Crediting uncertain ecosystem services in a market

The margin of safety (MOS) approach is an increasingly prevalent tool for ensuring the integrity of market-based programs for providing ecosystem services. Over-crediting is reduced by setting aside mean estimates of uncertain services in favor of a more conservative estimate. Like many environmental policy problems, ecosystem service markets involve the aggregation of uncertainty over multiple scales, e.g. from landowners to market intermediaries to the overall market. We examine how the MOS instrument affects, and is affected by, an ecosystem services market. We show that the common bottom-up approach of imposing risk preferences at a local, disaggregated level—held over from earlier development in the context of toxics and command and control-style health risk regulation—leads to several unintended consequences. Furthermore, discounting landowner services can actually increase their profits, conditional on the elasticity of credit demand. We illustrate theoretical insights with an empirical application to greenhouse gas offset crediting in agriculture.

[1]  B. McCarl,et al.  Uncertainty Discounting for Land-Based Carbon Sequestration , 2009, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[2]  M. Ribaudo,et al.  Point‐Nonpoint Trading – Can It Work? 1 , 2011 .

[3]  W. Rawls,et al.  Soil Water Characteristic Estimates by Texture and Organic Matter for Hydrologic Solutions , 2006 .

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

[5]  Hayes Mizell,et al.  How To Get There from Here. , 2001 .

[6]  J. Berger.  Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis , 1988 .

[7]  Daniel Sperling,et al.  Evidence of a Shift in the Short-Run Price Elasticity of Gasoline Demand , 2008 .

[8]  Jay R. Lund,et al.  Calibrating disaggregate economic models of agricultural production and water management , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[9]  S. Rabotyagov.  Ecosystem Services under Benefit and Cost Uncertainty: An Application to Soil Carbon Sequestration , 2010, Land Economics.

[10]  Johan Six,et al.  Assessing the potential for greenhouse gas mitigation in intensively managed annual cropping systems at the regional scale , 2011 .

[11]  K. Schulbach,et al.  On-farm nitrogen tests improve fertilizer efficiency, protect groundwater , 1994 .

[12]  W. Parton,et al.  Simulated Interaction of Carbon Dynamics and Nitrogen Trace Gas Fluxes Using the DAYCENT Model1 , 2006 .

[13]  T. Hartz,et al.  Presidedress Soil Nitrate Testing Reduces Nitrogen Fertilizer Use and Nitrate Leaching Hazard in Lettuce Production , 2002 .

[14]  Alessandro Piccolo,et al.  Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Innovative Methods , 2012 .

[15]  R. Haight,et al.  Incorporating Environmental Uncertainty into Species Management Decisions: Kirtland’s Warbler Habitat Management as a Case Study , 1998 .

[16]  Katharine R. E. Sims,et al.  Designing payments for ecosystem services: Lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  W. Parton,et al.  Generalized model for N2 and N2O production from nitrification and denitrification , 1996 .

[18]  D. Langseth,et al.  Risk-Based Margins of Safety for Phosphorus TMDLs in Lakes , 2011 .

[19]  J. Six,et al.  Realistic payments could encourage farmers to adopt practices that sequester carbon , 2009 .

[20]  A. V. Benthem,et al.  Bigger is Better: Avoided Deforestation Offsets in the Face of Adverse Selection , 2011 .

[21]  C. Fischer,et al.  Project-Based Mechanisms for Emissions Reductions: Balancing Trade-offs with Baselines , 2005 .

[22]  R. Sexton,et al.  The Effects of Imperfect Competition on the Size and Distribution of Research Benefits , 1997 .

[23]  E. E. Minor,et al.  Technology Information Center , 1980 .

[24]  Johan Six,et al.  Simulating greenhouse gas budgets of four California cropping systems under conventional and alternative management. , 2010, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[25]  Shizuhiko Nishisato,et al.  Multidimensional Nonlinear Descriptive Analysis , 2006 .

[26]  J. Paruelo,et al.  Relative Abundance of Plant Functional Types in Grasslands and Shrublands of North America , 1996 .

[27]  Shuguang Liu,et al.  Tropical Forest Protection, Uncertainty, and the Environmental Integrity of Carbon Mitigation Policies , 2004 .

[28]  R. D. de Groot,et al.  Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. , 2008, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[29]  J. Delgado,et al.  Nitrogen in Agricultural Systems: Implications for Conservation Policy , 2011 .

[30]  K. Paustian,et al.  Design and Costs of a Measurement Protocol for Trades in Soil Carbon Credits , 2004 .

[31]  John M. Antle,et al.  Spatial heterogeneity, contract design, and the efficiency of carbon sequestration policies for agriculture , 2003 .

[32]  J. Salzman.  Designing Payments for Ecosystem Services , 2010 .

[33]  W. Rawls,et al.  Estimating generalized soil-water characteristics from texture , 1986 .

[34]  R. Bayón,et al.  Conservation and Biodiversity Banking: A Guide to Setting Up and Running Biodiversity Credit Trading Systems , 2012 .

[35]  K. Paustian,et al.  Reducing standard errors by incorporating spatial autocorrelation into a measurement scheme for soil carbon credits , 2007 .

[36]  D. Zilberman,et al.  Efficient Regulation of Environmental Health Risks , 1988 .

[37]  W. Parton,et al.  General model for N2O and N2 gas emissions from soils due to dentrification , 2000 .

[38]  Stephen M. Ogle,et al.  Estimating uncertainty in N2O emissions from U.S. cropland soils , 2010 .

[39]  James N. Sanchirico,et al.  How to Get There From Here: Ecological and Economic Dynamics of Ecosystem Service Provision , 2011 .

[40]  L. Kurkalova.  Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils: Discounting for Uncertainty , 2005 .