Structuring economic incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation within Indonesia

We estimate and map the impacts that alternative national and subnational economic incentive structures for reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD+) in Indonesia would have had on greenhouse gas emissions and national and local revenue if they had been in place from 2000 to 2005. The impact of carbon payments on deforestation is calibrated econometrically from the pattern of observed deforestation and spatial variation in the benefits and costs of converting land to agriculture over that time period. We estimate that at an international carbon price of $10/tCO2e, a “mandatory incentive structure,” such as a cap-and-trade or symmetric tax-and-subsidy program, would have reduced emissions by 163–247 MtCO2e/y (20–31% below the without-REDD+ reference scenario), while generating a programmatic budget surplus. In contrast, a “basic voluntary incentive structure” modeled after a standard payment-for-environmental-services program would have reduced emissions nationally by only 45–76 MtCO2e/y (6–9%), while generating a programmatic budget shortfall. By making four policy improvements—paying for net emission reductions at the scale of an entire district rather than site-by-site; paying for reductions relative to reference levels that match business-as-usual levels; sharing a portion of district-level revenues with the national government; and sharing a portion of the national government's responsibility for costs with districts—an “improved voluntary incentive structure” would have been nearly as effective as a mandatory incentive structure, reducing emissions by 136–207 MtCO2e/y (17–26%) and generating a programmatic budget surplus.

[1]  Budy P. Resosudarmo,et al.  REGIONAL ECONOMIC MODELLING FOR INDONESIA: IMPLEMENTATION OF IRSA-INDONESIA5 , 2011 .

[2]  P. Warr,et al.  Reducing Indonesia’s Deforestation‐Based Greenhouse Gas Emissions , 2011 .

[3]  A. Cattaneo Robust design of multiscale programs to reduce deforestation , 2011, Environment and Development Economics.

[4]  Jonah Busch,et al.  On international equity in reducing emissions from deforestation , 2010 .

[5]  A. Angelsen Policies for reduced deforestation and their impact on agricultural production , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  L. P. Koh,et al.  Spatially explicit scenario analysis for reconciling agricultural expansion, forest protection, and carbon conservation in Indonesia , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  B. Soares-Filho,et al.  Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  T. Donnellan,et al.  Estimating a marginal abatement cost curve for greenhouse gas emissions from Irish agriculture using farm-level data , 2010 .

[9]  S. Rose,et al.  The Opportunity Cost of Land Use and the Global Potential for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Agriculture and Forestry , 2006, GTAP Working Paper.

[10]  Jonah Busch,et al.  Comparing climate and cost impacts of reference levels for reducing emissions from deforestation , 2009 .

[11]  Josep G. Canadell,et al.  Current and future CO 2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia , 2009 .

[12]  Matthew C. Hansen,et al.  Quantifying changes in the rates of forest clearing in Indonesia from 1990 to 2005 using remotely sensed data sets , 2009 .

[13]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Carbon payments as a safeguard for threatened tropical mammals , 2009 .

[14]  L. P. Koh,et al.  REDD in the red: palm oil could undermine carbon payment schemes , 2009 .

[15]  L. Pedroni,et al.  Creating incentives for avoiding further deforestation: the nested approach , 2009 .

[16]  S. Wunder,et al.  Paying for Avoided Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: from Cost Assessment to Scheme Design , 2008 .

[17]  Michael Obersteiner,et al.  Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  J. Townshend,et al.  Humid tropical forest clearing from 2000 to 2005 quantified by using multitemporal and multiresolution remotely sensed data , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  T. Iwamura,et al.  Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: Implications for conservation priorities , 2007 .

[20]  Arturo Sanchez,et al.  Will Buying Tropical Forest Carbon Benefit The Poor? Evidence from Costa Rica , 2007 .

[21]  Stephen G. Perz,et al.  Road Investments, Spatial Spillovers, and Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon , 2007 .

[22]  Robert N. Stavins,et al.  Land-Use Change and Carbon Sinks: Econometric Estimation of the Carbon Sequestration Supply Function , 2005 .

[23]  T. Thomas,et al.  Determinants of Land Use in Amazônia: A Fine‐Scale Spatial Analysis , 2003 .

[24]  J. Townshend,et al.  Global Percent Tree Cover at a Spatial Resolution of 500 Meters: First Results of the MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields Algorithm , 2003 .

[25]  J. Montero Optimal design of a phase-in emissions trading program with voluntary compliance options , 2000 .

[26]  Thomas Mauldin,et al.  An Econometric Analysis of the Costs of Sequestering Carbon in Forests , 1999 .

[27]  Robert N. Stavins,et al.  The Costs of Carbon Sequestration: A Revealed-Preference Approach , 1999 .

[28]  Abdul Rochim . A.Ma.Pust Estimating the Opportunity Costs of Redd + A traning Manual , 2012 .

[29]  H. Velthuizen,et al.  Harmonized World Soil Database (version 1.2) , 2008 .

[30]  Jeffrey M. Woodbridge Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2002 .

[31]  Gregory Taylor,et al.  Current and future , 1998 .