IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v15y2015icp84-92.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bundling and stacking in bio-sequestration schemes: Opportunities and risks identified by Australian stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Torabi, Nooshin
  • Bekessy, Sarah A.

Abstract

The stacking and bundling of ecosystem services credits has emerged as mechanisms to promote the conservation of biodiversity in carbon sequestration schemes. Globally, apart from a few certification standards in the voluntary market, little genuine action has eventuated, but actors in these markets are continuing to examine the idea of combining carbon and biodiversity credits. This paper provides the first empirical analysis of the opportunities and barriers of bundling and stacking carbon and biodiversity credits as articulated by policymakers and academics, in Australia. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) acts as a driving force for business interest in the co-benefits of carbon plantings; however, uncertainty in the market and policy settings act as barriers for both buyers and sellers. Interviewees highlighted substantial benefits of both bundling and stacking, including easing transaction costs for landholders, reduced monitoring costs for regulators. Nevertheless, there is a risk that stacking can affect the perceived additionality of carbon plantings, which has the potential to erode the integrity of carbon markets. Obstacles to the establishment of stacked/bundled markets include the lack of standards to show that co-benefits are real, dealing with the additionality rule, and designing scenarios to achieve genuine outcomes for both biodiversity conservation and carbon abatement.

Suggested Citation

  • Torabi, Nooshin & Bekessy, Sarah A., 2015. "Bundling and stacking in bio-sequestration schemes: Opportunities and risks identified by Australian stakeholders," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 84-92.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:15:y:2015:i:c:p:84-92
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.08.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041615300206
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.08.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Endre Tvinnereim, 2014. "The bears are right: Why cap-and-trade yields greater emission reductions than expected, and what that means for climate policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 447-461, December.
    2. Meijaard, Erik & Wunder, Sven & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Sheil, Douglas, 2014. "What scope for certifying forest ecosystem services?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 160-166.
    3. Himlal Baral & Rodney J. Keenan & Nigel E. Stork & Sabine Kasel, 2014. "Measuring and managing ecosystem goods and services in changing landscapes: a south-east Australian perspective," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(7), pages 961-983, July.
    4. Watson, Jim & Kern, Florian & Markusson, Nils, 2014. "Resolving or managing uncertainties for carbon capture and storage: Lessons from historical analogues," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 192-204.
    5. Deal, Robert L. & Cochran, Bobby & LaRocco, Gina, 2012. "Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 69-76.
    6. Woodward, Richard T., 2011. "Double-dipping in environmental markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 153-169, March.
    7. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Blackmore, Louise & Capon, Timothy & Robinson, Cathy J. & Torabi, Nooshin & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2014. "What are the barriers to adopting carbon farming practices?," Working Papers 195776, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    8. Jussi Lankoski & Markku Ollikainen & Elizabeth Marshall & Marcel Aillery, 2015. "Environmental Co-benefits and Stacking in Environmental Markets," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 72, OECD Publishing.
    9. Horan, Richard D. & Shogren, Jason F. & Gramig, Benjamin M., 2008. "Wildlife conservation payments to address habitat fragmentation and disease risks," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 415-439, June.
    10. Goldman, Rebecca L. & Thompson, Barton H. & Daily, Gretchen C., 2007. "Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: Inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 333-343, December.
    11. Axel Michaelowa, 2014. "Linking the CDM with domestic carbon markets," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 353-371, May.
    12. Di Giuli, Alberta & Kostovetsky, Leonard, 2014. "Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 158-180.
    13. Cacho, Oscar J. & Lipper, Leslie & Moss, Jonathan, 2013. "Transaction costs of carbon offset projects: A comparative study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 232-243.
    14. Kirchner, Mathias & Schmidt, Johannes & Kindermann, Georg & Kulmer, Veronika & Mitter, Hermine & Prettenthaler, Franz & Rüdisser, Johannes & Schauppenlehner, Thomas & Schönhart, Martin & Strauss, Fran, 2015. "Ecosystem services and economic development in Austrian agricultural landscapes — The impact of policy and climate change scenarios on trade-offs and synergies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 161-174.
    15. Howard, Rebecca Joy & Tallontire, Anne & Stringer, Lindsay & Marchant, Rob, 2015. "Unraveling the Notion of “Fair Carbon”: Key Challenges for Standards Development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 343-356.
    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. Benjamin S. Thompson, 2019. "Payments for ecosystem services and corporate social responsibility: Perspectives on sustainable production, stakeholder relations, and philanthropy in Thailand," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 497-511, May.
    2. Motallebi, Marzieh & Hoag, Dana L. & Tasdighi, Ali & Arabi, Mazdak & Osmond, Deanna L. & Boone, Randall B., 2018. "The impact of relative individual ecosystem demand on stacking ecosystem credit markets," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 137-144.
    3. Baumber, Alex & Metternicht, Graciela & Cross, Rebecca & Ruoso, Laure-Elise & Cowie, Annette L. & Waters, Cathleen, 2019. "Promoting co-benefits of carbon farming in Oceania: Applying and adapting approaches and metrics from existing market-based schemes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    4. Hagger, Valerie & Waltham, Nathan J. & Lovelock, Catherine E., 2022. "Opportunities for coastal wetland restoration for blue carbon with co-benefits for biodiversity, coastal fisheries, and water quality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).

    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. Motallebi, Marzieh & Hoag, Dana L. & Tasdighi, Ali & Arabi, Mazdak & Osmond, Deanna L. & Boone, Randall B., 2018. "The impact of relative individual ecosystem demand on stacking ecosystem credit markets," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 137-144.
    2. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    3. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    4. Gregory Smith & Brett Day & Amy Binner, 2019. "Multiple-Purchaser Payments for Ecosystem Services: An Exploration Using Spatial Simulation Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 421-447, September.
    5. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    6. Baral, Himlal & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Keenan, Rodney J., 2016. "A proposed framework for assessing ecosystem goods and services from planted forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 260-268.
    7. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    8. Guy Meunier & Jean-Pierre Ponssard, 2021. "Designing Conditional Schemes for Green Industrial Policy under Different Information Structures," CESifo Working Paper Series 8881, CESifo.
    9. Laxmi D. Bhatta & Sunita Chaudhary & Anju Pandit & Himlal Baral & Partha J. Das & Nigel E. Stork, 2016. "Ecosystem Service Changes and Livelihood Impacts in the Maguri-Motapung Wetlands of Assam, India," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-14, June.
    10. Fang, Mingyue & Nie, Huihua & Shen, Xinyi, 2023. "Can enterprise digitization improve ESG performance?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    11. Dimitrios Mendrinos & Spyridon Karytsas & Olympia Polyzou & Constantine Karytsas & Åsta Dyrnes Nordø & Kirsti Midttømme & Danny Otto & Matthias Gross & Marit Sprenkeling & Ruben Peuchen & Tara Geerdin, 2022. "Understanding Societal Requirements of CCS Projects: Application of the Societal Embeddedness Level Assessment Methodology in Four National Case Studies," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-15, September.
    12. Ferrell, Allen & Liang, Hao & Renneboog, Luc, 2016. "Socially responsible firms," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 585-606.
    13. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    14. Tom Joerß & Payam Akbar & Robert Mai & Stefan Hoffmann, 2017. "Conceptualizing sustainability from a consumer perspective [Konzeptionalisierung der Nachhaltigkeit aus der Konsumentensicht]," Sustainability Nexus Forum, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 15-23, June.
    15. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    16. Onur Kemal Tosun, 2017. "Is corporate social responsibility sufficient enough to explain the investment by socially responsible funds?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 697-726, October.
    17. Homroy, Swarnodeep, 2023. "GHG emissions and firm performance: The role of CEO gender socialization," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    18. Andreas G. F. Hoepner & Lisa Schopohl, 2020. "State Pension Funds and Corporate Social Responsibility: Do Beneficiaries’ Political Values Influence Funds’ Investment Decisions?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 489-516, September.
    19. Amal Aouadi & Sylvain Marsat, 2018. "Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(4), pages 1027-1047, September.
    20. Zhou, Taiyun & Liu, Mingxuan & Zhang, Xiyu & Qi, Zheng & Qin, Ni, 2024. "Does institutional ownership affect corporate social responsibility? Evidence from China," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 84-98.

    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:ecoser:v:15:y:2015:i:c:p:84-92. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.