IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-03-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Forest Carbon Sinks: European Union, Japanese, and Canadian Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Sedjo, Roger

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Amano, Masahiro

Abstract

This report compares the approaches of the governments of Japan, Canada, and the European Union member countries toward using carbon sinks to meet their respective Kyoto Protocol carbon reduction targets. Various policies have been proposed by which governments can sequester carbon by promoting afforestation and reforestation, slowing deforestation, and undertaking forest management activities under Articles 3.3 and 3.4. At this time, carbon emissions reduction programs are still under development, both within individual countries and within the context of the protocol. Although some of the details have been worked out, concrete definitions are often still lacking, especially as regards impermanence of forests, additionality, leakage, and socioeconomic and environmental impacts. Japan appears most likely to rely most heavily on forest and biological sinks to meet its Kyoto targets. For Canada, sinks are likely to play a rather modest role. For the EU, the role of sinks is likely to be even smaller, with sinks playing no role for some EU countries (including Sweden, our case study country). However, the final decisions have not yet been made for any of these countries, and the actual role of sinks remains to be determined.

Suggested Citation

  • Sedjo, Roger & Amano, Masahiro, 2003. "Forest Carbon Sinks: European Union, Japanese, and Canadian Approaches," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-41, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-03-41
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-03-41.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sedjo, Roger A., 1997. "The economics of forest-based biomass supply," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 559-566, May.
    2. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Clark S. Binkley & Gregg Delcourt, 1995. "Effect of Carbon Taxes and Subsidies on Optimal Forest Rotation Age and Supply of Carbon Services," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(2), pages 365-374.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Johnston, Craig M.T. & Withey, Patrick, 2017. "Managing Forests for Carbon and Timber: A Markov Decision Model of Uneven-aged Forest Management With Risk," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 31-39.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amano, Masahiro & Sedjo, Roger A., 2003. "Forest Carbon Sinks: European Union, Japanese, and Canadian Approaches," Discussion Papers 10913, Resources for the Future.
    2. Rong Li & Brent Sohngen & Xiaohui Tian, 2022. "Efficiency of forest carbon policies at intensive and extensive margins," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1243-1267, August.
    3. Gregmar Galinato & Shinsuke Uchida, 2010. "Evaluating Temporary Certified Emission Reductions in Reforestation and Afforestation Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 111-133, May.
    4. Kooten, G. Cornelis Van, 2022. "The Impact of Carbon on Optimal Forest Rotation Ages: An Application to Coastal Forests in British Columbia," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322612, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Couture, Stéphane & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Forest management under fire risk when forest carbon sequestration has value," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2002-2011, September.
    6. Mobini, Mahdi & Sowlati, Taraneh & Sokhansanj, Shahab, 2011. "Forest biomass supply logistics for a power plant using the discrete-event simulation approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(4), pages 1241-1250, April.
    7. Grilli, Gianluca & Fratini, Roberto & Marone, Enrico & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2020. "A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    8. Centeno, Maria Luz N., 2000. "Deforestation In The Philippines: A Cge Modelling Approach," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123619, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Dwivedi, Puneet & Bailis, Robert & Stainback, Andrew & Carter, Douglas R., 2012. "Impact of payments for carbon sequestered in wood products and avoided carbon emissions on the profitability of NIPF landowners in the US South," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 63-69.
    10. Michetti, Melania & Parrado, Ramiro, 2012. "Improving Land-use modelling within CGE to assess Forest-based Mitigation Potential and Costs," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 122862, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    11. Shaikh, Sabina L. & Sun, Lili & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2005. "Are Agricultural Values a Reliable Guide in Determining Landowners’ Decisions to Create Carbon Forest Sinks?," Working Papers 37017, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    12. McKenney, Daniel W. & Yemshanov, Denys & Fox, Glenn & Ramlal, Elizabeth, 2004. "Cost estimates for carbon sequestration from fast growing poplar plantations in Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 345-358, June.
    13. Asante, Patrick & Armstrong, Glen W. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2011. "Carbon sequestration and the optimal forest harvest decision: A dynamic programming approach considering biomass and dead organic matter," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 3-17, January.
    14. Kim, C.S. & Lewandrowski, Jan & Sands, Ronald D. & Johansson, Robert C., 2011. "Permanence of Carbon Sequestered in Forests under Uncertainty," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103565, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Guthrie, Graeme & Kumareswaran, Dinesh, 2003. "Carbon Subsidies and Optimal Forest Management," Working Paper Series 3879, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    16. Favero, Alice & Mendelsohn, Robert & Sohngen, Brent, 2016. "Carbon Storage and Bioenergy: Using Forests for Climate Mitigation," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 232215, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    17. Nghiem, Nhung, 2014. "Optimal rotation age for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation in Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 56-64.
    18. Ovando, Paola & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2009. "Land use and carbon mitigation in Europe: A survey of the potentials of different alternatives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 992-1003, March.
    19. H. Böttcher & A. Freibauer & Y. Scholz & V. Gitz & P. Ciais & M. Mund & T. Wutzler & E.-D. Schulze, 2012. "Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change," Post-Print hal-00716172, HAL.
    20. Sohngen, Brent & Favero, Alice & Jin, Yufang & Huang, Yuhan, 2018. "Global cost estimates of forest climate mitigation with albedo: A new policy approach," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274307, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Climate; Sinks; Kyoto Protocol; Forestry. Canada; Japan; European Union;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F01 - International Economics - - General - - - Global Outlook
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-03-41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.