The opprtunity costs to communities from ceasing slash burn and agriculture and avoiding deforestation in Sagalla Village, SE Kenya

Deforestation and forest degradation are two of the major anthropogenic activities responsible for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Thus, the forestry sector is the third largest contributor of GHG triggering climate change. Decreasing deforestation and forest degradation are priority targets within the climate change policy framework. `Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+)' is a new climate change mitigation mechanism launched to achieve said target by reducing deforestation in developing countries. It considers a financial incentive to compensate associated monetary losses related to economic activities pressuring forest areas. These economic losses associated with the preservation of the forest are known as 'opportunity cost'. REDD+ has highlighted `opportunity cost' studies as an important aspect behind the estimation of its implementation costs. A project implementing REDD+ mechanism to avoid deforestation in South Eastern Kenya is the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project (KC project). It comprises 200,000 ha of Acacia- Commiphora dryland forest managed by a private company called Wildlife Works Carbon (WWC). Reportedly, the KC project has the potential to avoid annual emissions equivalent to 1,614,959 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) until 2041. Unfortunately, landuse shift towards agricultural and slash burn practices has threaten the this forest since historic times. Currently, the KC project influence zone has six locations including the Sagalla Village. This project aimed to calculate the 'opportunity cost' at the KC project though a quantitative questionnaire applied at one of the six administrative locations managed by WWC. Located at the north part of the KC project, the Sagalla Village comprises 10,816 residents in 2,757 houses. A questionnaire inquiring household main income strategy, the principal harvest crops and input-output costs for their harvest was implemented at 80 households. The questionnaire was applied by the researcher with the aid of a local translator. Based on the productivity pattern the agricultural net benefit per hectare was calculated at household level. This project revealed that the main harvested crops in terms of production volume (Kg/ha) correspond to maize, green peas, cowpeas and pigeon peas resulting on an `opportunity cost' of 347 USD/ha per year. This indicates that, a possible compensation by WWC to cease slash-burn and agriculture in the area is unsustainable. To afford offsets of agriculture production, the price of the carbon credits has to be at least of 43USD. These results highlight the need to define other possible options that boost agricultural activity such as microcredits to farmers and strategies to improve the livelihood of residents of the area; therefore further studies are needed to assess the viability of future programs