IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/330166.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Impacts and Land Use Change from a Policy To Control Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon

Author

Listed:
  • Sabadini Carvalho, Terciane
  • Domingues, Edson

Abstract

The Brazilian Amazon region was the target of several development policies in the twentieth century which aimed at integrating the region into the rest of the Brazilian economy. With different structural features from the rest of Brazil and housing the largest rainforest in the world, the results of these policies were economic growth and deforestation. The deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has attracted the attention of researchers and government around measures and policies that involve both its measurement and control. Besides maintaining a high level of biodiversity, the Amazon forest has also been discussion agenda of the international community, especially on the growing debate about the causes and consequences of global climate change. In the National Plan on Climate Change (NPCC) in 2008, Brazil has confirmed voluntary national targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that includes an 80% reduction in Amazon deforestation by 2020. The limited supply of land restricts the expansion of the agricultural frontier, which is one of the most important economic activities in the region. Thus, it seems relevant to investigate aspects of a possible trade-off between the goals of environmental conservation (reducing deforestation) and economic growth in the region. The main goal of this paper is to project the economic losses resulting from a policy to control deforestation in the Amazon. In methodological terms, this study advances in developing a Dynamic Interregional Computable General Equilibrium Model for 30 regions in Amazon, and include an ILUC model (indirect land use change) that allows conversion of land in different uses. With the model, it is also projected an economic growth scenario of the Amazon regions between 2006 and 2030. The results showed that the regions that present a higher GDP growth would be those that are on the deforestation frontier, mainly the producing regions of soybean and cattle. The most affected regions w...

Suggested Citation

  • Sabadini Carvalho, Terciane & Domingues, Edson, 2015. "Economic Impacts and Land Use Change from a Policy To Control Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon," Conference papers 330166, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:330166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/330166/files/7405_Carvalho.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Horridge, Mark & Madden, John & Wittwer, Glyn, 2005. "The impact of the 2002-2003 drought on Australia," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 285-308, April.
    2. Horridge, Mark & Wittwer, Glyn, 2008. "SinoTERM, a multi-regional CGE model of China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 628-634, December.
    3. Krugman, Paul, 1980. "Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 950-959, December.
    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. Terciane Sabadini Carvalho & Edson Paulo Domingues, 2016. "Controlling Deforestation In The Brazilian Amazon: Regional Economic Impacts And Land-Use Change," Anais do XLIII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 43rd Brazilian Economics Meeting] 192, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    2. Deng, Xiangzheng & Zhao, Yonghong & Wu, Feng & Lin, Yingzhi & Lu, Qi & Dai, Jing, 2011. "Analysis of the trade-off between economic growth and the reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus emissions in the Poyang Lake Watershed, China," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(2), pages 330-336.
    3. Elizabeth L. Roos & Heinrich R. Bohlmann & Jan H. van Heerden & Nicholas Kilimani, 2016. "Counting the cost of drought induced productivity losses in an agro-based economy: The case of Uganda," Working Papers 616, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    4. Sabadini Carvalho, Terciane & Souza, Kenia & Domingues, Edson, 2020. "Commodities demand growth and its impacts on deforestation and CO2 emissions in the Brazilian Amazon region," Conference papers 333203, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    5. Feng Wu & Jinyan Zhan & Qian Zhang & Zhongxiao Sun & Zhan Wang, 2014. "Evaluating Impacts of Industrial Transformation on Water Consumption in the Heihe River Basin of Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-14, November.
    6. Sabadini Carvalho, Terciane & Domingues, Edson & Souza, Kenia, 2017. "How commodities demand growth can affect the deforestation and the frontier expansion in the Brazilian Amazon region?," Conference papers 332815, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Martín Leandro Dutto Giolongo & Emiliano A. Carlevaro & Juan Jullier & Marcos Narváez, 2020. "Board-related corporate governance practices and performance of Argentine banks," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4340, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    8. Fletcher, Stanley M. & Nadolnyak, Denis A., 2005. "Accommodating Imperfect Competition in A Model of World Peanut Trade," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19460, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Leibovici, Fernando & Waugh, Michael E., 2019. "International trade and intertemporal substitution," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 158-174.
    10. Chen, Natalie & Juvenal, Luciana, 2022. "Markups, quality, and trade costs," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    11. Anne‐Célia Disdier & Carl Gaigné & Cristina Herghelegiu, 2023. "Do standards improve the quality of traded products?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(4), pages 1238-1290, November.
    12. Yane, Haruka & Yamada, Hiroyuki, 2015. "Import Competition from Neighbors: Impacts on Performances of Enterprises in Vietnam," Conference papers 332621, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    13. Gordeev, Roman, 2020. "Comparative advantages of Russian forest products on the global market," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Ralph Ossa, 2012. "Profits in the "New Trade" Approach to Trade Negotiations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(3), pages 466-469, May.
    15. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    16. Marc J. Melitz & Stephen J. Redding, 2015. "New Trade Models, New Welfare Implications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(3), pages 1105-1146, March.
    17. Miaojie Yu & Jin Li, 2014. "Imported Intermediate Inputs, Firm Productivity and Product Complexity," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 65(2), pages 178-192, June.
    18. Wagner, Rodrigo & Zahler, Andrés, 2015. "New exports from emerging markets: Do followers benefit from pioneers?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 203-223.
    19. Colin Davis, 2013. "Regional integration and innovation offshoring with occupational choice and endogenous growth," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 59-79, January.
    20. Masashige Hamano & Pierre M. Picard, 2017. "Extensive and intensive margins and exchange rate regimes," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(3), pages 804-837, August.

    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:pugtwp:330166. 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/gtpurus.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.