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

Environment and Development Economics - Tập 13 Số 3 - Trang 279-297 - 2008
Sven Wunder1
1Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia

Tóm tắt

ABSTRACTBased 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.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00042-6

10.1023/A:1024712424319

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to local communities from forest carbon projects: case study analysis Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project’ (unpublished) CIFOR, Bogor.

Costa, 2003, Forests, Livelihoods and Biodiversity, 23

IPCC 2001, ‘Summary for policy makers. Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability’, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

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of poor, rural households in Ecuador and Guatemala to payments for environmental services’, Ohio State University (unpublished).

Bennett M.T. 2007, ‘China's Sloping Land Conversion Program: institutional innovation or business as usual?’, Ecological Economics (accepted).

10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.09.009

10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.05.002

Smith J. and Scherr S. 2002, ‘Forest carbon and local livelihoods: assessment of opportunities and policy recommendations’, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011

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).

Angelsen A. and Wunder S. 2003, ‘Exploring the poverty-forestry link: key concepts, issues and research implications’, CIFOR Occasional Papers No. 42, 58.

Blanco J. , Wunder S. , and Navarrete F. 2005, ‘La experiencia colombiana en esquemas de pagos por servicios ambientales’, Ecoversa & CIFOR, Bogotá (unpublished) (in Spanish).

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).

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.

10.1126/science.1078104

Frost P.G.H. and Bond I. 2007. ‘The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: payments for wildlife services’, Ecological Economics (accepted).

10.1111/j.1467-7660.2004.00356.x

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.

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).

Milne M. 2000, ‘Forest carbon, livelihoods and biodiversity: a report to the European Commission’, CIFOR, Bogor.

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.

10.1017/S1355770X00000607

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).

Pagiola S. 2007, ‘Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica’, Ecological Economics (accepted).

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.

Robertson N. and Wunder S. 2005, ‘Fresh tracks in the forest: assessing incipient payments for environmental services initiatives in Bolivia’, CIFOR, Bogor.

Rosa H. , Kandel S. , and Dimas L. . 2003, ‘Compensation for environmental services and rural communities’, PRISMA, San Salvador.

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.

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.

2000, World Development Report 2000–2001: Attacking Poverty

Wunder S. 2005, ‘Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts’, CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42, 24.

10.5751/ES-01831-110223

Wunder S. and Albán M. 2007, ‘Decentralized payments for environmental services: comparing the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador’, Ecological Economics (accepted).

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.

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).

10.2307/3146894

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Environment and Development Economics

Tập 13 Số 3

279-297

Thông tin tác giả