Economy and ecology of emerging markets and credits for bio-sequestered carbon on private land in tropical Australia
AbstractA central question addressed is whether emerging carbon markets have the potential to provide an economic incentive for private landholders to reforest without recourse to subsidy. A second question is whether bio-sequestration in the Wet Tropics of Queensland is cost-competitive with southern Australia. A third, given that plantations of monocultures also provide carbon sinks, is: are the goals of carbon sequestration and biodiversity mutually exclusive or complementary? Australia intends to meet its Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions target even though it has not ratified the Protocol. While a national system of carbon emission cap and trade does not exist, unilateral action by some states to mandate industry caps has generated a demand for offsets. However, it is the voluntary market for offsets, stimulated by demand by companies and government departments that is most active. The favourable climate and soils of the Wet Tropics Region of north Queensland have enabled the evolution of unique ecosystems. Deforestation of these has been greatly reduced by World Heritage listing of the Wet Tropics. Nevertheless much of the landscape remains fragmented. An official priority is the encouragement of rainforest plantations on private land with the aim of augmenting endangered ecosystems and the habitat of iconic species, but reforestation is heavily subsidised by the Australian government. Using methodology that allows the comparison of uneven streams of costs and benefits, it is found that - at present prices - payments for sequestered carbon defray only a small proportion of costs, providing a level of incentive insufficient to stimulate restoration. Comparative analysis shows that monocultures sequester carbon at a much lower price per tonne. However, despite the relatively high growth rates of monocultures in the region, their cost per tonne of carbon are greater than costs in southern Australia. A decreasing supply of suitable land for bio-sequestration offsets in southern Australia may well force brokers to look to the Wet Tropics. In this event - the economic analysis suggests - land in areas that carried endangered or threatened ecosystems will be devoted to monocultures rather than restored rainforest. The paper highlights the asymmetry between the availability of credits for carbon and of credits for biodiversity and the need for public investment in conservation and restoration. Requiring further investigation is the potential demand for carbon offsets with high biodiversity benefits - so called "boutique abatements" - that could readily be supplied in the Queensland Wet Tropics.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.
Volume (Year): 66 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2-3 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Stavins, Robert & Newell, Richard, 1999.
"Climate Change and Forest Sinks: Factors Affecting the Costs of Carbon Sequestration,"
dp-99-31-rev, Resources For the Future.
- Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2000. "Climate Change and Forest Sinks: Factors Affecting the Costs of Carbon Sequestration," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 211-235, November.
- Stavins, Robert, 2000. "limate Change and Forest Sinks: Factors Affecting the Costs of Carbon Sequestration," Working Paper Series rwp00-001, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
- Caparros, Alejandro & Jacquemont, Frederic, 2003. "Conflicts between biodiversity and carbon sequestration programs: economic and legal implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 143-157, August.
- Arrow, Kenneth J & Fisher, Anthony C, 1974. "Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 88(2), pages 312-19, May.
- Anderson, Blake & M'Gonigle, Michael, 2012. "Does ecological economics have a future?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 37-48.
- Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wendy Shamier).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.