Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Reduced deforestation and the carbon market: the role of market regulations and future commitments

  • Niels Anger (a1), Alistair Dixon (a2) and Erich Livengood (a3)

Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) has been proposed as an economic and extensive source of emission abatement to supplement other long-term climate policies. However, critics suggest an excess supply of REDD credits may disrupt emerging carbon markets and raise north–south equity concerns. In this context, we investigate the economic implications of REDD regulations and future emissions reduction commitments. Numerical model simulations show that unrestricted exchange of REDD units reduces the international carbon price by half and cuts compliance costs by roughly one-third. Developed nations’ requirements for policy supplementarity, which restrict demand for REDD credits, reduce such price impacts but go at the expense of both economic efficiency and benefits to rainforest areas. Instead, unlimited REDD access facilitates climate policy targets to be tightened by almost a quarter at constant compliance cost, tripling the environmental ambition of the Kyoto Protocol and providing considerable wealth transfers to developing countries.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

A. Angelsen and D. Kaimowitz (1999), ‘Rethinking the causes of deforestation: lessons from economic models’, World Bank Research Observer 14(1): 7398.

N. Anger (2008), ‘Emissions trading beyond Europe: linking schemes in a Post-Kyoto world’, Energy Economics 30(4): 20282049.

C. Böhringer and T.F. Rutherford (2002), ‘Carbon abatement and international spillovers’, Environmental and Resource Economics 22(3): 391417.

C. Böhringer , T. Hoffmann , A. Lange , A. Löschel , and U. Moslener (2005), ‘Assessing emission allocation in Europe: an interactive simulation approach’, Energy Journal 26(4): 122.

P. Combes Motel , R. Pirard , and J.-L. Combes (2009), ‘A methodology to estimate impacts of domestic policies on deforestation: compensated successful efforts for “avoided deforestation” (REDD)’, Ecological Economics 68(3): 680691.

P. Criqui , S. Mima , and L. Viguier (1999), ‘Marginal abatement costs of CO2 emission reductions, geographical flexibility and concrete ceilings: an assessment using the POLES model’, Energy Policy 27(10): 585601.

J. Ebeling and M. Yasué (2008), ‘Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create climatic, conservation and human development benefits’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363(1498): 19171924.

G. Klepper and S. Peterson (2006), ‘Emissions trading, CDM, JI, and more: the climate strategy of the EU’, Energy Journal 27(2): 126.

B. Sohngen and R. Mendelsohn (2003), ‘An optimal control model of forest carbon sequestration’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2): 448457.

M. Tavoni , B. Sohngen , and V. Bosetti (2007), ‘Forestry and the carbon market response to stabilize climate’, Energy Policy 35(11): 53465353.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Environment and Development Economics
  • ISSN: 1355-770X
  • EISSN: 1469-4395
  • URL: /core/journals/environment-and-development-economics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
Type Description Title
Supplementary Materials

Anger supplementary material

 PDF (68 KB)
68 KB


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 12 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 102 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.