Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services
Tóm tắt
Payments for ecosystem services (PES) are a relatively new economic policy instrument, and the factors that drive and explain their environmental performance are poorly understood. Here a meta-analysis of causal relationships between the institutional design and environmental performance of 47 payments for watershed services (PWS) schemes worldwide showed a significant effect on environmental achievement of the terms and conditions of scheme participation, including the selection of service providers, community participation, the existence and monitoring of quantifiable objectives, and the number of intermediaries between service providers and buyers. Direct payments by downstream hydropower companies to upstream land owners for reduced sediment loads were identified as a successful PWS example. No other significant explanatory factors, such as specific type of watershed service, age or scale of implementation of the PWS scheme were detected. The results are highly dependent on the reliability of the input variables, in particular the measurement of the environmental performance variable. Despite efforts to find quantitative information on the environmental performance of existing PWS schemes, such empirical evidence is lacking in many of the schemes studied. International monitoring guidelines are needed to facilitate comparisons, identify success factors and support the future design of cost-effective PWS schemes.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Mayrand K. & Paquin M. (2004) Payments for environmental services: a survey and assessment of current schemes. Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America, Unisfera International Center, Montreal, Canada [www document]. URL http://www.cec.org/Storage/56/4894_PES-Unisfera_en.pdf
Rojahn A. & Engel S. (2005) Direct payment for biodiversity conservation, watershed protection and carbon sequestration: contract theory and empirical evidence. Working paper, Institute for Environmental Decision, Chair of Environmental Policy and Economics. ETH, Zurich, Switzerland.
Pagiola S. & Platais G. (2002) Payments for environmental services. Environment Strategy Notes no. 3. The World Bank Environmental Department, Washington, DC, USA [www document]. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/Resources/EnvStrategyNote32002.pdf
Smith M. , de Groot D. , Perrot-Maîte D. & Bergkamp G. (2006) Establishing payments for watershed services. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland [www document]. URL http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2006-054.pdf
Crespo, 2009, Status and Perspectives of Hydrology in Small Basins
Porras I. , Grieg-Gran M. & Neves N. (2008) All that glitters. A review of payments for watershed services in developing countries. Natural Resource Issues No. 11. International Institute for Environment and Development. London, UK.
Wunder S. (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper No. 42. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
Glass, 1981, Meta-Analysis in Social Research
Pfaff A. , Robalino J.A. & Sanchez-Azofeifa G.A. (2008) Payments for environmental services: empirical analysis for Costa Rica. Working Paper series SAN08-5, Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA [www document]. URL http://sanford.duke.edu/research/papers/SAN08-05.pdf
Kerr, 2007, Lessons and Best Practices for Pro-poor Payment for Ecosystem Services, 58
Arriagada R.A. , Ferraro P.J. , Sills E.O. , Pattanayak S.K. & Cordero S. (2010) Do payments for environmental services reduce deforestation? A farm level evaluation from Costa Rica. Unpublished report. [www document]. URL http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwcec/docs/Post%20Arriagada%20et%20al.pdf
Bruijnzeel L.A. , ed. (2006) Hydrological impacts of converting tropical montane cloud forest to pasture, with initial reference to northern Costa Rica. Final Technical Report for Project R7991, DFID Forestry Research Programme. VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Leimona, 2006, Community Forest Management as a Carbon Mitigation Option. Case studies, 60
Duncan E. (2006) Payments for environmental services. An equitable approach for reducing poverty and conserving nature. Report, World Wide Fund For Nature. [www document]. URL http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/about_freshwater/freshwater_resources/?73340/Payments-for-Environmental-Services-An-equitable-approach-for-reducing-poverty-and-conserving-nature
Tognetti, 2010, Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Science for Conservation and Management, 671
Muñoz-Villers L.E. , Holwerda F. , Gómez-Cárdenas M. , Equihua M. , Asbjornsen H. , Bruijnzeel L.A. , Marín-Castro B.E. & Tobón C. (2011) Water balances of old-growth and regenerating montane cloud forests in central Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of Hydrology (in press).
Greiber, 2009, Payments for Ecosystem Services. Legal and Institutional Frameworks
Leshan J. , Xiaoyun L. , Zuoting , Bangyou Y. & Haiyin H. (2005) Development contract with terms of watershed conservation: a win-win opportunity for development and environment in the Meijiang Watershed, Ningdu County, Jiangxi Province, China. Case Study Report, IIED Payment for Watershed Services-China diagnostic study, IIED, Beijng, China.