Poor Household Participation in Payments for Environmental Services: Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Quindío, Colombia

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 47 - Trang 371-394 - 2010
Stefano Pagiola1, Ana R. Rios2, Agustin Arcenas3
1World Bank, Washington, USA
2Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, USA
3School of Economics, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

Tóm tắt

As the use of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) approaches in developing countries has grown, concern has arisen over the ability of poorer households to participate. This paper uses data from a PES project implemented in Quindío, Colombia, to examine the extent to which poorer households that are eligible to participate are in fact able to do so. The project provides a strong test of the ability of poorer households to participate in a PES program as it required participants to make substantial and complex land use changes. The results show that poorer households are in fact able to participate at levels that are broadly similar to those of better-off households. Moreover, their participation was not limited to the simpler, least expensive options. Transaction costs may be greater obstacles to the participation of poorer households than household-specific constraints.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Asquith NM, Vargas Ríos MT, Wunder S (2008) Selling two environmental services: in-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecol Econ 65: 675–684 Belsley DA (1991) Conditioning diagnostics, collinearity and weak data in regression. John Wiley & Sons, New York Belsley DA, Kuh E, Welsch RE (1980) Regression diagnostics: indentifying influential data and sources of collinearity. John Wiley & Sons, New York Bruijnzeel LA (2004) Hydrological functions of moist tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees. Agric Ecosyst Environ 104: 185–228 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. Fundación CIPAV, Cali Dagang ABK, Nair PKR (2003) Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: recent findings and recommendations for future directions. Agrofor Syst 59: 149–155 de Janvry A, Sadoulet E (2000) Rural poverty in Latin America: determinants and exit paths. Food Policy 25: 389–409 Dennis P, Shellard L, Agnew R (1996) Shifts in arthropod species assemblages in relation to silvopastoral establishment in upland pastures. Agrofor Forum 7: 14–21 Díaz O, Dimas LA, García M, Herrador D, Méndez VE (2002) Pago por servicios ambientales en El Salvador. PRISMA, San Salvador Downing, TE, Pearson, HA, Garcia-Downing, C (eds) (1992) Development or destruction: the conversion of tropical forest to pasture in Latin America. Westview Press, Boulder Echavarría M (2002) Financing watershed conservation: the FONAG water fund in Quito, Ecuador. In: Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N (eds) Selling forest environmental services: market-based mechanisms for conservation and development. Earthscan, London Echavarría M (2002) 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 Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65: 663–674 Ervin CA, Ervin DE (1982) Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: hypothesis, evidence, and policy implications. Land Econ 58: 278–292 Feder G, Just RE, Zilberman D (1985) Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Econ Dev Cult Change 33: 255–295 Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol 4: 482–488 Fisher MJ, Rao IM, Ayarza MA, Lascano CE, Sanz JI, Thomas RJ, Vera RR (1994) Carbon storage by introduced deep-rooted grasses in the South American savannas. Nature 371: 236–238 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. CATIE, Turrialba Greene WH (2000) Econometric analysis. 4th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River Grieg-Gran M, Porras I, Wunder S (2005) How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Dev 33: 1511–1527 Harvey C, Haber W (1999) Remnant trees and the conservation of biodiversity in Costa Rican pastures. Agrofor Syst 44: 37–68 Kaimowitz D (1996) Livestock and deforestation in Central America in the 1980s and 1990s: a policy perspective. CIFOR, Bogor Kerr J (2002) Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India. World Dev 30: 1387–1400 Landell-Mills N, Porras I (2002) Silver bullet or fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. IIED, London López R, Valdés A (2000) Rural poverty in Latin America. St. Martin’s Press, New York Maddala GS (1983) Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, New York Mercer DE (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Agrofor Syst 1: 311–328 Miranda M, Porras IT, Moreno ML (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 Mittelhammer RC, Judge GG, Miller DJ (2000) Econometric foundations. Cambridge University Press, New York Muñoz C, Guevara A, Bulás JM, Torres JM, Braña J (2006) Pagar por los servicios hidrológicos del bosque en México. In: Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N (eds) La Venta de Servicios Ambientales Forestales, 2nd ed. INE, Mexico Murgueitio E (2003) Impacto ambiental de la ganadería de leche en Colombia y alternativas de solución. Livestock Research for Rural Development 15(10) Nelson A, Chomitz K (2007) The forest-hydrology-poverty nexus in Central America: an heuristic analysis. Environ Dev Sustain 9: 369–385 Nkonya E, Schroeder T, Norman D (1997) Factors affecting adoption of improved maize seed and fertiliser in Northern Tanzania. J Agric Econ 48: 1–12 Nowak PJ (1987) The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: economic and diffusion explanations. Rural Sociol 52: 208–220 Ortiz Malavasi R, Sage Mora LF, 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 Pagiola S (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 65: 712–724 Pagiola S, Platais G (2007) Payments for environmental services: from theory to practice. World Bank, Washington Pagiola S, Landell-Mills N, Bishop J (2002) Making market-based mechanisms work for forests and people. In: Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N (eds) Selling forest environmental services: market-based mechanisms for conservation and development. Earthscan, London Pagiola S, Agostini P, Gobbi J, de Haan C, Ibrahim M, Murgueitio E, Ramírez E, Rosales M, and Ruíz JP (2004) Paying for biodiversity conservation services in agricultural landscapes. Environment department paper no.96. World Bank, Washington Pagiola S, Arcenas A, 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 Dev 33: 237–253 Pagiola S, Zhang W, Colom A (2007) Assessing the potential for payments for watershed services to reduce poverty in Guatemala. World Bank, Washington Pagiola S, Ramírez E, Gobbi J, de Haan C, Ibrahim M, Murgueitio E, Ruíz JP (2008a) Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecol Econ 64: 374–385 Pagiola S, Rios A, Arcenas A (2008b) Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua. Environ Dev Econ 13: 299–325 Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills E, Yang J-C (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor Syst 57: 173–186 Pfaff A, Kerr S, Hughes F, Liu S, Sanchez G, Schimel D, Tosi J, 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. Ecol Econ 35: 203–221 Porras I, Miranda M, Salas F (forthcoming) Social impacts of the PSA program. In: Platais G, Pagiola S (eds) Ecomarkets: Costa Rica’s experience with payments for environmental services. World Bank, Washington Rajasekharan P, Veeraputhran S (2002) Adoption of intercropping in rubber smallholdings in Kerala, India: A tobit analysis. Agrofor Syst 56: 1–11 Ravallion M (1992) Poverty comparisons: a guide to concepts and methods. LSMS working paper no.LSM 88. World Bank, Washington Swallow B, van Noordwijk M, Dewi S, Murdiyarso D, White D, Gockowski J, Hyman G, Budidarsono S, Robiglio V, Meadu V, Ekadinata A, Agus F, Hairiah K, Mbile PN, Sonwa DJ, Weise S (2007) Opportunities for avoided deforestation with sustainable benefits: an interim report by the ASB partnership for the tropical forest margins. ASB Partnership, Nairobi Thacher T, Lee DR, Schelhas JW (1997) Farmer participation in reforestation incentive programs in Costa Rica. Agrofor Syst 35: 269–289 White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48: 817–838 White D, Holmann F, Fuijsaka S, Reategui K, Lascano C (2001) Will intensifying pasture management in latin America protect forests?—Or is it the other way round?. In: Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D (eds) Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation. CAB International, Oxford Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge World Bank (2002) Colombia poverty report. Report No.24524-CO. World Bank, Washington Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR occasional paper No.42. CIFOR, Bogor Wunder S, Albán M (2008) Decentralized payments for environmental services: the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecol Econ 65: 685–698 Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econ 65: 834–852 Zbinden S, Lee DR (2005) Paying for environmental services: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica’s PSA Program. World Dev 33: 255–272 Ziberman D, Lipper L, McCarthy N (2008) When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor?. Environ Dev Econ 13: 255–278