Afforestation for the Provision of Multiple Ecosystem Services: A Ukrainian Case Study

Abstract

This paper presents an economic analysis of the planting of trees on marginal lands in Ukraine for timber production, erosion prevention, and climate mitigation. A methodology combining econometric analysis, simulation modelling, and linear programming to analyse the costs and benefits of such afforestation has been adopted. The research reveals that, at discount rates lower than 2%, establishment of new forests is economically justified in the majority of forestry zones. Incorporating the effects of afforestation on mitigating climate change increases social benefits. However, the results indicate that whilst soil protection benefits to agriculture from afforestation in the Steppe are expected to be high, carbon sequestration and timber production activities in the Steppe are cost inefficient due to low rates of tree growth and relatively high opportunity costs of land. The opportunity costs of land are also high in the Polissja where afforestation is cost inefficient at 2% and higher discount rates.

Uncertainties in Greenhouse Gas Inventories

“…Carbon sequestration through afforestation is usually considered to be a cost-efficient and synergistic option: when incorporated in multi-functional forestry (Nijnik and Miller 2013) it can co-deliver a variety of ecosystem services (Nijnik et al 2012), at the same time as providing economic incentives for sustainable forest management. Afforestation is technically feasible; and many countries have a legacy of tree-growing (Nijnik and Bizikova 2008).…”

“…14 In Ukraine, large-scale agriculture under the previous regime supported the conversion of forest or grassland to agricultural land. Currently, the decreasing agriculture will likely cause the increase of abandoned land; a rising role of forestry could then be predicted (Nijnik et al 2012).…”

“…However, terrestrial carbon sequestration projects are likely to be implemented if they are consistent with the wider programmes of sustainable development (especially in remote rural areas). A multi-purpose afforestation is often seen as a sustainable way of land reclamation and increasing productivity of abandoned land, whilst utilization of biomass from plantations can provide employment opportunities and create new options for land development, being also a sustainable energy alternative (Nijnik et al 2012).…”

“…An assumption was that wood products release carbon back into the atmosphere after 40 years' storage. 12 In both the wood-for-coal-substitution and in bio-energy scenarios 13 , the rotation ages of poplar and 11 Multi-functional afforestation in Ukraine is analysed in (Nijnik et al 2012). 12 This is a simplified assumption.…”

Contribution of afforestation subsidies policy to climate change adaptation in the Czech Republic

“…Afforestation may be an expensive way to mitigate climate change (van Kooten et al, 2009;Nijnik et al, 2013). Large scale carbon sequestration projects on marginal land is a cost effective approach to accomplish this goal (Lal, 2004;Nijnik and Bizikova, 2008;Nijnik et al, 2012Nijnik et al, , 2013. Also, simple exit from subsidised cultivation of low-grade farmland may be, and often is, a legitimate policy objective.…”