Minimum carbon payment along an aridity gradient for dryland afforestation in non annex I countries with stochastic weather and prices

Recent findings demonstrate that trees in deserts are efficient carbon sinks. It remains however unknown whether the Clean Development Mechanism will accelerate the planting of trees in Non Annex I dryland countries. We estimated the price of carbon at which a farmer would be indifferent between his customary activity and the planting of trees to trade carbon credits, along an aridity gradient. Carbon yields were simulated by means of the CO2FIX v3.1 model for Pinus halepensis with its respective yield classes along the gradient (Arid – 100mm to Dry Sub Humid conditions – 900mm). Wheat and pasture yields were predicted on somewhat similar nitrogen-based quadratic models, using 30 years of weather data to simulate moisture stress. Stochastic production, input and output prices were afterwards simulated on a Monte Carlo matrix. Results show that, despite the high levels of carbon uptake, carbon trading by afforesting is unprofitable anywhere along the gradient. Indeed, the price of carbon would have to raise unrealistically high, and the certification costs would have to drop significantly, to make the Clean Development Mechanism worthwhile for non annex I dryland countries farmers. From a government agency's point of view the Clean Development Mechanism is attractive. However, such agencies will find it difficult to demonstrate “additionality”, even if the rule may be somewhat flexible. Based on these findings, we will further discuss why the Clean Development Mechanism, a supposedly pro-poor instrument, fails to assist farmers in Non Annex I dryland countries living at minimum subsistence level.

Subsidies, Clean Energy, and Climate Change

Estimates show that fossil fuel subsidies average USD 400–600 billion annually worldwide while renewable energy (RE) subsidies amounted to USD 66 billion in 2010 and are predicted to rise to USD 250 billion annually by 2035. Domestic political rationales for energy subsidies include promoting innovation, job creation and economic growth, energy security, and independence. Energy subsidies may also serve social and environmental goals. Whether and to what extent subsidies are effective to achieve these goals or instead lead to market distortions is a matter of much debate and the trade effects of energy subsidies are complex. This paper offers an overview of the types of energy subsidies that are used in the conventional and renewable energy sectors, and their relationship with climate change, in particular greenhouse gas emissions. While the WTO’s Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) is mostly concerned with harm to competitors, this paper considers the extent to which the Agreement could also discipline subsidies that cause harm to the environment as a global common. Beyond the existing legal framework, this paper surveys a number of alternatives for improving the ability of subsidies disciplines to internalize climate change costs of energy production and consumption. One option is a new multilateral agreement on subsidies or trade remedies (with an appropriate carve-out in the WTO regime to allow for it if such an agreement is concluded outside it). Alternatively, climate change-related subsidies could be included as part of another multilateral regime or as part of regional agreements. A third approach would be to incorporate rules on energy subsidies in sectorial agreements, including a Sustainable Energy Trade Agreement such as has been proposed in other ICTSD studies.