The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Forestry‐based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges
Open accessAbstract
Carbon sequestration through forestry and agroforestry can help mitigate global warming. For Africa, carbon sequestration also represents an opportunity to fund sustainable development through financial inflows. However, with a low share of global carbon trade, there are strong concerns that African countries are losing out on this valuable opportunity. Through a comprehensive review of 23 carbon sequestration projects across 14 countries, this paper discusses ways to overcome critical challenges to scale up carbon investments in Africa. These projects are expected to sequester 26.85 million tCO 2 beyond the baseline situation. Within the continent, East Africa is the preferred destination for carbon investors. Most projects are non‐Kyoto compliant and represent voluntary emission reductions. While project benefits such as increased local incomes and improved natural resources are promising, there are concerns that conversion of grasslands into tree plantations can harm local ecosystems. Insecure land tenure constrains new investments and increases the risk that local communities will lose access to forests. Another challenge is that projects with smallholders have high transaction costs. These costs can be overcome by building strong community institutions and simplifying project guidelines. To attract more projects, African governments will need to build their capacity to identify relevant opportunities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020
(2020) · doi:10.4060/ca9825en · Cited by 3,408
14. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Tetzlaff, K. (2010) · Yearbook of International Environmental Law · doi:10.1093/yiel/yvs040 · Cited by 1,589
Trading Water for Carbon with Biological Carbon Sequestration
Jackson, R. B., Jobbágy, E. G., Avissar, R., Roy, S. B., Barrett, D. J., Cook, C. W., Farley, K. A., le Maitre, D. C., McCarl, B. A., & Murray, B. C. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1119282 · Cited by 1,345
Effects of afforestation on water yield: a global synthesis with implications for policy
Farley, K. A., Jobbágy, E. G., & Jackson, R. B. (2005) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01011.x · Cited by 1,122
Landell-Mills, N., & Porras, I. (2002) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) · Cited by 723
Hanna, S. S., Folke, C., & Mäler, K.-G. (1996) · Cited by 467
Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development
Cox, G. (2003) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(03)00075-2 · Cited by 350
Transaction costs, institutional rigidities and the size of the clean development mechanism
Michaelowa, A., & Jotzo, F. (2005) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2003.08.016 · Cited by 272
African Enclosures: A Default Mode of Development
Woodhouse, P. (2003) · World Development · doi:10.1016/s0305-750x(03)00140-2 · Cited by 158
Perez, C., Roncoli, C., Neely, C., & Steiner, J. L. (2006) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2005.09.009 · Cited by 111
Cited by
Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options
A., A., M., B., M., K., E., S., W.D., S., S., W.-K., & (eds.) (2009) · Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) eBooks · doi:10.17528/cifor/002871 · Cited by 663
Harvey, C. A., Chacón, M., Donatti, C. I., Garen, E., Hannah, L., Andrade, A., Bede, L., Brown, D., Calle, A., Chará, J., et al. (2014) · Conservation Letters · doi:10.1111/conl.12066 · Cited by 411
Intermediate tree cover can maximize groundwater recharge in the seasonally dry tropics
Ilstedt, U., Bargués Tobella, A., Bazié, H. R., Bayala, J., Verbeeten, E., Nyberg, G., Sanou, J., Benegas, L., Murdiyarso, D., Laudon, H., et al. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep21930 · Cited by 319
Bargués Tobella, A., Reese, H., Almaw, A., Bayala, J., Malmer, A., Laudon, H., & Ilstedt, U. (2014) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1002/2013wr015197 · Cited by 301
Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services
Corbera, E. (2012) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.010 · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Jindal, R., Swallow, B., & Kerr, J.
- Venue
- Natural Resources Forum
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-05
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 116-130
- ISSN
- 0165-0203 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-8947
- OpenAlex
- W2058369933
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 21.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Forestry‐based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00176.x
- The paper
- Jindal, R., Swallow, B., & Kerr, J. (2008). Forestry‐based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges. Natural Resources Forum. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00176.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
