ANNEX 3: ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC VALUES OF FOREST BENEFITS^A3.1

Table A3.1. - Watershed values

Year	Locality	Value estimated (see Unit)	Unit of value	Comments	Source
1965	Slovakia	2,000	US$/ha/year	Avalanche protection	Blahouts, 1965 (quoted in FAO, 1995)
1970-72	Slovakia	6	US$/ha/year	Avg. soil loss 26 m³/ha/year (for water erosion)	Pasak, 1970, 1972 (quoted in FAO, 1995)
1970-72	Slovakia	1.5-12	US$/ha/year	This is for wind erosion	As above
1970-72	Slovakia	40	US$/ha/year	Includes soil conservation	As above
1989	Paute, Ecuador	54	US$/ha/year	Structural measures to keep sedimentation control & protection of remaining forests; reforestation. Real discount rate = 6%	Southgate and Macke, 1989 (quoted in Chomitz & Kumari, 1996)
1989	Korup National Park, Cameroon	8	US$/ha	Benefit imputed based on crop productivity decline from soil loss which would take effect from 2010 onwards (the w/o project scenario)	Rutenbeek, 1989a (quoted in Pearce & Moran, 1994)
1989	Korup National Park, Cameroon	23	US$/ha	An imputed value of the expected loss from flooding resulting from alternative land use from 2010 onwards: NPV of expected value of loss by 2040	As above
1989	Korup National Park, Cameroon	54	US$/ha	Arising from sustained use of the Korup forest. Existence of watershed functions affording protection to Nigerian and Cameroonian fisheries. NPV assuming that the benefit starts to accrue in 2010 and beyond (2010 represents the time horizon by which the continued use of the forest resources - in the absence of protection - would start to exhaust resources. The imputed benefit stream therefore represents the continued existence of resources).	As above
1991	Lower Agno, Philippines	234-586 (10% discount rate) 68-218 (15% discount rate)	US$/ha	Gully control, vegetation management in already deforested area	Briones, 1991 (quoted in Chomitz & Kumari, 1996)
1993	Costa Rica	a. 0.25-2 b. 2.3-4.6 c. 4.0-9.0 d. 10-20	US$/ha	Rough estimates of environmental values from primary forests - Hydrological benefits: a. protection of agricultural lands b. urban water supply c. flood control d. loss of hydroelectric productivity	Kishor & Constantino, 1993

Table A3.2. - Conservation/Biodiversity values

Year	Locality	Value estimated (see Unit)	Unit of value	Comments	Source
1990	USA	1.2	US$/year/person	Endangered species and prized habitats: whooping crane	Pearce and Moran, 1994 (table 4.2: p. 40)
1990	USA	4.5	US$/year/person	Endangered species and prized habitats: emerald shiner	As above
1990	USA	7	US$/year/person	Endangered species and prized habitats: bottlenose dolphin	As above
1990	USA	8.1	US$/year/person	Endangered species and prized habitats: California sea otter	As above
1990	USA	8.1	US$/year/person	Endangered species and prized habitats: Northern elephant seal	As above
1990	USA	8.6	US$/year/person	Endangered species and prized habitats: bighorn sheep	As above
1990	USA	9.3	US$/year/person	Endangered species and prized habitats: blue whale	As above
1990	USA	9.3-21.2	US$/year/person	Colorado Wilderness	As above
1990	USA	18.5	US$/year/person	Endangered species and prized habitats: grizzly bear
1990	USA	27	US$/year/person	Grand Canyon (visibility)	As above
1990	USA	40-48 (w/o information) 49-64 (w/information)	US$/year/person	Endangered species and prized habitats: humpback whales	As above
1990	Australia	28.1	US$/year/person	Nadgee Nature Reserve, NSW	As above
1990	Australia	40	US$/year/person	Kakadu conservation (minor damage)	As above
1990	Australia	93	US$/year/person	Zone, N.T. (major damage). Two scenarios of mining development damage were given to respondents	As above
1990	Norway	10.5	US$/year/person	Endangered species and prized habitats: brown bear, wolf and wolverine	As above
1990	Norway	59.0-107.0	US$/year/person	Conservation of rivers	As above
1990	UK	40	US$/year/person	Nature reserves - survey of informed "expert" individuals only	As above
1992	Sweden	12	US$/ha/year	Includes soil conservation	Hultkrantz, 1992 (quoted in FAO, 1995)

Table A3.3. - Tourism values

Year	Locality	Value estimated (see Unit)	Unit of value	Comments	Source
1981	Charles River, Massachusetts, USA	3,400	US$/acre	Present value per acre at 8% (1990 US$)	Thibodeau & Ostro, 1981 (quoted in Pearce and Moran, 1994, table 6.1: pp. 86-91)
1989	Korup National Park, Cameroon	19	US$/ha	Tourism value	Rutenbeek, 1989a (as above)
1989	Louisiana Wetlands, USA	57	US$/acre	WTP present value at 8% (1990 US$)	Costanza et al., 1989 (as above)
1990	Louisiana Wetlands, USA	103	US$/acre	WTP present value at 8% (1990 US$)	Bergstrom et al., 1990 (as above)
1991	Monteverde Cloud Forest, Costa Rica	1,250	US$/ha	Average visitor valuation US$35 (1988 US$). Considering national and foreign visitors gives this value per hectare in the reserve relative to the market price of local non-reserve land of US$30-100/ha	Tobias and Mendelsohn, 1991 (as above)
1993	Costa Rica	12.56-25.12	US$/ha	Average annual dollar per hectare (1989 US$)	Kishor and Constantino, 1993
1994	Costa Rica	17	US$/ha	At 8% discount rate	World Bank, 1994
1989/91	El Triunfo, Chiapas, Mexico	0.02-0.09	revenue/year/ha (US$)	Ecotourists - Biosphere Reserve	Touval, 1992 (quoted in CSERGE, 1993, Annex 1: p. 44)
1989/93	Sian Ka’an, Quintana Roo, Mexico	0.11	revenue/year/ha (US$)	Ecotourists - Biosphere Reserve	Amigos de Sian Ka’an a.c. (as above)
1984/87	Izta-Popo, Morelos, Puebla, Mexico	225	revenue/year/ha (US$)	Multipurpose tourists - National Park	Boo, 1990 (as above)
1992/93	Arrareko Lake, Chihuahua, Mexico	1.24-1.65	revenue/year/ha (US$)	Multipurpose tourists - Complejo Ecoturistico Ejidal	Comisión de Defesa de los Derechos Humanos, A.C., Creel (as above)
1986/92	Mariposa Monarca, Michohacán, Mexico	14.7-88.4	revenue/year/ha (US$)	Multipurpose tourists - Special Biosphere Reserve	SEDESOL (as above)
1992	Barranca del Cobre, Chihuahua, Mexico	0.40-1.01	revenue/year/ha (US$)	Multipurpose tourists - Declared as National Park	SECTUR, Acuerdo Mexico Alemania, Author’s Survey (as above)

Table A3.4. - Non-wood forest products (NWFPs) values

Year	Locality	Value estimated (see Unit)	Unit of value	Comments	Source
1981	Ecuadorian Amazon	120	US$/ha/year	Values wildlife over 500 km²	Paucar & Gardner, 1981 (quoted in Godoy & Lubowski, 1992, Table 1: p. 425)
1987	Sarawak, East Malaysia	8	US$/ha/year	Values wildlife over 1 km²	Caldecott, 1987 (as above)
1989	Iquitos, Peru	16-22	US$/ha/year	Based partly on community diaries; flora only	Padoch & de Jong, 1989 (as above)
1989	Jenaro Herrera, Peru	167	US$/ha/year	Wild camu camu only; unclear whether net or gross	Peters, 1989 (as above)
1989	Amazon, Peru	6,820	US$/ha	Sustainable harvesting in 1 ha (timber + NWFPs), local market values. This value is higher than any other use, according the authors, e.g. clear-felling = US$1,000/ha; plantations for timber = US$3,184/ha and cattle ranching = US$2,960/ha	Peters, Gentry & Mendelsohn, 1989
1989	Veracruz, Mexico	116	US$/ha/year	Flora only, excluding lumber and coffee	Alcom, 1989 (as above)
1989	San Luis Potosi, Mexico	1,537	US$/ha/year	Te’lom grove with coffee. Net of costs	CSERGE, 1993, Table 2: p. 7 (main report)
1989	San Luis Potosi	330	US$/ha/year	Te’lom grove without coffee. Net of costs	As above
1989	San Luis Potosi	401	US$/ha/year	Net of costs, half the product marketed	As above
1989	San Luis Potosi	20.3	US$/ha/year	Building materials. Net of costs	As above
1989	San Luis Potosi	51.7	US$/ha/year	Medicines. Cost of avoided doctor visits	As above
1989	San Luis Potosi	14.5	US$/ha/year	Fuelwood. Shadow price of labour method	As above
1989	Yucatan (chicle forests), Mexico	4.9	US$/ha/year	Average for 3 ejidos in Quintana Roo (net of costs)	As above
1989	Pine forests, Mexico	3.1-281	US$/ha/year	Costs not subtracted, 1 sp only	As above
1989	Quintana Roo	9.0	US$/ha/year	One ejido	As above
1989	all Mexico	0.01	US$/ha/year	Indicative only	As above
1989	Chiapas	0.02	US$/ha/year	Indicative only	As above
1989	Rain forest, Peten, Guatemala	3.3	US$/ha/year	Estimate for Peten	As above

Table A3.4 continues

Table A3.4 continued.

Year	Locality	Value estimated (see Unit)	Unit of value	Comments	Source
1989	Kalimantan, Indonesia	53	US$/ha/year	Net present value of cultivated rattan is US$529/ha over 25 years with a real discount rate of 10%	Godoy & Feaw, 1989 (quoted in Godoy & Lubowski, 1992, Table 1: p. 425)
1989/91	Ituri Forest, Zaire	3.18-0.50	US$/ha/year	318 kg of game/km² of primary forest or 50 kg/km² in climax forest at US$1/kg. Estimate leaves out costs. Price is for prized meats	Wilkie, 1989; Wilkie & Curran, 1991 (as above)
1989	Mudumalal Sanctuary, South India	3	US$/ha/year	0.02 domesticated elephants/ha at US$1,500/elephant. Excludes costs of domestication and training; a 10% discount rate is assumed	Sukumar, 1989 (as above)
1989	Amazon, Brazil	4.80	US$/ha/year	Gross return/ha/year for flora only	Schwartzman, 1989 (as above)
1990	Pará, Brazil	110	US$/ha/year	Value after selective thinning of competitors and pruning of Açai palm	Anderson, 1990b (as above)
1991	Amazon, Brazil	59	US$/ha/year	Includes kernel, charcoal and feed meal of babassu palm; unclear whether net or gross	Anderson et al., 1991 (as above)
1 991	Zimbabwe	75	US$/km²/year	Estimate from the sale of elephant goods and services. The proportion attributed to sale of goods has fallen significantly since the imposition of an international ban on ivory sales	Zimbabwe, Dept. of National Parks, 1991 (quoted in Pearce and Moran, 1994, Table 6.3: pp. 86-91)
1991	Hantana, Sri Lanka	50	US$/ha/year	50 randomly chosen households surveyed in three villages; used contingent valuation and opportunity cost approach; estimate excludes cost of extraction; flora only	Abeygunawardena & Wickramasinghe, 1991 (as above)
1991	Venezuela	0.75	US$/ha/year	Experimental caiman harvest	Thorbjarnarson, 1991 (as above)
1992	Sweden	8	US$/ha/year	NWFP	Hultkrantz, 1992 (quoted in FAO, 1995, Table 3: p. 9)
1993	Poland	3.6	US$/ha/year	NWFP	SAR Poland, 1993 (as above)
1994	Upper Napo region of Amazonian, Ecuador	2,939	NPV/ha (US$)	The potential net present values (NPV) per ha from NWFP in the Upland Plot A	Grimes et al. 1994, Table 5: p. 409
1994	As above	2,721	NPV/ha (US$)	The potential net present values (NPV) per ha from NWFP in the Upland Plot B	As above
1994	As above	1,257	NPV/ha (US$)	The potential net present values (NPV) per ha from NWFP in the Alluvial Plot C	As above

Table A3.5. - Existence and option values

Year	Locality	Value estimated (see Unit)	Unit of value	Comments	Source
1993	Mexico	Low 1 Medium 6 High 90	US$/ha/year	Option value of pharmaceuticals from Mexico’s forests	CSERGE, 1993, Table 4: p. 15 (main report)
1993	Selva Lacandona; Montes Azules, Chiapas, Mexico	10.38	WTP/ha (US$)	Debt-for-Nature Swap. Conservation International	Tajbakhsh, 1993 (as above)
1993	Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve, Quintana Roo, Mexico	0.06 0.05	WTP/ha (US$)	The first figure is the total amount of donations for 1992; Sian Ka’an report that only 10% of donors have actually visited the reserve	Amigos de Sian Ka’an (as above)
1993	Barranca del Cobre, Chihuahua, Mexico	4.4	WTP/ha (US$)	A survey carried out in Barranca del Cobre suggests a WTP/person/year related to existence value of US$1.82. Multiplying this by the number of visitor per annum (55,000 in 1992) gives a total of US$100,100; and at a 5% discount rate, a present value of US$4.4	Author’s Survey (as above)
1993	Mexico (several areas)	0.029	WTP/ha (US$)	Areas involved in the calculation are those contained in a World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.	Abramovitz, 1991 (as above)
1994	Costa Rica	24	US$/ha/year (8% discount rate)		World Bank, 1994
1994	Slovenia	27	US$/ha/year		Ayres & Dixon, 1994 (quoted in FAO, 1995)
1989	Cameroon	0.19-0.65	Avg. US$/ha	Expected production value approach. Option value. (1989 US$)	Ruitenbeek, 1989 (quoted in Kishor & Constantino, 1994, Table 6)
19??	Costa Rica	0.15	Avg. US$/ha	Expected production value approach. Option value. (1989 US$)	Kishor & Constantino, 1994, Table 6
19??	Guanacaste, Costa Rica	12.8-32.0	Avg. US$/ha	Transfer-of-Funds. Donations from international + domestic agencies + debt-for-nature swaps. Existence & Option Values. (1989 US$)	As above
1984	Colorado, USA	i. 2.5-9.1 ii. 3-11.1 iii. 3.1-11.3	Avg. US$/ha	(i) option; (ii) existence and (iii) bequest values for Colorado Wilderness areas. CVM of 218 Colorado households via mail surveys. Consumer surplus, $/family/year, 1980 US$	Walsh et al., 1984 (as above)

. Table A3.5 continues

Table A3.5 continued.

Year	Locality	Value estimated (see Unit)	Unit of value	Comments	Source
199?	Khao Yai Park, Thailand	21.6	Avg. US$/ha	National Park. Existence & option values	Dixon and Sherman, 19?? (as above)
1988	USA	21-149	Avg. US$/ha	Total, nonconsumption WTP for preserving the Whooping crane. CVM, dichotomous choice model. 1983 US$/household/year	Bowker and Stoll, 1988 (as above)
1983		5.5-9.9	Avg. US$/ha	WTP for proposed national park. CVM. 1982 US$/household/year	Majid et al., 1983 (as above)
19??	Costa Rica	0.15	US$/ha	Future Pharmaceuticals. Option value	Kishor & Constantino, 1993, Table 5
19??	Mexico	6.4	US$/ha	Estimated option value for Mexican tropical evergreen forests	Adger et al., 1995, Table 7: p. 294
19??	???	10-25	US$/household/year	Fragile forests.	Wibe, 1995, Table 3: p. 15^A3.2.
19??	???	17	As above	Endangered species	As above
19??	???	40	As above	Spotted owl	As above
19??	???	20-22	As above	Bald eagle	As above
19??	???	12	As above	Wild turkey	As above
19??	???	4	As above	Coyote control	As above
19??	???	5	As above	Coyote preservation	As above
19??	???	61-106	As above	Wilderness	As above
19??	???	62	As above	Recreation forests	As above

Notes: WTP = willingness to pay; CVM = contingent valuation method; Avg. = Average.

Table A3.6A. - Carbon sequestration values

Year	Locality	Value estimated (see Unit)	Unit of value	Comments	Source
1992	Sweden	0.13	US$/kg carbon		Hultkrantz, 1992 (quoted in FAO, 1995, Table 3: p. 9)
1993	USA	30	US$/tonne	Net carbon sequestered	SAR Poland, 1993 (as above)
1993	Costa Rica	60-120	Average US$/ha	1989 US$	Kishor & Constantino, 1993
1994	Costa Rica	68	US$/ha/year	Value at 8% discount rate	World Bank, 1994, Table A4.1: p. 4
19??	CARE/Guatemala	0.05-0.23	US$/tonne		Faeth et al., 1994, Table 1: p. 7
19??	PDA/Thailand	7.93-10.8	US$/tonne		As above
19??	ANCON/Panama	0.35-2.43	US$/tonne		As above
19??	UCEFO/Mexico	1.06-1.20	US$/tonne		As above
19??	KMTNC/Nepal	13.64-16-14	US$/tonne		As above
19??	Oxfam/Amazon	0.03-0.06	US$/tonne		As above
1995	Mesopotamia, Argentina	5.56	US$/tonne	Cost/tonne of carbon sequestration in industrial/silvo-pastoral plantation (25 years, 20,000 ha/year, harvesting)	Sedjo and Ley, 1995, Table 12: p. 47
1995	Mesopotamia, Argentina	3.44	US$/tonne	Cost/tonne of carbon sequestration in industrial/silvo-pastoral and associated wood stocks (25 years, 20,000 ha/year, harvesting)	As above
1995	Mesopotamia, Argentina	13.74	US$/tonne	Cost/tonne of carbon sequestration in mixed species plantation (5 years, 20,000 ha/year, no harvesting)	As above
1995	Patagonia, Argentina	7.6-5.36	US$/tonne	Cost/tonne of carbon sequestration in industrial plantation (5 years, 20,000 ha/year, no harvesting). Years 2020 and 2070, respectively	As above
1995	Patagonia, Argentina	21.95-7.87	US$/tonne	Cost/tonne of carbon sequestration in mixed species plantation (5 years, 20,000 ha/year, no harvesting). Years 2020 and 2070, respectively	As above

Notes: CARE (uses acronym; now registered as Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere); PDA = The Population and Development Association; ANCON = Asociación Nacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza; KMTNC = King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, UCEFO = Union de Communidades y Ejidos Forestales de Oaxaca.

Table A3.6B. - Private sector carbon offset deals

Company	Project	Other participation	Million t C sequestered or reduced	Total cost $ (millions)	$/t C sequestered (for a, b, c, see notes)
AES	Agro-forestry, Guatemala	US CARE Govt. of Guatemala	15-58 over 40 years	15	a) 0.5-2 b) 1-4 c) 9
AES	Natural reserve Paraguay	US Nature Conservancy FMB	13 over 30 years	6	a) 0.2 b) 0.45 c) <1.5
AES	Secure land tenure, sustainable agriculture Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador	Other utilities giving consideration to deal	na	2	na
SEP	Reforestation: Netherlands Czech Republic Malaysia Ecuador Uganda Indonesia	Innoprise	0.9 3.1 6.3 9.7 7.2 6.8	20 30 15.7 17.3 8.0 21.17	b) 22.7 b) 9.7 b) 2.5 b) 1.8 b) 1.1 b) 3.2
Tenaska and others	Reforestation Russia	EPA, Trexler, Min. of Ecology, Russian Forest Service	0.5 over 25 years	0.5?	a) na b) 1 c) 1-2
Tenaska	Forest conservation in Costa Rica, Reforestation in Washington State	Other utilities giving consideration	na	5+	b) 43
PacifiCorp	Forestry Oregon	Trexler	0.06 pa	0.1 pa	a) na b) na c) 15-30
PacifiCorp	Urban trees Utah	Trexler TreeUtah	?	0.1 pa	a) na b) na c) 15-30
New England PC	Forestry Malaysia	Rain Forest Alliance, COPEC	0.1-0.15	0.45	a) na b) 3-4.5 c) na
New England PC	Methane recovery in Appalachians	na	na	na	na
Wisconsi Elec. Power; NIPSCO Ind; Edison Dev. Co.	Coal to gas conversion	Bynov Heating Plant Decin, Czech Republic	12,800 tpa?	1.5	b) 43

Source: Pearce, 1994 (quoted in Steele and Pearce, 1996, table 5: p. 55). CO₂ converted to C at 3.67:1. Dutch guilders converted to US$ at DG1.75 per $.

Notes: a) Assumes 10 percent discount rate applied to total cost to obtain an annuity which is then applied to carbon fixed per annum, assuming equal distribution of carbon sequestered over the time period indicated; b) assumes no discounting; c) cost per tonne C as reported in Dixon et al., 1993.

Table A3.7. - Recreation values

Year	Locality	Value estimated (see Unit)	Unit of value	Comments	Source
1965	USA	26	Mean value/activity day	Camping. Travel cost method (TCM). 1990 US$	Kalter & Gosse, 1969 (quoted in Wibe, 1995)
1965	USA	64.2	As above	Hiking. TCM. 1990 US$	As above
1969-70	USA	39-68	As above	Deer hunting. Contingent valuation method (CVM). 1990 US$	Capel and Pandey, 19?? (as above)
1977	Denmark	7-14	As above	Recreation. TCM. 1990 US$	Christensen, 1984 (as above)
1980	USA	37-42	As above	Recreation. TCM. 1990 US$	Haspel & Johnson, 1982 (as above)
1980	USA	26	As above	Recreation. TCM. 1990 US$	Mendelsohn et al., 1993 (as above)
1986	Sweden	WTP = 675 WTA = 1584	As above	Moose hunting. CVM. 1990 US$	Mattsson & Kriström, 1987 (as above)
1985	USA	13-26	As above	Recreat ion. CVM. 1990 US$	Brown et al., 1989 (as above)
1987	UK	CVM = 2 TCM = 4	As above	Recreation. CVM and TCM. 1990 US$	Hanley, 1989 (as above)
1987	UK	3-5	As above	Recreation. TCM. 1990 US$	Willis and Benson, 1989 (as above)
1987	USA	48	As above	Hunting. TCM. 1990 US$	Glass and More, 1992 (as above)
1987-88	Denmark	2	As above	Recreation. CVM. 1990 US$	Linddal & Sondergaard-Jensen, 1991 (as above)
1988	UK	TCM = 1-2 CVM = 0.3-2	As above	Recreation. TCM and CVM. 1990 US$	Willis & Garrod, 1991 (as above)
1988	Finland	45	As above	Moose hunting. CVM. 1990 US$	Ovaskainen et al., 1991 (as above)
1988	Norway	WTP = 59 WTA = 123	As above	Moose hunting. CVM. 1990 US$	Södal, 1989 (as above)
1989	USA	5	As above	Recreation. CVM. 1990 US$	Halstead et al., 1990 (as above)
1989	USA	WTP = 262 WTA = 1082	As above	Recreation. CVM. 1990 US$	Brown & Hammade, 1992 (as above)
1990	Norway	82	As above	Moose hunting. CVM. 1990 US$	Schei, 1991 (as above)
1991	Sweden	52	As above	Recreation. CVM. 1990 US$	Bostedt & Mattsson, 1992 (as above)

Notes: WTP = willingness to pay; WTA = willingness to accept. Note that the estimated WTA is 2-3 times higher than the WTP.

Annex 3 REFERENCES^A3.3

Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Cervigni, R. and Moran, D. 1995. Total economic value of forests in Mexico. Ambio 24(5) (August): 286-296.

Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE). 1993. Mexico forestry and conservation sector review: Sub-study of economic valuation of forests. Report to the World Bank: Latin America and the Caribbean. Country Department II (LA2). London: CSERGE.

Chomitz, K.M. and Kumari, K. 1996. The domestic benefits of tropical forests: A critical review emphasizing hydrological functions (mimeo.).

CSERGE. See: Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment

Faeth, P., Cort, C. and Livernash, R. 1994. Evaluating the carbon sequestration benefits of forestry projects in developing countries. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute (WRI).

FAO. See: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1995. Croatia. Coastal forest reconstruction and protection project. Preparation report. Working papers. Investment Centre Division. FAO/World Bank Cooperative Programme. Report No. 48/95 CP-CRO 4. Rome: FAO (unpublished).

Godoy, R. and Lubowski, R. 1993. Guidelines for the economic valuation of nontimber tropical-forest products. Current Anthropology 33(4) (August-October): 423-433.

Grimes, A., Loomis, S., Jahnige, P., Burnham, M., Onthank, K., Alarcon, R., Cuenca, W.P., Martinez, C.C., Neill, D., Balick, M., Bennett, B. and Mendelsohn, R. 1994. Valuing the rain forest: The economic value of nontimber forest products in Ecuador. Ambio 23(7) (November): 405-410.

Kishor, N. and Constantino, L.F. 1993. Forest management and competing land uses: An economic analysis for Costa Rica. The World Bank. Latin America Technical Department. Environment Division. LATEN Dissemination Note 7. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Kishor, N. and Constantino, L.F. 1994. Incorporating environmental values from the forest: Chimera or rationality (draft, mimeo.).

Pearce, D. and Moran, D. 1994. The economic value of biodiversity. London: Earthscan Publications.

Sedjo, R.A. and Ley, E. 1995. Argentina: Carbon and forests. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

World Bank. 1994. Costa Rica — Forest sector review. Agriculture and Natural Resources Operations Division. Country Department II. Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office. Report No. 11516-CR. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

ANNEX 3: ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC VALUES OF FOREST BENEFITSA3.1

Annex 3 REFERENCESA3.3

ANNEX 3: ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC VALUES OF FOREST BENEFITS^A3.1

Annex 3 REFERENCES^A3.3