South Africa is considering introducing a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Following a discussion of the motivations for considering a carbon tax, we evaluate potential impacts using a dynamic economywide model linked to an energy sector model including a detailed evaluation of border carbon adjustments. Results indicate that a phased-in carbon tax of US$30 per ton of CO2 can achieve national emissions reductions targets set for 2025. Relative to a baseline with free disposal of CO2, constant world prices and no change in trading partner behavior, the preferred tax scenario reduces national welfare and employment by about 1.2 and 0.6 percent, respectively. However, if trading partners unilaterally impose a carbon consumption tax on South African exports, then welfare/employment losses exceed those from a domestic carbon tax. South Africa can lessen welfare/employment losses by introducing its own border carbon adjustments. The mode for recycling carbon tax revenues strongly influences distributional outcomes, with tradeoffs between growth and equity

This paper assesses the implications of large-scale investments in biofuels for growth and income distribution. We find that biofuels investment enhances growth and poverty reduction despite some displacement of food crops by biofuels. Overall, the biofuel investment trajectory analyzed increases Mozambique's annual economic growth by 0.6 percentage points and reduces the incidence of poverty by about 6 percentage points over a 12-year phase-in period. Benefits depend on production technology. An outgrower approach to producing biofuels is more pro-poor, due to the greater use of unskilled labor and accrual of land rents to smallholders, compared with the more capital-intensive plantation approach. Moreover, the benefits of outgrower schemes are enhanced if they result in technology spillovers to other crops. These results should not be taken as a green light for unrestrained biofuels development. Rather, they indicate that a carefully designed and managed biofuels policy holds the potential for substantial gains.

Extreme weather events such as droughts and floods have potentially damaging implications for developing countries. Previous studies have estimated economic losses during hypothetical or single historical events, and have relied on historical production data rather than explicitly modeling climate. However, effective mitigation strategies require knowledge of the full distribution of weather events and their isolated effects on economic outcomes. We combine stochastic hydrometeorological crop-loss models with a regionalized computable general equilibrium model to estimate losses for the full distribution of possible weather events in Malawi. Results indicate that, based on repeated sampling from historical events, at least 1.7 per cent of Malawi's gross domestic product (GDP) is lost each year due to the combined effects of droughts and floods. Smaller-scale farmers in the southern region of the country are worst affected. However, poverty among urban and nonfarm households also increases due to national food shortages and higher domestic prices.

Rising world prices for fuel and food represent a negative terms‐of‐trade shock for Mozambique. The impacts of these price rises are analyzed using various approaches. Detailed price data show that the world price increases are being transmitted to domestic prices. Short‐run net benefit ratio analysis indicates that urban households and households in the southern region are more vulnerable to food price increases. Rural households, particularly in the North and Center, often benefit from being in a net seller position. Longer‐term analysis using a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of Mozambique indicates that the fuel price shock dominates rising food prices from both macroeconomic and poverty perspectives. Again, negative impacts are larger in urban areas. The importance of agricultural production response in general and export response in particular is highlighted. Policy analysis reveals difficult trade‐offs between short‐run mitigation and long‐run growth. Improved agricultural productivity has powerful positive impacts, but remains difficult to achieve and may not address the immediate impacts of higher prices.