IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i22p15809-d1277442.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Derivation and Evaluation of a Business Model to Promote Carbon Farming That Generates Valid Carbon Removal

Author

Listed:
  • Cecilia Roxanne Geier

    (Department of Farm Management (410b), Institute of Farm Management, University of Hohenheim, Schwerzstraße 44, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Enno Bahrs

    (Department of Farm Management (410b), Institute of Farm Management, University of Hohenheim, Schwerzstraße 44, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Christian Sponagel

    (Department of Farm Management (410b), Institute of Farm Management, University of Hohenheim, Schwerzstraße 44, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany)

Abstract

This contribution evaluates and examines the scope of 26 global carbon farming projects with a view to analyzing existing concepts for developing a business model for promoting carbon farming in order to generate valid carbon removal. It thus addresses an important aspect of the objectives of the European Green Deal. This study is based on a literature search analyzing four certification standards, an expert-based online survey, and an expert-based online workshop to evaluate different practice approaches identified by previous studies and additional information sources. The results highlight the theoretical potential of a result-based business model using agroforestry to fulfil the essential requirements to promote carbon farming for generating carbon removal. Although the study has limitations regarding the number of projects examined and experts consulted, there is a high probability that the underlying requirements could not be sufficiently fulfilled when translating them into practice. The identified concepts failed as a consequence of inadequate permanence assurance mechanisms, impractical measurement accuracy, poor precision in baseline scenarios, and lack of additionality. To remedy this, we recommend a shift away from a pure focus on promoting carbon farming to achieve carbon removal towards promoting the co-benefits of carbon farming. Further research should evaluate the extent to which stakeholders are interested in giving their financial backing to these co-benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Cecilia Roxanne Geier & Enno Bahrs & Christian Sponagel, 2023. "Derivation and Evaluation of a Business Model to Promote Carbon Farming That Generates Valid Carbon Removal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-30, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:22:p:15809-:d:1277442
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/22/15809/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/22/15809/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isabel Teichmann, 2014. "Klimaschutz durch Biokohle in der deutschen Landwirtschaft: Potentiale und Kosten," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 81(1/2), pages 3-13.
    2. Kragt, Marit E. & Dumbrell, Nikki P. & Blackmore, Louise, 2017. "Motivations and barriers for Western Australian broad-acre farmers to adopt carbon farming," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 115-123.
    3. Ramírez, C.A. & Worrell, E., 2006. "Feeding fossil fuels to the soil," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 75-93.
    4. Michael Wara, 2007. "Is the global carbon market working?," Nature, Nature, vol. 445(7128), pages 595-596, February.
    5. Tas Thamo & David J. Pannell, 2016. "Challenges in developing effective policy for soil carbon sequestration: perspectives on additionality, leakage, and permanence," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(8), pages 973-992, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. André Wolf, 2022. "Sustainable Carbon Cycles: A Framework for the Ramp-up of Carbon Capture?," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 57(4), pages 260-266, July.
    2. Nicole A. MATHYS & Jaime DE MELO, 2010. "Trade and Climate Change: The Challenges Ahead," Working Papers P14, FERDI.
    3. Marc N. Conte & Matthew J. Kotchen, 2010. "Explaining The Price Of Voluntary Carbon Offsets," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(02), pages 93-111.
    4. Raphael Calel & Jonathan Colmer & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Matthieu Glachant, 2021. "Do carbon offsets offset carbon?," CEP Discussion Papers dp1808, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    5. Thamo, Tas & Addai, Donkor & Kragt, Marit E. & Kingwell, Ross S. & Pannell, David J. & Robertson, Michael J., 2019. "Climate change reduces the mitigation obtainable from sequestration in an Australian farming system," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    6. Jun Li & Michel Colombier, 2011. "Economic instruments for mitigating carbon emissions: scaling up carbon finance in China’s buildings sector," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 567-591, August.
    7. Aviel Verbruggen, 2011. "A Turbo Drive for the Global Reduction of Energy-Related CO 2 Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Zheng, Zeyu & Xiao, Rui & Shi, Haibo & Li, Guihong & Zhou, Xiaofeng, 2015. "Statistical regularities of Carbon emission trading market: Evidence from European Union allowances," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 426(C), pages 9-15.
    9. Matthew Ranson & Robert N. Stavins, 2016. "Linkage of greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: learning from experience," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 284-300, April.
    10. Rong, Fang, 2010. "Understanding developing country stances on post-2012 climate change negotiations: Comparative analysis of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4582-4591, August.
    11. Fankhauser, Samuel & Martin, Nat, 2010. "The economics of the CDM levy: Revenue potential, tax incidence and distortionary effects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 357-363, January.
    12. Regan, Courtney M. & Connor, Jeffery D. & Summers, David M. & Settre, Claire & O’Connor, Patrick J. & Cavagnaro, Timothy R., 2020. "The influence of crediting and permanence periods on Australian forest-based carbon offset supply," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    13. Wang, Qiang & Chen, Yong, 2010. "Barriers and opportunities of using the clean development mechanism to advance renewable energy development in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(7), pages 1989-1998, September.
    14. Philipp Pattberg & Johannes Stripple, 2008. "Beyond the public and private divide: remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 367-388, December.
    15. Christoph Böhringer & Thomas Rutherford & Marco Springmann, 2015. "Clean-Development Investments: An Incentive-Compatible CGE Modelling Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(4), pages 633-651, April.
    16. Matthew Ranson & Robert N. Stavins, 2012. "Post-Durban Climate Policy Architecture Based on Linkage of Cap-and-Trade Systems," NBER Working Papers 18140, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Xie, Huiming & Shen, Manhong & Wang, Rui, 2014. "Determinants of clean development mechanism activity: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 797-806.
    18. Meenakshi Sharma & Rajesh Kaushal & Prashant Kaushik & Seeram Ramakrishna, 2021. "Carbon Farming: Prospects and Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-15, October.
    19. Michael Jakob & Jan Christoph Steckel & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2014. "Consumption- Versus Production-Based Emission Policies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 297-318, October.
    20. Tol, Richard S.J., 2017. "The structure of the climate debate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 431-438.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:22:p:15809-:d:1277442. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.