Lorenzo
Sileci

One potential nature-based solution to jointly address poverty and environmental concerns is large-scale tree planting. This study examines the National Greening Program (NGP) in the Philippines, a major tree planting initiative involving 80,522 localized projects that directly or indirectly generated hundreds of thousands of jobs. Utilizing a dynamic difference-in-differences approach that leverages the staggered implementation of the NGP, we find a significant and sizable reduction in poverty, measured via traditional and remotely sensed indicators. The NGP also spurred structural shifts, notably decreasing agricultural employment while boosting unskilled labor and service sector jobs. Our analysis estimates that the NGP sequestered 71.4 to 303 MtCO2 over a decade, achieving a cost efficiency of $2 to $10 per averted tCO2. These findings underscore the potential of tree planting as a dual-purpose strategy for climate mitigation and poverty alleviation.

@article{pagel_sileci_2024,
  title = {More than just carbon: the socioeconomic co-benefits of large-scale tree planting},
  author = {Pagel, Jeffrey and Sileci, Lorenzo and Palmer, Charles},
  journal = {Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper No. 410},
  year = {2024}
}

I assess the air quality and environmental equity impacts of the 2008 carbon tax in British Columbia. Using high-resolution data and a synthetic difference-in-differences strategy, I find that the carbon tax has reduced PM2.5 emissions by 5.2-10.9%. This result is heterogeneously distributed, with larger reductions in areas with lower baseline pollution, lower population density, lower material deprivation, and higher income. While all areas experience substantial positive co-benefits in terms of reduced air pollution hazard rates, quantified at $198 per capita, my results imply a widening of the pre-existing environmental justice gaps. This dynamic represents an additional dimension of carbon tax regressiveness.

@article{sileci_air_2023,
  title = {Carbon Pricing with Regressive Co-benefits: Evidence from British Columbia's Carbon Tax},
  author = {Sileci, Lorenzo},
  journal = {Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper No. 405},
  year = {2023}
}

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework proposes to address biodiversity decline by expanding areas under conservation. Biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes, the world’s predominant land use, could involve sparing, or setting aside, agricultural land from production, implying biodiversity-food trade-offs. Employing bird species and agricultural data, we undertake a novel empirical analysis of such trade-offs on a set-aside scheme implemented in England between 1992-2007. Expanding set-aside increases bird species abundance and richness by, respectively, 1.2-2.1% and 0.7-0.9%, but has no impact on diversity (Shannon-Wiener index). These effects are discontinuous, subject to thresholds in set-aside areas. A minimum 3% of agricultural land set aside is required for a positive effect on biodiversity while 13% of agricultural land generates a 15-25% and 30-35% increase in abundance and richness, respectively. Estimates of short- and long-run effects show that impacts are larger in the long-run. Expanding set-aside is also associated with a 10-17% decline in cereal output, with weak evidence of an attenuating land-sparing effect on yields. Our results suggest that although biodiversity-food trade-offs are likely in high-yield agricultural landscapes, such as those in England, the risk of a reduction in food supply could be minimised in settings where there is still scope for intensification.

@article{palmer_2024,
  title = {Biodiversity-food trade-offs when agricultural land is spared from production},
  author = {Palmer, Charles and Groom, Ben and Sileci, Lorenzo and Langton, Steve},
  journal = {American Journal of Agricultural Economics},
  year = {2026},
  volume = {108},
  number = {1},
  pages = {254--284},
  doi = {10.1111/ajae.12530}
}

International initiatives for reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) could make critical, cost-effective contributions to tropical countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Norway, a key donor of such initiatives, had a REDD+ partnership with Indonesia, offering results-based payments in exchange for emissions reductions calculated against a historical baseline. Central to this partnership was an area-based moratorium on new oil palm, timber, and logging concessions in primary and peatland forests. We evaluate the effectiveness of the moratorium between 2011 and 2018 by applying a matched triple difference strategy to a unique panel dataset. Treated dryland forest inside moratorium areas retained, at most, an average of 0.65% higher forest cover compared to untreated dryland forest outside the moratorium. By contrast, carbon-rich peatland forest was unaffected by the moratorium. Cumulative avoided dryland deforestation from 2011 until 2018 translates into 67.8 million to 86.9 million tons of emissions reductions, implying an effective carbon price below Norway’s US$5 per ton price. Based on Norway’s price, our estimated cumulative emissions reductions are equivalent to a payment of US$339 million to US$434.5 million. Annually, our estimates suggest a 3 to 4% contribution to Indonesia’s NDC commitment of a 29% emissions reduction by 2030. Despite the Indonesia–Norway partnership ending in 2021, reducing emissions from deforestation remains critical for meeting this commitment. Future area-based REDD+ initiatives could build on the moratorium’s outcomes by reforming its incentives and institutional arrangements, particularly in peatland forest areas.

@article{groom_carbon_2022,
  title = {Carbon emissions reductions from {Indonesia}’s moratorium on forest concessions are cost-effective yet contribute little to {Paris} pledges},
  author = {Groom, Ben and Palmer, Charles and Sileci, Lorenzo},
  journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  year = {2022},
  volume = {119},
  number = {5},
  pages = {e2102613119},
  doi = {10.1073/pnas.2102613119}
}