IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v66y2008i2-3p309-318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economy and ecology of emerging markets and credits for bio-sequestered carbon on private land in tropical Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Hunt, Colin

Abstract

A central question addressed is whether emerging carbon markets have the potential to provide an economic incentive for private landholders to reforest without recourse to subsidy. A second question is whether bio-sequestration in the Wet Tropics of Queensland is cost-competitive with southern Australia. A third, given that plantations of monocultures also provide carbon sinks, is: are the goals of carbon sequestration and biodiversity mutually exclusive or complementary? Australia intends to meet its Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions target even though it has not ratified the Protocol. While a national system of carbon emission cap and trade does not exist, unilateral action by some states to mandate industry caps has generated a demand for offsets. However, it is the voluntary market for offsets, stimulated by demand by companies and government departments that is most active. The favourable climate and soils of the Wet Tropics Region of north Queensland have enabled the evolution of unique ecosystems. Deforestation of these has been greatly reduced by World Heritage listing of the Wet Tropics. Nevertheless much of the landscape remains fragmented. An official priority is the encouragement of rainforest plantations on private land with the aim of augmenting endangered ecosystems and the habitat of iconic species, but reforestation is heavily subsidised by the Australian government. Using methodology that allows the comparison of uneven streams of costs and benefits, it is found that - at present prices - payments for sequestered carbon defray only a small proportion of costs, providing a level of incentive insufficient to stimulate restoration. Comparative analysis shows that monocultures sequester carbon at a much lower price per tonne. However, despite the relatively high growth rates of monocultures in the region, their cost per tonne of carbon are greater than costs in southern Australia. A decreasing supply of suitable land for bio-sequestration offsets in southern Australia may well force brokers to look to the Wet Tropics. In this event - the economic analysis suggests - land in areas that carried endangered or threatened ecosystems will be devoted to monocultures rather than restored rainforest. The paper highlights the asymmetry between the availability of credits for carbon and of credits for biodiversity and the need for public investment in conservation and restoration. Requiring further investigation is the potential demand for carbon offsets with high biodiversity benefits - so called "boutique abatements" - that could readily be supplied in the Queensland Wet Tropics.

Suggested Citation

  • Hunt, Colin, 2008. "Economy and ecology of emerging markets and credits for bio-sequestered carbon on private land in tropical Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 309-318, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:66:y:2008:i:2-3:p:309-318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(07)00480-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801, September.
    2. Caparros, Alejandro & Jacquemont, Frederic, 2003. "Conflicts between biodiversity and carbon sequestration programs: economic and legal implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 143-157, August.
    3. Kenneth J. Arrow & Anthony C. Fisher, 1974. "Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 4, pages 76-84, Palgrave Macmillan.
    4. Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2003. "The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2993.
    5. Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2000. "Climate Change and Forest Sinks: Factors Affecting the Costs of Carbon Sequestration," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 211-235, November.
    6. Richard C. Bishop, 1978. "Endangered Species and Uncertainty: The Economics of a Safe Minimum Standard," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 60(1), pages 10-18.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Anderson, Blake & M'Gonigle, Michael, 2012. "Does ecological economics have a future?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 37-48.
    2. Caiado, Nathália & Guarnieri, Patricia & Xavier, Lúcia Helena & de Lorena Diniz Chaves, Gisele, 2017. "A characterization of the Brazilian market of reverse logistic credits (RLC) and an analogy with the existing carbon credit market," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 47-59.
    3. Tang, Kai & He, Chuantian & Ma, Chunbo & Wang, Dong, 2019. "Does carbon farming provide a cost-effective option to mitigate GHG emissions? Evidence from China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(3), July.
    4. Larson, Donald F. & Dinar, Ariel & Blankespoor, Brian, 2012. "Aligning climate change mitigation and agricultural policies in Eastern Europe and Central Asia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6080, The World Bank.
    5. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    6. Bryan, Brett Anthony & Crossman, Neville David, 2013. "Impact of multiple interacting financial incentives on land use change and the supply of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 60-72.
    7. Laure Bamière & Pierre‐Alain Jayet & Salomé Kahindo & Elsa Martin, 2021. "Carbon sequestration in French agricultural soils: A spatial economic evaluation," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(2), pages 301-316, March.
    8. Tang, Kai & Hailu, Atakelty & Kragt, Marit E. & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "The response of broadacre mixed crop-livestock farmers to agricultural greenhouse gas abatement incentives," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 11-20.
    9. Larson, Donald F. & Dinar, Ariel & Frisbie, J. Aapris, 2011. "Agriculture and the clean development mechanism," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5621, The World Bank.
    10. Moss, Jonathan & Cacho, Oscar J., 2014. "Farm-scale analysis of the potential uptake of carbon offset activities," 2014 Conference, August 28-29, 2014, Nelson, New Zealand 187402, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Sharma, Bijay P. & Cho, Seong-Hoon, 2021. "Analyzing how forest-based amenity values and carbon storage benefits affect spatial targeting for conservation investment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    12. Changsu Song & Yuqing Liu & Longqing Liu & Chaofan Xian & Xuan Wang, 2023. "A Scientometric Analysis of Payments for Ecosystem Services Research: Mapping Global Trends and Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-21, November.

    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. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Sohngen, Brent, 2007. "Economics of Forest Ecosystem Carbon Sinks: A Review," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 237-269, September.
    2. Barua, Sepul K. & Lintunen, Jussi & Uusivuori, Jussi & Kuuluvainen, Jari, 2014. "On the economics of tropical deforestation: Carbon credit markets and national policies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 36-45.
    3. Marechal, Kevin & Hecq, Walter, 2006. "Temporary credits: A solution to the potential non-permanence of carbon sequestration in forests?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 699-716, July.
    4. Carlo Carraro & Francesco Bosello & Enrica De Cian, 2009. "An Analysis of Adaptation as a Response to Climate Change," Working Papers 2009_26, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    5. Klaus Mittenzwei & David S. Bullock & Klaus Salhofer, 2012. "Towards a theory of policy timing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(4), pages 583-596, October.
    6. Ariane Amin & Johanna Choumert, 2015. "Development and biodiversity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A spatial analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(1), pages 729-744.
    7. Cinthia Soto Golcher & Ingrid J Visseren-Hamakers, 2018. "Framing and integration in the global forest, agriculture and climate change nexus," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(8), pages 1415-1436, December.
    8. Dietz, Simon, 2009. "From efficiency to justice: utility as the informational basis of climate change strategies, and some alternatives," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37616, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. O'Hara, Sabine U., 1996. "Discursive ethics in ecosystems valuation and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 95-107, February.
    10. May Elsayyad & Florian Morath, 2016. "Technology Transfers For Climate Change," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(3), pages 1057-1084, August.
    11. Grijalva, Therese & Berrens, Robert P. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2011. "Species preservation versus development: An experimental investigation under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 995-1005, March.
    12. Emilio Cerdá & Alejandro Caparrós & Paola Ovando, 2008. "Bioenergía en la Unión Europea," Economic Reports 26-08, FEDEA.
    13. David Martimort & Stéphane Straub, 2016. "How To Design Infrastructure Contracts In A Warming World: A Critical Appraisal Of Public–Private Partnerships," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57, pages 61-88, February.
    14. Campos, Pablo & Caparros, Alejandro, 2006. "Social and private total Hicksian incomes of multiple use forests in Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 545-557, June.
    15. Jeffery S. McMullen & Benjamin J. Warnick, 2016. "Should We Require Every New Venture to Be a Hybrid Organization?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 630-662, June.
    16. Tas Thamo & David J. Pannell & Marit E. Kragt & Michael J. Robertson & Maksym Polyakov, 2017. "Dynamics and the economics of carbon sequestration: common oversights and their implications," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(7), pages 1095-1111, October.
    17. Achim Lerch, 1998. "Property Rights and Biodiversity," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 285-304, November.
    18. Amy Sinden & Douglas A. Kysar & David M. Driesen, 2009. "Cost–benefit analysis: New foundations on shifting sand," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 48-71, March.
    19. Eisenack, Klaus & Paschen, Marius, 2022. "Adapting long-lived investments under climate change uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    20. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.

    More about this item

    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:eee:ecolec:v:66:y:2008:i:2-3:p:309-318. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.