bay, southeast coast of water salinity increases (Table 1) as a response to a gradually Brazil (23.00°S, 43.57°W), was used as a case study. lower tidal flooding frequency. Among the species found in Almeida et al. (2011) estimated the total area of man- this region, R. mangle and A. schaueriana alternate as domi- groves in this protected area to be 4290 ha, with 3356 ha nants in the fringe, basin, and transition forests, depending on of mangrove forests and 934 ha of salt flats. Three typical the prevailing environmental conditions. The contribution of mangrove species are found in the study area: Avicennia L. racemosa is considerably low, with the exception of some schaueriana, Laguncularia racemosa, and Rhizophora transition forests located upstream of the Piracão river. mangle. The climate in Guaratiba is defined by an average Figure 1. Map of the study area (Biological Reserve of Guaratiba, SE-Brazil), indicating the distribution of mangrove forests, salt flats, and water bodies. Table 1. Mean (± standard deviation) structural parameters and mean interstitial water salinity of the mangrove forests of the Biological Reserve of Guaratiba (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) per physiographic type. Data obtained from Estrada et al. (2013) under permission. a −1 b Physiographic type n Density (trunks ha ) Mean dbh (cm) Mean height (m) Mean salinity Fringe 21 5895 ± 9399 10.1 ± 3.8 7.4 ± 2.3 35.3 ± 7.3 Basin 31 10,260 ± 8554 5.8 ± 2.0 5.0 ± 1.8 40.9 ± 7.5 Transition 18 19,001 ± 14,426 3.0 ± 1.6 2.0 ± 1.2 42.2 ± 10.1 a b Notes: Sample size (number of plots); From measurements taken seasonally (once in each season) between 2008 and 2010. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 31 2.2. Carbon storage and sequestration independent variable (Table 2). The rates of carbon sequestration were calculated from the increment of To conduct this study, data on carbon storage and seques- AGB resulting from growth and recruitment and presented tration in the aboveground biomass (AGB) were obtained −1 −1 as tC ha year . Since two of the four authors we cite as from Estrada (2013). Since this reference is a PhD thesis in a source for carbon sequestration monetary values use Portuguese, we present below a detailed summary of its CO instead of C, we also present in Table 3 the rates of methodology. Carbon storage was estimated from 94 plots −1 −1 carbon sequestration in tCO ha year , which includes (mean size of 250 m ), the same plots that were used by the atomic molecular mass of O . The means of carbon Estrada et al. (2013) for structural characterization. Those storage and sequestration per physiographic type are pre- plots were established along the gradients of tidal flooding sented in Tables 3 and 4. frequency (see Estrada et al. 2013 for microtopography data) and distributed into 16 transects that extended from the margin of the estuary (low intertidal zone) to the salt flat (high intertidal zone). The plots were classified into physio- 2.3. Mangrove area estimation graphic types according to the height above mean sea level In order to proceed with the valuation for the system as a and the distance from the water body. At each plot, AGB whole, the values of carbon storage and sequestration were was estimated from specific allometric models developed multiplied by the area (total and by physiographic type) of by Soares and Schaeffer-Novelli (2005)and Estrada et al. the study area. Area estimation had a global accuracy of (2014). Those models were developed from regression ana- 77% and was presented previously by Almeida et al. lysis and estimate AGB of each tree from height, dbh (2011) and was based on the method of object-based (diameter at breast height, or 130 cm), and basal area. classification, using eCognition software, IKONOS ima- From the several types of allometric models presented by gery (from 2002) and field data. The physiographic types those authors for each species, the most precise and accu- were mapped considering both spectral differences (in rate ones were selected (lowest standard error of estimation response to structural characteristics) and distance from – SEE; highest coefficient of determination R )(Table 2). the estuary and salt flat. The areas determined by these The AGB of the whole plot was obtained from the sum of authors were: total = 3356 ha; fringe = 305 ha; the biomass of each tree. Carbon storage was then con- basin = 2470 ha; and transition = 582 ha. verted from AGB considering a carbon content of 45%, as suggested by Twilley et al. (1992), and presented as −1 tC ha . Means of carbon storage per physiographic type 2.4. Monetary valuation of carbon storage and (Fringe = 31; Basin = 41; Transition = 22) were calculated sequestration considering the same classification of the plots presented by Estrada et al. (2013). The monetary values for carbon storage and sequestration Carbon sequestration in the AGB was estimated in 30 were calculated using two approaches: the first one took of the 94 plots used for carbon storage (Fringe = 12; into account the carbon sequestration rates derived from the Basin = 12; Transition = 06). The permanent plots were increment of AGB, following the reasoning applied to the monitored annually, between 2003 and 2012. Since height CDM and proposed by Kairo et al. (2009); and the second is more variable throughout the time and less precise than one tookintoaccount the conservationofcarbonstorage in dbh, AGB estimation for carbon sequestration was the protected area, according to the reasoning applicable to restricted to allometric models that present dbh as the REDD and proposed by Medeiros et al. (2011). Table 2. Allometric models used to estimate aboveground biomass (AGB, in grams) of live and dead trees and subsequent calculation of carbon storage and sequestration. Species Allometric model R SEE AGB of live trees A. schaueriana Ln(TOTAL) = 4.8017 + 2.5282 x Ln(dbh) 0.994 0.187 b 2 L. racemosa Ln(TOTAL) = 14.2536 + 0.4985 x Ln(BA x Ht) 0.987 0.194 b,c L. racemosa Ln(TOTAL) = 5.2394 + 2.2792 x Ln(dbh) 0.986 0.204 b 2 R. mangle Ln(TOTAL) = 14.9105 + 0.5261 x Ln(BA x Ht) 0.991 0.171 b,c R. mangle Ln(TOTAL) = 5.2985 + 2.4810 x Ln(dbh) 0.989 0.182 AGB of dead trees A. schaueriana Ln(TR + MBr) = 4.4117 + 2.5578 x Ln(dbh) 0.992 0.227 L. racemosa Ln(TR + MBr) = 4.9308 + 2.2951 x Ln(dbh) 0.989 0.181 R. mangle Ln(TR + PR) = 4.9851 + 2.5142 x Ln(dbh) 0.984 0.227 a b c Notes: Developed by Estrada et al. (2014); Developed by Soares and Schaeffer-Novelli (2005); Used only for carbon sequestration; R = adjusted coefficient of determination; SEE = standard error of estimation; dbh = diameter at breast height (cm); Ht = height (m); BA = basal area (m ); TOTAL = total AGB of a tree; TR + MBr = AGB of the trunk + main branches; TR + PR = AGB of the trunk + prop roots. 32 G.C.D. Estrada et al. The prices assigned for carbon or CO incorporated or maintained in the vegetation were obtained from Hamilton et al. (2010) and Diaz et al. (2011), who reviewed the global market for forest carbon, Kairo et al. (2009), who studied mangrove forests plantations in Kenya, and Medeiros et al. (2011), who analyzed the value of the carbon storage in the Brazilian conservation units. Hamilton et al. (2010), while performing an analysis on the global forest carbon market (taking as reference 226 forest projects in 40 countries) in voluntary and regular markets, observed that the prices for forest carbon credits −1 −1 ranged from US$ 0.65 tCO to around US$ 50 tCO . 2e 2e In approximately 20 years, the weighted average of the prices of carbon, considering the volume of tons of CO in −1 each project, was US$ 7.88 tCO . Diaz et al. (2011) 2e updated this analysis and found that the average price of offsets through the primary markets for forest carbon −1 increased from US$ 3.80tCO in 2008 to US$ 2e −1 −1 4.50tCO in 2009 and US$ 5.50tCO in 2010. 2e 2e Because of the increasing importance of REDD, the market has established, as a fundamental requirement for a wide appreciation among buyers, that the projects should provide benefits for both biodiversity and local commu- nities. Thus, the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity (CCB) certificate, conceived by the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance, a consortium of international non-governmental organizations, has been increasingly considered. The CCB certification standards do not gen- erate tradable credits but assess social and environmental issues, and the generation of co-benefits for local communities. Around 53% of all the projects that take into account co-benefits and were evaluated on the basis of the CCB standards also received the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) certification (Diaz et al. 2011) that specifically assesses the carbon calculations and methodological- related issues. Hence, besides the average market value −1 of US$ 5.50tCO in 2010, for Guaratiba, the median 2e −1 price for the VCS standard (US$ 8.50tCO ) was also 2e used. Kairo et al. (2009) used the estimate published by −1 Niles et al. (2002) of US$ 10.00tC for mangrove forest plantations in Kenya. This price was set by Niles et al. (2002) as the default for the reforestation interventions of degraded areas in order to avoid deforestation and for sustainable agricultural practices. Medeiros et al. (2011) used the standard value of US$ −1 18.00tC , quoted as an average of the value of forest carbon transactions in the major global markets. In addi- tion to the carbon storage value, annual rental taxes were also estimated for the current study. According to these authors, rental taxes should be considered for the compen- sation of the economic activities that could not be devel- oped in the areas reserved for conservation due to legal restrictions; that is, it could be set from the opportunity cost of capital in real terms, discounted for inflation. The rental rates corresponded to 3 or 6% of the total carbon storage value and were also applied in the present study. Table 3. Monetary values of the service of carbon sequestration based on the average prices of carbon credits presented by Diaz et al. (2011), Hamilton et al. (2010), Medeiros et al. (2011), and Kairo et al. (2009). Fringe forests (n = 48) Basin forests (n = 46) Transition forests (n = 22) Min. Mean ± SD Max. Min. Mean ± SD Max. Min. Mean ± SD Max. −1 −1 a Carbon sequestration (tC Ha yr ) 0.64 2.64 ± 1.03 4.63 0.46 1.90 ± 1.00 4.10 0.26 2.39 ± 1.45 5.31 −1 −1 a CO sequestration (tCO ha yr ) 2.35 9.68 ± 3.78 16.98 1.69 6.97 ± 3.67 15.03 0.95 8.76 ± 5.32 19.47 2 2 −1 −1 Monetary value (US$ ha yr ) b −1 Diaz et al. (2011) : 8.5 US$ tCO 19.95 82.28 ± 32.10 144.30 14.34 59.22 ± 31.17 127.78 8.10 74.49 ± 45.19 165.50 −1 Hamilton et al. (2010): 7.88 US$ tCO 18.49 76.28 ± 29.76 133.78 13.29 54.90 ± 28.89 118.46 7.51 69.06 ± 41.90 153.42 −1 Diaz et al. (2011): 5.5 US$ tCO 12.91 53.24 ± 20.77 93.37 9.28 38.32 ± 20.17 82.68 5.24 48.20 ± 29.24 107.09 −1 Medeiros et al. (2011): 18 US$ tC 11.52 47.52 ± 18.54 83.34 8.28 34.20 ± 18.00 73.80 4.68 43.02 ± 26.10 95.58 −1 Kairo et al. (2009): 10 US$ tC 6.40 26.40 ± 10.30 46.30 4.60 19.00 ± 10.00 41.00 2.60 23.90 ± 14.50 53.10 −1 c Total area monetary value (US$ yr ) 1949 17,398 ± 6894 43,933 11,364 12,521 ± 4962 315,666 1512 15,750 ± 6241 96,228 a b c Notes: Based on Estrada (2013) data; Considering only VCS projects; Based on Almeida et al. (2011) data. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 33 Table 4. Monetary values of the service of carbon storage and annual cost of maintenance of the carbon storage (annual rental tax), based on the approach of Medeiros et al. (2011). Fringe forests Basin forests Transition forests Total −1 a Carbon storage (tC ha ) 92.56 60.70 25.87 – Area (ha) 304.46 2470.33 581.46 3356.24 Total area carbon storage (tC) 28,181.58 149,946.27 15,041.11 193,168.95 Monetary value (US$) 507,268 2,699,033 270,740 3,477,041 −1 (Medeiros et al. 2011: 18 US$ tC ) Annual rental tax (3%) 15,218 80,971 8122 104,311 Annual rental tax (6%) 30,436 161,942 16,244 208,623 a b Notes: Based on Estrada (2013)data; Based on Almeida et al. (2011) data. 3. Results The economic value (US$ 3.5 million) of carbon sto- rage in the 3356 ha of the Guaratiba mangrove forests The mean values of the service of carbon sequestration −1 −1 would be higher if belowground biomass (roots) and soil varied from 19.00 ± 10.00 US$ ha yr in the basin −1 −1 were included. If the best estimates in the literature for the forests to 82.28 ± 32.10 US$ ha yr in the fringe forests −1 : average of the carbon storage in roots (54.95 tC ha (Table 3). Considering the total area occupied by each values compiled by Komiyama et al. 2008) and soil physiographic type in Guaratiba, we obtain values of up −1 −1 −1 (552.4 tC ha : global average for a depth of 1 m pre- to 43,933 US$ yr in the fringe forests; 315,666 US$ yr −1 sented by Chmura et al. 2003) of mangroves are applied to in the basin forests; and 96,228 US$ yr in the transition the Guaratiba mangrove forests, the economic value for forests. Thus, the total value of the Guaratiba mangrove −1 the maintenance of carbon storage would increase up to forests would be up to 455,827 US$ yr . US$ 40,168,423. Regarding the value of carbon storage, we estimate However, it would still be possible to question whether that US$ 3.5 million are stored in the AGB of the the preservation of the Guaratiba mangroves would be Guaratiba mangrove forests and that between 104,000 −1 economically viable in the face of other possibilities of and 209,000 US$ yr would be the amount for the annual use. In this regard, Siikamäki et al. (2012)demonstrated maintenance cost (or rental tax) of this storage (Table 4). −1 −1 that, up to a value of 10 US$ tCO (37 US$ tC ), REDD projects in mangroves are economically viable in compar- 4. Discussion ison with the reduction of emissions in the industrial and The maximum values found for carbon sequestration rate energy sectors, which determines the price of carbon credits in the three physiographic types in Guaratiba (Table 3) of the European Union’s Emissions Trading System – EU −1 were close to the value found by Kairo et al. (2009) for a ETS: between 10 and 20 US$ tCO . Therefore, consider- 12-year-old plantation of R. mucronata in Kenya (44.42 ing that the estimation of US$ 40 million for the Guaratiba −1 −1 US$ ha yr ) if the monetary value per ton of seques- mangroves was derived from an average carbon value of 18 −1 tered carbon presented by the same authors was used. If US$ tC (Medeiros et al. 2011), we could suggest that their the average values were considered, this proportion would conservation, only for the maintenance of the carbon sto- decrease to 35–45% of the value of Kairo et al. (2009). rage, is economically viable. If we also consider that man- This difference could be explained, in part, by the lower groves provide a wide variety of goods and services (Ewel age of the managed forests that were considered by these et al. 1998; Mazda et al. 2005; Nagelkerken et al. 2008), the authors, since young forests tend to present higher pro- economic value of this ecosystem would be greater. Besides ductivity levels than mature forests (Kira & Shidei 1967; the values of direct or indirect use, the values of non-use, Whittaker & Woodwell 1967; Binkley et al. 2002). The related to the very existence of the system and to the fact that transition forests presented higher mean values of intention that it remains preserved as a legacy for future carbon sequestration (and thus higher monetary values for generations (Soares 2002), should also be acknowledged. this service) than basin forests and higher maximum The protected areas of Brazil are managed by the muni- values than both fringe and basin forests despite being cipal, state, or federal government and generally lack finan- exposed to lower tidal flooding frequency and higher cial resources, which limits the ability to manage them. The salinity (Estrada et al. 2013; Table 1) is surprising and Guaratiba State Biological Reserve is managed by the Rio indicates that other factors not related to edaphic condi- de Janeiro State Government, through its Environmental tions may be driving this pattern. A possible explanation Institute, but it has no resources of its own and a poor for this pattern is that transition forests are younger than infrastructure, which translates into a low management basin and fringe forests and hence present higher produc- capacity of the area. This limitation makes it highly vulner- tivity, as mentioned before. This hypothesis, which is able to urban expansion, since it is located in the metropo- partially supported by Estrada et al. (2013), will be tested litan area of Rio de Janeiro, on the route of one of the main in future studies. expansion areas of the city of Rio de Janeiro. Thus, the 34 G.C.D. Estrada et al. payment for the service of carbon storage and sequestration, References directly and/or through the payment of annual rental taxes, Almeida PMM, Soares MLG, Estrada GCD, Fernandez V, Santos DMC, Machado MRO, Estevam MRM, Rodrigues DP. 2011. could generate an annual revenue between 117,169 and −1 A aplicação de sistemas de informação geográfica no mapea- 593,609 US$ yr considering annual rental taxes and the mento de tipos fisiográficos de manguezais. Paper presented monetary value of the service of carbon sequestration. Such at: XIV Congresso Latino-Americano de Ciências do Mar; resources could be applied on the improvement of the Balneário Camboriú-SC, Brazil. reserve management infrastructure, reducing the vulnerabil- Beymer-Farris BA, Bassett TJ. 2012. The REDD menace: resur- gent protectionism in Tanzania’s mangrove forests. Glob ity to the impacts caused by urban expansion. Environ Chang. 22:332–341. Even if raising financial resources for the conservation Binkley D, Stape JL, Ryan MG, Barnard HR, Fownes J. 2002. of the entire ecosystem seems beneficial, several authors Age-related decline in forest ecosystem growth: an indivi- (McAfee 1999; Igoe & Brockington 2007; Kosoy & dual-tree, stand-structure hypothesis. Ecosystems. 5:58–67. Corbera 2010; Büscher et al. 2012; Corbera 2012) warn Bouillon S, Borges AV, Castañeda-Moya E, Diele K, Dittmar T, Duke NC, Kristensen E, Lee SY, Marchand C, Middelburg about the dangers of changing the logic of conservation by JJ, et al. 2008. Mangrove production and carbon sinks: a the commodification of certain ecosystem functions. The revision of global budget estimates. Glob Biogeochem change consists of replacing the old ethical and inter-gen- Cycles. 22:1–12. erational argument that nature needs to be managed and Büscher B, Sullivan S, Neves K, Igoe J, Brockington D. 2012. protected for the survival of ecosystems and species, with Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capital. Nat Social. 23:4–30. one that prioritizes some elements of nature that seem Chmura GL, Anisfeld SC, Cahoon DR, Lynch JC. 2003. Global useful to humans. Assigning a monetary value to an eco- carbon sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils. Glob system service heavily depends on scientific measure- Biogeochem Cycles. 17:1–12. ments and threatens to compromise other sources of Corbera E. 2012. Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in valuation, such as those from local communities that payments for ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 4:612–619. depend directly on the forests. Thus, because of the De Paula EA, Morais MJ. 2012. O conflito está no ar: povos da power asymmetries, the valuation process may generate Floresta e espoliação sob o capitalismo verde. Paper pre- socio-environmental conflicts between those interested in sented at: 36º Encontro Anual da ANPOCS. Resumos do carbon storage and the communities (Jindal 2004;De 36º Encontro Anual da ANPOCS; Águas de Lindóia, Brazil. Paula & Morais 2012; Packer 2012), as described by Diaz D, Hamilton K, Johnson E. 2011. State of the forest carbon markets 2011: from canopy to currency. Washington (DC): Beymer-Farris and Bassett (2012) for the mangrove forests Ecosystem Marketplace/Forest Trends; p. 70. in Tanzania. We thus position ourselves cautiously with Donato DC, Kauffman JB, Murdiyarso D, Kurnianto S, Stidham respect to the market mechanisms and to the possibility of M, Kanninen M. 2011. Mangroves among the most carbon- offsetting emissions. As suggested by Corbera (2012), a rich forests in the tropics. Nat Geosci. 4:293–297. global fund of ecological debt could be constituted where Estrada GCD. 2013. Análise espaço-temporal do sequestro e do estoque de carbono na biomassa aérea de manguezais [Ph.D. the developed countries finance the development with thesis]. Rio de Janeiro (RJ): Programa de Pós-Graduação em conservation in developing countries, as long as the latter Ecologia/Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. develop their own environmental agendas and are not Estrada GCD, Callado CH, Soares MLG, Lisi CS. 2008. Annual conditioned to the carbon market. growth rings in the mangrove Laguncularia racemosa In the present study, monetary values were assigned to (Combretaceae). Trees. 22:663–670. Estrada GCD, Soares MLG, Chaves FO, Cavalcanti VF. 2013. the service provided by the mangroves of Guaratiba regard- Analysis of the structural variability of mangrove forests ing of carbon storage and sequestration, considering the through the physiographic types approach. Aquat Bot. reasoning of both CDM and REDD. The results showed 111:135–143. that the economic values of this ecosystem service vary Estrada GCD, Soares MLG, Santos DMC, Fernandez V, Almeida according to the physiographic type (fringe, basin, and tran- PMM, Estevam MRM, Machado MRO. 2014. Allometric models for aboveground biomass estimation of the mangrove sition forests) and to the area occupied by each physiographic Avicennia schaueriana. Hydrobiologia. 734:171–185. type. Based on these results, it is highly recommended that Ewel KC, Zheng S, Pinzón ZS, Bourgeois JA. 1998. future studies about the economic valuation of carbon storage Environmental effects of canopy gap formation in high – in mangroves take into account the spatial variability of the rainfall mangrove forests. Biotropica. 30:510–518. system (e.g., different physiognomies, physiographic types, Hamilton K, Chokkalingam U, Bendana M. 2010. State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2009: taking Root & Branching Out. or successional stages). Since developing countries generally Washington (DC): Ecosystem Marketplace/Forest Trends; p. lack financial resources to sustain long-term environmental management actions, the income resulting from REDD or Igoe J, Brockington D. 2007. Neoliberal conservation: a brief CDM projects could be an important way of improving the introduction. Conserv Soc. 5:534–561. conservation status of mangroves. Jindal R. 2004. Measuring the socio-economic impact of carbon sequestration on local communities: an assessment study with specific reference to the Nhambita pilot project in Mozambique [dissertation]. Edinburgh: Department of Funding Resource Management, University of Edinburgh. The authors are thankful to International Foundation for Science Kairo JG, Wanjiru C, Ochiewo J. 2009. Net pay: economic and Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica for providing financial analysis of a replanted mangrove plantation in Kenya. J support. Sustain For. 28:395–414. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 35 Kira T, Shidei T. 1967. Primary production and turnover of Packer L. 2012. Inside a champion. an analysis of the Brazilian organic matter in different forest ecosystems of the Western development model. Publication series on democracy. Rio de Pacific. Jpn J Ecol. 17:70–87. Janeiro (RJ): Heinrich Böll Foundation. From Nature to Komiyama A, Ong JE, Poungparn S. 2008. Allometry, biomass, Natural Capital. How New Legal and Financial Mechanisms and productivity of mangrove forests: a review. Aquat Bot. Create a Market for the Green Economy; p. 114–128. 89:128–137. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson Kosoy N, Corbera E. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as CE. 2007. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ. 69:1228–1236. vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth Mazda Y, Kobashi D, Okada S. 2005. Tidal-scale hydrodynamics assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate within mangrove swamps. Wetl Ecol Manag. 13:647–655. change. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; McAfee K. 1999. Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and p. 976. green developmentalism. Environ Plan Soc Space. Siikamäki J, Sanchirico JN, Jardine SL. 2012. Global economic 17:203–219. potential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from man- McLeod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Björk M, Duarte grove loss. P Natl Acad Sci-Biol. 109:14369–14374. CM, Lovelock CE, Schlesinger WH, Silliman BR. 2011. A Soares MLG. 2002. Ética e Sustentabilidade. Rio de Janeiro (RJ): blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding E-Papers Serviços Editoriais. Parte II, Ética e conservação da of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. diversidade biológica; p. 99–132. Front Ecol Environ. 9:552–560. Soares MLG, Schaeffer-Novelli Y. 2005. Above-ground biomass Medeiros R, Young CEF, Pavese HB, Araújo FFS. 2011. of mangrove species. I. Analysis of models. Estuar Coast Contribuição das unidades de conservação brasileiras para a Shelf Sci. 65:1–18. economia nacional: sumário Executivo. Brasília DF, Brazil: Twilley RR, Chen RH, Hargis T. 1992. Carbon sinks in man- United Nations Environment Program-World Conservation groves and their implications to carbon budget of tropical Monitoring Center; p. 44. coastal ecosystems. Water Air Soil Pollut. 64:265–288. Nagelkerken I, Blaber SJM, Bouillon S, Green P, Haywood M, [UNEP-WCMC] United Nations Environment Project-World Kirton LG, Meynecke JO, Pawlik J, Penrose HM, Sasekumar Conservation Monitoring Centre. 2006. Shoreline protection A, Somerfield PJ. 2008. The habitat function of mangroves and other ecosystem services from mangroves and coral for terrestrial and marine fauna: a review. Aquat Bot. reefs. Cambridge (UK): UNEP-WCMC; p. 33. 89:155–185. van der Werf GR, Morton DC, De Fries RS, Olivier JGJ, Niles JO, Brown S, Pretty J, Ball A, Fay J. 2002. Potential Kasibhatla PS, Jackson RB, Collatz GJ, Randerson JT. 2009. carbon mitigation and income in developing countries from CO emissions from forest loss. Nat Geosci. 2:737–738. changes in use and management of agricultural and forest Whittaker RH, Woodwell GM. 1967. Surface area relations of lands. Phil Trans R Soc Lond A. 360:1621–1639. woody plants and forest communities. Am J Bot. 54:931–939.

Journal

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & ManagementTaylor & Francis

Published: Jan 2, 2015

Keywords: mangrove; monetary value; ecosystem services; carbon sequestration; REDD

There are no references for this article.