IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare11/100703.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Climate Change Mitigation Policy: The Effect of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme on New Radiata Pine Forest Plantations in New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Tee, James
  • Scarpa, Riccardo
  • Marsh, Dan
  • Guthrie, Graeme

Abstract

Climate change is one of the toughest challenges facing the world today. Putting a price on carbon emissions is an important step towards climate change mitigation. A cap and trade system is one of the ways to create a carbon price. The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZETS) is the world’s first economy-wide cap and trade system that covers all sectors and all 6 greenhouse gases. Forestry is a major part of the NZETS, allowing foresters to earn carbon credits for new forests planted on and after 1st January 1990 (afforestation and reforestation). At the same time, the NZETS also makes foresters liable for harvesting new forests planted on and after 1st January 1990, and deforesting forests existing on and before 31st December 1989. In this paper, we perform an economic analysis of how a carbon price will likely affect the returns and forestry management behaviour in new forests in New Zealand. Previous works have used the NPV/LEV (fixed harvesting) analysis where the forest is assumed to be harvested (in future) at the estimated optimal rotation age regardless of timber prices at that time. Other works have employed the Real Options approaches (flexible harvesting) where sophisticated models such as Partial Differential Equations and simulations analyse the effects of bringing forward the harvest decision if timber prices are favourable, and deferring the harvest decision if timber prices are unfavourable. Often, these methods tend to have higher data requirements, employ different assumptions and are much more complex to estimate. Because of these differences, it may be difficult to compare the results of NPV/LEV analysis with Real Options. Our work here applies the binomial tree method, which is a relatively simple method that can generate both LEV (fixed harvesting) and Real Options (flexible harvesting) results on a common model with the same data requirements and assumptions. This allows for better comparability of forestry management behaviour and effects of carbon price. The forestry valuations are analysed under a stochastic timber price and a constant carbon price. This paper concludes with some implications on policy in New Zealand.

Suggested Citation

  • Tee, James & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan & Guthrie, Graeme, 2011. "Climate Change Mitigation Policy: The Effect of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme on New Radiata Pine Forest Plantations in New Zealand," 2011 Conference (55th), February 8-11, 2011, Melbourne, Australia 100703, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare11:100703
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.100703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/100703/files/Riccardo%20S.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.100703?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duku-Kaakyire, Armstrong & Nanang, David M., 2004. "Application of real options theory to forestry investment analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(6), pages 539-552, October.
    2. Manley, Bruce & Niquidet, Kurt, 2010. "What is the relevance of option pricing for forest valuation in New Zealand?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 299-307, April.
    3. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Clark S. Binkley & Gregg Delcourt, 1995. "Effect of Carbon Taxes and Subsidies on Optimal Forest Rotation Age and Supply of Carbon Services," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(2), pages 365-374.
    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. Daigneault, Adam J. & Greenhalgh, Suzie & Samarasinghe, Oshadhi, 2011. "Estimated Impacts of New Zealand Agriculture Climate Policy: A Tale of Two Catchments," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115352, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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. James Tee & Riccardo Scarpa & Dan Marsh & Graeme Guthrie, 2014. "Forest Valuation under the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme: A Real Options Binomial Tree with Stochastic Carbon and Timber Prices," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(1), pages 44-60.
    2. Tee, James & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan & Guthrie, Graeme, 2012. "Valuation of Carbon Forestry and the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme: A Real Options Approach Using the Binomial Tree Method," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 123665, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Chang, Sun Joseph & Zhang, Fan, 2023. "Active timber management by outsourcing stumpage price uncertainty with the American put option," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    4. Sunderasan Srinivasan, 2015. "Economic valuation and option-based payments for ecosystem services," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(7), pages 1055-1077, October.
    5. Álvarez Echeverría Francisco & López Sarabia Pablo & Venegas Martínez Francisco, 2012. "Valuación financiera de proyectos de inversión en nuevas tecnologías con opciones reales," Contaduría y Administración, Accounting and Management, vol. 57(3), pages 115-145, julio-sep.
    6. An, Hyunjin, 2017. "Forest Carbon Sequestration And Optimal Harvesting Decision Considering Southern Pine Beetle (Spb) Disturbance: A Real Option Approach," Journal of Rural Development/Nongchon-Gyeongje, Korea Rural Economic Institute, vol. 40(Special, ), December.
    7. Robert N. Stavins, 1998. "A Methodological Investigation of the Costs of Carbon Sequestration," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 231-277, November.
    8. Wise, Russell M. & Cacho, Oscar J., 2008. "Bioeconomic meta-modelling of Indonesian agroforests as carbon sinks," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6772, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Caparros, Alejandro & Cerda, Emilio & Ovando, P. & Campos, Pablo, 2007. "Carbon Sequestration with Reforestations and Biodiversity-Scenic Values," Climate Change Modelling and Policy Working Papers 9323, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    10. Sauter, Philipp A. & Mußhoff, Oliver & Möhring, Bernhard & Wilhelm, Stefan, 2016. "Faustmann vs. real options theory – An experimental investigation of foresters’ harvesting decisions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 1-20.
    11. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Sabina Lee Shaikh & Pavel Suchánek, 2002. "Mitigating Climate Change by Planting Trees: The Transaction Costs Trap," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 559-572.
    12. Rong Li & Brent Sohngen & Xiaohui Tian, 2022. "Efficiency of forest carbon policies at intensive and extensive margins," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1243-1267, August.
    13. Creedy, John & Wurzbacher, Anke D., 2001. "The economic value of a forested catchment with timber, water and carbon sequestration benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 71-83, July.
    14. Sabina Shaikh & Pavel Suchánek & Lili Sun & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2003. "Does Inclusion of Landowners’ Non-Market Values Lower Costs of Creating Carbon Forest Sinks?," Working Papers 2003-03, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    15. L. Gharis & J. Roise & J. McCarter, 2015. "A compromise programming model for developing the cost of including carbon pools and flux into forest management," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 232(1), pages 115-133, September.
    16. Jarisch, Isabelle & Bödeker, Kai & Bingham, Logan Robert & Friedrich, Stefan & Kindu, Mengistie & Knoke, Thomas, 2022. "The influence of discounting ecosystem services in robust multi-objective optimization – An application to a forestry-avocado land-use portfolio," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    17. Lintunen, Jussi & Rautiainen, Aapo, 2021. "On physical and social-cost-based CO2 equivalents for transient albedo-induced forcing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    18. Pohjola, Johanna & Laturi, Jani & Lintunen, Jussi & Uusivuori, Jussi, 2018. "Immediate and long-run impacts of a forest carbon policy—A market-level assessment with heterogeneous forest owners," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 94-105.
    19. Gregmar Galinato & Shinsuke Uchida, 2010. "Evaluating Temporary Certified Emission Reductions in Reforestation and Afforestation Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 111-133, May.
    20. Sedjo, Roger A., 1999. "Potential for Carbon Forest Plantations in Marginal Timber Forests: The Case of Patagonia, Argentina," Discussion Papers 10661, Resources for the Future.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:aare11:100703. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.