degree of economic growth. In addition to causing rural‐urban migration, a growing economy creates more demand for commodities which may be produced at the expense of forests. General equilibrium effects like these are more difficult to empirically verify but may have significant impact in reality.

_Cross‐country Comparisons:_ Dasgupta and Wheeler (2016) and Danyo, Dasgupta and Wheeler (2018) provide spatially explicit estimates of forest loss associated with road upgrading in Cameroon, Bolivia, Myanmar and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Their estimates indicate a footprint between 5 and 10 km where forest loss is likely following road improvements. But within their estimates significant heterogeneity supports the framework presented in this report. For Lao PDR, the most significant forest loss is expected in the northern region where low pre‐existing clearing coincides with relatively high expected returns from agriculture. Similarly, the less‐developed northern highlands of Cameroon experience significant forest loss associated with road improvements. Myanmar’s central and east‐central forests and Bolivia’s Yungas region are also seriously threatened. Protected areas appear to have a positive effect on forest cover in all countries covered by these studies, pointing toward a need for protection in areas with both low prior clearing and high potential for agricultural profitability. This can complement roads and rails.

# iv. Application to BRI

BRI road projects are proposed for a wide range of settings, so it is not helpful to offer a single view concerning the indirect deforestation effects from new construction and upgrading of BRI roads. Yet several factors lead us to believe that for large fractions of potentially affected areas, the patterns identified in India and China to date may on average be more applicable than those documented for the − Brazilian Amazon although we hasten to emphasize that even within regions of India and China it appears that the heterogeneity of impacts can include falling versus rising forest area. (Appendix 7: _Environmental Indicator: Indirect Effects as Measured by Forest Cover Change in CICPEC_ explores in more detail indirect effect trends in Southeast Asia and their relevance to three BRI transportation routes.) The single clearest reason for the applicability of some more than other past results for roads’ impacts is that most BRI road projects – including even the new construction projects – are built or intended to be built either on or very near to the existing footprints of smaller roads. Thus, they are not providing any entirely new access to landscape frontiers even if they are improving access (perhaps to critical levels). Most such planned investments are also connecting population centers and, as such, not creating access − to frontiers at their endpoints though potentially creating access to intact frontier forests in the areas between the population centers (it is within those latter types of areas that the type of infrastructure and complementary mitigation policies are likely to matter a lot for forest outcomes). For BRI divided highway projects with four lanes or more, access to intact forest may be restricted by exit ramps or tolls. In such cases, a limited‐access highway that replaces a smaller, unrestricted road could actually reduce access to frontier forests, at least in principle. Within the already more densely developed areas, effects from increased commerce and expansion of new manufacturing or services, urbanization, changes in land prices, and other equilibrium effects are likely to dominate. Finally, while most BRI transportation projects have not been sited or planned near to Intact Frontier Landscapes – remote and undeveloped wilderness areas would be disturbed by any deforestation from new road construction – a few planned projects already have been. (See map of IFLs in Figure 1 and the example of a Thai project in Appendix 4: _Environmental Indicator: Ecosystem Effects as Measured by Intact Frontier Landscapes_ .) 16