This paper investigates farmers’ incentives to participate voluntarily in carbon offset markets when environmental credit stacking is allowed, that is, farmers can stack water quality credits with carbon credits. The implications of stacking on additionality of environmental services in interlinked markets, market participation rates, and market equilibrium prices are analysed by developing a conceptual framework of environmental credit stacking, which is applied with data estimates for the US Corn Belt. Analysis shows that credit stacking increases farmers’ participation in carbon offset markets, and that such increased participation provides additionality in environmental service provision. It is further shown that ecosystem markets are interlinked so that credit price changes in one market will shift credit supply in another market, thus affecting equilibrium prices. Empirical application of the framework shows that provision of CO2-eq offsets through reductions of nitrogen application or through the establishment of green set-asides is not profitable without water quality credits. A conversion from conventional tillage and reduced tillage to no-till is profitable in some cases, although current low carbon offset prices and transaction costs have a significant negative impact on the number of participating parcels. When farmers are allowed to stack water quality credits the profitability of carbon sequestration practices increases. Reduced nitrogen application levels becomes a profitable option and 21% of field parcels - representing 4.6 million acres- participate in the market with water quality credit prices at base levels of USD 3/lb for N and USD 4/lb for P. The establishment of green set-aside and streamside buffer strips becomes profitable in the lower productivity and highly erodible lands with base prices of nutrient credits. If water quality trading markets are small then high participation rates among farmers may result in an oversupply of nutrient credits and as a consequence equilibrium credit prices and farmers’ credit revenue would decrease.
Environmental Co‑benefits and Stacking in Environmental Markets
Policy paper
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Abstract
In the same series
-
Working paper14 August 202636 Pages
-
Working paper
Comparing available options and estimating trends for three OECD case study countries
20 July 202679 Pages -
15 June 202656 Pages
-
3 June 202620 Pages
-
17 February 202673 Pages
-
Working paper
Economic analysis, literature findings and synthesis
28 May 202590 Pages -
Working paper
Impacts on the triple challenge and cost‑benefits analysis
22 May 202527 Pages
Related publications
-
Working paper
Better data systems for food trade monitoring in West Africa
7 August 202630 Pages -
Working paper
Evidence from Costa Rica’s electronics sector
17 July 202635 Pages -
Working paper
Private sector perceptions of barriers, opportunities and the future
6 July 202654 Pages -
15 June 202656 Pages