Supplementing REDD+ with Biodiversity Payments: The Paradox of Paying for Multiple Ecosystem Services - Working Paper 347
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.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Cattaneo, Andrea & Hellerstein, Daniel & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Myers, Christina, 2006. "Balancing the Multiple Objectives of Conservation Programs," Economic Research Report 7257, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
- 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.
- 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.
- Lykke Andersen & Jonah Busch & Elizabeth Curran & Juan Carlos Ledezma & Joaquín Mayorga & Mélissa Bellier, 2012. "Environmental and socio-economic consequences of forest carbon payments in Bolivia: Results of the OSIRIS-Bolivia model," Development Research Working Paper Series 02/2012, Institute for Advanced Development Studies.
- 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.
- Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sheila & Tito, Marcos Rügnitz & Pereira, Ligia & Nascimento, Nathalia, 2010. "Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1272-1282, April.
- 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), December.
- Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cgd:wpaper:347. 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: (David Roodman)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.