Climate Action

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Environmental Assets and Carbon Markets: Opportunities and Challenges for a Greener and Sustainable Economy in Brazil

  • Thiago Lima Klautau de AraújoEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71063-1_35-1

Definitions

Environmental assets are all types of natural goods (or derived from them) that make up the ecosystems and that can generate direct or indirect economic benefits. Wood, sap, oils, essences, medicinal plants, and water are some of the commonly recognized environmental assets. Nevertheless, the most precise definition of the expression is related to natural resources in the widest possible way and all effects generated from them, including “those which have no economic values, but bring indirect uses benefits, options and bequest benefits or simply existence benefits which cannot be translated into a present day monetary value” (OECD 2005, based on United Nations et al. 2005). For those reasons, environmental assets differ from the definition of natural resources, as they are broader than the latter. Those assets encompass natural, mineral, geological, biodiversity, and all the direct and indirect effects they provide for the community.

Some of the environmental assets to be highlighted are flora, fauna, soil, carbon storage and neutralization, seed production, seeds used in jewelry, bio jewelry, oils, plant or animal species that help fight pests (thus enabling agroforestry management), ecosystem services (all activities that the environment performs on its own but which generate positive externalities, for instance, pollination, protection of water sources by riparian forests [which enables the supply of fresh water to the populations, prevention of erosion, and consequent silting of rivers], water and air quality, maintenance temperature and climate, evaporation of forests that feed the rain cycle), leisure areas, ecotourism, native fruits, genetic heritage, as well as mineral resources (Seymour and Busch 2016; Klautau de Araújo et al. 2019). It is important to note that the list of these assets is not closed and is continually growing, because of the scientific discoveries that broaden the understanding of the relations between man and nature. Another reason are the new potentialities being harnessed and that have economic value or yet for the perception that, even without measurable value, these assets directly or indirectly influence positively human activities.

Carbon markets are among the most remarkable types of environmental assets. This instrument is based on the purchase and sale of carbon credits and works as a compensation for more greenhouse gas emissions than allowed by law or conventions. To compensate the excess, that one buys credits from an agent that did not use its full limit or that has the capacity to store carbon (e.g., maintaining green areas or has reforestation projects). According to Kyoto Protocol, greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (United Nations 1998).

Initial Notes

Environmental assets and carbon markets have been gaining importance in the international discussions about environment and sustainable alternatives for economy. However, these expressions still seem to be quite far from being known by great part of citizens. Considering that, this entry tries to combine different perspectives regarding the subject, with main objectives of informing and raising awareness about the topic. Scientific literature, official documents and reports made by national agencies and international organizations, as well practical aspects are assessed, so the overview can be useful for both scholars and nonspecialists.

Environmental Assets in Brazil

The expression “environmental assets” in Brazil is more related to accounting, management, and environmental management, being quite distant from the concept presented above. For the Federal Accounting Council (CFC 2004), they are defined as “(...) the resource controlled by one entity, whose expected future benefits are directly associated with the protection of the environment, or with the recovery of what is already degraded. Are also included on that the native areas maintained for conservation. It must not be confused with environmental assets those whose main objective is linked to the production process, as established in NBC TG 29 – Biological Asset and Agricultural Product.”

The biological assets, discussed in the document NBC TG 29, are defined by the Accounting Pronouncements Committee (CPC 2009) as “an animal and/or a living plant” and Agricultural Production as “product harvested from the entity’s biological assets.” For the Institute of Independent Auditors of Brazil (IBRACON 1996), however, the environmental assets are “the fixed assets, which concerns to the equipment purchased aiming at the elimination or reduction of pollutants, with a lifespan of more than one year; the expenses with research and development of technologies in the medium and long term, constituting, strictly speaking, amounts that are part of deferred assets, if they involve benefits and actions that are reflected during next years; and Inventories, when related to inputs from the process of elimination of pollution levels. Jobs and taxes generated, works of local infrastructure, schools, kindergartens, green areas and gardens are also included in the environmental assets. Finally, seeking the development and valorization of the region, and that, eliminating the environmental liabilities, the company produces assets in the locality.”

In the country that has the greatest biodiversity, tropical forests, and water reserves in the world, the concept of environmental assets is extremely restrictive and limited, inadequate to new realities.

One of the biggest challenges Brazil is facing is to be able to balance economic growth/development with the improvement of social conditions and environmental conservation – achieving, then, sustainable development. One of the major obstacles is precisely to build a less predatory and more ecological use of existing resources, so there would be appreciation and preservation of ecosystems.

Klautau de Araújo et al. (2019) expressed that it is essential to implement a proper communication with the local communities and entrepreneurs, so they can be aware of environmental assets’ potential. Combined with changes in the law and the feasibility of economic alternatives involving the better use of these assets, the communication can reinforce the fact that forests have more value standing than felled. It is necessary to change the current mentality that environmental preservation is a cost. In fact, it can be an extra income opportunity. As the prevailing concept in Brazil on environment is still negative, it may further extend Brazil’s current inability to manage its natural resources in a sustainable way.

The Law 13493, from October 2017, establishes the green domestic product (Produto Interno Verde – PIV) as an economic indicator similar to gross domestic product (GDP). However, differently from the GDP, the PIV calculates only the national ecological patrimony. The author of the bill converted into law, former Deputy Otávio Leite, understands that the PIV will help the country to monitor Brazilian environmental assets more clearly, since it will measure them (Oliveira 2017). In fact, their potentialities and their real extent are completely unknown to Brazil, since there is no official data on the subject. According to Roberto Ramos, former president of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics – IBGE (the agency responsible for gauging the GDP, and now the PIV): “by incorporating the environmental axis into the National Accounts System, we will be able to analyze the impact of economic growth on our natural resources, which will allow us to draw a sustainable development strategy” (Neto et al. 2017).

In other countries, such as the United Kingdom, where similar measurements already exist and have been in operation for a longer period, their role is highlighted: “Gross domestic product (GDP) tells us only part of our economic story. It hides and excludes services provided by natural capital, and it focuses only on flows of income and output, not stocks of capital, including natural capital, that underpin them. The development of natural capital accounts has been flagged by the Natural Capital Committee and the UK National Ecosystem Assessment as a fundamental activity that is necessary if natural capital is to be mainstreamed in decision-making. It sends a strong signal to businesses and local decision-makers of the importance of monitoring and valuing natural assets. More specifically, a well-developed national set of natural capital accounts can: monitor losses and gains in our natural capital over time; identify priority areas for investment and inform resourcing and management decisions; highlight links with economic activity and pressures on natural capital” (Philips 2017).

Although this new perspective has been inserted in the Brazilian scenario, it is too early to estimate any paradigm shift or to predict any positive impact in the current situation. This new statistical measurement is an important step forward to the valuation of environmental assets. However, Law 13493/2017 has some points that lead us to distrust its practical efficiency. Mainly for the following reasons:
  1. 1.

    It has vague and imprecise terms, such as those present in the Art. 2°, §3 (Brasil 2017): “The methodology for calculating the PIV should be widely discussed with society and public institutions, including the National Congress, before a system of environmental economic accounts is officially adopted in Brazil.” Expressions such as “widely discussed,” “public institutions,” and “before a system of environmental economic accounts is officially adopted in Brazil” create dangerous margins for rulers about when, how, and with whom this methodology will be discussed. It leaves also indefinite the term of the implementation of a system of environmental economic accounts.

     
  2. 2.

    The law is unaccompanied by other measures. That is, it only establishes a new modality of accounting that encompasses environmental assets but does not provide other alternatives for valuing ecosystems or advantages and incentives for producers that preserve the environment, among other possibilities that have been disregarded.

     

The trend for environmental legislation in Brazil is to be used as a palliative response to alleviate social pressures without bringing efficient mechanisms for problem-solving (Klautau de Araújo 2014, 2016, Klautau de Araújo et al. 2019). Law 13493/2017 presents the same errors of the laws analyzed in these three papers mentioned, and, therefore, the most probable outcome is that this law does not change, in practice, current deterioration or even the perception of environmental assets in Brazil. It would possibly take some years to establish a Brazilian official environmental accounts system. Although only time can tell what will actually happen, the prospects are not good.

Incorrect Concepts of Environmental Assets and Environmental Preservation

The lack of collective perception about the importance of those assets interferes negatively in Brazilian citizen’s quality of life, including the urban populations.

There are several studies about the importance of maintaining green areas in cities, urban afforestation, and preservation of primary forest around human agglomerations. Vegetation cover contributes to improve air quality, helps to regulate the climate, and increases soil permeability. Without it, heat islands form quickly, the population may present respiratory problems more often, and cities become more vulnerable to extreme weather phenomena, such as floods. In a context of climate change and environmental uncertainties, these reasons would already be enough for investment in preservation of the environmental assets of cities. However, this scientific consensus is not put in practice in Brazilian cities.

According to 2010 data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE 2012), around 32% of Brazilian households do not have nearby trees, and this percentage worsens in the poorest regions. In the Northern Region, where the Amazônia Forest is located, 63.29% of the households do not have nearby afforestation, compared to 26.5% in the Southeastern Region, the richest in the country. 74.9% of the population of Belém and 77.6% of Manaus, the two most important capitals of the North of Brazil, do not have trees near their homes.

The preservation of environmental assets, whether in rural or urban areas, can prevent or minimize damages caused by climatic events, avoiding significant economic damages. Especially in the case of Brazil, instruments of valorization and profitability of those resources should be promoted, as already mentioned, but it is also necessary to pass this knowledge on to the populations and to interact with them. These groups can be the major partners of governments in environmental preservation, and they are the main addressees of public policies (see Klautau de Araújo 2016).

Definition of Environmental Assets to International Organizations

Initially, the definition of environmental assets to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), based on United Nations (UN), European Commission (EC), International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the OECD, was assumed as “naturally occurring entities that provide environmental ‘functions’ or services.” However, there are some differences. The definition used in the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) is broader than the one adopted in the System of National Accounts (SNA): “they cover all assets including those which have no economic values, but bring indirect uses benefits, options and bequest benefits or simply existence benefits which cannot be translated into a present day monetary value” (OECD 2005, based on United Nations et al. 2005).

To better understand these accounting systems, it is important to fully describe what they are. About SEEA: “(…) contains the internationally agreed standard concepts, definitions, classifications, accounting rules and tables for producing internationally comparable statistics on the environment and its relationship with the economy. The SEEA framework follows a similar accounting structure as the System of National Accounts (SNA) and uses concepts, definitions and classifications consistent with the SNA in order to facilitate the integration of environmental and economic statistics. The SEEA is a system for organizing statistical data for the derivation of coherent indicators and descriptive statistics to monitor the interactions between the economy and the environment and the state of the environment to better inform decision-making (…)” (United Nations 2018a).

The official information regarding the SNA is: “(…) the internationally agreed standard set of recommendations on how to compile measures of economic activity. The SNA describes a coherent, consistent and integrated set of macroeconomic accounts in the context of a set of internationally agreed concepts, definitions, classifications and accounting rules. In addition, the SNA provides an overview of economic processes, recording how production is distributed among consumers, businesses, government and foreign nations (…)” (United Nations 2018b).

In a more recent definition, also from the same organizations: “Environmental Assets are the naturally occurring living and non-living components of the Earth, together constituting the biophysical environment, which may provide benefits to humanity” (United Nations et al. 2014).

The definition considered for SEEA was published almost 15 years ago but is closer to an accurate framework of what environmental assets are than the newest one, as it addresses the benefits that cannot be measured economically. It should not be disregarded, although this difficulty of measuring them is a major challenge.

Difficulties and Limitations of Environmental Assets Assessment

Analyzing the methodology used by the Australian government to gauge value, for instance, one can see that it is still very difficult to measure environmental assets and the complexity of finding “owners” for some types of assets or to assess their impact on the economy of a country. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) points out that the environmental assets “must have an identifiable owner, and the owner must be able to derive an economic benefit from holding the asset” to be considered in the calculations; and, thus, “Subsoil assets, land, forests, water and fish stocks in open seas that are under the control of an economic agent, often the government” are generally the environmental assets presented in the national accounts (ABS 2010).

The ABS highlights that: “Environmental Assets such as the atmosphere are outside the scope of the national accounts, as they do not have an identifiable owner who can derive an economic benefit from their use. This is not to suggest that these assets are of no value. On the contrary, many Environmental Assets are essential to life itself. However, even if they fell within the definition of an economic asset, the valuation techniques available to measure such assets tend to be arbitrary and controversial” (ABS 2010).

In other words, it is unquestionable that air is essential for almost all living beings, including humans. But who owns the air? How much does the air cost? How much does a good air quality influence the generation of wealth for a country?

These questions become rhetorical because they are really difficult to answer. Regarding the example of the air, it is impossible to know how much it costs, economically speaking. In other situations, there are environmental assets whose property is undefined, but that the “service” provided by them can be monetarily measured. It is the case of the birds in Costa Rica that help fighting against pests that attack coffee. Some experts claim that each bird performs a service that would cost US$ 3/year (Paglia 2017), and another study shows that these birds can increase coffee production between US$ 75 and US$ 310 per hectare, depending on the season (Karp et al. 2013). In Brazil, between the 141 types of crops, 85 of them need pollination (BPBES 2018), an ecosystem service of which economic impact is not even measured currently.

However, all these cases lead us to a situation of equal indefiniteness but of greater danger: The Tragedy of the Commons, defined by Hardin (1968). If a thing does not have a defined owner and its exploitation does not demand financial expenses, those conditions will lead to an overload of its use/extraction, until the good disappears completely. Instead of understanding that a natural resource is owned by the whole community, one tends to think that it is nobody’s and, therefore, its use does not have to be responsible. Hardin argues that if legal or economic barriers are not put, the Tragedy of the Commons is the most likely path for such assets.

That way, a dilemma about environmental assets appears: they are essential for any and all human activity, but some of the most fundamental and indispensable ones do not have a determinable value; so, no matter how important they may be, they are disregarded in most cases. Therefore, policies are needed to encourage the preservation of environmental assets that generate wealth for the population. But it is also necessary to invest in public policies on environmental education. By doing so, the information is disseminated, and people are aware that even if an environmental asset has no economic value to them, it is directly linked to other activities and its preservation is equally important.

Why Do We Need to Better Understand What Environmental Assets Are?

It is comprehensible, for accounting and statistical purposes, that the environmental assets have restrictions on their measurements. It is almost unanimous among the responsible agencies that it is not possible to attribute value to all of them. And there is no harm in it. Other economic indicators, such as GDP, are carried out by means of estimations and sampling, since it is impossible to monitor all economic activity.

Even without a full measurement of the environmental assets, a statistical perception can help to have a dimension of the interaction between economy and nature. From that point, it is possible to guide economic policies that boost development but without dilapidating the country’s natural resources. Statistics on stocks and flows related to environment are very important for those reasons.

However, the problem lies in transforming the concepts of environmental assets exclusively in numbers and statistics that do not reflect the entire context. It can make even more distant the perception that apart from the fact that those assets have economic value (what is important for their preservation), the relationship between humanity and nature is greater than that.

The deadlock on the value of air – which becomes didactic because it is the most extreme of all – has already been mentioned in this text. There are several other impasses that are becoming concrete and whose dimension is only possible to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. For example, according to the various metrics mentioned, it is not possible to measure the value of a river, but the degradation of it, either by excessive pollution, erosion of its banks, its silting, or even its disappearance, creates damages that can be effectively calculated by the existing economic metrics.

Nevertheless, there are impacts that none of the prevailing metrics can reach, since the goods degraded can be immaterial and intangible. When talking about environment and environmental assets, it is impossible to dissociate the relationship between the communities and the places where they live, which shape their culture, customs, architecture, cuisine, knowledge, among others. The disappearance of a forest, a river, an animal or plant species brings economic losses, but it also impacts the life of a locality, region, country, or continent, because of the damages to immaterial goods or because it may force migrations to large cities, increasing their social and economic vulnerability.

Therefore, it is necessary to adjust concepts and broaden and democratize the discussions about environmental assets. By that, the populations can be aware that they can contribute to change the scenario of environmental degradation and worsening of the environmental quality that is occurring, especially in the poorer countries.

Carbon Markets: Historical Context

The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has exposed concern about the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and the potential negative effects to life on earth. Therefore, it has established some commitments, in its Article 4, to be accomplished by the participating countries. Among them is to “Promote sustainable management, and promote and cooperate in the conservation and enhancement, as appropriate, of sinks and reservoirs of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, including biomass, forests and oceans as well as other terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems” – Article 4, 1, d (UN 1992). According to Article 1, 8, of the same Convention: “‘Sink’ means any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere” (UN 1992).

Financing the maintenance of green spaces that could store greenhouse gases became one option. The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 (UN 1998), Article 12, formally created the possibility of building a market for the purchase and sale of carbon credits by establishing the clean development mechanism, emissions trading, and also emission limits and reductions for countries signatories to the treaty. The discussion of these issues has been improved over the years with the Conference of the Parties (COP), which occurs annually.

Paris Agreement, which took place after the Kyoto Protocol, reinforced emission reduction targets and strengthened emissions compensation mechanisms, especially in its Articles 5 and 6 (UN 2015).

How Does Carbon Markets Work?

A carbon credit is defined as a right to emit one ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in another greenhouse gas. This credit, in practice, is a permit or a certificate that can be negotiated between an agent who has emitted less than the established limit and another who has polluted more and needs to offset the excess. There is also a possibility of obtaining credits (and later negotiate it) for the creation of carbon sequestration projects such as reforestation, preservation of native forests, or measures that reduce the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere during the production processes. To read more about the construction of carbon markets and its details, consult Stephan and Paterson (2012).

Markets can be: voluntary, where agents conduct credit negotiations and/or conduct carbon sequestration processes to offset emissions and/or take measures to reduce the impact of their activities on their own initiative, without any obligation by the law; or compulsory, where users are required to compensate for the excess emissions made, under the possibility of penalties or fines.

What Are the Main Challenges to Carbon Markets?

Like any other mechanism created through international treaties, emissions trading systems are extremely dependent on political issues and the goodwill of national governments. There are, in practice, no penalties if systems are not implemented and if the rules set out in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in the other climate change agreements or in the COPs, are not respected.

However, the failure on implementing in one or more countries affects the overall results of climate agreements. Cooperation between all countries is required to ensure that the measures are effective and that the climate situation does not deteriorate so rapidly. The weakening of the compensation mechanisms is the first serious consequence of the lack of cooperation between countries.

In accordance with the principles set out in Article 12, 5, of the Kyoto Protocol, the participation of the signatories is voluntary, which can compromise the cooperation. It is established: “Emission reductions resulting from each project activity shall be certified by operational entities to be designated by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol, on the basis of: (a) Voluntary participation approved by each Party involved; (b) Real, measurable, and long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change; and (c) Reductions in emissions that are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the certified project activity” (United Nations 1998).

In other words, each country has to ratify in its legal system and to regulate the mechanisms. Those processes are not simple.

For example, although Brazil has participated in all discussions about climate change and enacted some norms that signalized the adoption of measures to reduce deforestation and emissions, it has not regulated them yet, making it unviable to be implemented. Brazilian Carbon Market has not been regulated in its entirety. However, even if it was, there are numerous obstacles in Brazil’s legal system that need to be solved for legal security and for solid emissions trading market to be established. To understand the challenges in the Brazilian case with more details, consult Klautau de Araújo et al. (2019).

If there is no obligation to offset emissions or if the fines for excess of emissions are low, the tendency is for the carbon credits to depreciate sharply, since the most likely outcome is to migrate the polluting activities to countries that do not adopt restrictive measures or where they are softer, not to raise the production costs.

This is why the system created with the international agreements and treaties needs to be cohesive, since such migration of activities due to legal gaps or intentional lack of regulatory devices may not only reduce global emissions but also increase them. If we look at this situation using game theory, for instance, the most likely outcomes tend to lead to a lack of cooperation: everyone loses in this scenario. To be effective, initiatives must be simultaneous in all countries; otherwise the results are compromised.

Indeed, it is what is happening nowadays. None of the G20 (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States) countries is accomplishing the targets that were settled in Paris Agreement for 2030; the result is the possible 3.2 °C increase of average temperature, instead of the 1.5 °C foreseen (Climate Transparency 2018).

Another disturbance caused by the lack of cohesion between countries is the instability and uncertainty created around the main mechanism for offsetting emissions, which are transactions involving carbon credits.

The price of a carbon credit, which came to be negotiated around €30 in April 2006 (Morrison 2007) and between June 2008 (Sandbag 2018) and July 2008 (MacDonald 2016), reached the cost of less than € 3 in April 2016 – € 2.70, according to Sandbag (2018), and € 2.78, as MacDonald (2016) states. In July 2018, the price was around € 15.

Price instability would be common to normal stocks. However, these “stocks,” in theory, do not have the same purpose as others, and they are not a regular commodity: they have the purpose of making possible a financial mechanism in line with the global reduction of emissions. For example, the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission issued a document in 2009 outlining several reasons why it considers carbon credits to be more of a normal asset than stock market share (CVM 2009). Therefore, such strong variations may indicate that existing systems are not functioning properly.

According to recent studies released by the World Bank, in order to reach the targets that were settled in the Paris Agreement, the price of carbon credits should be between US$ 40 and US$ 80 by 2020 and between US$ 50 and US$ 100 by 2030 (Stiglitz et al. 2017).

Another major challenge to be overcome is how to increase inclusion in order to enable real participation of local communities. As in the Brazilian case, analyzed by Klautau de Araújo et al. (2019), countries that implement internal markets or participate in international systems must provide ways for the poorest populations not to be excluded from participating in the carbon markets.

This is important because many of the lands that can absorb carbon or reforestation projects are owned by small producers and/or people of low income and/or low access to formal education, especially in less developed countries. The commercialization of these credits can significantly increase their income, contributing to the improvement of their quality of life and to the settlement of these populations in rural areas, in addition to environmental preservation.

However, the current international parameters used, the confusing requirements imposed, and the lack of effective dialogue with the communities end up restricting the actors in the carbon markets and concentrating the negotiations and the financial flows in the hands of the great agents. At the same time, what is desirable for these markets is exactly the opposite.

Greener economies and emission offsetting instruments must necessarily respect the inclusion of local populations and economic vulnerability. In cases like Amazônia, the main partner of governments in environmental preservation should be the local people. If they have to bear the costs of preservation, they must also be entitled to the bonuses.

Future Perspectives

This entry approached different perspectives and examples of how environmental assets and carbon markets have been considered or disregarded in some countries and in the international context. There are still many challenges to be faced so that their potential can be harnessed to the fullest. The biggest one is to find a way to achieve it without excluding local communities and repeating old-fashioned exploitation models that have concentrated economic and political power in the hands of few agents.

A great part of these challenges is related to the lack of information that local communities and citizens in general have about the subject. So far, discussions are being carried out on a technical level that is difficult for non-experts to interact or to fully understand the importance of these assets and the new opportunities they represent.

Public policies, legal frameworks, international cooperation, and communication with the populations were some of the points assessed in this entry as aspects that can be improved in order to value and to raise awareness regarding environmental assets, including carbon markets.

Currently, fails related to these four axes are compromising the sustainable use of environmental assets and conservation of the environment. Detailed and deepened analysis in each of those aspects must be done to assure that accurate actions will be taken by governments and international agencies, balancing social, economic, and environmental aspects to a greener and more ecofriendly future.

References

  1. ABS – Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010) Environmental assets, in yearbook Australia, 2009–2010. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2USaeYH
  2. BPBES – Plataforma Brasileira de Biodiversidade e Serviços Ecossistêmicos (2018) Sumário para tomadores de decisão do relatório de avaliação da Plataforma Brasileira de Biodiversidade e Serviços Ecossistêmicos. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2JZQZU9
  3. Brasil (2017) Lei n° 13.493, de 17 de outubro de 2017. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2UyEFy2. Accessed 11 July 2018
  4. CFC – Conselho Federal Contabilidade (2004) ITG 2004 – Interação da Entidade com o meio ambiente. CFC, Brasília. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2IOx0sZ. Accessed 11 July 2018Google Scholar
  5. Climate Transparency (2018) Brown to green: the G20 transition to a low-carbon economy. Climate transparency, c/o Humboldt-Viadrina Governance Platform, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  6. CPC – Comitê de Pronunciamentos Contábeis (2009) Pronunciamento Técnico CPC 29. CFC, Brasília. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2Prhk0b. Accessed 11 July 2018Google Scholar
  7. CVM – Comissão de Valores Mobiliários (2009) CVM comunica seu entendimento sobre créditos de carbono e produtos que deles derivam. Retrieved from: http://bit.ly/2i18xlc. Accessed 11 July 2018
  8. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2012) Censo Demográfico 2010. IBGE, Brasília. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2Uz3yJQ. Accessed 11 July 2018Google Scholar
  10. IBRACON – Instituto dos Auditores Independentes do Brasil (1996) NPA 11 – Balanço e Ecologia. Ibracon, São Paulo. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2LamiQHGoogle Scholar
  11. Karp DS et al (2013) Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control and coffee yield. Ecol Lett 16(11):1339–1347.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klautau de Araújo TL (2014) Environmental law, public policies, and climate change: a social-legal analysis in the Brazilian context. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Handbook of climate change adaptation. Springer, Berlin, pp 973–982.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40455-9_115-1. ISBN: 978-3-642-40455-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klautau De Araújo TL (2016) Public policies and education for biodiversity: Brazilian challenges in a new global context. In: Castro P, Azeiteiro UM, Bacelar Nicolau P, Leal Filho W, Azul AM (eds) Biodiversity and education for sustainable development. Springer, Berlin, pp 219–235.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32318-3_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klautau de Araújo TL, Soares AMVM, Azeiteiro UM (2019) Environmental assets and carbon markets: could it be Amazônia’s new belle Époque? In: Castro P, Azul A, Leal FW, Azeiteiro U (eds) Climate change-resilient agriculture and agroforestry. Climate Change Management. Springer, Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75004-0_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MacDonald P (2016) EU carbon price falls below €4. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2VZ7hly. Accessed 11 July 2018
  16. Morrison K (2007) Next carbon trading phase promises to clean up anomalies. Financial Times, February, 7th, p 38Google Scholar
  17. Neto J, Renaux P, Meirelles K (2017) “PIB Verde”: patrimônio ecológico do Brasil será calculado pelo IBGE. IBGE – Agência de Notícias. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2GtqdlX. Accessed 11 July 2018
  18. OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005) Environmental Assets (SEEA). Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2PriRmX
  19. Oliveira J (2017) PIB Verde vira lei e vai medir tamanho do patrimônio ecológico do Brasil. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2DqVoO4. Accessed 11 July 2018
  20. Paglia E (2017) Observação de aves salva espécies e movimenta bilhões pelo mundo. Retrieved from: https://glo.bo/2eTd3Vd. Accessed 11 July 2018
  21. Philips J (2017) Principles of natural capital accounting. Office for National Statistics, London. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2ZrOSQnGoogle Scholar
  22. Sandbag (2018) EUA Price. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2PqbmfT. Accessed 11 July 2018
  23. Seymour F, Busch J (2016) Why forests? Why now? The science, economics, and politics of tropical forests and climate change. CGD, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Stephan B, Paterson M (2012) The politics of carbon markets: an introduction. Environ Polit 21(4):545–562.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.688353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stiglitz J, Stern N et al (2017) Report of the high-level commission on carbon prices. The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. United Nations (1992) United Nations framework convention on climate change. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/1oNZ0PZ
  27. United Nations (1998) Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2OExQcK
  28. United Nations (2015) Paris agreement. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2OExQcK
  29. United Nations (2018a) System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA). Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2UVay9a
  30. United Nations (2018b) The system of national accounts (SNA). Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2TwITXt
  31. United Nations et al (2005) Handbook of national accounting: integrated environmental and economic accounting 2003. Studies in methods, Series F, No. 61, Rev. 1, Glossary. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. United Nations et al (2014) System of environmental economic accounting 2012 – central framework. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Centre for Environmental and Marine StudiesUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Section editors and affiliations

  • Ulisses Azeiteiro
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AveiroAveiroPortugal