IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v55y2011i4p537-559.html

Long‐term versus temporary certified emission reductions in forest carbon sequestration programs

Author

Listed:
  • Gregmar I. Galinato
  • Aaron Olanie
  • Shinsuke Uchida
  • Jonathan K. Yoder

Abstract

Under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, forest projects can receive returns for carbon sequestration via two crediting instruments: temporary or long-term certified emission reductions (tCERs or lCERs). This study shows the effect of lCERs on the private owner’s forest rotation intervals decision and carbon credit generation in afforestation and reforestation projects. A credit verification mechanism with a harvest penalty implemented under the lCERs policy distorts the timber harvesting decision and the corresponding carbon credit supply. Two opposing incentives are created by the lCERs mechanism which leads to either longer or shorter rotations compared to the Faustmann rotation, depending on which incentive prevails. Our numerical results show that both lCERs and tCERs seem to have similar impacts on harvesting incentives, but the resulting carbon supply differs among the instruments owing to the credit verification mechanism. The tCERs carbon supply curve is monotonically increasing in the carbon price, while a lCERs carbon supply is non-monotonic and may have a backward bending region over a range of carbon prices.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Gregmar I. Galinato & Aaron Olanie & Shinsuke Uchida & Jonathan K. Yoder, 2011. "Long‐term versus temporary certified emission reductions in forest carbon sequestration programs," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(4), pages 537-559, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:55:y:2011:i:4:p:537-559
    DOI: j.1467-8489.2011.00555.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2011.00555.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/j.1467-8489.2011.00555.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. David Walker, 2014. "The Economic Potential for Forest-Based Carbon Sequestration under Different Emissions Targets and Accounting Schemes," Working Papers 2014.02, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    2. Zhang, Yue-Jun & Liu, Jing-Yue & Woodward, Richard T., 2023. "Has Chinese Certified Emission Reduction trading reduced rural poverty in China?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 67(03), April.
    3. Hou, Guolong & Delang, Claudio O. & Lu, Xixi & Olschewski, Roland, 2020. "Optimizing rotation periods of forest plantations: The effects of carbon accounting regimes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    4. Juutinen, Artti & Ahtikoski, Anssi & Lehtonen, Mika & Mäkipää, Raisa & Ollikainen, Markku, 2018. "The impact of a short-term carbon payment scheme on forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 115-127.
    5. Mandaloufas, Melissa & Lamas, Wendell de Queiroz & Brown, Scott & Irizarry Quintero, Anamari, 2015. "Energy balance analysis of the Brazilian alcohol for flex fuel production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 403-414.
    6. Cacho, Oscar J. & Lipper, Leslie & Moss, Jonathan, 2013. "Transaction costs of carbon offset projects: A comparative study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 232-243.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry

    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:bla:ajarec:v:55:y:2011:i:4:p:537-559. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.