Abstract
This chapter considers a hypothetical scheme of green payments to induce intra-specific agrobiodiversity in the context of Philippine rice farming. We empirically estimate a model of farmer behavior and then simulate the consequences of alternative (hypothetical) PES schemes under a fixed budget constraint. We find that, under this particular application, there is a clear trade-off between the two policy goals of enhancing agrobiodiversity and poverty reduction. Even the totally untargeted lump-sum subsidy would have a larger poverty reduction impact than would the first-best conservation subsidy payment scheme. Therefore, policymakers would be required to strike a delicate balance between the two competing policy objectives. In addition, there is also a clear trade-off between the efficiency of targeted conservation payment and the information requirement for implementing subsidy schemes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
1See for instance the literature in PES for watershed management and biodiversity conservation. The article by Wu, Zilberman, and Bab et al.cock (2001), on the other hand, is a good theoretical paper on the distributional consequences of different conservation conservation-targeting strategies.
- 2.
2Department of Agrarian Reform -University of the Philippines at Los Baños.
- 3.
3In fact, there would be another issue of potentially perverse incentive effects; the farmers currently planting traditional varieties may shift to modern varieties in order to (appear to) be ‘“eligible’ eligible” for the subsidy scheme, which would lead to even larger leakages. While this is a real possibility, this issue is not pursued further here.
References
Alix-Garcia J, de Janvry A, Sadoulet E (2004) Payments for environmental services: To whom, for what, and how much? Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Working Paper, University of California, Berkeley.
Antle JM, Stoorvogel JJ (2006) Agricultural carbon sequestration, poverty and sustainability. Available at http://www.tradeoffs.montana.edu.
Feng H, Kling CL, Gassman PW (2004) Carbon sequestration, co-benefits, and conservation. CARD Working Paper No. 04-WP379.
Feng H, Kurkalova LA, Kling CL, Gassman PW (2005) Economic and environmental co-benefits of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils: Retiring agricultural land in the upper Mississippi River Basin. CARD Working Paper No. 05-WP384.
Heckman J (1974) Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply. Econometrica 42:679–694.
Heckman J (1976) Varieties of selection bias. Am Econ Rev 80:313–318.
Heckman J, Robb R (1985) Alternative methods for estimating the impact of interventions. J Econom 30:239–267.
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) (2004) IRRI’s environmental agenda: An approach toward sustainable development. International Rice Research Institute, Los Banõs, Philippines.
Kurkalova L, Kling C, Zhao J (2003) Green subsidies in agriculture: Estimating the adoption costs of conservation tillage from observed behavior. CARD Working Paper No. 01-WP 286.
Lankoski J, Ollikainen M (2003) Agri-environmental externalities: A framework for designing targeted policies. Eur Rev Agric Econ 30:51–75.
Lohr L, Park TA (1995) Utility-consistent discrete-continuous choices in soil conservation. Land Econ 71:474–490.
Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev 33:237–253.
Tuan HD, Hue NN, Sthapit BR, Jarvis DI (eds.) (2003) On-farm management of agricultural biodiversity in Vietnam. Proceedings of a Symposium December 6-12, 2001, Hanoi, Vietnam. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.
Wu J, Zilberman D, Babcock BA (2001) Environmental and distributional impacts of conservation targeting strategies. J Environ Econ Manag 41:333–338.
Acknowledgments
The authors would thank Ms. Aileen Lapitan for her insights on the data set; Ms. Marjorie Ann L. Dator, Ms. Dieldre S. Harder, and Ms. Jocelyn T. Tabali for their research assistance; and the DAR-UPLB Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Impact Assessment Project for the data set used in this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 FAO
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fuwa, N., Sajise, A.J.U. (2009). Exploring Environmental Services Incentive Policies for the Philippines Rice Sector: The Case of Intra-Species Agrobiodiversity Conservation. In: Lipper, L., Sakuyama, T., Stringer, R., Zilberman, D. (eds) Payment for Environmental Services in Agricultural Landscapes. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 31. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-72971-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-72971-8_10
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-77354-4
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-72971-8
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)