Open Collections

Abstract

The land‑use sector must deliver large and rapid greenhouse‑gas reductions if the Paris Agreement is to be met. Yet the sector’s role and how to manage a just, sustainable transition within it remains controversial. This dissertation addresses three interconnected gaps: (i) how alternative carbon‑accounting conventions reshape national mitigation duties in the land‑use sector; (ii) the extent of the mitigation‑deterrence risk associated with forest‑carbon offsets and the additional regional costs that may follow; and (iii) how forest‑restoration policies impact rural communities. In Chapter 2, I examine the implications of shifting from production‑ to consumption‑based accounting in agriculture. By modeling two future scenarios across 27 regions, I demonstrate substantial shifts in national responsibilities for emission reductions depending on the chosen accounting framework. Under consumption‑based accounting, net‑importing, typically wealthier nations assume greater responsibility, highlighting important equity implications for international climate policy. Chapter 3 assesses forest‑carbon offsets, investigating their impact on energy‑transition strategies. Using an integrated assessment model, I show that offsets may reduce investments in direct emission reductions (mitigation deterrence) and quantify the additional costs that arise when mitigation deterrence intersects with exogenous failures of forest carbon sinks. I argue that, without robust safeguards and regulations, offsets can undermine genuine climate progress and exacerbate inequalities. Chapter 4 explores how forest‑restoration policies affect rural households in tropical forest areas, using empirical analysis and case studies. My research reveals that, even when restoration projects enhance local livelihoods, they can still pose socio‑economic risks, such as forced migration and the marginalization of certain community groups. Three cross‑cutting insights emerge: (i) accounting choices are normative decisions that materially affect equity; (ii) carbon markets must strictly constrain where, when, and for which emissions offsets may substitute, or they risk undermining climate ambition; and (iii) landscape‑scale climate policies succeed only when environmental goals align with local economic realities. This thesis provides new datasets and proposes analytical tools to help policymakers integrate equity and justice into land‑sector climate strategies, ensuring interventions are both effective and fair.