Competing Ecosystem Services: an Assessment of Carbon and Timber in the Tropical Forests of Central America

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The research paper evaluates the trade-offs between carbon storage and timber extraction in Central American tropical forests using Net Present Value (NPV) analysis. It finds that while timber is more profitable on a face-value basis, the attractiveness of forest conservation is highly dependent on carbon pricing and discount rates. The author argues that incorporating co-benefits and sustainable forestry management is essential for making conservation economically competitive with timber harvesting.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Timber extraction is generally the more profitable land-use option on a face-value basis compared to carbon sequestration, although the author notes that determining true costs from stumpage to log is difficult.
  • The economic incentive to conserve tropical forests is heavily dependent on the price of carbon; at a mode value of $3 per tonne, the NPV of conservation is lower than timber use, but at $20 per tonne, it becomes comparable to eucalyptus stumpage prices, though it remains too low to compete with teak.
  • Discount rates significantly impact the Net Present Value (NPV) and Present Value (PV) of both carbon and timber, with lower rates favoring future value and intergenerational equity, while higher rates—common in developing countries—prioritize present returns.
  • The financial viability of REDD/REDD+ options would increase if co-benefits, such as sustainable timber extraction under Sustainable Forestry Management (SFM), watershed protection, and soil erosion control, were included in the economic valuation.
  • Among the timber species analyzed, teak is more profitable per hectare than eucalyptus.

Cite the original document

APA
Khatun, K. (2010). Competing Ecosystem Services: an Assessment of Carbon and Timber in the Tropical Forests of Central America. Basque Centre for Climate Change. https://www.bc3research.org/h6T8Uy8Nm4gFs0O/20101007113508896541617.pdf
Chicago
Khatun, Kaysara. Competing Ecosystem Services: an Assessment of Carbon and Timber in the Tropical Forests of Central America. Basque Centre for Climate Change, 2010. https://www.bc3research.org/h6T8Uy8Nm4gFs0O/20101007113508896541617.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Khatun |first1=Kaysara |title=Competing Ecosystem Services: an Assessment of Carbon and Timber in the Tropical Forests of Central America |publisher=Basque Centre for Climate Change |date=October 2010 |url=https://www.bc3research.org/h6T8Uy8Nm4gFs0O/20101007113508896541617.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{khatun2010competing, author = {Khatun, Kaysara}, title = {{Competing Ecosystem Services: an Assessment of Carbon and Timber in the Tropical Forests of Central America}}, institution = {Basque Centre for Climate Change}, year = {2010}, month = oct, url = {https://www.bc3research.org/h6T8Uy8Nm4gFs0O/20101007113508896541617.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated