Breakeven price of CO2 credits driving farmers to use the area to plant forest instead of grain
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2023 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Ciência Florestal (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.ufsm.br/cienciaflorestal/article/view/73352 |
Resumo: | Afforestation and reforestation were the challenges the farmer can seize to plant a culture that can capture more carbon than the amount emitted for cultivation. Assuming that the land was legally rented and owned, and part of an area that had not been obtained through recent deforestation, the main questions were: “why a farmer should have preferred to reserve the area to plant trees?”; and “How much did one ton of Carbon Dioxide [CO2] have to be rewarded to buy this opportunity?” This work had the target to estimate which was the minimum price for carbon credit so that the farmer will plant a forest instead of using the soil for grain cultivation. Based on the analysis that economic aspects and profit were the main drivers considered by the farmer to decide how to use the soil in case the area was not classified as Legal Reserve or Permanent Protection Area, seeking the usage which maximized the value per hectare. Considering a eucalyptus commercial forest planted under the premises of the current study, results showed that a price of around 24 BRL per ton of CO2 in 2021 is enough to turn it economically feasible. Business case had been estimated with and without profit coming from the commercial use of forest, and even assuming that no wood is cut and sold, the 2021 price of 40,48 BRL per ton of CO2 can ensure more profit than grain production over 14 years timeframe, allowing the farmer to make money beyond the usual commercial use of a forest. |
id |
UFSM-6_9b37ac624a40a1b1b0fa94c543818bd6 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/73352 |
network_acronym_str |
UFSM-6 |
network_name_str |
Ciência Florestal (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Breakeven price of CO2 credits driving farmers to use the area to plant forest instead of grainPreço de equilíbrio dos créditos de CO2 levando os agricultores a usar a área para plantar florestas em vez de grãosCarbon offsetSoybeansEucalyptusCarbon creditReforestationCompensação de carbonoSojaEucaliptoCrédito de carbonoReflorestamentoAfforestation and reforestation were the challenges the farmer can seize to plant a culture that can capture more carbon than the amount emitted for cultivation. Assuming that the land was legally rented and owned, and part of an area that had not been obtained through recent deforestation, the main questions were: “why a farmer should have preferred to reserve the area to plant trees?”; and “How much did one ton of Carbon Dioxide [CO2] have to be rewarded to buy this opportunity?” This work had the target to estimate which was the minimum price for carbon credit so that the farmer will plant a forest instead of using the soil for grain cultivation. Based on the analysis that economic aspects and profit were the main drivers considered by the farmer to decide how to use the soil in case the area was not classified as Legal Reserve or Permanent Protection Area, seeking the usage which maximized the value per hectare. Considering a eucalyptus commercial forest planted under the premises of the current study, results showed that a price of around 24 BRL per ton of CO2 in 2021 is enough to turn it economically feasible. Business case had been estimated with and without profit coming from the commercial use of forest, and even assuming that no wood is cut and sold, the 2021 price of 40,48 BRL per ton of CO2 can ensure more profit than grain production over 14 years timeframe, allowing the farmer to make money beyond the usual commercial use of a forest.Florestar e reflorestar foram os desafios que o agricultor pode enfrentar para plantar uma cultura capaz de capturar mais carbono do que a quantidade emitida para o cultivo. Partindo do pressuposto de que a terra era legalmente arrendada e própria, e parte de uma área que não havia sido obtida por meio de desmatamento recente, as principais questões eram: “por que um agricultor teria preferido reservar a área para plantar árvores?” e “Quanto uma tonelada de Dióxido de Carbono [CO2] teve que ser recompensada para comprar esta oportunidade?” Este trabalho teve como objetivo estimar qual o preço mínimo do crédito de carbono para que o agricultor plante uma floresta ao invés de usar o solo para cultivo de grãos. Com base na análise, os aspectos econômicos e de lucro foram os principais direcionadores considerados pelo agricultor para decidir como usar o solo caso a área não fosse classificada como Reserva Legal ou Área de Proteção Permanente, buscando o uso que maximizasse o valor por hectare. Considerando uma floresta comercial de eucalipto plantada nas dependências do presente estudo, os resultados mostraram que um preço em torno de R$ 24 por tonelada de CO2 em 2021 é suficiente para torná-la economicamente viável. O caso de negócios foi estimado com e sem lucro proveniente do uso comercial da floresta e, mesmo assumindo que nenhuma madeira seja cortada e vendida, o preço de 2021 de R$ 40,48 por tonelada de CO2 pode garantir mais lucro do que a produção de grãos ao longo de 14 anos, permitindo ao agricultor ganhar dinheiro além do uso comercial usual de uma floresta.Universidade Federal de Santa Maria2023-09-29info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.ufsm.br/cienciaflorestal/article/view/7335210.5902/1980509873352Ciência Florestal; Vol. 33 No. 3 (2023): Publicação Contínua; e73352Ciência Florestal; v. 33 n. 3 (2023): Publicação Contínua; e733521980-50980103-9954reponame:Ciência Florestal (Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)instacron:UFSMenghttps://periodicos.ufsm.br/cienciaflorestal/article/view/73352/61817Copyright (c) 2023 Ciência Florestalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPalumbo, MarcoFerraz-Almeida, Risely2023-10-06T19:03:58Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/73352Revistahttp://www.ufsm.br/cienciaflorestal/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||cienciaflorestal@ufsm.br|| cienciaflorestal@gmail.com|| cf@smail.ufsm.br1980-50980103-9954opendoar:2023-10-06T19:03:58Ciência Florestal (Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Breakeven price of CO2 credits driving farmers to use the area to plant forest instead of grain Preço de equilíbrio dos créditos de CO2 levando os agricultores a usar a área para plantar florestas em vez de grãos |
title |
Breakeven price of CO2 credits driving farmers to use the area to plant forest instead of grain |
spellingShingle |
Breakeven price of CO2 credits driving farmers to use the area to plant forest instead of grain Palumbo, Marco Carbon offset Soybeans Eucalyptus Carbon credit Reforestation Compensação de carbono Soja Eucalipto Crédito de carbono Reflorestamento |
title_short |
Breakeven price of CO2 credits driving farmers to use the area to plant forest instead of grain |
title_full |
Breakeven price of CO2 credits driving farmers to use the area to plant forest instead of grain |
title_fullStr |
Breakeven price of CO2 credits driving farmers to use the area to plant forest instead of grain |
title_full_unstemmed |
Breakeven price of CO2 credits driving farmers to use the area to plant forest instead of grain |
title_sort |
Breakeven price of CO2 credits driving farmers to use the area to plant forest instead of grain |
author |
Palumbo, Marco |
author_facet |
Palumbo, Marco Ferraz-Almeida, Risely |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Ferraz-Almeida, Risely |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Palumbo, Marco Ferraz-Almeida, Risely |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Carbon offset Soybeans Eucalyptus Carbon credit Reforestation Compensação de carbono Soja Eucalipto Crédito de carbono Reflorestamento |
topic |
Carbon offset Soybeans Eucalyptus Carbon credit Reforestation Compensação de carbono Soja Eucalipto Crédito de carbono Reflorestamento |
description |
Afforestation and reforestation were the challenges the farmer can seize to plant a culture that can capture more carbon than the amount emitted for cultivation. Assuming that the land was legally rented and owned, and part of an area that had not been obtained through recent deforestation, the main questions were: “why a farmer should have preferred to reserve the area to plant trees?”; and “How much did one ton of Carbon Dioxide [CO2] have to be rewarded to buy this opportunity?” This work had the target to estimate which was the minimum price for carbon credit so that the farmer will plant a forest instead of using the soil for grain cultivation. Based on the analysis that economic aspects and profit were the main drivers considered by the farmer to decide how to use the soil in case the area was not classified as Legal Reserve or Permanent Protection Area, seeking the usage which maximized the value per hectare. Considering a eucalyptus commercial forest planted under the premises of the current study, results showed that a price of around 24 BRL per ton of CO2 in 2021 is enough to turn it economically feasible. Business case had been estimated with and without profit coming from the commercial use of forest, and even assuming that no wood is cut and sold, the 2021 price of 40,48 BRL per ton of CO2 can ensure more profit than grain production over 14 years timeframe, allowing the farmer to make money beyond the usual commercial use of a forest. |
publishDate |
2023 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-09-29 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsm.br/cienciaflorestal/article/view/73352 10.5902/1980509873352 |
url |
https://periodicos.ufsm.br/cienciaflorestal/article/view/73352 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.5902/1980509873352 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsm.br/cienciaflorestal/article/view/73352/61817 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2023 Ciência Florestal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2023 Ciência Florestal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Ciência Florestal; Vol. 33 No. 3 (2023): Publicação Contínua; e73352 Ciência Florestal; v. 33 n. 3 (2023): Publicação Contínua; e73352 1980-5098 0103-9954 reponame:Ciência Florestal (Online) instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM) instacron:UFSM |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM) |
instacron_str |
UFSM |
institution |
UFSM |
reponame_str |
Ciência Florestal (Online) |
collection |
Ciência Florestal (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Ciência Florestal (Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||cienciaflorestal@ufsm.br|| cienciaflorestal@gmail.com|| cf@smail.ufsm.br |
_version_ |
1799944136270282752 |