Abstract
AbstractA billion rural people live near tropical forests. Urban populations need them for water, energy and timber. Global society benefits from climate regulation and knowledge embodied in tropical biodiversity. Ecosystem service valuations can incentivise conservation, but determining costs and benefits across multiple stakeholders and interacting services is complex and rarely attempted. We report on a 10-year study, unprecedented in detail and scope, to determine the monetary value implications of conserving forests and woodlands in Tanzania’s Eastern Arc Mountains. Across plausible ranges of carbon price, agricultural yield and discount rate, conservation delivers net global benefits (+US$8.2B present value, 20-year central estimate). Crucially, however, net outcomes diverge widely across stakeholder groups. International stakeholders gain most from conservation (+US$10.1B), while local-rural communities bear substantial net costs (-US$1.9B), with greater inequities for more biologically important forests. Other Tanzanian stakeholders experience conflicting incentives: tourism, drinking water and climate regulation encourage conservation (+US$72M); logging, fuelwood and management costs encourage depletion (-US$148M). Substantial global investment in disaggregating and mitigating local costs (e.g., through boosting smallholder yields) is essential to equitably balance conservation and development objectives.
Funder
Leverhulme Trust
Royal Society
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
EAMCEF
UN-TEEB
Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Economics and Econometrics
Reference102 articles.
1. Adams WM (2014) The value of valuing nature. Science 346:549–551. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255997
2. Ahrends A (2011) Pole, charcoal and timber suitability of tree species in Eastern Tanzania. Version 1:1
3. Ahrends A, Bulling MT, Platts PJ et al (2021) Detecting and predicting forest degradation: a comparison of ground surveys and remote sensing in Tanzanian forests. Plants, People, Planet 3:268–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10189
4. Ahrends A (2010) Do We Know Enough? The Impacts of Data Biases, Insufficient Sampling and Degradation on Biodiversity Estimates in Tanzanian Forests – Implications for Conservation Planning. University of York
5. Armitage I (1998) Guidelines for the management of tropical forests: the production of wood (FAO forestry paper 135). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome