GHG Mitigation Potential, Costs and Benefits in Global Forests: A Dynamic Partial Equilibrium Approach

Sathaye, Jayant; Makundi, Willy; Dale, Larry; Chan, Peter; Andrasko, Kenneth

doi:10.5547/issn0195-6574-ej-volsi2006-nosi3-7

Cited by 62 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Model (GCOMAP) (20,21), and the Global Timber Model (GTM) (22,23 To estimate the costs of reduced emissions from AD, each model must generate a baseline projection of future deforestation. The baseline is assumed to occur when AD carbon prices are $0 t Ϫ1 CO 2 .…”

Section: Marginal Cost Curves For Admentioning

confidence: 99%

Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation

Kindermann

Obersteiner

Sohngen

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

478

305

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tropical deforestation is estimated to cause about one-quarter of anthropogenic carbon emissions, loss of biodiversity, and other environmental services. United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change talks are now considering mechanisms for avoiding deforestation (AD), but the economic potential of AD has yet to be addressed. We use three economic models of global land use and management to analyze the potential contribution of AD activities to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. AD activities are found to be a competitive, low-cost abatement option. A program providing a 10% reduction in deforestation from 2005 to 2030 could provide 0.3-0.6 Gt (1 Gt ‫؍‬ 1 ؋ 10 5 g) CO2⅐yr ؊1 in emission reductions and would require $0.4 billion to $1.7 billion⅐yr ؊1 for 30 years. A 50% reduction in deforestation from 2005 to 2030 could provide 1.5-2.7 Gt CO 2⅐yr ؊1 in emission reductions and would require $17.2 billion to $28.0 billion⅐yr ؊1 . Finally, some caveats to the analysis that could increase costs of AD programs are described.carbon sequestration ͉ climate change ͉ reducing emissions from deforestation and ecosystem degradation (REDD) ͉ marginal cost ͉ tropical forest T ropical deforestation is considered the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions (1) and is expected to remain a major emission source for the foreseeable future (2). Despite policy attention on reducing deforestation, Ϸ13 million ha⅐yr Ϫ1 of forests continue to be lost (3). Deforestation could have the effect of cooling the atmosphere (4), but it also leads to reductions in biodiversity, disturbed water regulation, and the destruction of livelihoods for many of the world's poorest (5). Slowing down, or even reversing, deforestation is complicated by multiple causal factors, including conversion for agricultural uses, infrastructure extension, wood extraction (6-9), agricultural product prices (10), and a complex set of additional institutional and place-specific factors (11).Avoided deforestation (AD) was included alongside afforestation as a potential mechanism to reduce net global carbon emissions in the Kyoto Protocol (KP), but until recently, climatepolicy discussions have focused on afforestation and forest management. Discussions about new financial mechanisms that include AD provide optimism for more effective synergies between forest conservation and carbon policies (11)(12)(13)(14). In 2005, Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica proposed to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that carbon credits be provided to protect existing native forests (15). The proposal triggered a flurry of discussion on the topic. SoaresFilho et al. (16), for example, suggest that protecting Ϸ130 million ha of land from deforestation in the Amazon could reduce global carbon emissions by 62 Gt (1 Gt ϭ 1 ϫ 10 15 g) CO 2 over the next 50 years.Although the potential for AD activities to help mitigate climate change is widely acknowledged (16,17), there is little information available on what the costs might be globally. This article uses t...

show abstract

Section: Marginal Cost Curves For Admentioning

confidence: 99%

Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation

Kindermann

Obersteiner

Sohngen

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

478

305

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been suggested that, in developing countries, the discount rate could be as high as 10%-12% as compared to 4% in developed countries [46]. Sathaye et al [47] applied a discount rate of 12%-19% for short rotation forestry in Africa and Latin America. On the other hand, Hunt [48] proposed a sustainable discount rate of 8% for the least developed countries, and Camino et al [49] used rates ranging from 4% to 16% for teak in Central America.…”

Section: Opportunity Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opportunity Costs of Carbon Emissions Stemming from Changes in Land Use

Liu

2015

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism allows carbon sinks to be used as carbon credits in order to offset emissions from other sources. However, this practice has raised a number of issues relating to financial incentives. In this study, we develop a spatially explicit model for predicting carbon emissions from deforestation that meet baseline levels as well as farmers' opportunity costs (measured in US dollars per ton of CO2e) under three temporal scenarios with several potential discount rates for agricultural income. Additionally, we use two different accounting methods recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), including the average storage method and the "ton-year approach," to evaluate emissions reductions. We find that farmers are more likely to prefer REDD in the short-run when discount rates are higher than 10%. However, further analysis indicates that opportunity costs would increase significantly over longer periods of time (middle-term schemes of 35 years or long-term schemes of 55 years), thereby dissuading farmers from choosing REDD. Our findings highlight the drawbacks in using REDD to mitigate global climate change and conserve forests based on farmers' financial incentives.

show abstract

“…Sathaye (2005) describe the model as a dynamic partial equilibrium model built to simulate the response of the forestry sector to changes in future carbon prices. The general equilibrium models mostly rely on a few global data sets.…”

Section: Assessment Of Financial Incentives Using Gcomapmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To estimate the future investment necessary for plantation implementation and the effect of those investments on the plantation rate, the Generalized Comprehensive Mitigation Assessment Process (GCOMAP) model was used (Sathaye 2005). Sathaye (2005) describe the model as a dynamic partial equilibrium model built to simulate the response of the forestry sector to changes in future carbon prices.…”

Section: Assessment Of Financial Incentives Using Gcomapmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to plantation activities in different agro-ecological zones of Southern India

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses environmental and socio-economic barriers for plantation activities on local and regional level and investigates the potential for carbon finance to stimulate increased rates of forest plantation on wasteland, i.e., degraded lands, in southern India. Building on multidisciplinary field work and results from the model GCOMAP, the aim is to (i) identify and characterise the barriers to plantation activities in four agro-ecological zones in the state of Karnataka and (ii) investigate what would be required to overcome these barriers and enhance the plantation rate and productivity. The results show that a rehabilitation of the wasteland based on plantation activities is not only possible, but also anticipated by the local population and would lead to positive environmental and socioeconomic effects at a local level. However, in many cases, the establishment of plantation activities is hindered by a lack of financial resources, low land productivity and water scarcity. Based on the model used and the results from the field work, it can be concluded that certified emission reductions such as carbon credits or other compensatory systems may help to overcome the financial barrier, however the price needs to be significantly increased if these measures are to have any large-scale impact.

show abstract

GHG Mitigation Potential, Costs and Benefits in Global Forests: A Dynamic Partial Equilibrium Approach

Abstract: This paper reports on the global potential for carbon sequestration in forest plantations

Cited by 62 publications

References 35 publications

Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation

Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation

Opportunity Costs of Carbon Emissions Stemming from Changes in Land Use

Barriers to plantation activities in different agro-ecological zones of Southern India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About