redd sticks and carrots in the brazilian amazon
Upload: ccafs-cgiar-program-climate-change-agriculture-and-food-security
Post on 01-Jul-2015
404 views
DESCRIPTION
Presented at the 2011 Colorado Conference on Earth Systems Governance 19 May 2011 in Fort Collins, CO, USTRANSCRIPT
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
REDD sticks and carrots in the Brazilian Amazon: assessing
costs and livelihood implications
Jan Börner (CIFOR)
Sven Wunder (CIFOR)
Sheila Wertz-Kanounnikoff (CIFOR)
Glenn Hyman (CIAT)
Elizabeth Barona (CIAT)
Edward Guevara (CIAT)
Nathalia Nascimento (UFPA)The CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), is a strategic partnership of the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR) and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP). The program is supported by the European Union (EU), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Danish International Development Agency (Danida) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID), with technical support from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The views expressed in this document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of these agencies, nor the official position of the CGIAR or ESSP.
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Outline
• Post-Cancún REDD+ and the Brazilian context
• Scope for carrot policies in the Amazon• An approach to analyze stick policies• Scenarios and results• Wrap up and implications
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Post-Cancún REDD+
Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to:Reducing Emissions from• Deforestation• Degradation + Conservation of forest carbon stocks+ Sustainable forest management+ Forest carbon stock enhancement
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
REDD perspectives
• Over US$ 27 billion in pledges
• National governments as prime recipients
• National autonomy in policy instrument choice
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Context: Brazilian Amazon
Reduce annual average deforestation (19,500 km2, 1996-2005) by 80% until
2016
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Features of the Brazilian REDD Approach
1. Regulatory mechanisms „Command-and-Control (C&C)“ - Sticks
• Improving existing measures
2. National program of payments for environmental services (PES) -Carrots
• Complementary conditional compensation
3. Improved territorial planning
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
What scope for PES?
Over 1.4 million km 2 threatened until 2050
Börner et al, 2010, Ecological Economics, 69
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
What scope for PES?
Over 50% of threatened forests exhibit offsetmarket competitive opportunity costs. Total
annual cost > R$ 17 billion ~ US$ 9 billion
Börner et al, 2010, Ecological Economics, 69
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
What scope for PES?
Börner et al, 2010, Ecological Economics, 69
Only 25% of threatened forest land boastinstitutional preconditions for conditional
incentives (i.e., well defined property rights)
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Follow-up research questions
1. How much would it cost to achieve the 80% reduction target through stick type of policies?
2. How would such policies play out in terms of welfare and equity impacts?
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
>−Π≤−Π
=01
00:0,1 Fpfor
Fpford
enf
enf
The workings of stick policies
To deforest or not to deforest….
unprofitable
profitable
Opportunity costs
Based on Becker, 1968 “Crime and punishment: an economic approach”, JPE
Enforcement probability
Fine
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Cost-effectiveness of stick policies
( )REDD
i
I
i
Rii
REDD C
BDDE
∑ −=
Additionality
Implementation costs
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Measuring the costs of stick policies at the farm forest frontier
Liability establishment
Cost categories
Coercion and administrative processes
Fine revenues
( )
REDD
I
i
enf
iCi
Ri
iLienf
C
Fp
cPTCD
DTCp
i
i
=
−
++∑=1
Spatial unit
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
( )∑
−
−Π−=∆
I
ienf
Ri
Riii
REDD
FpD
DD
W
Welfare effect of stick policies
Opportunity cost
Fine payments
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Travel time (costs) in the Amazon
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Determining penf – a resource allocation problem
∑∑= =
=I
i
P
pipiv svAREA
i1 1
,max
1,1
≤≥∑=
i
I
iii vvTCBUDGET
Subject to:
Maximizing deterrence by targeting largest offenders
Operational budget limitations when acting at remote forest frontiers
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Data sources
IBGE2 Agricultural Census 2006
Population estimates (Amazon region)
IBAMA records, provided in June 2009
Costs and locations (districts) of C&C enforcement operations (2003-2008)
IBAMA, at: http://siscom.ibama.gov.br(accessed in 2009)
Location and size of protected areas and indigenous territories
IBAMA (provided in 2007)Location and size of land-reform settlements, protected areas, and indigenous territories.
Börner et al. 2010Municipal-level average profits from agricultural activities and timber extraction (i.e. REDD opportunity costs)
INPE-PRODES (2002-9)1Annual deforestation polygons (2002-9)
SourceData type
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Actual and optimal enforcement strategies
Observedenforcement
Simulatedenforcement
70% overlap
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
penf as a function of deforestation polygon size and distance
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Per
cent
ile r
ank
scor
e (p
enf)
Shadow values [km 2]
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Implementation costs and C&C effectiveness - aggregate
-1,500
-1,000
-500
0
500
1,000
0 20 40 60 80 100
[mill
ion
R$]
C&C effectiveness [%]
Cost (clarified rights)
Cost (status quo rights)
Net revenue (clarified rights)
Net revenue (status quo rights)
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
C&C cost-effectiveness in space
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Welfare effects in space
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Summary
• Scope for positive REDD incentives at national level is limited– pre-existing use right restrictions– weak/poorly defined property rights at many
forest frontiers
• C&C policies much cheaper to implement than PES (<US$700 million versus >US$ 9 billion annually), but with contentious social welfare implications.
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Implications for the design of REDD+ sticks
• The current enforcement strategy follows the “Becker paradigm” of low enforcement pressure and high fines – i.e. lower fine levels and higher enforcement pressure may increase both compliance and cost-effectiveness
• Stronger focus on cross-compliance mechanism• In states with poor transport infrastructure, C&C
enforcement cannot be self-financing, i.e. sub-national compensation mechanisms
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Implications for the design of REDD+ carrots
• Positive incentives can only take the form of “compliance subsidies”
• Given pre-existing C&C enforcement pressure, actual opportunity costs may be lower that most profit-based estimates suggest
• Imperfect enforcement of direct compensation payments (like currently under C&C) may produce huge inefficiencies in REDD schemes
• History of lax enforcement represents a political economy barrier to compensation based on pure additionality criteria
Fort Collins, 19.5.2011
Aware of REDD sticks dressed as carrots!