Current studentsExisting staffContact us
 

The influence of crediting and permanence periods on Australian forest-based carbon offset supply

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorRegan, C.M.
dc.contributor.authorConnor, J.D.
dc.contributor.authorSummers, D.M.
dc.contributor.authorSettre, C.
dc.contributor.authorO'Connor, P.J.
dc.contributor.authorCavagnaro, T.R.
dc.date.issued2020
dc.descriptionData source: Supplementary data, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104800
dc.description.abstractGovernments globally are developing increasingly ambitious carbon emissions reduction schemes that include significant emissions offset credits for forest-based carbon sequestration. Such strategies can present significant challenges in highly modified and intensively farmed regions where forest land use opportunity and establishment costs are high. This article evaluates the economics of land-use change via active afforestation for local carbon abatement in the Australian state of South Australia, a region with high supply costs representative of long-established temperate farming regions. We found that there is no economically viable abatement below $38tCO₂e⁻¹, however up to 154 Mt CO₂e of abatement could be available up to prices of $50 tCO₂e⁻¹.Variation in current Australian Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) policy parameters related to permanence and crediting periods were also assessed. Recent ERF contracts involve a 100-year land-use change commitment(permanence period) and a 25-year crediting period where payments for growth in carbon from the land-use change is contracted. We compared outcomes of this arrangement to a scenario with equal 100-year permanence and crediting periods. We found substantial differences in carbon supply at some price points for a 25 rather than a 100-year crediting period. Under ERF parameters the first economically viable revegetation options occur at $42 tCO₂e⁻¹, however, we found a 69 percent reduction in economically viable supply at a carbon price of $50 tCO₂e⁻¹. The results highlight the role offset crediting policy can have on dis-incentivising land-use change andthe need for landholders to be compensated fully for temporal opportunity costs.
dc.identifier.citationLand Use Policy, 2020; 97(104800):1-9
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104800
dc.identifier.issn0264-8377
dc.identifier.issn1873-5754
dc.identifier.orcidO'Connor, P.J. [0000-0002-8966-9370]
dc.identifier.orcidCavagnaro, T.R. [0000-0002-9922-5677]
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11541.2/143288
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.fundingThe Goyder Institute for Water Research CA.17.02
dc.rightsCopyright 2020 Elsevier Access Condition Notes: Accepted manuscript available after 1 January 2023
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104800
dc.subjectcarbon neutral
dc.subjectemissions reduction fund (ERF)
dc.subjectclimate change mitigation
dc.subjectland use change
dc.subjectagriculture
dc.subjectAustralia
dc.titleThe influence of crediting and permanence periods on Australian forest-based carbon offset supply
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished
ror.fileinfo12201537900001831 13201537890001831 Coversheet 9916418579501831_Postprint_carbon_ERF_LUP_052020 (1).pdf
ror.mmsid9916418593801831

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
9916418593801831_12201537900001831_Coversheet 9916418579501831_Postprint_carbon_ERF_LUP_052020 (1).pdf
Size:
2.32 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Download

Collections