34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of payments for environmental services and protected areas on local livelihoods and forest conservation in northern Cambodia

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The potential impacts of payments for environmental services (PES) and protected areas (PAs) on environmental outcomes and local livelihoods in developing countries are contentious and have been widely debated. The available evidence is sparse, with few rigorous evaluations of the environmental and social impacts of PAs and particularly of PES. We measured the impacts on forests and human well-being of three different PES programs instituted within two PAs in northern Cambodia, using a panel of intervention villages and matched controls. Both PES and PAs delivered additional environmental outcomes relative to the counterfactual: reducing deforestation rates significantly relative to controls. PAs increased security of access to land and forest resources for local households, benefiting forest resource users but restricting households’ ability to expand and diversify their agriculture. The impacts of PES on household well-being were related to the magnitude of the payments provided. The two higher paying market-linked PES programs had significant positive impacts, whereas a lower paying program that targeted biodiversity protection had no detectable effect on livelihoods, despite its positive environmental outcomes. Households that signed up for the higher paying PES programs, however, typically needed more capital assets; hence, they were less poor and more food secure than other villagers. Therefore, whereas the impacts of PAs on household well-being were limited overall and varied between livelihood strategies, the PES programs had significant positive impacts on livelihoods for those that could afford to participate. Our results are consistent with theories that PES, when designed appropriately, can be a powerful new tool for delivering conservation goals whilst benefiting local people.

          El Impacto de los Pagos por Servicios Ambientales y Áreas Protegidas sobre la Subsistencia Local y la Conservación del Bosque en el Norte de Camboya

          Resumen

          Los impactos potenciales de los pagos por servicios ambientales (PSA) y áreas protegidas (APs) sobre los resultados ambientales y las subsistencias locales en los países en desarrollo son polémicos y se han debatido ampliamente. La evidencia disponible es escasa; ha habido pocas evaluaciones rigurosas de los impactos ambientales y sociales de las APs y particularmente los PSA. Medimos el impacto sobre los bosques y el bienestar humano en tres diferentes programas de PSA que se llevan a cabo dentro de dos APs en el norte de Camboya usando un panel de aldeas de intervención y controles emparejados. Tanto los PSA como las APs brindaron resultados ambientales adicionales en relación a los contrafácticos, esto quiere decir que redujeron las tasas de deforestación significativamente en relación a los controles. Las áreas protegidas incrementaron el acceso seguro a los recursos del suelo y el bosque para las viviendas locales, beneficiando a los usuarios de los recursos del bosque pero restringiendo la habilidad de las viviendas para expandirse y diversificar su agricultura. Los impactos de los pagos por servicios ambientales sobre el bienestar de las viviendas estuvieron relacionados con la magnitud de los pagos proporcionados. Los dos programas de PSA de mayor paga y con conexión al mercado tuvieron impactos positivos significativos, mientras que un programa de menor paga con el objetivo de proteger a la biodiversidad no tuvo un efecto detectable sobre las viviendas, a pesar de sus resultados ambientales positivos. Las viviendas que se inscribieron a los programas de PSA con mayor paga, sin embargo, necesitaban típicamente más bienes capitales, por lo que eran menos pobres y tenían mayor seguridad alimentaria que otros aldeanos. Por esto, mientras los impactos de las APs sobre el bienestar de las viviendas fueron limitados en general y variaron dependiendo de las estrategias de subsistencia, los programas de PSA tuvieron impactos positivos significativos sobre las viviendas para aquellos que podían costear participar. Nuestros resultados son congruentes con las teorías de que los PSA, cuando se designan apropiadamente, pueden ser una herramienta poderosa y novedosa para obtener objetivos de conservación mientras se beneficia a la gente local.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Ecology. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation.

              Payments for environmental services (PES) represent a new, more direct way to promote conservation. They explicitly recognize the need to address difficult trade-offs by bridging the interests of landowners and external actors through compensations. Theoretical assessments praise the advantages of PES over indirect approaches, but in the tropics PES application has remained incipient. Here I aim to demystify PES and clarify its scope for application as a tool for tropical conservation. I focus on the supply side of PES (i.e., how to convert PES funding into effective conservation on the ground), which until now has been widely neglected. I reviewed the PES literature for developing countries and combined these findings with observations from my own field studies in Latin America and Asia. A PES scheme, simply stated, is a voluntary, conditional agreement between at least one "seller" and one "buyer" over a well-defined environmental service--or a land use presumed to produce that service. Major obstacles to effective PES include demand-side limitations and a lack of supply-side know-how regarding implementation. The design of PES programs can be improved by explicitly outlining baselines, calculating conservation opportunity costs, customizing payment modalities, and targeting agents with credible land claims and threats to conservation. Expansion of PES can occur if schemes can demonstrate clear additionality (i.e., incremental conservation effects vis-à-vis predefined baselines), if PES recipients' livelihood dynamics are better understood, and if efficiency goals are balanced with considerations of fairness. PES are arguably best suited to scenarios of moderate conservation opportunity costs on marginal lands and in settings with emerging, not-yet realized threats. Actors who represent credible threats to the environment will more likely receive PES than those already living in harmony with nature. A PES scheme can thus benefit both buyers and sellers while improving the resource base, but it is unlikely to fully replace other conservation instruments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Conserv Biol
                Conserv. Biol
                cobi
                Conservation Biology
                BlackWell Publishing Ltd (Oxford, UK )
                0888-8892
                1523-1739
                February 2015
                09 December 2014
                : 29
                : 1
                : 78-87
                Affiliations
                [* ]Wildlife Conservation Society 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY, 10460, U.S.A.
                []Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, United Kingdom
                []Department of Life Sciences and Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London Silwood Park Campus, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, SL5 7PY, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                Article
                10.1111/cobi.12423
                4312980
                25492724
                c2975cf1-35cd-498d-bea6-4cc426de8442
                © 2014 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 December 2013
                : 07 April 2014
                Categories
                Contributed Papers

                Ecology
                biodiversity conservation,effectiveness,impact evaluation,poverty,well-being,bienestar,conservación de la biodiversidad,efectividad,evaluación de impacto,pobreza

                Comments

                Comment on this article