Advertisement

Influence of Carbon Sequestration in an Optimal Set of Coppice Rotations for Eucalyptus Plantations

  • Luis Diaz-BalteiroEmail author
  • Luiz C. E. Rodríguez
Chapter
Part of the Managing Forest Ecosystems book series (MAFE, volume 34)

Abstract

The coppice regeneration method used to manage eucalypts leads to a simultaneous optimization problem: the manager has to simultaneously define the optimal age in each coppice rotation and the optimal number of coppice rotations for each plantation full cycle. The dynamic nature of the problem justifies the use of methods like dynamic programming in order to achieve optimal solutions. Expected land value and the duration of the optimal rotation may change significantly when payments for carbon sequestration are added as revenues in the cash flow analysis of the project. In this chapter, we analyze the effects of considering carbon sequestration as a subsidized complementary product when defining the optimal set of coppice rotations. A Monte Carlo simulation technique was used to model the inherent risk of some variables and parameters like pulpwood price, carbon price, and discount rate. The variation in the land expectation value and in the optimal rotation length is reported when these stochastic variables are computed. Two study cases are shown, one with Eucalyptus urophylla S.T. Blake in Brazil, and another with Eucalyptus globulus Labill in Galicia, Spain.

Keywords

Carbon Sequestration Carbon Capture Carbon Price Eucalyptus Plantation Optimal Rotation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Manuel Fernández Martínez, of the University of Huelva (Spain) for providing important information about the basic density of Eucalyptus globulus in Spain. Luis Diaz-Balteiro’s work was supported by the Project AGL2015-68657-R, funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain, and Luiz C. E. Rodriguez’s work has been funded by the Brazilian “Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa – CNPq”. Thanks are also given to the referees and to the Editors for their useful comments.

References

  1. ABRAF (2013) Anuário Estatístico da ABRAF. Associação Brasileira de Produtores de Florestas Plantadas, Brasília, 146 pGoogle Scholar
  2. Amidon EL, Akin GS (1968) Dynamic programming to determine optimum levels of growing stock. For Sci 14:287–291Google Scholar
  3. Ask P, Carlsson M (2000) Nature conservation and timber production in areas with fragmented ownership patterns. For Pol Econ 1:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman IJ, Lovett AA (2000) Modelling and valuing carbon sequestration in softwood and hardwood trees, timber products and forest soils. J Environ Manag 60:301–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borges JG, Falcão A (1999) Programação dinâmica e gestão de povoamentos florestais com estrutura regular e composição pura. Aplicação à Mata Nacional de Leiria Revista Florestal XII 69–82Google Scholar
  6. Borges JG, Hoganson HM (1999) Assessing the impact of management unit design and adjacency constraints on forestwide spatial conditions and timber revenues. Can J For Res 29:1764–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brodie JD, Adams DM, Kao C (1978) Analysis of economic impacts on thinning and rotation of Douglas fir using dynamic programming. For Sci 24:513–522Google Scholar
  8. Bussoni Guitart A, Estraviz Rodriguez LC (2010) Private valuation of carbon sequestration in forest plantations. Ecol Econ 69:451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cacho OJ, Hean RL (2004) Dynamic optimization for evaluating externalities in agroforestry systems: an example from Australia. In: Alavalapati JRR, Mercer DE (eds) Valuing agroforestry systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 139–163Google Scholar
  10. Cacho OJ, Hean RL, Wise R (2003) Carbon-accounting methods and reforestation incentives. Aust J Agr Resour Ec 47:153–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlsson M, Andersson M, Dahlin B, Sallnäs O (1998) Spatial patterns of habitat protection in areas with non-industrial private forestry—hypotheses and implications. For Ecol Man 107:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang SJ (1998) A generalized faustmann model for the determination of optimal harvest age. Can J For Res 28:652–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunha-e-Sá M, Rosa R (2004) Effects of carbon taxes and subsidies on optimal forest rotation age: an application to the Portuguese eucalyptus forest. 1st conference of AERNA (Spanish & Portuguese Association of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics), Vigo, SpainGoogle Scholar
  14. Diaz-Balteiro L, Rodriguez LCE (2006) Optimal rotations on Eucalyptus plantations including carbaon sequestration-A comparison of results in Brazil and Spain. Forest Ecol Manag 229:247–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diaz-Balteiro L, Romero C (2003) Carbon captured as a new instrument in forest management: some implications. Sci Forestalis 63:103–114Google Scholar
  16. Faustmann M (1849) Berechung des Wertes welchen Waldboden sowie noch nicht haubare Holzbestände für die Waldwirtschaft besitzen. Allgemeine Forst und Jagd Zeitung 15. Reissued in: Faustmann, M. 1995. Calculation of the value which forest land and immature stands possess for forestry. J For Econ 1: 7–44Google Scholar
  17. Ferreira L, Constantino MF, Borges JG, Garcia-Gonzalo J (2012) A stochastic dynamic programming approach to optimize short-rotation coppice systems management scheduling: an application to eucalypt plantations under wildfire risk in Portugal. For Sci 58:353–365Google Scholar
  18. Filius AM, Dul MT (1992) Dependence of rotation and thinning regime on economic factors and silvicultural constraints: results of an application of dynamic programming. For Ecol Man 48:345–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gonçalves GA, Ramalho MAP, Andrade HB, Marques OGM (1997) Resposta na segunda rotação pela seleção efetuada na primeira, em família de meios-irmãos de Eucalyptus grandis Hill ex Maiden. Revista Árvore 21:377–383Google Scholar
  20. González-Río F, Castellanos A, Fernández O, Astorga R, Gómez C (1997) Manual técnico de selvicultura del eucalipto. Proxecto Columella. Escuela Politécnica Superior de Lugo (Spain)Google Scholar
  21. Gracia C, Vayreda J, Sabaté S, Ibáñez J (2004) Main components of the aboveground biomass expansion factors. In: Cost Action EG-21 WG-1 Meeting on BEF’s. Finland, HämeelinnaGoogle Scholar
  22. Haight RG, Brodie JD, Dahms W (1985) A dynamic programming algorithm for optimization of lodgepole pine management. For Sci 31:321–330Google Scholar
  23. Hillier FS, Libiermann GJ (1991) Introducción a la Investigación de Operaciones. McGraw-Hill, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoen HF, Solberg B (1994) Potential and economic efficiency of carbon sequestration in forest biomass through silvicultural management. For Sci 40:429–451Google Scholar
  25. Hoganson HM, Borges JG (1998) Using dynamic programming and overlapping subproblems to address adjacency in large harvest scheduling problems. For Sci 44:526–538Google Scholar
  26. Huu-Dung N, Yeo-Chang Y (2012) Optimum harvesting time and clone choices for eucalyptus growers in Vietnam. Forest Pol Econ 15:60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klemperer, D. 2001. Incorporating risk into financial analysis of forest management investments. In: Risk Analysis in Forest Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht. von Gadow (Ed.)Google Scholar
  28. Knoke T, Moog M, Plusczyk N (2002) On the effect of volatile stumpage prices on the economic attractiveness of a silvicultural transformation strategy. Forest Pol Econ 2:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Langholtz, M.; Carter, D.R.; Rockwood, D.L.; Alavalapati,J.R.R.; Green, A. 2005. Effect of dendroremediation incentives on the profitability of short-rotation woody cropping of Eucalyptus grandis. Forest Pol Econ 7 806–817Google Scholar
  30. Madrigal A, Alvárez JG, Rodríguez R, Rojo A (1999) Tablas de producción para los montes españoles. Fundación Conde del Valle Salazar, MadridGoogle Scholar
  31. MAGRAMA (2014) Anuarios de estadística forestal. MadridGoogle Scholar
  32. McKenney DW, Yemshanova D, Fox G, Ramlal E (2004) Cost estimates for carbon sequestration from fast growing poplar plantations in Canada. Forest Pol. Econ 6:345–358Google Scholar
  33. Medema EL, Lyon GW (1985) The determination of financial rotation ages for coppicing tree species. For Sci 31:398–404Google Scholar
  34. Nghiem N (2014) Optimal rotation age for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation in Vietnam. Forest Pol Econ 38:56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olschewski R, Benitez PC (2010) Optimizing joint production of timber and carbon sequestration of afforestation projects. J For Econ 16:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Penman, J.; Gytarsky, M.; Hiraishi, T.; Krug, T.; Kruger, D.; Pipatti, R.; Buendia, L.; Miwa, K.; Ngara, T.; Tanabe, K.; Wagner, F. 2003. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  37. Ribeiro CAAS, Graça LR (1996) Manejo por talhadia: estabelecimento das idades ótimas de corte. Revista Árvore 20:29–36Google Scholar
  38. Richards KR, Strokes C (2004) A Review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: a dozen years of research. Clim Chang 63:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robertson K, Loza-Balbuena I, Ford-Robertson J (2004) Monitoring and economic factors affecting the economic viability of afforestation for carbon sequestration projects. Environ Sci Pol 7(465):475Google Scholar
  40. Rodriguez, L.C.E. 1999. Defining the optimum sequence of rotations for coppice regimes of eucalyptus. In: Chang, S.J. (Ed.) Proceedings of the International Symposium 150 Years to the Faustmann Formula: its consequences for forestry and economics in the past, present and future. DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  41. Rodriguez LCE, Diaz-Balteiro L (2006) Régimen óptimo para plantaciones de eucaliptos en Brasil: un análisis no determinista. Interciencia 31:739–744Google Scholar
  42. Romero C, Ríos V, Diaz Balteiro L (1998) Optimal forest rotation age when carbon captured is considered: theory and applications. J Oper Res Soc 49:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Samuelson PA (1976) Economics of forestry in an evolving society. Econ Inq 14:466–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scanavaca Junior L, Garcia JN (2004) Determinação das propiedades físicas e mecânicas da madeira de Eucalyptus urophylla. Scientia Forestalis 65:120–129Google Scholar
  45. Schnute J (1981) A versatile growth model with statistically stable parameters. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:1128–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schreuder GF (1971) The simultaneous determination of optimal thinning schedule and rotation for an even-aged forest. For Sci 17:333–339Google Scholar
  47. Smart JCR, Burgess JC (2000) An environmental economic analysis of willow SRC production. J For Eco 6:193–225Google Scholar
  48. Sobol IM (1994) A primer in Monte Carlo Method. CRC Press, Boca-RatonGoogle Scholar
  49. Stainback GA, Alavalapati JRR (2005) Effects of carbon markets on the optimal management of Slash Pine (Pinus elliottii) plantations. Southern J ApplFor 29:27–32Google Scholar
  50. Tait DE (1986) A dynamic programming solution of financial rotation ages for coppicing tree species. Can J For Res 16:799–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tassone VC, Wesseler J, Nesci FS (2004) Diverging incentives for afforestation from carbon sequestration: an economic analysis of the EU afforestation program in the south of Italy. Forest Pol Econ 6:567–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Torres-Rojo JM, Brodie JD (1990) Demonstration of benefits from an optimization approach to the economic analysis of natural pine stands in Central Mexico. For Ecol Man 36:267–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van Kooten GC, Binkley CS, Delcourt G (1995) Effect of carbon taxes and subsidies on optimal forest rotation age and supply of carbon services. Am J Agric Econ 77:365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Kooten GC, Eagle AJ, Manley J, Smolak T (2004) How costly are carbon offsets? A meta-analysis of carbon forest sinks. Environ Sci Pol 7:239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Kooten GC, Krcmar-Nozic E, Stennes B, van Gorkom R (1999) Economics of fossil fuel substitution and wood product sinks when trees are planted to sequester carbon on agricultural lands in western Canada. Can J For Res 29:1669–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Whittock SP, Greaves BL, Apiolaza LA (2004a) A cash flow model to compare coppice and genetically improved seedling options for Eucalyptus globulus plantations. For Ecol Man 191:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whittock SP, Apiolaza LA, Dutkowski GW, Greaves BL, Potts BM (2004b) Carbon revenues and economic breeding objectives in Eucalyptus globulus pulpwood plantations. Ine: Eucalyptus in a changing world, IUFRO Symposium. Aveiro, PortugalGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Economics and Management. ETS Ingenieros de MontesCiudad UniversitariaMadridSpain
  2. 2.Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz” University of São PauloPiracicabaBrazil

Personalised recommendations