Which policy would work better for improved soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa, fertilizer subsidies or carbon credits?
Why do many smallholder farmers fail to adopt improved land management practices which can improve yields and incomes? The reason is not always because these practices are uneconomical but sometimes it is because resource poverty prevents farmers from taking advantage of yield and income enhancing agricultural practices. In this study we examine the relative merits of using a carbon payment scheme compared to a subsidy policy to help reduce the cost of specific land management practices with productivity and ecosystem benefits such as carbon sequestration. Using a 30-year crop simulation model, we examine the impacts of different soil fertility management treatments (SFTs) on yields and soil carbon and proceed to compute discounted incremental revenue streams over the same period. We find that the SFTs simulated are on average profitable given the conditions assumed in our DSSAT simulations. When carbon was priced at $8 or $12/t CO2e, the increase in incremental incomes generated from a carbon payment were invariably higher than those imputed from a 50% fertilizer subsidy. When carbon was priced at $4/Co2e, the increase was almost similar and sometimes higher than that from the imputed income transfer from a 50% subsidy. If these indications hold in further research, it could imply that using fertilizer subsidies as the sole mechanism for stimulating adoption of improved soil fertility management practices may unnecessarily forgo other complementary and possibly superior alternatives. Depending on the specific economic equity considerations, we conclude that either of these instruments can be used to help farmers break through resource barriers that prevent them from adopting productivity-enhancing and environmentally beneficial agricultural practices. However, given the fiscal burden on public finances and possible opportunity costs of any substantial subsidy program, it is possible that a carbon payment system can be a reasonable alternative assuming the range of carbon prices used in this study and especially if accompanied by measures to ameliorate the costs of fertilizer to farmers.
If 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:110:y:2012:i:c:p:162-172. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
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.