Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:55:41.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reduced deforestation and the carbon market: the role of market regulations and future commitments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2012

Niels Anger ,
Alistair Dixon  and
Erich Livengood
Niels Anger
Affiliation:
Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), P.O. Box 10 34 43, 68 034 Mannheim, Germany. Email: [email protected]
Alistair Dixon
Affiliation:
KEA 3 Limited, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]
Erich Livengood
Affiliation:
KEA 3 Limited, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) has been proposed as an economic and extensive source of emission abatement to supplement other long-term climate policies. However, critics suggest an excess supply of REDD credits may disrupt emerging carbon markets and raise north–south equity concerns. In this context, we investigate the economic implications of REDD regulations and future emissions reduction commitments. Numerical model simulations show that unrestricted exchange of REDD units reduces the international carbon price by half and cuts compliance costs by roughly one-third. Developed nations’ requirements for policy supplementarity, which restrict demand for REDD credits, reduce such price impacts but go at the expense of both economic efficiency and benefits to rainforest areas. Instead, unlimited REDD access facilitates climate policy targets to be tightened by almost a quarter at constant compliance cost, tripling the environmental ambition of the Kyoto Protocol and providing considerable wealth transfers to developing countries.

Type
Theory and Applications
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , June 2012 , pp. 269 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Angelsen, A. (2008), ‘Moving ahead with REDD: issues, options, and implications’, Bogor: Cifor, [Available at] http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BAngelsen0801.pdf.Google Scholar
Angelsen, A. and Kaimowitz, D. (1999), ‘Rethinking the causes of deforestation: lessons from economic models’, World Bank Research Observer 14(1): 73–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anger, N. (2008), ‘Emissions trading beyond Europe: linking schemes in a Post-Kyoto world’, Energy Economics 30(4): 2028–2049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anger, N. and Sathaye, J. (2008), ‘Reducing deforestation and trading emissions: economic implications for the post-Kyoto carbon market’, ZEW Discussion Paper No. 08-016, Mannheim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antinori, C. and Sathaye, J. (2007), ‘Assessing transaction costs of project-based greenhouse gas emissions trading’, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Formal Report LBNL-57315, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Böhringer, C. and Rutherford, T.F. (2002), ‘Carbon abatement and international spillovers’, Environmental and Resource Economics 22(3): 391–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhringer, C., Hoffmann, T., Lange, A., Löschel, A., and Moslener, U. (2005), ‘Assessing emission allocation in Europe: an interactive simulation approach’, Energy Journal 26(4): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabezas, P.P. and Keohane, N. (2008), ‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD): implications for the carbon market’, White paper. Environmental Defense Fund, New York.Google Scholar
Caparrós, A., Ovando, P., Oviedo, J.L., and Campos, P. (2010), ‘Accounting for carbon in avoided degradation and reforestation programmes in Mediterranean forests’, Environment and Development Economics 16: 405–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trust, Carbon (2009), ‘Global carbon mechanism. Emerging lessons and implications’, London: Carbon Trust [Available at] http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/Publications/pages/publicationdetail.aspx?id=ctc748.Google Scholar
Combes Motel, P., Pirard, R., and Combes, J.-L. (2009), ‘A methodology to estimate impacts of domestic policies on deforestation: compensated successful efforts for “avoided deforestation” (REDD)’, Ecological Economics 68(3): 680–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of the European Union (2007), ‘Brussels European Council, 8/9 March 2007, Presidency Conclusions’, 2 May 2007, Brussels, [Available at] http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemlongdetail.cfm?lang=de&item_id=510.Google Scholar
Criqui, P., Mima, S., and Viguier, L. (1999), ‘Marginal abatement costs of CO2 emission reductions, geographical flexibility and concrete ceilings: an assessment using the POLES model’, Energy Policy 27(10): 585–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebeling, J. and Yasué, M. (2008), ‘Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create climatic, conservation and human development benefits’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363(1498): 1917–1924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eliasch, J. (2008), Climate Change: Financing Global Forests: The Eliasch Review, United Kingdom Office of Climate Change (OCC), London.Google Scholar
Commission, European (2008), ‘Addressing the challenges of deforestation and forest degradation to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss’, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 17 October 2008, Brussels.Google Scholar
European Union (2008), ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system of the Community’, Communication COM(2008) 30 final, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
FAO (2005), State of the World's Forests, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Fukuda, Y. (2008), Speech to Japan National Press Club outlining “Fukuda vision: in pursuit of a low carbon society”, 14 June 2008.Google Scholar
Garnaut, R. (2008), The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Government of Canada (2008), ‘Turning the corner: Regulatory Framework for Industrial Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, Ottawa: Government of Canada.Google Scholar
Grieg-Gran, M. (2008), ‘The cost of avoiding deforestation’, London: International Institute for Environment and Development, [Available at] http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/G02489.pdf.Google Scholar
Gupta, S. and Tirpak, D.A. (2007), ‘Polices, instruments and co-operative arrangements’ in Metz, B. et al. . (eds), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation, Contributions of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Chapter 13, Box 12.7; IPCC, AR4 Synthesis Report 2007, Topic 5, Table 5.1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
IPCC (2000), Emissions Scenarios: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klepper, G. and Peterson, S. (2006), ‘Emissions trading, CDM, JI, and more: the climate strategy of the EU’, Energy Journal 27(2): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelowa, A. and Dutschke, M. (2009), ‘Will credits from avoided deforestation in developing countries jeopardize the balance of the carbon market?’, in Palmer, C. and Engel, S. (eds), Avoided Deforestation: Prospects for Mitigating Climate Change. Routledge Explorations in Environmental Economics, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 130–148.Google Scholar
Obama, B. and Biden, J. (2008), ‘Promoting a healthy environment’, [Available at] http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf.Google Scholar
Ojha, V.P. (2009), ‘Carbon emissions reduction strategies and poverty alleviation in India’, Environment and Development Economics 14(3), 323–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sathaye, J., Makundi, W., Dale, L., Chan, P., and Andrasko, K. (2005), ‘Estimating global forestry GHG mitigation potential and costs: a dynamic partial equilibrium approach’, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Formal Report LBNL-55743, Berkeley, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sathaye, J., Makundi, W., Dale, L., Chan, P., and Andrasko, K. (2006), ‘GHG mitigation potential, costs and benefits in global forests: a dynamic partial equilibrium approach’, Energy Journal, Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy Special Issue: 95–124.Google Scholar
Schmidt, L. (2009), ‘REDD from an integrated perspective: considering overall climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation and equity issues’, Bonn: Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik.Google Scholar
Sohngen, B. and Mendelsohn, R. (2003), ‘An optimal control model of forest carbon sequestration’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2): 448–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavoni, M., Sohngen, B., and Bosetti, V. (2007), ‘Forestry and the carbon market response to stabilize climate’, Energy Policy 35(11): 5346–5353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Vuuren, D, Lucas, P., and Hilderink, H. (2006), ‘Downscaling drivers of global environmental change scenarios: enabling use of the IPCC SRES scenarios at the national and grid level’, Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency (MNP).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyant, J.P. and Hill, J. (1999), ‘Introduction and overview’, Energy Journal, special issue on the Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: a Multi-model Evaluation: vii–xliv.Google Scholar
WWF (2009), ‘Getting ready for REDD: toward an effective and equitable policy on international forest carbon’, World Wildlife Fund Report, January 2009.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Anger supplementary material

Appendix.pdf

Download Anger supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 68.4 KB