Case study 1: monitoring requirements for projects reducing N<sub>2</sub>O emissions from fertilizer use across standards

Foucherot, Claudine; Bellassen, Valentin; Stephan, Nicolas

doi:10.1017/cbo9781316162262.012

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To our knowledge, Foucherot (2015) is the only reference that provides an in-depth analysis of MRV costs in an actual agricultural GHG mitigation project in the European context. The Joint Implementation project analyzed in this work aims at reducing N 2 O emissions from nitrogen fertilizer use through the introduction of legume crops in 316 farms in France.…”

Section: Mrv Costs Data and Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As for the magnitude of MRV costs, three scenarios will be explored. The "low" and "medium" scenarios are based on the figures reported by Foucherot (2015) and Ancev (2011), respectively. The "high" scenario draws from a compilation of the estimated implementation costs of agrienvironmental programs in the EU by (OECD, 2007, Table I.1.4), which reports an average perfarm implementation costs of 1,522 C in France.…”

Section: Mrv Costs Data and Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Optimal coverage of an emission tax in the presence of monitoring, reporting, and verification costs

Cara

Henry

Jayet

2018

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental policies often include exemptions for some firms, e.g. the small emitters. This paper explores the implications of such exemptions in the case of an emission tax, and in the presence of monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) costs. We develop an analytical framework capturing the trade-off between the cost-effectiveness of a broader tax base, and the savings on MRV costs enabled by a partial coverage. Second-best partial coverage is defined by a threshold value of some characteristic of the firms below which firms are exempted. We characterize the optimal threshold and discuss its welfare implications. Since determining this threshold is demanding in terms of information regarding firm-level MRV and abatement costs, we show how limited knowledge about these costs at the aggregate level can be used in practice to approximate the optimal threshold. We apply this framework to assess the welfare implications of such an instrument in the case of greenhouse gas emissions from European agriculture. The findings indicate that exempting the small emitters may provide significant savings on MRV costs compared to the full coverage, while still incentivizing cost-effective reductions in emissions.

show abstract

Section: Mrv Costs Data and Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mrv Costs Data and Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal coverage of an emission tax in the presence of monitoring, reporting, and verification costs

Cara

Henry

Jayet

2018

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Case study 1: monitoring requirements for projects reducing N₂O emissions from fertilizer use across standards

Cited by 1 publication

References 1 publication

Optimal coverage of an emission tax in the presence of monitoring, reporting, and verification costs

Optimal coverage of an emission tax in the presence of monitoring, reporting, and verification costs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Case study 1: monitoring requirements for projects reducing N2O emissions from fertilizer use across standards

Cited by 1 publication

References 1 publication

Optimal coverage of an emission tax in the presence of monitoring, reporting, and verification costs

Optimal coverage of an emission tax in the presence of monitoring, reporting, and verification costs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Case study 1: monitoring requirements for projects reducing N₂O emissions from fertilizer use across standards