Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:31:57.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incentives for reforestation of agricultural land: What will a market for carbon sequestration credits contribute?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Leonard Shabman ,
Laura Zepp ,
Lisa Wainger  and
Dennis King
Leonard Shabman*
Affiliation:
Professor and Research Associate, respectively, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech.Blacksburg Virginia
Laura Zepp
Affiliation:
Professor and Research Associate, respectively, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech.Blacksburg Virginia
Lisa Wainger
Affiliation:
Assistant Research Scientist and Senior Research Scientist, respectively, Center for Environmental Science, University of Maryland, Solomons, Maryland.
Dennis King
Affiliation:
Assistant Research Scientist and Senior Research Scientist, respectively, Center for Environmental Science, University of Maryland, Solomons, Maryland.
*
L. Shabman ([email protected]).
Get access

Abstract

Reforestation of frequently flooded, marginally productive agricultural lands may provide environmental benefits. However, for reforestation to occur private landowners must earn enough revenues from forestlands to offset both the costs of reforesting as well as any forgone agricultural income. Among the possible revenue sources is the sale of carbon sequestration credits earned from reforestation. We simulate the financial feasibility of reforestation and the contribution of carbon sequestration credit sales to the net income possible from reforestation in a case study area of frequently flooded soybean fields in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain (the Delta). Under current market conditions, reforestation appears to be financially feasible on only the most marginally productive agricultural lands. Markets for carbon credits may contribute to positive financial returns of reforestation, but other policies and market opportunities will be necessary for a positive return to be realized.

Keywords

carbon credit pricesfinancial feasibilityflooded landshunting lease paymentstimber revenueswater quality improvement
Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 116 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Amacher, G., Sullivan, J., Shabman, L., and Zepp, L.. 1997. Restoration of the Lower Mississippi Delta Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Economic and Policy Considerations. Research Bulletin 185. Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar
2.Aust, W.M., Lea, R., and Gregory, J.D.. 1991. Removal of floodwater Sediments by a clear cut tupelo-cypress wetland. Water Resources Bulletin 27:111–116, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Birdsey, R.A. 1996. Carbon storage for major forest types and regions in the conterminous United States. In Sampson, R.N. and Hair, D. (eds.). Forests and Global Change. Vol. 2. American Forests, Washington, DC. Chapter 1.Google Scholar
4.CEA. 1998. The Kyoto Protocol and the President's Policies to Address Climate Change: Administration Economic Analysis. July. Council of Economic Advisors, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
5.CENR. 1999. Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Draft report released for public comment. Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology Council, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
6.Elias, T.D. 2000. Energy firm offsets pollution with trees: Texas company to save California timber. The Washington Times, 10 December, A–7.Google Scholar
7.FAPRI. 1999. U.S. Agricultural Outlook Staff Report 1–99. Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Iowa State University/University of Missouri-Columbia.Google Scholar
8.Gianessi, L.P., Peskin, H.M., and Puffer, C.A.. 1986. National Database of Nonurban-Nonpoint-Source Dischargers and their Effects on the Nation's Water Quality. US EPA PB 87–137972. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
9.Jordan, T.E., Correli, D.L., and Weller, D.E.. 1993. Nutrient interception: riparian forest receiving inputs from adjacent cropland. J. Environ. Qual. 22:467–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Kramer, R.A., and Shabman, L.A.. 1993. The effects of agricultural and tax policy reform on the economic return to wetland drainage in the Mississippi Delta region. Land Econ. 69(3):249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Nature Conservancy. 1998. Clinch valley forest bank launched. Virginia Chapter News. Summer. The Nature Conservancy, Abingdon, VA.Google Scholar
12.Pelangio Mines Inc. 2000. Pelangio plans joint venture to generate and sell greenhouse gas emission offset credits. News release 11/24/2000. Pelangio Mines Incorporated. Milton, Ontario, Canada. Website: http://www.pelangio.com (verified 28 06 2001).Google Scholar
13.Row, C., and Phelps, R.B.. 1990. Tracking the flow of carbon through U.S. forest products. 19th World Congress, International Union of Forestry Research Organizations, Montreal, Canada, 5–11 August.Google Scholar
14.Sampson, R.N., and Hair, D.. 1996. Forests and global change. Vol. 2: Forest Management Opportunities for Mitigation Carbon Emissions. American Forests, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
15.Shabman, L.A., and Zepp, L.. 2000. An Approach for Evaluating Nonstructural Actions with Application to the Yazoo River (Mississippi) Backwater. A report prepared in cooperation with the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
16.UNEP. 2000. Press Kit The Hague 2000, Sixth Session of the Conference of the Parties UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Produced for the Climate Change Secretariat by UNEP's Information Unit for Conventions, November. United Nations Environmental Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
17.Wainger, L.A., King, D.M., Shabman, L.A., and Zepp, L., 2000. The Benefits and Costs of Reforesting Economically Marginal Cropland in the Mississippi Delta. A report prepared for Delta Land Trust, Jackson, MS, 3 May.Google Scholar
18.Wesley, D.E., Perkins, C.J., and Sullivan, A.D.. 1981. Wildlife in cottonwood plantations. Southern J. Applied Forestry 5:37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Woolfolk, A. 1997. Hunting leases raise money, protect land. Mississippi Forestry and Wildlife News. Mississippi State University Office of Agricultural Communications, Mississippi State, State College, MS.Google Scholar