encabezado
   
Sistema de bibliotecas
   
Vista normal Vista MARC Vista ISBD

Will buying tropical forest carbon benefit the poor? Evidence from Costa Rica

Por: Pfaff, Alexander.
Colaborador(es): Kerr, Suzi (autor/a). Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, USA | Lipper, Leslie. United Nations FAO, USA | Cavatassi, Romina (autor/a). United Nations FAO, USA | Davis, Benjamin (autor/a). United Nations FAO, USA | Hendy, Joanna (autor/a). Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, USA | Sanchez Azofeifa, G. Arturo (autor/a). University of Alberta, USA.
Tipo de material: TextoTextoEditor: Ámsterdam (Países Bajos) Elsevier 2007Descripción: 12 páginas : 2 ilustraciones, 2 tablas.ISSN: 0264-8377.Tema(s): BOSQUE TROPICAL | CARBONO | PAGO | SECUESTRO DE CARBONO | DEFORESTACION | DESARROLLO ECONOMICO Y SOCIAL | SOSTENIBILIDAD | MODELOS | ECUACIONES ALOMETRICAS | POBREZA | UTILIZACION DE LA TIERRA | SERVICIOS AMBIENTALES | CONSERVACION DE LA NATURALEZA | TROPICAL FORESTS | CARBON | PAYMENT | DEFORESTATION | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT | SUSTAINABILITY | MODELS | POVERTY | LAND USE | NATURE CONSERVATION | COSTA RICARecursos en línea: eng Resumen: We review claims linking both payments for carbon and poverty to deforestation. We examine these effects empirically for Costa Rica during the late 20th century using an econometric approach that addresses the irreversibilities in deforestation. We find significant effects of the relative returns to forest on deforestation rates. Thus, carbon payments would induce conservation and also carbon sequestration, and if land users were poor could conserve forest while addressing rural poverty. We note that the poor appear to be marginalized in the sense of living where land profitability is lower. Those areas also have more forest. We find that poorer areas may have a higher supply response to payments, but even without this effect poor areas might be included and benefit more due to higher (per capita) forest area. They might be included less due to transactions costs, though. Unless the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol is modified in its implementation to allow credits from avoided deforestation, such benefits are likely to be limited.

50 referencias bibliográficas en las páginas 609-610.

We review claims linking both payments for carbon and poverty to deforestation. We examine these effects empirically for Costa Rica during the late 20th century using an econometric approach that addresses the irreversibilities in deforestation. We find significant effects of the relative returns to forest on deforestation rates. Thus, carbon payments would induce conservation and also carbon sequestration, and if land users were poor could conserve forest while addressing rural poverty. We note that the poor appear to be marginalized in the sense of living where land profitability is lower. Those areas also have more forest. We find that poorer areas may have a higher supply response to payments, but even without this effect poor areas might be included and benefit more due to higher (per capita) forest area. They might be included less due to transactions costs, though. Unless the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol is modified in its implementation to allow credits from avoided deforestation, such benefits are likely to be limited.

No hay comentarios para este ejemplar.

Ingresar a su cuenta para colocar un comentario.

Haga clic en una imagen para verla en el visor de imágenes


Contacto: biblioteca.orton@iica.int | servicios.biblioteca@iica.int | teléfono (+506) 2558-2043