| Title: | Sub-Optimal Equilibriums in the Carbon Forestry Game: Why Bamboo Should Win but Will Not |
| Citable URL: | http://hdl.handle.net/10427/52879 |
| Author: | Widenoja, Raya |
| Date: | 2007 |
| Citation: | Widenoja, Raya. "Sub-Optimal Equilibriums in the Carbon Forestry Game: Why Bamboo Should Win but Will Not." 2007. Tufts University. Digital Collections and Archives. Medford, MA. http://hdl.handle.net/10427/52879 Available from Tufts Digital Library, Digital Collections and Archives, Medford, MA. http://hdl.handle.net/10427/52879 |
| Rights: | http://dca.tufts.edu/ua/access/rights-creator.html |
View the PDF File: Sub-Optimal Equilibriums in the Carbon Forestry Game: Why Bamboo Should Win but Will Not (opens in a new window)
Abstract: Submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Abstract: So far in the competition for recognition of forestry projects under the CDM, little attention has been paid to the comparative advantage of different trees species. Yet once the first carbon revenues start rolling in, it would be logical for project planners to turn their attention to maximizing revenues with products that store the most carbon per hectare (ha). Indeed, in the academic world, many papers have already been written about the comparative advantage of different tree species with the expectation that forestry projects would be planned to maximize carbon sequestration. This paper begins with evidence that a non-tree speciesbamboomay be one of the species most well-suited to the CDM s goals of maximizing carbon revenues and promoting sustainable development. Noting however, that no CDM projects have been or are being prepared for bamboo, it asks, if bamboo should be the rational choice for project developers, and if it is then what is leading the developers to make sub-optimal decisions. This paper finds that project developers are not focusing on competitive carbon sequestration rates or optimal sustainability because of high transaction costs, high risk of non-approval, and low carbon revenues. Further, sustainability is given a back seat in the project design because there are few financial paybacks for sustainability: most of the external benefits are still not captured in the price. The main conclusion of this study is that national governments and the CDM Executive Board should support forestry projects with more capacity development and financial support in order to attain the goals set out for the Clean Development Mechanism.