减少加纳的森林砍伐：对选定土地利用变化的成本效益分析（英）2025

Investment Rating - The report does not explicitly provide an investment rating for the industry [9]. Core Insights - The forests in Ghana cover approximately 31% of the country's area, supporting 2.5 million people and meeting 54% of the national energy needs. The estimated cost of deforestation is $400 million, accounting for 0.7% of Ghana's GDP in 2017 [15][29]. - The Ghanaian government has made significant efforts to reduce deforestation and improve forest management, including various initiatives and projects supported by the World Bank [30][32]. - The study estimates the financial and economic profitability of selected land use changes, focusing on the national benefits of forests, particularly water services, rather than global benefits like carbon and biodiversity [16][32]. Summary by Sections Introduction - Ghana's forests are crucial for the economy, providing significant ecosystem services and supporting livelihoods. However, many forests are being converted to other land uses, leading to adverse effects on local communities and the national economy [29][30]. Methodology - The study employs a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) over a 30-year period, using a 7% discount rate to assess the net benefits of selected land use changes from both farmers' and national perspectives [18][40]. Cost-Benefit Analysis Results - In the Pra basin, converting closed forests to single cocoa cultivation yields a net benefit of approximately $1,300 per hectare for farmers. However, when considering the economic value of reduced water availability due to increased sedimentation, the net present value (NPV) can drop to negative values in areas with high sediment transport [19][70]. - In the Volta basin, the net benefit for farmers converting closed forests to maize cultivation is estimated at $1,200 per hectare. Similar to the Pra basin, the economic NPV becomes negative in areas with significant sediment transport [19][71]. Conclusion - The study indicates that while converting closed forests to selected alternative uses is financially attractive for farmers, it can lead to economic losses for the country in areas with high sediment transport. Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes could encourage forest conservation in these regions [26][27].