Section 2. What Social And Environmental
Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And
Implementation of REDD+
2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability
USAID LEAF
Regional Climate Change Curriculum Development
Module: Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)
Name
Affiliation
Kasetsart University,
Thailand
Penporn Janekarnkij; Co-Lead Kasetsart University,
Thailand
Surin Onprom; Co-Lead
Name
Affiliation
Tran Thi Thu Ha
Vietnam Forestry University
Nguyen Dinh Hai
Vietnam Forestry University
Rejani Kunjappan; Co-Lead
RECOFTC
Thailand
Vo Mai Anh
Vietnam Forestry University
Claudia Radel; Co-Lead
Utah State University
Tran Tuan Viet
Vietnam Forestry University
Sarah Hines; Co-Lead
US Forest Service
Cao Tien Trung
Vinh University, Vietnam
Sidthinat Prabudhanitisarn
Chiang Mai University,
Thailand
Nguyen T. Trang Thanh
Vinh University, Vietnam
Sharifah Zarina Syed Zakaria
University Kebangsaan Malaysia
Nguyen Thu Ha
USAID Vietnam Forests &
Deltas
Mohd Rusli Yacob
University Putra Malaysia
Maeve Nightingale
IUCN MFF
Kaisone Phengspha
National University of Laos
Guada Lagrada
PACT MPE
Phansamai Phengspha
National University of Laos
Le Van Trung
DARD Lam Dong
Kethsa Nanthavongduangsy
National University of Laos
Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh
AIT Thailand
Freddie Alei
University of Papua New Guinea
David Ganz
USAID LEAF Bangkok
Chay Kongkruy
Royal University of Agriculture,
Cambodia
Kalpana Giri
USAID LEAF Bangkok
Soreivathanak Reasey Hoy
Royal University of Phnom Penh,
Cambodia
Chi Pham
Project Coordinator
USAID LEAF Bangkok
I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
Introduction to Climate Change
The Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Context
Introduction to Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)
Guiding Frameworks – Sustainable Development & Ethics
II. WHAT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EXIST: STRENGHENING
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD
2.1. Environmental Co-benefits: Introduction to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
2.1.1. Carbon/REDD+ Project Accounting, Carbon Monitoring & MRV
2.2. Governance
2.2.1. Regulatory Framework, Forest Tenure, and Carbon Rights
2.3. Stakeholder Participation
2.3.1. FPIC
2.4. Social Co-benefits
2.5. Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment
2.5.1. Gender Analysis Tools
2.5.2. Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index
2.6. Indigenous Peoples and their Empowerment
2.7. Local Livelihoods: An Introduction
2.7.1 Livelihoods impact Case Study: April Salumei, PNG
2.8. REDD+ Benefits Sharing
2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability
III. STATE OF THE ART IN ACTION: BRINGING THE PIECES TOGETHER
3.1. Safeguard Mechanisms in REDD+ Programs
3.2. Streamlining of Safeguards and Standards
3.3. Developing National Level Safeguards
At the end of this section, learners will be able to:

Explain the basic economic concepts relevant to PES/REDD+

List, categorize, and identify the benefits and costs (B&C) and
tradeoffs

Apply the developed skills to use economic decision tools for
analyzing social and environmental soundness (SES) in REDD+

Evaluate the linkages between B&C of REDD+ and how these
link to SES



Basic economic concepts for REDD+

Demand, supply, value

Externality

Economic tradeoffs

SES and economic linkages
Benefits and costs associated with PES/REDD+

Benefits: categories and accounting

Costs: categories and accounting
Economic and financial decision and assessment

Benefit cost analysis

Opportunity cost analysis

Non-market valuation
Methods

Lecture

Brainstorming

Group Discussion/debate

Case Study

Group Presentation

Individual exercise
Time

3 sessions
Students should read:
Pagiola, Stefano and Benoît Bosquet (2009). Estimating the Cost
of REDD at the Country Level. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility,
World Bank. Available at: http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/18062/1/MPRA_paper_18062.pdf

Demand, supply

Value, price

Benefit, cost

Externality, public good

Economic tradeoffs

Linking economics to SES
Brainstorm questions relevant to PES/REDD+ and select those that
need economic thoughts and reasoning.
..“If the global community wants to spend up to, say, $250 billion per year over
the next 10 years to diminish the adverse effects of climate change, and to do the
most good for the world, which solutions would yield the greatest net benefits?”..
(Copenhagen Consensus Center)
$/ton CO2 e
Supply Supply =
p2
p1
0
safe minimum standard
D2 = Demandoptimal
D1 = Demand minimum
CO2
CO2
seq.min seq.optimum
marginal cost
curve
Demand =
marginal
benefit curve
Ton
CO2seq./year
$/ton CO2 e
Supply Supply =
p2
p1
0
safe minimum standard
marginal cost
curve
D1 = Demand minimum
Demand =
marginal
benefit curve
New REDD, PES
suppliers
CO2 CO2
seq.min seq.optimum
Ton
CO2seq./year
Ecosystem Service
Average
Maximum
Provisioning services
Food
Water
Raw materials
Genetic resources
Medicinal resources
Regulating services
Improvement of air quality
Climate regulation
Regulation of water flows
Waste treatment / water purification
Erosion prevention
Cultural Services
Opportunities for recreation and tourism
1,313
75
143
431
483
181
4,426
230
1,965
1,360
177
694
381
381
4,699
552
411
1,418
1,756
562
10,492
449
3,218
5,235
506
1,084
1,171
1,171
Total
6,120
16,362
No. of studies
19
3
26
4
4
2
10
6
6
9
20
109
Socio-cultural
aspect
Social, cultural, institutional
interactions
Biological, chemical, physical
interactions
Economic value
Ecologyeconomics
Ecosystem services - human connection/use
Services
Goods/Products
(non-material)
(inputs&output)
e.g. flood control, groundwater recharge, nutrient cycling, toxics
e.g. food/crops, fish,
removal, biodiversity maintenance, pest and disease control,
timber, non-timber forest
recreation, amenity
products, medicines,
clean water, energy
Provisioning
Direct use value
-Provisioning
service
-Cultural service
Cultural
Regulating
Benefits to human well-being
Option value
Indirect use
-Provisioning service
value
-Regulating service
-Regulating service
-Cultural service
Use value
Total economic value
Supporting
Non-use value
-Supporting service
Ecological
aspect
Ecosystem structure, process/function
Economic value is:
 Anthropocentric
 Extrinsic
 Instrumental
In economics, value of thing is associated with:
• Its production cost
• peoples’ willingness to pay for it – the maximum amount of
money a person is willing to pay for the last unit of a good.
This normally reflects thing’s usefulness and scarcity.
Forests, as natural capital, provide ecosystem services for free. In
economics, we value nature from benefits we receive and our
willingness to pay for it.
If we had to provide them ourselves, we calculate the economic cost
of these services.
Economists always consider the NET VALUE or NET BENEFIT
Net value = Gross value - Cost
Discussion:
1. What is the difference between carbon price and carbon value?
2. How can you estimate them?
In-class group exercise:
1.
2.
List all advantages and disadvantages of forest conservation
Classify benefits for advantages and costs for disadvantages and categorize
them (see example of benefits below).
Example … benefit.
Forest conservation
Market benefit
(wood, non-wood products,
ecotourism)
Non-market benefit
(GHG reduction, soil and water
regulation, pollination)
Forest conservation
On-site benefit
Within country
(water service
protection)
Off-site benefit
Outside country
(carbon sequestration,
biodiversity enhancement)
An externality is a cost or benefit that affects a party who did not
choose to incur that cost or benefit (Wikipedia)
REFORESTATION can create various benefits

Internal (private) benefits: woods and non-wood products received
by tree owners

External benefits: water stabilization, reduced atmospheric
CO2 level, increased pollination, and biodiversity enhancement
Social benefit = private benefit + external benefit
Social cost = private cost + external cost
Thus, Net social benefit = social benefit – social cost
Group discussion:
1. What are the internal and external benefits of forest conservation?
2. What are the private cost and external costs of forest conversion?
$/ha
MSB = MB + MEB
MB
MC – marginal cost
MB – marginal benefit
MEB – marginal external
benefit
MC
p2
p3
p1
MEB
0
500 800
Forest area (ha)
Reforestation activities::
Cost – labour and materials;
Internal Benefit (on-site) - wood and non-wood products
External Benefit (off-site) - climate regulation, water
stabilization, biodiversity enhancement
$/ha
MSC = MC + MEC
MB1
MC
MC – marginal (private) cost
MB - marginal benefit
p2
p1
p3
0
MSC – marginal social cost
MEC – marginal external cost
MEC
100 150
Converted area (ha)
Land conversion for maize production:
Internal Cost (imposed to land user) - labour and
materials;
External (off-site) Cost – GHG emission, biodiversity loss,
risk of soil erosion
Internal Benefit (on-site) - income from logging and
maize products

Decision involves “trade-off” when something must be sacrificed or
given up whenever a choice is made. This is due to “scarcity”.

In “trading off” you need to think about “opportunity cost” or value
of the next best option foregone.

In “trading off” you also need to ask who are the relevant decision
makers.

When you do the “economic trade-offs”, you may need to do
“economic analysis”
Brainstorming:
1. What are questions related to REDD+/PES programs where we need
to consider economic trade-offs?
2. How should those trade-offs be made?
Group debate: students are divided into two groups and debate
the following issue, “To keep forest intact OR to convert land for
oil palm plantation”
Forest …………………….Oil palm
Group debate: students are divided into two groups and debate
the following issue, “should the country implement REDD+?”
Forest (with REDD+ revenue)..…Conversion (with development revenue)
Economics of PES/REDD+ and “green economy”
 Forest activities and participatory forest management as
part of poverty alleviation strategy,
 Investment in forest conservation as part of green growth
Social and environmental soundness (SES) => foundational
elements of sustainable development planning
Group discussion and presentation: complete column 3 of this table.
SES principle
Details
Economic aspect
Do no harm
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any
possible negative social or
environmental impacts.
Example: Non declining in
household income
…….
Do good (or
do more)
to increase environmental or social
benefits (often referred to as “cobenefits.”)
…….
…….
No regrets
Biodiversity improved, forest stock
maintained/enhanced, local
capacity
…….
……
End of Session 1
Benefit
REDD+/PES activities
Activity
When, for
how long
Direct
Indirect
(impact)
Cost
To
whom
Direct
Indirect
(impact)
To whom
1…………..
2.…………..
3.…………..
4.…………..
5.…………..
Impact: actual or potential impact (be specific as we can)
To whom: house hold Level (# households), community level, provincial level, national level?
Group discussion to list down all available Benefits & Costs (actual
and potential) associated with the REDD activities
Beginning of Session 2
Brainstorm how they are measured?
In REDD+, countries must (1) reduce deforestation and forest
degradation, and/or (2) enhance carbon stocks. These involve benefits
and costs as follows:
Cost
• Direct cost
• Implementation cost (forest
protection, improved forest
management,
administration)
• Transaction cost (emission
reduction certification and
MRV)
• Indirect cost (forgone benefits
of alternative land use)
Benefit
• Direct benefit
• Monetary benefits (revenue from
selling carbon)
• Co-benefits (market and nonmarket benefits from other
ecosystem services, e.g., ecotourism, non-timber products,
biodiversity enhancement,
recreational benefits, soil and
water stabilization)
• Indirect benefit (improved
governance, infrastructure provision,
social relation, etc.)
Categories of “benefit and cost”
 On- and off-site
 Local and global
 Private, external/environmental, and social
 Economic and financial
 (students learned from previous sub-session)
Accounting of “benefit and cost”
 From which perspectives should benefits and costs be
calculated?
 Individual household
 Government agencies, the country
 Project investor
Cost Categories
Opportunity costs
Set-up costs
Implementation
costs
Monitoring costs
Definition
Activity
Costs resulting from the forgone
benefits that deforestation would
have generated for livelihoods and
the national economy.
Costs necessary for the
implementers to establish or start a
REDD+ project, taking it from design
to implementation.
The foregone cost of a different land use
(the forest could instead be used for
agriculture, livestock, etc.)
Information search and design (e.g.,
carbon stocks, deforestation modeling,
socioeconomic characteristics),
negotiation, certification, capacitybuilding, procurement, etc.
Costs directly associated with the
The estimated costs of delivering
actions leading to reduced
and monitoring a REDD+ project:
deforestation or forest degradation, establishing baselines, preparing and
and hence to reduced emissions.
submitting project design documents.
Costs necessary for the
All activities involved in monitoring
implementers of a REDD+ project to carbon stocks, deforestation and forest
determine if a certain amount of
degradation, and environmental and
emissions reduction has been
social co-benefits.
achieved; as well as other cobenefits.
 In REDD+ program, “opportunity cost” is the most important
component of a country or a group of people would incur.
 REDD+ opportunity costs are:
 the difference in net earnings from conserving or enhancing
forests versus converting them to other, typically more valuable,
land uses or the forgone net benefit of changing land use
 the expenditures necessary to compensate landowners for the
value of the most profitable activity on their land, such as
logging or agriculture
 the shadow price of REDD carbon credit, which should be not
lower than opportunity cost of REDD+.
 How does the “co-benefits”, explored in earlier session, relate to
opportunity costs?
Calculated with 5% discount rate over 30 year horizon
To estimate the opportunity
cost, we need to know:
1. Profitability of each
alternative land uses
2. Carbon conserving
capacities of each land use
End of Session 2

Distinction between financial and economic assessment

Assessment tools

Cost-benefit analysis

Opportunity cost analysis

Non-market valuation
Beginning of Session 3
Economic assessment (EA)

EA considers a project from the view of society as a whole in
real terms.

EA is more focused on overall social welfare.

EA includes the consideration of social and environmental
factors in the calculation of profit.

Project inputs should be valued at their opportunity costs
and outputs at consumers’ willingness to pay
Financial assessment (FA)

Only actual amount of money being paid or received is
considered in a FA.

FA is more focused on private profit.

Financial sustainability occurs when the project remains
fiscally viable (avoids running out of cash) throughout its
duration.
The common ground
The difference
between FA and EA
 The time frame
 The scale or spatial detail (eg., spatial and
non-spatial boundary)
 The stakeholder group
 Economic (real- reflecting economic
efficiency) price vs. financial (or market)
price
 Social (economic) vs. private discount rate
Results of FA are the key inputs to calculating EA in REDD+
Assessment for whom in REDD+/PES?
• Private: firm/investor, land owners/ communities
• Public: local and national governments

Can REDD+ programs provide enough incentive to conserve or
restore forests; do the benefits outweigh the costs?

Given the GHG mitigation target, how can the country
implement REDD+/PES at the lowest possible cost?

How are the stakeholders affected by a government
intervention/ program/ project?
Cost-benefit
Analysis
Opportunity
Cost Analysis
Non-market
valuation (for
co-benefits)

An economic decision tools for analyzing social and
environmental soundness in REDD+ to find out the best
alternative.

The project with the largest net benefit yields the most
benefit to society

CBA can be used for a project at local or national levels

In REDD+/PES, although the direct benefits are


Increasing income

Creating jobs
Here (for a simple case), we focus the benefits on income or
revenue received from REDD+
Measure
Net present
value (NPV)
Description
the difference between
the discounted total
benefits (B) and costs
(C)
Criteria
If NPV ≥ 0
Internal Rate the rate that produces a If IRR ≥
of Return
zero value for the NPV
relevant
(IRR)
discount rate
Benefit-cost
ration (BCR)
Calculation
NPV =
IRR = k, that makes
NPV = = 0
BCR = [
the ratio between
If BCR ≥ 1
discounted benefits and (for competing
projects select the
costs
one with highest
BCR)
Note:
1. For economic BCA, we need to compute the real terms from monetary terms.
2. If we evaluate only one project, we do not need to calculate BCR but NPV.
1.
Preparing project cash flow - predict the future cash flow
stream for the life time of the project
2.
Selecting discount rate (r) - we typically use the discount rate
offered by the central bank of the country.
3.
Calculating the NPV - future cash flow (CF, revenue-expense)
has to be discounted by the discount rate. Then all of the
numbers are summed up and finally the initial investment is
subtracted.
4.

NPV = - initial investment

NPV = - initial investment + + +...+

(the cash flow from year zero is the initial investment)
Calculating IRR: NPV = - initial investment = 0
ton C/ha
$/ha
400
250
50
10
0
Field crop
Forest
0
Field crop
Carbon density
Changing from Field crop to Forest:
Forest
Profit (NPV)
 Calculating opportunity cost/ha (400-50 = $ 350/ha) is not correct
 Calculating opportunity cost of REDD must be per carbon basis
Loss of profit = 400-50 dollar/ha
Gain of carbon = 250-10 ton C/ha
Opportunity cost of REDD equals 350/240 = 1.46 dollar/ton C
Note: Other ecosystem services of forest are not included.

Non-market valuation estimates the value individuals
derive from goods and services not traded in
conventional markets. Non-market valuation relies on
either revealed or stated preferences.

Economic value is determined by people’s willingness to
pay, or make tradeoffs, to consume a good or service.

Economic valuation for REDD+: we value changes in
ecosystem serices as an impact of ecosystem changes.
Welfare effect to individuals
If welfare gain  BENEFIT
If welfare loss  COST
REDD+
project
Impact
on land
use
Change
in
ecosystem
services
Consumers
Producers
Consumer surplus,
compensating
surplus, equivalent
surplus
Profit,
producer surplus,
compensating
surplus, equivalent
surplus
Willingness to pay for the tradeoff (WTP)
Willingness to accept compensation
(WTA)
Economic value of change in
Ecosystem services
Economic valuation of ecosystem services (co-benefits) - bring the
less obvious items to more tangible and translate into monetary terms
Use value
Option value
Direct use value
-Provisioning service
-Cultural service
Indirect use value
-Regulating service
-Supporting service
Outputs/services that
can be consumed
directly
Functional benefits
used as intermediate
inputs for production
of final goods and
services to humans
• water purification
• waste assimilation
• Pollination and
disease control for
food production
• Biological support
• Carbon
sequestration
• Global life-support
•
•
Extractive (timbers,
food, fuel, etc.)
Non-extractive
(tourism, research,
etc.)
Indirect use value
-Provisioning service
-Cultural service
-Regulating service
value for preserving the
option to use such
services in the future
either by the individual
(option value) or by
others or heirs (bequest
value)
• Endangered and
charismatic species
• Threatened wildlife
habitats
• Aesthetic landscapes
• ‘Way of life’ and
traditional use
Non-use value
Non-use value
-Supporting service
based on moral
convictions, usually
known as existence
value (or, onetimes,
conservation value or
passive use value)
• Endangered and
charismatic species
• Threatened wildlife
habitats
• Aesthetic
landscapes
• ‘Way of life’ and
traditional use
Source: adapted from Pagiola (2005) and Batemann et al., (2007)
Two ways to know the economic value for “non-market goods
and services”:
The most you would be willing to pay for the item if you had to,
and if you could get it by paying.
= maximum willingness to pay (WTP)
The minimum compensation you would be willing to accept to
give the item up.
= minimum willingness to accept compensation (WTAC)
Methods based on types of data availability
1. Valuation using conventional market price
1.1 direct market based value (actual value)
1.2 indirect market based value (value of other goods with
related type of services)
2. Valuation using surrogate market
2.1 travel cost
2.2 hedonic price
Methods based on types of data availability
3. Valuation using hypothetical/simulated market
(survey of “willingness to pay/willingness to accept” value)
3.1 contingent valuation
3.2 contingent choice method or choice modeling
4. Valuation using other techniques, i.e., benefit transfer and
participatory environmental valuation
1. Valuation using market prices
1.1 Direct market based value
 To value forest products with established markets.
 Local market prices (on-site sale value) can be a good
approximation where such prices are available.
 The approach is the most obvious means of establishing a
value for extractive uses of an environmental good
1.2 Indirect market based value
 To value Forest goods and services that have no immediate
market values, e.g., those are home-consumed and have
never reached market. For example, kerosene price are used
as firewood benefits.
 The approach is applicable for forest services derived from
regulating function (by looking at substitute cost/replacement
cost/preventive expenditure)
2. Valuation using surrogate market
2.1 Travel cost method (TCM)
 To value cultural services from forest by estimating the
“demand function”
2.2 Hedonic price method (HPM)
 To value regulating services from forest by estimating the
“hedonic price function”, the influence of environmental
attributes on property value.
3. Hypothetical Market
3.1 Contingent valuation method (CVM)
 We construct a hypothetical market in which users are asked to
express their willingness to pay (WTP) for the benefits or
willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for losing them
3.2 Contingent choice method (CM)
 We construct/design the choice set that involves with the price
attribute along with different resource attributes/change in
G&S then ask people to rank/rate/choose alternatives rather
than explicitly express a WTP or WTA
Co-benefit
Non-timber
products
Recreation/
tourism
Market
price
Travel
cost


Contingen Choice
t valuation modelling
Benefit
transfer















Water
services
Climate
regulation
Hedonic
price

Economic rationale is one factor (among others) that guides decision
making.

Costs of REDD+ include opportunity costs, implementation costs,
transaction costs (set-up and other monitoring costs), and political costs.

Benefits of REDD+ include monetary revenues and co-benefits of REDD+.

Opportunity costs will change as relative demand and supply conditions
for land use change.

When the co-benefits of forests are high, the costs of REDD+ from the
country’s perspective fall, and might in fact become negative (leading to
more likely adoption of REDD+).

There are issues about dynamics, permanence, and uncertainty related to
REDD+ projects. These issues should be reflected in the project design as
well as in the discount rate for a project.
For basic course:
1.
Benitez, Pablo (2011). The Economics of REDD+ and the Importance of
Opportunity Costs Analysis. World Bank Institute. Bangkok, April 25, 2011.
Available at: http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/Data/wbi/wbicms/files/drupalacquia/wbi/6%20-%20Economics%20of%20REDD+%20and%20OCA%20%20P.Benitez.pdf
2.
Bond et al. 2009. Incentives to sustain forest ecosystem services: A review and
lessons for REDD. Natural Resource Issues No. 16. International Institute for
Environment and Development, London, UK, with CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, and
World Resources Institute, Washington D.C., USA. Available at:
http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/13555IIED.pdf
3.
GCP, IPAM, FFI and UNEP FI. 2014. Stimulating Interim Demand for REDD+
Emission Reductions: The Need for a Strategic Intervention from 2015 to 2020,
Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, UK; the Amazon Environmental Research
Institute, Brasília, Brazil; Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK; and UNEP
Finance Initiative, Geneva, Switzerland.
For basic course (cont.):
4.
Nepstad, Daniel. (2007). The Costs and Benefits of Reducing Carbon Emissions
From Deforestation and Forest Degradation in the Brazilian Amazon. The Woods
Hole Research Center. Available at:
http://www.whrc.org/policy/pdf/cop13/WHRC_Amazon_REDD.pdf
5.
Pagiola, Stefano and Benoît Bosquet (2009). Estimating the Cost of REDD at the
Country Level. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, World Bank. Available at:
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18062/1/MPRA_paper_18062.pdf
6.
Peskett, L. 2011. Benefit Sharing in REDD+: Exploring the Implications for Poor
and Vulnerable People. World Bank and REDD-net.
7.
TEEB (2009). TEEB Climate Issues Update.
8.
Union of Concerned Scientists (2011). Estimating the Cost and Potential of
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation. Policy brief#1. Available at:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Briefing-1-REDDcosts.pdf
9.
UN-REDD Programme (2012). Estimating the costs of REDD+ in Tanzania: Policy
Brief, April 2012. Available at: http://www.theredddesk.org/fr/node/810
For intermediate or advanced course:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Fisher, Brendan, et al (2011). “Implementation and opportunity costs of reducing
deforestation and forest degradation in Tanzania”. Nature Climate Change. (advanced
online publication). Available at:
http://www.uvm.edu/giee/pubpdfs/Fisher_2011_Nature_Climate_Change.pdf
Harja, Degi, et al (2012). REDD Abacus SP: User Manual and Software. Available at:
http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea/files/abacus_manual_draft.pdf
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework
for Assessment. Island Press. (Ch. 6)
Prasetyo, Erry (2013). Converting or Conserving the Forests: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of
Implementing REDD in Indonesia. Available at:
http://www.academia.edu/3532767/Converting_or_Conserving_the_Forests_A_CostBenefit_Analysis_of_Implementing_REDD_in_Indonesia
UN-REDD Programme (2011). Final Report: Analysis of Opportunity Cost for REDD+ UNREDD Program, Vietnam (April 2011). Available at: http://vietnamredd.org/Upload/Download/File/UN-REDD_OCA_Final_Report_3211_4432.pdf
World Bank Institute (2011). Estimating the Opportunity Costs of REDD+ A training manual,
version 1.3 (March 2011). Available at: https://www.cbd.int/financial/finplanning/gwbreddneeds.pdf