Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:27:27.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2008

SVEN WUNDER
SVEN WUNDER*
Affiliation:
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Embrapa Amazônia Oriental – Convênio CIFOR, Trav. Dr. Enéas Pinheiro s/n, CEP 66.095-100 Belém -PA, Brazil. Tel: +55 (91) 4009 2680 (dir)/2650 (gen)/2651. Fax: +55 (91) 8126 8482. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on observations from all three tropical continents, there is good reason to believe that poor service providers can broadly gain access to payment for environmental services (PES) schemes, and generally become better off from that participation, in both income and non-income terms. However, poverty effects need to be analysed in a conceptual framework looking not only at poor service providers, but also at poor service users and non-participants. Effects on service users are positive if environmental goals are achieved, while those on non-participants can be positive or negative. The various participation filters of a PES scheme contain both pro-poor and anti-poor selection biases. Quantitative welfare effects are bound to remain small-scale, compared to national poverty-alleviation goals. Some pro-poor interventions are possible, but increasing regulations excessively could curb PES efficiency and implementation scale, which could eventually harm the poor. Prime focus of PES should thus remain on the environment, not on poverty.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 3: Payment for ecosystem services , June 2008 , pp. 279 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albán, M. and Argüello, M. 2004, ‘Un análisis de los impactos sociales y económicos de los proyectos de fijación de carbono en el Ecuador’, El caso de PROFAFOR – FACE’, Rep. No. 1 84369 506 5. IIED, London (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Angelsen, A. and Wunder, S. 2003, ‘Exploring the poverty-forestry link: key concepts, issues and research implications’, CIFOR Occasional Papers No. 42, 58.Google Scholar
Asquith, N., Vargas-Ríos, M., and Smith, J. 2002, ‘Can forest-protection carbon projects improve rural livelihoods? Analysis of the Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project, Bolivia’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 7: 323–337.Google Scholar
Bennett, M.T. 2007, ‘China's Sloping Land Conversion Program: institutional innovation or business as usual?’, Ecological Economics (accepted).Google Scholar
Blanco, J., Wunder, S., and Navarrete, F. 2005, ‘La experiencia colombiana en esquemas de pagos por servicios ambientales’, Ecoversa & CIFOR, Bogotá (unpublished) (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Blanco, J., Wunder, S., and Sabogal, S. (2006), ‘Potencialidades de implementación de esquemas de pagos por servicios ambientales en Venezuela’, Ecoversa & CIFOR, Bogotá (unpublished) (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Costa, M.M. and Zeller, M. 2003, ‘Peasants’ production systems and the integration of incentives for watershed protection: a case study of Guatemala’, Forests, Livelihoods and Biodiversity, Bonn: CIFO, pp. 23.Google Scholar
Echavarría, M., Vogel, J., Albán, M., and Meneses, F. 2004, ‘The impacts of payments for watershed services in Ecuador’, Rep. No. 1 84369 484 0, IIED, London.Google Scholar
Ferraro, P. and Kiss, A. 2002, ‘Direct payments to conserve biodiversity’, Science 298: 1718–1719.Google ScholarPubMed
Ferraro, P. and Simpson, R. 2002, ‘The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments’, Land Economics 78: 339–353.Google Scholar
Frost, P.G.H. and Bond, I. 2007. ‘The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: payments for wildlife services’, Ecological Economics (accepted).Google Scholar
Grieg-Gran, M., Porras, I.T., and Wunder, S. 2005, ‘How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America’, World Development 33: 1511–1527.Google Scholar
Hanlon, J. 2004, ‘It is possible to just give money to the poor?’, Development and Change 35: 375–383.Google Scholar
Heinrich, C.J. 2007, ‘Demand and supply-side determinants of conditional cash transfer program effectiveness’, World Development 35: 121–143.Google Scholar
IPCC 2001, ‘Summary for policy makers. Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability’, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
Kerr, J. 2002, ‘Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India’, World Development 30: 1387–1400.Google Scholar
Landell-Mills, N. and Porras, I.T. 2002, ‘Silver bullet or fool's gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor’, IIED, London.Google Scholar
Milne, M. 2000, ‘Forest carbon, livelihoods and biodiversity: a report to the European Commission’, CIFOR, Bogor.Google Scholar
Milne, M., Arroyo, P., and Peacock, H. 2001, ‘Assessing the livelihood benefits to local communities from forest carbon projects: case study analysis Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project’ (unpublished) CIFOR, Bogor.Google Scholar
Miranda, M., Porras, I., and Moreno, M. 2003, ‘The social impacts of payments for environmental services in Costa Rica’, Rep. No. 1 84369 453 0, IIED, London.Google Scholar
Muñoz, R. 2004, ‘Efectos del programa de servicios ambientales en las condiciones de vida de los campesinos de la Península de Osa’, Masters Thesis, Universidad de Costa Rica, San José (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Muñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., Torres, J. M., and Braña, J. 2007, ‘Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiation and results’, Ecological Economics (accepted).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S. 2007, ‘Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica’, Ecological Economics (accepted).Google Scholar
Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A., and Platais, G. 2005, ‘Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date’, World Development 33: 237–253.Google Scholar
PREM 2005, ‘Compensating upland forest communities for the provision of watershed protection services: using “Payments for Environmental Services” instruments in the Philippines’, PREM Policy Brief No. 8.Google Scholar
Robertson, N. and Wunder, S. 2005, ‘Fresh tracks in the forest: assessing incipient payments for environmental services initiatives in Bolivia’, CIFOR, Bogor.Google Scholar
Rosa, H., Kandel, S., and Dimas, L.. 2003, ‘Compensation for environmental services and rural communities’, PRISMA, San Salvador.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. and Sedjo, R.A. 1996, ‘Paying for the conservation of endangered ecosystems: a comparison of direct and indirect approaches’, Environment and Development Economics 1: 241–257.Google Scholar
Smith, J. and Scherr, S. 2002, ‘Forest carbon and local livelihoods: assessment of opportunities and policy recommendations’, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
Southgate, D., Haab, T., Lundine, J., and Rodríguez, F. 2007, ‘Responses of poor, rural households in Ecuador and Guatemala to payments for environmental services’, Ohio State University (unpublished).Google Scholar
Sunderlin, W.D., Dewi, S.D., and Puntodewo, A. 2007, ‘Poverty and forests: multi-country analysis of spatial association and proposed policy solutions’, CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 47, 43.Google Scholar
Turpie, J.K., Marais, C., and Blignaut, J.N. 2007, ‘The Working for Water Programme: evolution of a payments for environmental services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa’, Ecological Economics (accepted).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank 2000, World Development Report 2000–2001: Attacking Poverty, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wunder, S. 2005, ‘Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts’, CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42, 24.Google Scholar
Wunder, S. 2006, ‘Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics?’, Ecology and Society 11: 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, S. and Albán, M. 2007, ‘Decentralized payments for environmental services: comparing the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador’, Ecological Economics (accepted).Google Scholar
Wunder, S., Campbell, B., Frost, P.H.G., Iwan, R., Sayer, J.A., and Wollenberg, L. 2007, ‘When donors get cold feet: the community conservation concession in Setulang (Kalimantan, Indonesia) that never happened’, submitted to Ecology and Society.Google Scholar
Wunder, S., The, B.D., and Ibarra, E. 2005, ‘Payment is good, control is better: why payments for environmental services so far have remained incipient in Vietnam’, CIFOR, Bogor, pp. 86.Google Scholar