Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/cx8j6.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Grassland Conservation Programs a Cost-Effective Way to Fight Climate Change? Evidence from France

Author

Listed:
  • Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain
  • Voia, Anca
Abstract
Grasslands, especially when extensively managed and when replacing croplands, store Green-House Gases. As a result, Grassland Conservation Programs, that pay farmers for maintaining grassland cover, might be an effective way to combat climate change, if they succeed in triggering an increase in grassland cover for a reasonable amount of money. In this paper, we use a natural experiment to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the French Grassland Conservation Program, the largest of such programs in the world. We exploit a change in the eligibility requirements for the program that generated a sizable increase in the proportion of participants in the communes most affected by the program. We find that the expansion of the program leads to a small in- crease in grassland area, mainly at the expense of croplands, which implies that the program expansion increased carbon storage. We estimate that the climate benefits from the program are at most equal to 19%±37% of its costs. The program is thus not cost-effective for fighting climate change, especially when compared with forest conservation programs in developing countries whose benefits have been estimated to exceed costs by a factor of two. When taking into account the other benefits brought about by grassland, we find the benefits of the program to be equal to 32%±62% of its costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain & Voia, Anca, 2019. "Are Grassland Conservation Programs a Cost-Effective Way to Fight Climate Change? Evidence from France," SocArXiv cx8j6, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:cx8j6
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/cx8j6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5d14b88d70291a001c699560/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/cx8j6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jayachandran, Seema & de Laat, Joost & Lambin, Eric F. & Stanton, Charlotte, 2016. "Cash for Carbon: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Payments for Ecosystem Services to Reduce Deforestation," CEPR Discussion Papers 11349, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Andrea Pufahl & Christoph R. Weiss, 2009. "Evaluating the effects of farm programmes: results from propensity score matching," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(1), pages 79-101, March.
    3. Cyrus Samii & Matthew Lisiecki & Parashar Kulkarni & Laura Paler & Larry Chavis & Birte Snilstveit & Martina Vojtkova & Emma Gallagher, 2014. "Effects of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) on Deforestation and Poverty in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-95.
    4. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain & Subervie, Julie, 2013. "How much green for the buck? Estimating additional and windfall effects of French agro-environmental schemes by DID-matching," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 12-27.
    5. Linda Arata & Paolo Sckokai, 2016. "The Impact of Agri-environmental Schemes on Farm Performance in Five E.U. Member States: A DID-Matching Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(1), pages 167-186.
    6. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Identification and Inference in Nonlinear Difference-in-Differences Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 431-497, March.
    7. Lee J. Alston & Krister Andersson & Steven M. Smith, 2013. "Payment for Environmental Services: Hypotheses and Evidence," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 139-159, June.
    8. Kuhfuss, Laure & Subervie, Julie, 2018. "Do European Agri-environment Measures Help Reduce Herbicide Use? Evidence From Viticulture in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 202-211.
    9. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Katharine R. E. Sims & Patricia Yañez-Pagans, 2015. "Only One Tree from Each Seed? Environmental Effectiveness and Poverty Alleviation in Mexico's Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 1-40, November.
    10. Henrik J. Kleven & Mazhar Waseem, 2013. "Using Notches to Uncover Optimization Frictions and Structural Elasticities: Theory and Evidence from Pakistan," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(2), pages 669-723.
    11. Christensen, Peter & Francisco, Paul & Myers, Erica & Nogueira Meirelles De Souza, Mateus, 2019. "Decomposing the Wedge: Mechanisms Driving the Gap Between Projected and Realized Returns in Energy Efficiency Programs," 2019 Annual Meeting, July 21-23, Atlanta, Georgia 291226, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Kenneth Gillingham & James H. Stock, 2018. "The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(4), pages 53-72, Fall.
    13. Birte Snilsveit & Jennifer Stevenson & Laurenz Langer & Natalie Tannous & Zafeer Ravat & Promise Nduku & Joshua Polanin & Ian Shemilt & John Eyers & Paul J. Ferraro, 2019. "Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector—the effects of payment for environmental services on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐meth," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fabre, Anaïs, 2022. "Robustness of Two-Way Fixed Effects Estimators to Heterogeneous Treatment Effects," TSE Working Papers 22-1362, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Jun 2023.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jean-Marc Blazy & Julie Subervie & Jacky Paul & François Causeret & Loic Guinde & Sarah Moulla & Alban Thomas & Jorge Sierra, 2020. "Ex ante assessment of the cost-effectiveness of Agri-Environmental Schemes promoting compost use to sequester carbon in soils in Guadeloupe," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02748634, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    2. Blazy, J.-M. & Subervie, J. & Paul, J. & Causeret, F. & Guindé, L. & Moulla, S. & Thomas, A. & Sierra, J., 2021. "Ex-ante assessment of the cost-effectiveness of public policies to sequester carbon in soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    3. Kuhfuss, Laure & Subervie, Julie, 2018. "Do European Agri-environment Measures Help Reduce Herbicide Use? Evidence From Viticulture in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 202-211.
    4. Ito, Junichi & Feuer, Hart N. & Kitano, Shinichi & Asahi, Haruka, 2019. "Assessing the effectiveness of Japan's community-based direct payment scheme for hilly and mountainous areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 62-75.
    5. Christian Stetter & Philipp Mennig & Johannes Sauer, 2022. "Using Machine Learning to Identify Heterogeneous Impacts of Agri-Environment Schemes in the EU: A Case Study," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(4), pages 723-759.
    6. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    7. Michalek, Jerzy, 2022. "Environmental and farm impacts of the EU RDP agri-environmental measures: Evidence from Slovak regions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    8. Uehleke, Reinhard & Petrick, Martin & Hüttel, Silke, 2022. "Evaluations of agri-environmental schemes based on observational farm data: The importance of covariate selection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    9. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 473-493.
    10. Reinhard Uehleke & Heidi Leonhardt & Silke Hüttel, 2024. "Counterfactual evaluation of two Austrian agri‐environmental schemes in 2014–2018," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(1), pages 27-40, January.
    11. Javier Castaño & Maria Blanco & Pilar Martinez, 2019. "Reviewing Counterfactual Analyses to Assess Impacts of EU Rural Development Programmes: What Lessons Can Be Learned from the 2007–2013 Ex-Post Evaluations?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-22, February.
    12. Liu, Zhaoyang & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2018. "Meta-Analysis of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services Programmes in Developing Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 48-61.
    13. Cisilino, Federica & Bodini, Antonella & Zanoli, Agostina, 2019. "Rural development programs’ impact on environment: An ex-post evaluation of organic faming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 454-462.
    14. Bertoni, Danilo & Curzi, Daniele & Aletti, Giacomo & Olper, Alessandro, 2020. "Estimating the effects of agri-environmental measures using difference-in-difference coarsened exact matching," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    15. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Can RCTs help improve the design of CAP," Working Papers hal-01974425, HAL.
    16. Amer Ait Sidhoum & Philipp Mennig & Johannes Sauer, 2023. "Do agri-environment measures help improve environmental and economic efficiency? Evidence from Bavarian dairy farmers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(3), pages 918-953.
    17. Roggendorf, Wolfgang & Schwarze, Stefan, 2020. "Die Wirkung von Agrarumweltmaßnahmen auf betriebliche Stickstoffbilanzen – Empirische Ergebnisse aus Nordrhein-Westfalen," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305604, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    18. Philippe Coent, 2023. "Payment for environmental services related to aquifers: a review of specific issues and existing programmes," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 273-310, December.
    19. Juliano Assunção & Robert McMillan & Joshua Murphy & Eduardo Souza-Rodrigues, 2019. "Optimal Environmental Targeting in the Amazon Rainforest," NBER Working Papers 25636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Guigonan S. Adjognon & Daan van Soest & Jonas Guthoff, 2021. "Reducing Hunger with Payments for Environmental Services (PES): Experimental Evidence from Burkina Faso," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 831-857, May.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:cx8j6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.