IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Who Gains from Credited Forest Carbon Sinks: Finland and other Annex I Countries in Comparison

Listed author(s):
  • Leena Kerkelä
  • Johanna Pohjola
  • Raisa Mäkipää

In the Kyoto Protocol carbon sinks became a tool for releasing the economic burden of achieving the emission target. For Finland, credits from carbon sinks might be important since the amount of carbon sequestered in total forest area has been large relative to total emissions. It was agreed in Bonn, however, that only part of the sinks resulting from forest management is allowed to be credited. Here we use the multi-region computable general equilibrium model GTAP-E to analyse (i) which countries benefit from carbon sinks, (ii) how benefits are distributed within the economy, (iii) whether carbon sinks reduce the economic burden for Finland as such and relative to other countries and (iv) what is the economic importance of the larger sinks allowed for Japan and Canada, both for themselves and for other countries. For Finland, where the costs of achieving the emission target were already originally high, the inclusion of credited forest carbon sinks provides only a slight release from economic burden in the first commitment period. The credited carbon sink decrease the necessary emission reduction only slightly because the amount to be credited in the first commitment period is low, and a part of that is used to compensate the source of carbon under Article 3.3. New Zealand gains most from the inclusion of sinks; but Sweden, Canada and Japan also benefit considerably. Of these countries, only Canada has high costs without sinks. Thus credited sinks only partly reduce the difference in economic burden of achieving the Kyoto target among countries. Even though country-specific sinks clearly benefit Canada and Japan, their effect on other countries, either on the economywide or on the sectoral level, remains marginal. For example, paper and pulp industry in Finland does not seem to lose competitiveness. Sectors that are fossil fuel intensive, like the iron and steel or the chemical industry, benefit from the inclusion of sinks while the other sectors, like machinery, may suffer.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Government Institute for Economic Research Finland (VATT) in its series Discussion Papers with number 291.

in new window

Date of creation: 15 Jan 2003
Handle: RePEc:fer:dpaper:291
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Arkadiankatu 7, P.O. Box 1279, FI-00101 Helsinki

Phone: +358 295 519 400
Fax: +358 295 519 599
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Email:

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.:

in new window

  1. Reimund Schwarze, 2001. "The "Crunch issue" of additional sinks," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 397-401, September.
  2. Burniaux, Jean-Marc & Truong Truong, 2002. "GTAP-E: An Energy-Environmental Version of the GTAP Model," GTAP Technical Papers 923, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
  3. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685.
  4. Heikki Kemppi & Adriaan Perrels & Antti Lehtilä, 2001. "Assessment of the Macro-Economic Effects of Domestic Climate Policies for Finland," Research Reports 82, Government Institute for Economic Research Finland (VATT).
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fer:dpaper:291. 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: (Anita Niskanen)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.