Julie Witcover

Impacts of soil quality differences on deforestation, use of cleared land, and farm income

Preparing regional development strategies for the Amazon Basin is a vexing task for policymakers. Forests continue to fall and agriculture to move in to a region with patchy (in terms of agronomic potential) yet broadly nutrient-poor soils. The spatial distribution of soil types is not well mapped at finer scales relevant for agriculture. There is, moreover, little evidence about how farm land use or farm household welfare varies by soil quality in this frontier setting. Despite these information gaps, regional planners continue to use soils as a basis for policy action, some of which may influence future options for the Amazon. This paper uses a farm-level bioeconomic model that captures soil-quality-specific degrading effects of agricultural activities to assess the impacts of soil quality differences on deforestation, use of cleared land, and smallholder income in the western Brazilian Amazon. Focusing on an archetypical area farm with reasonable market access but limited access to labor and credit, simulations show soil quality mattered more for income than for deforestation or land use, although extremely cash-strapped farmers on poor-quality soils could face displacement. Pasture dominated farm land use across all soil types as farm forest disappeared within a generation on successfully established farms. Good- and (viable) poor-soil farms had slightly slower deforestation rates than their medium-soil counterparts – rich-soil farms shifting small amounts of area (and labor) to the more nutrient- and labor-intensive annuals, and (even viable) poor-soil farms lacking sufficient resources to clear and farm additional land. Farms with good soils could generate about 44 per cent more income than their viable poor-soil counterparts, but the lower-income level still surpassed thresholds for meeting food security and other needs. At no combination of income level and soil quality explored did the (simulated) farmer find it worthwhile to purchase and apply chemical fertilizer; nutrients came instead from secondary forest fallow, whose area rose or fell in step with annual cropping area. The implications of these results for land-use zoning, forest conservation, poverty alleviation, and other policies are discussed.

National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Technical Analysis Report

Petroleum fuels make up essentially all of the transportation fuels used today. But fossil fuel use has many economic and environmental downsides, including a weakening of our energy security due to reliance on imported energy sources, air pollution that impacts health, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change. To reduce fossil fuel use and GHG emissions in the transportation sector and improve energy security requires a coordinated effort to reduce travel demand, improve vehicle efficiency, and switch to cleaner, lower-carbon fuels. Here we focus on switching to new fuels and examine the potential role a national low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) can play in bringing this about.This report analyzes the costs and benefits of a national LCFS policy, together with or in place of the existing national Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2). The companion report, National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Policy Design Recommendations (PDR), suggests how best to design an LCFS. Both consider the possibility of an LCFS replacing or being adopted alongside RFS2.