Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-zc66z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-03T20:42:53.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2008

STEFANO PAGIOLA ,
ANA R. RIOS  and
AGUSTIN ARCENAS
STEFANO PAGIOLA*
Affiliation:
Environment Department, World Bank, 1818 H Str NW, Washington DC 20433, USA. Email: [email protected]
ANA R. RIOS
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, 403 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA. Email: [email protected]
AGUSTIN ARCENAS
Affiliation:
School of Economics, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines. Email: [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper uses data from a Payments for Environmental Services (PES) project being implemented in Nicaragua to examine the extent to which poorer households that are eligible to participate are in fact able to do so, an issue over which there has been considerable concern. The study site provides a strong test of the ability of poorer households to participate, as it requires participants to make substantial and complex land use changes. The results show that poorer households are in fact able to participate – indeed, by some measures they participated to a greater extent than better-off households. Moreover, their participation was not limited to the simpler, least expensive options. Extremely poor households had a somewhat greater difficulty in participating, but even in their case the difference is solely a relative one. Transaction costs may be greater obstacles to the participation of poorer households than household-specific constraints.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 3: Payment for ecosystem services , June 2008 , pp. 299 - 325
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

Bandiera, O. 2004, ‘Land tenure, incentives and the choice of techniques: evidence from Nicaragua’, LSE, London.Google Scholar
Belsley, D.A. 1991, Conditioning Diagnostics, Collinearity and Weak Data in Regression, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Belsley, D.A., Kuh, E., and Welsch, R.E. 1980, Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity, New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruijnzeel, L.A. 2004, ‘Hydrological functions of moist tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees?’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environments 104: 185–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CGIAR 1997, ‘Report of the study on CGIAR research priorities for marginal lands’, CGIAR and FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
CIPAV 2003, Usos de la Tierra en Fincas Ganaderas: Guía para el Pago de Servicios Ambientales en el Proyecto Enfoques Silvopastoriles Integrados para el Manejo de Ecosistemas, Cali: Fundación CIPAV (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Dagang, A.B.K. and Nair, P.K.R. 2003, ‘Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: recent findings and recommendations for future directions’, Agroforestry Systems 59: 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Janvry, A. and Sadoulet, E. 2000, ‘Rural poverty in Latin America: determinants and exit paths’, Food Policy 25: 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, P., Shellard, L., and Agnew, R. 1996, ‘Shifts in arthropod species assemblages in relation to silvopastoral establishment in upland pastures’, Agroforestry Forum 7: 14–21.Google Scholar
Díaz, O., Dimas, L.A., García, M., Herrador, D., and Méndez, V.E. 2002, ‘Pago por servicios ambientales en El Salvador: Oportunidades y riesgos para pequeños agricultores y comunidades rurales’, PRISMA, San Salvador (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Downing, T.E., Pearson, H.A., and Garcia-Downing, C. (eds) 1992, Development or Destruction: The Conversion of Tropical Forest to Pasture in Latin America, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Echevarría, M. 2002a, ‘Financing watershed conservation: the FONAG water fund in Quito, Ecuador’, in Pagiola, S., Bishop, J., and Landell-Mills, N. (eds), Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development, London: Earthscan, pp. 91–101.Google Scholar
Echevarría, M. 2002b, ‘Water user associations in the Cauca valley: a voluntary mechanism to promote upstream–downstream cooperation in the protection of rural watersheds’, Land–Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds Case Study Series, FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Ervin, C.A. and Ervin, D.E. 1982, ‘Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: hypothesis, evidence, and policy implications’, Land Economics 58: 278–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feder, G., Just, R.E., and Zilberman, D. 1985, ‘Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey’, Economic Development and Cultural Change 33: 255–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraro, P.J. and Pattanayak, S.K. 2006, ‘Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments’, PLoS Biology 4: 482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, M.J., Rao, I.M., Ayarza, M.A., Lascano, C.E., Sanz, J.I., Thomas, R.J., and Vera, R.R. 1994, ‘Carbon storage by introduced deep-rooted grasses in the South American savannas’, Nature 371: 236–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gobbi, J. 2002, ‘Enfoques silvopastoriles integrados para el manejo de ecosistemas en Colombia, Costa Rica y Nicaragua: Análisis económico-financiero ex-ante de la inversión en los SSP propuestos para cada país’, Turrialba, Costa Rica: CATIE (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. 2000, Econometric Analysis, 4th edn, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Grieg-Gran, M., Porras, I., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, C. and Haber, W. 1999, ‘Remnant trees and the conservation of biodiversity in Costa Rican pastures’, Agroforestry Systems 44: 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, J. and Binswanger, H. 1996, ‘Natural resource degradation effects of poverty and population growth are largely policy-induced: the case of Colombia’, Environment and Development Economics 1: 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaimowitz, D. 1996, Livestock and Deforestation in Central America in the 1980s and 1990s: A Policy Perspective, Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Kerr, J. 2002, ‘Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India’, World Development 30: 1387–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landell-Mills, N. and Porras, I. 2002, Silver Bullet or Fools’ Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and Their Impact on the Poor, London: IIED.Google Scholar
López, R. and Valdés, A. 2000, Rural Poverty in Latin America, New York: St Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, D.E. 2004, ‘Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review’, Agroforestry Systems 61: 311–328.Google Scholar
Miranda, M., Porras, I.T., and Moreno, M.L. 2003, ‘The social impacts of payments for environmental services in Costa Rica: a quantitative field survey and analysis of the Virilla watershed’, Markets for Environmental Services Paper No. 1, IIED, London.Google Scholar
Mittelhammer, R.C., Judge, G.G., and Miller, D.J. 2000, Econometric Foundations, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C., Guevara, A., Bulás, J.M., Torres, J.M., and Braña, J. 2006, ‘Los pagos por los servicios hidrológicos del bosque en México’, in Pagiola, S., Bishop, J., and Landell-Mills, N. (eds), La Venta de Servicios Ambientales Forestales, 2nd edn, México: Instituto Nacional de Ecología, pp. 165–206 (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Nelson, A. and Chomitz, K. 2007, ‘The forest–hydrology–poverty nexus in Central America: an heuristic analysis’, Environment, Development and Sustainability 9: 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nkonya, E., Schroeder, T., and Norman, D. 1997, ‘Factors affecting adoption of improved maize seed and fertiliser in Northern Tanzania’, Journal of Agricultural Economics 48: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, P.J. 1987, ‘The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: economic and diffusion explanations’, Rural Sociology 52: 208–220.Google Scholar
Ortiz Malavasi, R., Sage Mora, L.F., and Borge Carvajal, C. 2002, ‘Impacto del Programa de Pago por Servicios Ambientales en Costa Rica como medio de reducción de pobreza en los medios rurales’, RUTA, San José.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S. forthcoming, ‘Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica’, Ecological Economics, Special issue on payments for environmental services: methods and design in developing and developed countries.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S., Agostini, P., Gobbi, J., Haan, C., Ibrahim, M., Murgueitio, E., Ramírez, E., Rosales, M., and Ruíz, J.P. 2004, ‘Paying for biodiversity conservation services in agricultural landscapes’, Environment Department Paper No. 96, World Bank, Washington, DC.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 from Latin America’, World Development 33: 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S. and Colom, A. 2006, ‘Will payments for watershed services help reduce poverty? Evidence from Guatemala’, World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S., Landell-Mills, N., and Bishop, J. 2002, ‘Making market-based mechanisms work for forests and people’, in Pagiola, S., Bishop, J., and Landell-Mills, N. (eds), Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development, London: Earthscan, pp. 261–289.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S. and Platais, G. forthcoming, Payments for Environmental Services: From Theory to Practice, Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S., Ramírez, E., Gobbi, J., de Haan, C., Ibrahim, M., Murgueitio, E., and Ruíz, J.P. 2007, ‘Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua’, Ecological Economics 64: 374–385, Special Issue on Ecosystem Services and Agriculture.Google Scholar
Pattanayak, S.K., Mercer, D.E., Sills, E., and Yang, J.-C. 2003, ‘Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies’, Agroforestry Systems 57: 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfaff, A., Kerr, S., Hughes, F., Liu, S., Sanchez, G., Schimel, D., Tosi, J., and Watson, V. 2000, ‘The Kyoto Protocol and payments for tropical forest: an interdisciplinary method for estimating carbon-offset supply and increasing the feasibility of a carbon market under the CDM’, Ecological Economics 35: 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajasekharan, P. and Veeraputhran, S. 2002, ‘Adoption of intercropping in rubber smallholdings in Kerala, India: a tobit analysis’, Agroforestry Systems 56: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravallion, M. 1992 ‘Poverty comparisons: A guide to concepts and methods’, LSMS Working Paper No. LSM 88, Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
Thacher, T., Lee, D.R., and Schelhas, J.W. 1997, ‘Farmer participation in reforestation incentive programs in Costa Rica’, Agroforestry Systems 35: 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, H. 1980, ‘A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity’, Econometrica 48: 817–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, D., Holmann, F., Fuijsaka, S., Reategui, K., and Lascano, C. 2001, ‘Will intensifying pasture management in Latin America protect forests? – Or is it the other way round?’, in Angelsen, A. and Kaimowitz, D. (eds), Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation, Oxford: CAB International.Google Scholar
World Bank 2003, ‘Nicaragua reporte de pobreza: aumentando el bienestar y reduciendo la vulnerabilidad’, Report No. 26128-NI, World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Wunder, S. 2005, ‘Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts’, CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42, CIFOR, Bogor.Google Scholar
Wunder, S. and M. Albán forthcoming, ‘Decentralized payments for environmental services: the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador’, Ecological Economics, Special issue on payments for environmental services: methods and design in developing and developed countries.Google Scholar
Zbinden, S. and Lee, D.R. 2005, ‘Institutional arrangements for rural poverty reduction and resource conservation’, World Development 33: 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar