Search

Carbon farming in agricultural landscapes may provide a cost-effective mechanism for offsetting carbon emissions while delivering co-benefits for biodiversity through ecosystem restoration. Reforestation of landscapes using native tree and shrub species, termed environmental plantings, has been recognized as a carbon offset methodology which can contribute to biodiversity conservation as well as climate mitigation. However, far less attention has been paid to the potential for assisted natural regeneration in areas of low to intermediate levels of degradation, where regenerative capacity still remains and little intervention would be required to restore native vegetation. In this study, we considered the economics of carbon farming in the state of Queensland, Australia, where 30.6 million hectares of relatively recently deforested agricultural landscapes may be suitable for carbon farming. Using spatially explicit estimates of the rate of carbon sequestration and the opportunity cost of agricultural production, we used a discounted cash flow analysis to examine the economic viability of assisted natural regeneration relative to environmental plantings. We found that the average minimum carbon price required to make assisted natural regeneration viable was 60% lower than what was required to make environmental plantings viable ($65.8 t CO 2 e −1 compared to $108.8 t CO 2 e −1 ). Assisted natural regeneration could sequester 1.6 to 2.2 times the amount of carbon possible compared to environmental plantings alone over a range of hypothetical carbon prices and assuming a moderate 5% discount rate. Using a combination of methodologies, carbon farming was a viable land use in over 2.3% of our study extent with a low $5 t CO 2 e −1 carbon price, and up to 10.5 million hectares (34%) with a carbon price of $50 t CO 2 e −1 . Carbon sequestration supply and economic returns generated by assisted natural regeneration were relatively robust to variation in establishment costs and discount rates due to the utilization of low-cost techniques to reestablish native vegetation. Our study highlights the potential utility of assisted natural regeneration as a reforestation approach which can cost-effectively deliver both carbon and biodiversity benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This article challenges some of the assumptions underpinning the UN programme to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) in developing countries. Firstly, it argues that the cost-effectiveness of REDD+ may have been exaggerated as current estimates ignore some cost categories as well as the evolution of drivers. Whilst REDD+ remains a ‘low-hanging fruit’ for climate mitigation, if all costs were included estimates would be at the high end of the currently accepted range. Secondly, the article highlights that REDD+ will be affected by a large funding gap at least until the entry into force of a new climate protocol in 2020. This gap is due as much to the poor status of public finances in donor countries as to the languishing state of carbon markets, and it calls for a revision of the assumptions regarding the design of the programme. Finally, it is advocated that, in order to contribute to the development of the programme, economic research on REDD+ should consider different policy options, assessing their efficiency and identifying measures that increase their cost-effectiveness. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The objective of this study is to analyze the economic viability of carbon-offset projects that avoid logging in Guyana''s forests. The results of this case study illustrate the cost effectiveness of alternative land-use options that reduce deforestation and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This analysis demonstrates that using Guyana''s rainforests for climate change mitigation can generate equivalent revenue to that of conventional large-scale logging without detrimental environmental impacts. At a 12% discount rate, the break-even price for carbon is estimated to be about US$ 0.20/tC. This estimate falls toward the low range of carbon prices for existing carbon offset projects that avoid deforestation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]