IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v89y2013iv1p655-675.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Supplementing REDD+ with Biodiversity Payments: The Paradox of Paying for Multiple Ecosystem Services

Author

Listed:
  • Jonah Busch

Abstract

An international mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation using carbon payments (REDD+) can be leveraged to make payments for forests’ biodiversity as well. Paradoxically, under conditions consistent with emerging REDD+ programs, money spent on a mixture of carbon payments and biodiversity payments has the potential to incentivize the provision of greater climate benefits than an equal amount of money spent only on carbon payments. This paradoxical result arises when diversifying payments across multiple services allows a funding agency to spend less on additional rents to existing suppliers of avoided deforestation and more on incentivizing the participation of new suppliers.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonah Busch, 2013. "Supplementing REDD+ with Biodiversity Payments: The Paradox of Paying for Multiple Ecosystem Services," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(4), pages 655-675.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:89:y:2013:iv:1:p:655-675
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/89/4/655
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stoneham, Gary & Chaudhri, Vivek & Ha, Arthur & Strappazzon, Loris, 2003. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1-24.
    2. Bernardo B. N. Strassburg & Ana S. L. Rodrigues & Mykola Gusti & Andrew Balmford & Steffen Fritz & Michael Obersteiner & R. Kerry Turner & Thomas M. Brooks, 2012. "Impacts of incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation on global species extinctions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(5), pages 350-355, May.
    3. Gary Stoneham & Vivek Chaudhri & Arthur Ha & Loris Strappazzon, 2003. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria's BushTender trial," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 477-500, December.
    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. Cacho, Oscar J. & Milne, Sarah & Gonzalez, Ricardo & Tacconi, Luca, 2014. "Benefits and costs of deforestation by smallholders: Implications for forest conservation and climate policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 321-332.
    2. Gary D. Libecap, 2014. "Addressing Global Environmental Externalities: Transaction Costs Considerations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 424-479, June.
    3. Marie Hrabanski & Jean-François Le Coq, 2018. "Tackling fragmentation of climate and biodiversity regimes complexes: the role ecosystem services and payment for environmental services : the role ecosystem services and payment for environmental ser," Post-Print hal-02958680, HAL.
    4. Gary D. Libecap, 2013. "Addressing Global Environmental Externalities: Transaction Costs Considerations," NBER Working Papers 19501, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Uetake, Tetsuya, 2014. "Policy Mixes for the Provision of Agri-environmental Public Goods and Additionality: Some country experiences," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 173041, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. Mbatu, Richard S, 2016. "REDD+ research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 140-152.

    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. Jonah Busch, 2013. "Supplementing REDD+ with Biodiversity Payments: The Paradox of Paying for Multiple Ecosystem Services - Working Paper 347," Working Papers 347, Center for Global Development.
    2. Latacz-Lohmann, U. & Schilizzi, S., 2008. "Quantifying the Benefits of Conservation Auctions: Evidence from an Economic Experiment," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 43, March.
    3. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    4. Cooke, Benjamin & Corbo-Perkins, Gabriella, 2018. "Co-opting and resisting market based instruments for private land conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 172-181.
    5. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    6. Steven Schilizzi & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2012. "Evaluating Conservation Auctions with Unknown Bidder Costs: The Scottish Fishing Vessel Decommissioning Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 658-673.
    7. Comerford, Emma & Binney, Jim, 2006. "Lessons learned from the Queensland Vegetation Incentives Program - applying auction theory to vegetation protection," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 174101, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    9. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    10. Md Sayed Iftekhar & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2017. "How well do conservation auctions perform in achieving landscape-level outcomes? A comparison of auction formats and bid selection criteria," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(4), pages 557-575, October.
    11. Harry Clarke & Iain Fraser & Robert George Waschik, 2014. "How Much Abatement Will Australia's Emissions Reduction Fund Buy?," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 33(4), pages 315-326, December.
    12. Toho Hien & Raphaële Preget & Mabel Tidball, 2019. "Les enchères de contrats agroenvironnementaux : comparaison expérimentale entre contrainte d’objectif et contrainte de budget," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02378412, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    13. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.
    14. M. S. Iftekhar & A. Hailu & R. K. Lindner, 2014. "Does It Pay to Increase Competition in Combinatorial Conservation Auctions?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 62(3), pages 411-433, September.
    15. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & McCosker, Kevin & Northey, Adam, 2018. "Assessing cost-effectiveness when environmental benefits are bundled: agricultural water management in Great Barrier Reef catchments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(3), July.
    16. Latacz-Lohmann, U. & Schilizzi, S. & Breustedt, G., 2012. "Auctioning outcome-based conservation contracts," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 47, March.
    17. Muñoz-Piña, Carlos & Guevara, Alejandro & Torres, Juan Manuel & Braña, Josefina, 2008. "Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: Analysis, negotiations and results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 725-736, May.
    18. Stoneham, Gary & O'Keefe, Andrew & Eigenraam, Mark & Bain, David, 2012. "Creating physical environmental asset accounts from markets for ecosystem conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 114-122.
    19. Banerjee, Simanti & Conte, Marc N., 2017. "Balancing Complexity and Rent-Seeking in Multi-Attribute Conservation Procurement Auctions: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," 2018 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 5-7, 2018, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 266293, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Lewis, David J. & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Nelson, Erik & Polasky, Stephen, 2011. "The efficiency of voluntary incentive policies for preventing biodiversity loss," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 192-211, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

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

    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:uwp:landec:v:89:y:2013:iv:1:p:655-675. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.