Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-5wlnc Total loading time: 0.234 Render date: 2021-07-29T00:38:20.649Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Accounting for carbon in avoided degradation and reforestation programmes in Mediterranean forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2010

ALEJANDRO CAPARRÓS
Affiliation:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Institute for Public Goods and Policies (IPP), Albasanz 26, 28037 Madrid, Spain. Email: alejandro.caparros@cchs.csic.es
PAOLA OVANDO
Affiliation:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Institute for Public Goods and Policies (IPP), Madrid, Spain
JOSÉ L. OVIEDO
Affiliation:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Institute for Public Goods and Policies (IPP), Madrid, Spain
PABLO CAMPOS
Affiliation:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Institute for Public Goods and Policies (IPP), Madrid, Spain
Corresponding

Abstract

After reviewing the Kyoto Protocol rules for carbon sequestration accounting and the different carbon accounting methods proposed in the literature for forest management, for reforestation and, more recently, for avoided deforestation or degradation, we discuss possible carbon accounting rules for a post-Kyoto world. We then apply the results of this discussion to micro-applications in an Annex I country (Spain) and in a non-Annex I country (Tunisia), comparing avoided degradation with reforestation alternatives. In both areas we focus on Mediterranean forest, one of the world's hotspots of biodiversity. We calculate CO2 break-even prices, including in the analysis not only commercial values, but also, where these are relevant, existing subsidies. We also investigate social preferences for avoided degradation and reforestation using stated preference methods. Our results support the convenience of a change in focus for European Union subsidies from reforestation to avoided degradation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boudy, P. (1952), Guide du Forestier en Afrique du Nord, Paris: La maison rustique.Google Scholar
Campos, P., Daly-Hassen, H., and Ovando, P. (2007), ‘Cork-oak forest management in Spain and Tunisia: two case studies of conflicts between sustainability and private income’, The International Forestry Review 9 (2): 610626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caparrós, A. (2009), ‘Delayed carbon sequestration and rising carbon prices’, Climatic Change 96: 421441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caparrós, A., Campos, P., and Martín, D. (2003), ‘Influence of carbon dioxide abatement and recreational services on optimal forest rotation’, International Journal of Sustainable Development 6 (3): 345358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caparrós, A., Cerdá, E., Ovando, P., and Campos, P. (2009), ‘Carbon Sequestration with reforestations and biodiversity-scenic values’, Environmental and Resource Economics 45: 4972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caparrós, A. and Jacquemont, F. (2003), ‘Conflicts between biodiversity and carbon offset programs: economic and legal implications’, Ecological Economics 46: 143157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caparrós, A., Oviedo, J.L., and Campos, P. (2008), ‘Would you choose your preferred option? Comparing choice and recoded ranking experiments’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90 (3): 843855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centre National de Télédetection/Direction Generale des Forets (CNT/DGF) (2005), Résultats de l'inventaire forestier sur l’échelon de Jendouba, Tunisia: DGF Ministère de l'Agriculture Tunisia.Google Scholar
Chaar, H., Stiti, B., Montero, G., and Khaldi, A. (2009), ‘Production and silviculture of cork oak forests in Ain Snoussi, Tunisia’, in Zapata-Blanco, S. (ed.), Alcornocales e Industria Corchera: Hoy, Ayer y Mañana, Palafrugell: Museu del Suro de Palafrugell, pp. 96116.Google Scholar
Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza (1998), Segundo inventario forestal nacional 1986–1996, Madrid: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente.Google Scholar
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R.J. (1993), An Introduction to the Bootstrap, New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englin, J. and Callaway, J.M. (1993), ‘Global climate change and optimal forest management’, Natural Resource Modeling 7 (3): 191202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, H., Zhao, J., and Kling, C.L. (2002), ‘The time path and implementation of carbon sequestration’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84 (1): 134149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W. (2007), Limdep Version 9.0. Econometric Modeling Guide Volume 2, New York: Econometric Software.Google Scholar
Harfouche, A., Nedjahi, A., Ellatifi, M., and Daly-Hassen, H. (2005), ‘Les ressources génétiques forestières nord-africaines et leur conservation’, Revue forestière française 1: 1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhne, N., Wartmann, S., Herold, A., and Freibauer, A. (2007), ‘The rules for land use, land use change and forestry under the Kyoto Protocol – lessons learned for the future climate negotiations’, Environmental Science and Policy 10 (4): 353369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Energy Agency (IEA) (1997), Energy Balance, Paris: IEA.Google ScholarPubMed
Krinsky, I. and Robb, A.L. (1986), ‘On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities’, Review of Economics and Statistics 68: 715719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layton, D.F. (2000), ‘Random coefficient models for stated preference surveys’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 40 (1): 2136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubowski, R.N., Plantinga, A.J., and Stavins, R.N. (2006), ‘Land-use change and carbon sinks: econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 51: 135152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L. and Schroeder, T.C. (2004), ‘Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86 (2): 467482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martín, D., Campos, P., Montero, G., and Cañellas, I. (2001), ‘Extended cost benefit analysis of holm oak dehesa multiple use and cereal grass rotations’, Investigación Agraria: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales 1(Special issue): 109124.Google Scholar
Merlo, M. and Croitoru, L. (eds) (2005), Valuing Mediterranean Forests: Towards Total Economic Value. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mollicone, D., Achard, F., Federici, S., Eva, H.D., Grassi, G., Belward, A., Raes, F., Seufert, G., Stibig, H.J., Matteucci, G., and Schulze, E.D. (2007), ‘An incentive mechanism for reducing emissions from conversion of intact and non-intact forests’, Climatic Change 83: 477493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montero, G., López, E., Campos, P., Sánchez, M.O., Sánchez, M., Ruiz-Peinado, R., Ovando, P., Caparrós, A., and Bachiller, A. (2009), ‘Selvicultura de los alcornocales (Quercus suber L.) del macizo del Aljibe (Cádiz – Málaga)’, in Zapata-Blanco, S. (ed.), Alcornocales e Industria Corchera: Hoy, Ayer y Mañana. Palafrugell: Museu del Suro de Palafrugell, pp. 6078.Google Scholar
Montero, G., Martín, D., Cañellas, I., and Campos, P. (2003), ‘Selvicultura y producción del alcornocal’, in Pulido, F.J., Campos, P., and Montero, G. (eds), La Gestión Forestal de la Dehesa, Mérida: Junta de Extremadura/IPROCOR, pp. 63106.Google Scholar
Montero, G., Ruiz-Peinado, R., and Muñoz, M. (2006), Producción de biomasa y fijación de CO2 por los bosques españoles, Monografías Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria. Serie Forestal 13, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
Moura-Costa, P. and Wilson, C. (2000), ‘An equivalence factor between CO2 avoided emissions and sequestration – description and applications in forestry’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 5 (1): 5160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A.B., and Kent, J. (2000), ‘Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities’, Nature 403: 853858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olschewski, R. and Benítez, P.C. (2005), ‘Secondary forests as temporary carbon sinks? The economic impact of accounting methods on reforestation projects in the tropics’, Ecological Economics 55: 380394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ovando, P., Campos, P., Oviedo, J.L., and Montero, G. (2009), ‘Cost-benefit analysis of Cork oak woodland afforestation and facilitated natural regeneration’, in Aronson, J., Pereira, J.M.S.D., and Pausas, J. (eds), Cork Oak Woodlands in Transition: Ecology, Biogeography, and Restoration of an Ancient Mediterranean Ecosystem, Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 177188.Google Scholar
Oviedo, J.L., Caparrós, A., and Campos, P. (2005), ‘Valoración contingente del uso recreativo y de conservación de los visitantes del Parque Natural Los Alcornocales’, Revista Española de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros 208: 115140.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A.J. and Richards, K.R. (2008), ‘International forest carbon sequestration in a post-Kyoto agreement’, Discussion Paper 2008-11, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Plieninger, T. (2007), ‘Compatibility of livestock grazing with stand regeneration in Mediterranean holm oak parklands’, Journal of Nature Conservation 15: 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, K.R., Sampson, R.N., and Brown, S. (2006), ‘Agricultural & Forestlands: U.S. Carbon Policy Strategies’, Arlington: PEW Center on Global Climate Change.Google Scholar
Rovira, P. and Vallejo, R. (1997), ‘Organic carbon and nitrogen mineralization under Mediterranean climatic conditions: the effect of incubation depth’, Soil Biology and Biochemistry 29 (9/10): 15091520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santilli, M., Moutinho, P., Schwartzman, S., Nepstad, D., Curran, L., and Nobre, C. (2005), ‘Tropical deforestation and the Kyoto Protocol’, Climate Change 71: 267276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, R.E.H., Hastings, A., Schlamadinger, B., Taylor, G., and Smith, P. (2006), ‘Energy crops: current status and future prospects’, Global Change Biology 12 (11): 20542076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohngen, B. and Mendelsohn, R. (2003), ‘An optimal control model of forest carbon sequestration’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85 (2): 448457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standiford, R.B., Mccreary, D., and Frost, W. (2002), ‘Modelling the effectiveness of tree planting to mitigate habitat loss in blue oak’, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-184, pp. 591–600, paper presented the Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Oak Woodland: Oaks in California's Changing Landscape, 22–25 October, 2001, USAD, San Diego.Google Scholar
Strassburg, B, Turner, K., Fisher, B., Schaeffer, R., and Lovett, A. (2008), ‘An empirically-derived mechanism of combined incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation’, CSERGE Working Paper ECM 08-01, Norwich, UK.Google Scholar
Stavins, R.N. (1999), ‘The costs of carbon sequestration: a revealed-preference approach’, American Journal Agricultural Economics 89 (4): 9941009.Google Scholar
Train, K. (1998), ‘Recreation demand models with taste variation over people’, Land Economics 74 (2): 230239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Framework Convention Climate Change (2008), ‘Report on the workshop on methodological issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. Note by the secretariat FCCC/SBSTA/2008/11’ [Online], http://www.unfccc.int (posted September 8, 2008, accessed October 1, 2008).Google Scholar
Van Kooten, G.C., Binkley, C.S., and Delcourt, G. (1995), ‘Effects of carbon taxes and subsidies on optimal forest rotation age and supply of carbon services’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77: 365374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van't Veld, K. and Plantinga, A. (2005), ‘Carbon sequestration or abatement? The effect of rising carbon prices on the optimal portfolio of greenhouse-gas mitigation strategies’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50: 5981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC) and Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazonia (IPAM) (2008), How to distribute REDD funds across countries? A stock-flow mechanism, AWG-LCA (FCCC/AWGLCA/2008/L.7).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Caparros supplementary material

Appendix.doc

Download Caparros supplementary material(File)
File 3 MB
6
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Accounting for carbon in avoided degradation and reforestation programmes in Mediterranean forests
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Accounting for carbon in avoided degradation and reforestation programmes in Mediterranean forests
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Accounting for carbon in avoided degradation and reforestation programmes in Mediterranean forests
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *