IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

RED Versus REDD: The Battle Between Extending Agricultural Land Use and Protecting Forest


  • Dixon, Peter B.
  • van Meijl, Hans
  • Rimmer, Maureen T.
  • Tabeau, Andrzej A.


This paper analyses the complex battle between RED and REDD policies and the resulting global consequences on land use, agricultural production, international trade flows and world food prices. A key methodological challenge is the representation of land use and the possibility to convert forestry land into agricultural land as REDD policies might prevent the use of forestry and wood lands for agriculture. The paper introduces a flexible land supply function allowing large changes in the total potential land availability for agriculture due to environmental considerations such as reducing emissions from deforestation. The parameters of the new land supply function are defined as variables of the model. In the paper, we simplify the implementation of the REDD policies as a shift in potential availability for agricultural land in various regions in the world. Both analysed policies are designed to save emissions but their land use impacts are opposite. The paper shows that global RED policies expand global land use with 3% relative to the baseline. Land abundant countries such as Canada, USA and Indonesia extend their use of agricultural land and their agricultural production. Severe REDD policies that protect all forest and woodlands in especially tropical land abundant regions such as Central and South America, South Africa and Indonesia imply a global reduction of agricultural land by 5% and lead to higher food and land prices. REDD policies reverse production and trade patterns as previous land abundant countries become land scarce countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Dixon, Peter B. & van Meijl, Hans & Rimmer, Maureen T. & Tabeau, Andrzej A., 2012. "RED Versus REDD: The Battle Between Extending Agricultural Land Use and Protecting Forest," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126361, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae12:126361

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Cheng Fang & Bruce A. Babcock, 2003. "China's Cotton Policy and the Impact of China's WTO Accession and Bt Cotton Adoption on the Chinese and U.S. Cotton Sectors," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 03-wp322, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    2. James Banks & Richard Blundell & Arthur Lewbel, 1997. "Quadratic Engel Curves And Consumer Demand," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 527-539, November.
    3. Ani L. Katchova & Wen S. Chern, 2004. "Comparison of Quadratic Expenditure System and Almost Ideal Demand System Based on Empirical Data," The International Journal of Applied Economics, Department of General Business, Southeastern Louisiana University, vol. 1(1), pages 55-64, September.
    4. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1980. "An Almost Ideal Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 312-326, June.
    5. Pollak, Robert A & Wales, Terence J, 1978. "Estimation of Complete Demand Systems from Household Budget Data: The Linear and Quadratic Expenditure Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(3), pages 348-359, June.
    6. L. Wade, 1988. "Review," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 99-100, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Tabeau, Andrzej & van Meijl, Hans & Overmars, Koen P. & Stehfest, Elke, 2017. "REDD policy impacts on the agri-food sector and food security," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 73-87.

    More about this item


    RED; REDD; flexible land supply function; land; land use changes; Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:ags:iaae12:126361. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: .

    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.