IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v2y2002i1p35-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Baseline, leakage and measurement issues: how do forestry and energy projects compare?

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth M. Chomitz

Abstract

This paper examines three issues in quantifying project-level emissions reductions (ERs): baseline and additionality determination, leakage assessment, and measurement of net emissions. It finds no systematic differences between land use change and forestry (LUCF) and energy projects in addressing these issues. Rather, the ease of quantification depends on the following: •The level and distribution of direct financial benefits that result from the project, since this is a key determinant of additionality. •The degree to which the project is integrated with a broader physical and economic system, since this determines the amount of leakage. •The internal homogeneity and geographic dispersion of the project components-a key determinant of measurement costs. These dimensions cut across the energy versus LUCF distinction.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth M. Chomitz, 2002. "Baseline, leakage and measurement issues: how do forestry and energy projects compare?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 35-49, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:2:y:2002:i:1:p:35-49
    DOI: 10.3763/cpol.2002.0204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3763/cpol.2002.0204
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gwenole Le Velly & Alexandre Sauquet & Sergio Cortina-Villar, 2015. "PES Impact and Leakages over Several Cohorts: The Case of PSA-H in Yucatan, Mexico," Working Papers halshs-01228371, HAL.
    2. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer Marie & Shapiro, Elizabeth N. & Sims, Katharine R.E., 2010. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico's National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Staff Papers 93045, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    3. World Bank, 2006. "Poverty, Growth, and Environment in Brazil : Spatial Insights for Policymaking," World Bank Other Operational Studies 12852, The World Bank.
    4. Glomsrød, Solveig & Wei, Taoyuan & Liu, Gang & Aune, Jens B., 2011. "How well do tree plantations comply with the twin targets of the Clean Development Mechanism? -- The case of tree plantations in Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1066-1074, April.
    5. Paul J. Burke, 2016. "Undermined by Adverse Selection: Australia's Direct Action Abatement Subsidies," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 35(3), pages 216-229, September.
    6. Ahmed Nahar Al-Hussaini, 2016. "Carbon Finance - A Platform for Development of Sustainable Business in Kuwait," Expert Journal of Business and Management, Sprint Investify, vol. 4(2), pages 87-93.
    7. Sreekanth, K.J., 2016. "Review on integrated strategies for energy policy planning and evaluation of GHG mitigation alternatives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 837-850.
    8. repec:taf:tcpoxx:v:17:y:2017:i:5:p:573-590 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Heng-Chi Lee & Bruce McCarl & Uwe Schneider & Chi-Chung Chen, 2007. "Leakage and Comparative Advantage Implications of Agricultural Participation in Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 471-494, May.
    10. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Elizabeth N. Shapiro & Katharine R. E. Sims, 2012. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 613-638.
    11. Hofstad, Ole & Araya, Meley Mekonen, 2015. "Optimal wood harvest in miombo woodland considering REDD+payments — A case study at Kitulangalo Forest Reserve, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 9-16.

    More about this item

    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:taf:tcpoxx:v:2:y:2002:i:1:p:35-49. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.