IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/332261.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating the costs of reducing CO2 emission via avoided deforestation with integrated assessment modeling

Author

Listed:
  • Overmars, Koen P.
  • Stehfest, Elke
  • Tabeau, Andrzej
  • Meijl, Hans van
  • Beltrán, Angelica Mendoza
  • Kram, Tom

Abstract

Estimates for deforestation and forest degradation were shown to account for about 17% of greenhouse gas emissions. The implementation of REDD is suggested to provide substantial emission reductions at low costs. Proper calculation of such a costs requires integrated modeling approach involving biophysical impact calculations and estimation economic effects of these. However, only few global modeling studies concerning this issue exist, and the actual implementation can take many forms. This study uses the approach of assuming that non Annex-I countries protect carbon rich areas from deforestation, and therefore loose the opportunity to use it as agricultural area. The opportunity costs of reducing deforestation within the framework of REDD are assessed with the global economic model LEITAP and the biophysical model IMAGE. 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 forest for agriculture. We endogenize availability of agricultural land by introducing a flexible land supply curve and proxy the implementation of the REDD policies as a shift in the asymptote of this curve representing maximal agricultural land availability in various regions in the world. In a series of experiments, increasingly more carbon rich areas are protected from deforestation, the associated costs in terms of GDP reduction are calculated with the economic model. The associated reduction in CO2 emissions from land use change are calculated by the IMAGE model. From this series of experiments, abatement cost curves, relating CO2 emission reduction to costs of this reduction, are constructed. The results show that globally a maximum CO2 reduction of around 2.5 Gt could be achieved. However, regional differences are large, ranging from about 0 to 3.2 USD per ton CO2 in Africa, 2 to 9 USD in South and Central America, and 20 to 60 USD in Southeast Asia.

Suggested Citation

  • Overmars, Koen P. & Stehfest, Elke & Tabeau, Andrzej & Meijl, Hans van & Beltrán, Angelica Mendoza & Kram, Tom, 2012. "Estimating the costs of reducing CO2 emission via avoided deforestation with integrated assessment modeling," Conference papers 332261, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:332261
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/332261/files/5960.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Vuuren, Detlef P. & Stehfest, Elke & den Elzen, Michel G.J. & van Vliet, Jasper & Isaac, Morna, 2010. "Exploring IMAGE model scenarios that keep greenhouse gas radiative forcing below 3 W/m2 in 2100," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 1105-1120, September.
    2. Brent Sohngen and Roger Sedjo, 2006. "Carbon Sequestration in Global Forests Under Different Carbon Price Regimes," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 109-126.
    3. Martin Banse & Hans van Meijl & Andrzej Tabeau & Geert Woltjer, 2008. "Will EU biofuel policies affect global agricultural markets?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(2), pages 117-141, June.
    4. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, December.
    5. V. Bellassen & V. Gitz, 2008. "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Cameroon - Assessing costs and benefits," Post-Print hal-00716370, HAL.
    6. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Bellassen, Valentin & Gitz, Vincent, 2008. "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Cameroon -- Assessing costs and benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 336-344, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Mwaura, Francis, 2014. "Understanding dynamism of land ownership, use and patterns of allocation for the locals before inviting foreign investors: the Ugandan case," Conference papers 332543, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    3. Knoke, Thomas & Steinbeis, Otto-Emmanuel & Bösch, Matthias & Román-Cuesta, Rosa María & Burkhardt, Thomas, 2011. "Cost-effective compensation to avoid carbon emissions from forest loss: An approach to consider price-quantity effects and risk-aversion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1139-1153, April.
    4. Panichelli, Luis & Gnansounou, Edgard, 2015. "Impact of agricultural-based biofuel production on greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change: Key modelling choices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 344-360.
    5. Patrick Bottazzi & David Crespo & Harry Soria & Hy Dao & Marcelo Serrudo & Jean Paul Benavides & Stefan Schwarzer & Stephan Rist, 2014. "Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade-offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, January.
    6. Jaza Folefack, Achille Jean & Ngo Njiki, Marie Gaelle & Darr, Dietrich, 2019. "Safeguarding forests from smallholder oil palm expansion by more intensive production? The case of Ngwei forest (Cameroon)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 45-61.
    7. Hertel, Thomas W. & Tyner, Wallace E. & Birur, Dileep K., 2008. "Biofuels for all? Understanding the Global Impacts of Multinational Mandates," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6526, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Alvaro Calzadilla & Katrin Rehdanz & Richard Betts & Pete Falloon & Andy Wiltshire & Richard Tol, 2013. "Climate change impacts on global agriculture," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 357-374, September.
    9. Doumax, Virginie & Philip, Jean-Marc & Sarasa, Cristina, 2014. "Biofuels, tax policies and oil prices in France: Insights from a dynamic CGE model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 603-614.
    10. Damnyag, Lawrence & Tyynelä, Tapani & Appiah, Mark & Saastamoinen, Olli & Pappinen, Ari, 2011. "Economic cost of deforestation in semi-deciduous forests — A case of two forest districts in Ghana," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2503-2510.
    11. María Blanco & Marcel Adenäuer & Shailesh Shrestha & Arno Becker, 2012. "Methodology to assess EU Biofuel Policies: The CAPRI Approach," JRC Research Reports JRC80037, Joint Research Centre.
    12. Westholm, Lisa & Henders, Sabine & Ostwald, Madelene & Mattsson, Eskil, 2009. "Assessment of existing global financial initiatives and monitoring aspects of carbon sinks in forest ecosystems – The issue of REDD," Working Papers in Economics 373, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    13. Dandres, Thomas & Gaudreault, Caroline & Tirado-Seco, Pablo & Samson, Réjean, 2011. "Assessing non-marginal variations with consequential LCA: Application to European energy sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 3121-3132, August.
    14. Cunha, Felipe Arias Fogliano de Souza & Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Cosenza, Carlos Alberto Nunes & Lucena, André F.P., 2016. "The implementation costs of forest conservation policies in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 209-220.
    15. Anderson, Blake & M'Gonigle, Michael, 2012. "Does ecological economics have a future?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 37-48.
    16. Virginie Doumax & Jean-Marc Philip & Cristina Sarasa, 2013. "Biofuels, tax policies and oil price: insights from a dynamic CGE model," EcoMod2013 5417, EcoMod.
    17. Kamel Louhichi & Hugo Valin, 2012. "Impact of EU biofuel policies on the French arable sector: A micro-level analysis using global market and farm-based supply models," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 93(3), pages 233-272.
    18. Rossi, Vivien & Claeys, Florian & Bastin, Didier & Gourlet-Fleury, Sylvie & Guizol, Philippe & Eba’a-Atyi, Richard & Sonwa, Denis J. & Lescuyer, Guillaume & Picard, Nicolas, 2017. "Could REDD+ mechanisms induce logging companies to reduce forest degradation in Central Africa?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 107-117.
    19. Escobar, Neus & Manrique-de-Lara-Peñate, Casiano & Sanjuán, Neus & Clemente, Gabriela & Rozakis, Stelios, 2017. "An agro-industrial model for the optimization of biodiesel production in Spain to meet the European GHG reduction targets," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 619-631.
    20. Zuzana Smeets Kristkova & Edward Smeets & Hans van Meijl, 2016. "Agricultural R&D investments, biofuel policy and food security – a CGE analysis," EcoMod2016 9966, EcoMod.

    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:ags:pugtwp:332261. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    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.