IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lsg/lsgwps/wp254.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Getting more ‘carbon bang’ for your ‘buck’ in Acre State, Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Charles Palmer
  • Luca Taschini
  • Tim Laing

Abstract

Acre State in Brazil is at the forefront of efforts to institutionalize jurisdictional-scale policies that aim to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Given limited REDD+ funds and uncertain returns from alternative land uses, this paper estimates the minimum incentive payment Acre’s government would have to pay forest landowners in each of its 22 municipalities to ensure forest conservation. Despite low profits but with relatively low conversion costs and stable returns over time, pasture generates the highest returns in 19 municipalities. Municipalities are ranked according to their relative policy costs, a ranking which is compared to the distribution of forest carbon stocks across Acre. Finally, the relative cost per ton of carbon is derived, which enables the identification of a group of 13 municipalities with the greatest potential for ‘carbon bang’ for a given ‘buck’.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles Palmer & Luca Taschini & Tim Laing, 2016. "Getting more ‘carbon bang’ for your ‘buck’ in Acre State, Brazil," GRI Working Papers 254, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    • Handle: RePEc:lsg:lsgwps:wp254
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Working-Paper-254-Palmer-et-al.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Delacote, Philippe & Palmer, Charles & Bakkegaard, Riyong Kim & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2014. "Unveiling information on opportunity costs in REDD: Who obtains the surplus when policy objectives differ?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 508-527.
    2. Paul J. Ferraro & R. David Simpson, 2002. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 339-353.
    3. Engel, Stefanie & Palmer, Charles, 2008. "Payments for environmental services as an alternative to logging under weak property rights: The case of Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 799-809, May.
    4. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801, September.
    5. Kalifi Ferretti-Gallon and Jonah Busch, 2014. "What Drives Deforestation and What Stops It? A Meta-Analysis of Spatially Explicit Econometric Studies - Working Paper 361," Working Papers 361, Center for Global Development.
    6. Jeffrey R. Vincent, 2016. "Impact Evaluation of Forest Conservation Programs: Benefit-Cost Analysis, Without the Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(2), pages 395-408, February.
    7. Ian A. MacKenzie & Markus Ohndorf & Charles Palmer, 2012. "Enforcement-proof contracts with moral hazard in precaution: ensuring 'permanence' in carbon sequestration," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 350-374, April.
    8. Schatzki, Todd, 2003. "Options, uncertainty and sunk costs:: an empirical analysis of land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 86-105, July.
    9. Seema Jayachandran, 2013. "Liquidity Constraints and Deforestation: The Limitations of Payments for Ecosystem Services," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 309-313, May.
    10. Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, May.
    11. repec:dau:papers:123456789/12951 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    13. Jacob Phelps & Edward L. Webb & William M. Adams, 2012. "Biodiversity co-benefits of policies to reduce forest-carbon emissions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(7), pages 497-503, July.
    14. 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.
    15. Curran, Michael & Kiteme, Boniface & Wünscher, Tobias & Koellner, Thomas & Hellweg, Stefanie, 2016. "Pay the farmer, or buy the land?—Cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services versus land purchases or easements in Central Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 59-67.
    16. Palmer, Charles, 2011. "Property rights and liability for deforestation under REDD+: Implications for 'permanence' in policy design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 571-576, February.
    17. Dangl, Thomas & Wirl, Franz, 2004. "Investment under uncertainty: calculating the value function when the Bellman equation cannot be solved analytically," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 28(7), pages 1437-1460, April.
    18. Stefanie Engel & Charles Palmer & Luca Taschini & Simon Urech, 2015. "Conservation Payments under Uncertainty," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 36-56.
    19. De Almeida, Oriana Trindade & Uhl, Christopher, 1995. "Developing a quantitative framework for sustainable resource-use planning in the Brazilian Amazon," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(10), pages 1745-1764, October.
    20. Caviglia-Harris, Jill L. & Harris, Daniel, 2011. "The Impact of Settlement Design on Tropical Deforestation Rates and Resulting Land Cover Patterns," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(3), pages 1-20, December.
    21. Groom, Ben & Palmer, Charles, 2010. "Cost-effective provision of environmental services: the role of relaxing market constraints," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 219-240, April.
    22. Jeffrey R. Vincent, 2016. "Erratum to: Impact Evaluation of Forest Conservation Programs: Benefit-Cost Analysis, Without the Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(2), pages 409-409, February.
    23. Caviglia-Harris, Jill & Harris, Daniel, 2011. "The Impact of Settlement Design on Tropical Deforestation Rates and Resulting Land Cover Patterns," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 451-470, December.
    24. Tim Laing & Luca Taschini & Charles Palmer & Johanna Wehkamp & Sabine Fuss & Wolf Heinrich Reuter, 2015. "Understanding the demand for REDD+ credits," GRI Working Papers 193, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    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. Engel, Stefanie & Palmer, Charles & Taschini, Luca & Urech, Simon, 2012. "Cost-effective payments for reducing emissions from deforestation under uncertainty," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 44837, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Reutemann, Tim & Engel, Stefanie & Pareja, Eliana, 2016. "How (not) to pay — Field experimental evidence on the design of REDD+ payments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 220-229.
    3. Delacote, Philippe & Palmer, Charles & Bakkegaard, Riyong Kim & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2014. "Unveiling information on opportunity costs in REDD: Who obtains the surplus when policy objectives differ?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 508-527.
    4. Laing, Timothy & Palmer, Charles, 2015. "Economy-wide impacts of REDD when there is political influence," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 107-126.
    5. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    6. Stefanie Engel & Charles Palmer & Luca Taschini & Simon Urech, 2015. "Conservation Payments under Uncertainty," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 36-56.
    7. Gren, Ing-Marie & Zeleke, Abenezer Aklilu, 2016. "Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A review of the literature," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 128-136.
    8. Palmer, Charles, 2011. "Property rights and liability for deforestation under REDD+: Implications for 'permanence' in policy design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 571-576, February.
    9. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    10. Kim-Bakkegaard, Riyong & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Wunder, Sven & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2017. "Comparing tools to predict REDD+ conservation costs to Amazon smallholders," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 48-61.
    11. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    12. Francisco Fontes & Charles Palmer, 2017. "Was von Thünen right? Cattle intensification and deforestation in Brazil," GRI Working Papers 261, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    13. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer & Wolff, Hendrik, 2014. "Payment for Ecosystem Services from Forests," IZA Discussion Papers 8179, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Ma, Zhao & Bauchet, Jonathan & Steele, Diana & Godoy, Ricardo & Radel, Claudia & Zanotti, Laura, 2017. "Comparison of Direct Transfers for Human Capital Development and Environmental Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 498-517.
    15. Di Corato, Luca & Dosi, Cesare & Moretto, Michele, 2015. "Multidimensional auctions for long-term procurement contracts under the threat of early exit: the case of conservation auctions," Working Paper Series 2015:6, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department Economics.
    16. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    17. Heidi Gjertsen & Theodore Groves & David A Miller & Eduard Niesten & Dale Squires & Joel Watson, 2021. "Conservation Agreements: Relational Contracts with Endogenous Monitoring," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 1-40.
    18. Perrings, Charles, 2014. "Environment and development economics 20 years on," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 333-366, June.
    19. Luca Corato & Michele Moretto & Sergio Vergalli, 2013. "Land conversion pace under uncertainty and irreversibility: too fast or too slow?," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 45-82, September.
    20. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & Ávila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • N0 - Economic History - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:lsg:lsgwps:wp254. 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 GRI Administration (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/grlseuk.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.