Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 371–394 | Cite as

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

  • Stefano PagiolaEmail author
  • Ana R. Rios
  • Agustin Arcenas
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Payments for environmental services (PES) Poverty Silvopastoral Colombia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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: 675–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belsley DA (1991) Conditioning diagnostics, collinearity and weak data in regression. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Belsley DA, Kuh E, Welsch RE (1980) Regression diagnostics: indentifying influential data and sources of collinearity. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruijnzeel LA (2004) Hydrological functions of moist tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees. Agric Ecosyst Environ 104: 185–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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, CaliGoogle Scholar
  6. Dagang ABK, Nair PKR (2003) Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: recent findings and recommendations for future directions. Agrofor Syst 59: 149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Janvry A, Sadoulet E (2000) Rural poverty in Latin America: determinants and exit paths. Food Policy 25: 389–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dennis P, Shellard L, Agnew R (1996) Shifts in arthropod species assemblages in relation to silvopastoral establishment in upland pastures. Agrofor Forum 7: 14–21Google Scholar
  9. Díaz O, Dimas LA, García M, Herrador D, Méndez VE (2002) Pago por servicios ambientales en El Salvador. PRISMA, San SalvadorGoogle Scholar
  10. Downing, TE, Pearson, HA, Garcia-Downing, C (eds) (1992) Development or destruction: the conversion of tropical forest to pasture in Latin America. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, RomeGoogle Scholar
  13. Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65: 663–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ervin CA, Ervin DE (1982) Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: hypothesis, evidence, and policy implications. Land Econ 58: 278–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feder G, Just RE, Zilberman D (1985) Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Econ Dev Cult Change 33: 255–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol 4: 482–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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: 236–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, TurrialbaGoogle Scholar
  19. Greene WH (2000) Econometric analysis. 4th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  20. 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: 1511–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harvey C, Haber W (1999) Remnant trees and the conservation of biodiversity in Costa Rican pastures. Agrofor Syst 44: 37–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaimowitz D (1996) Livestock and deforestation in Central America in the 1980s and 1990s: a policy perspective. CIFOR, BogorGoogle Scholar
  23. Kerr J (2002) Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India. World Dev 30: 1387–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. López R, Valdés A (2000) Rural poverty in Latin America. St. Martin’s Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maddala GS (1983) Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Mercer DE (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Agrofor Syst 1: 311–328Google Scholar
  28. 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, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Mittelhammer RC, Judge GG, Miller DJ (2000) Econometric foundations. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 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, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  31. Murgueitio E (2003) Impacto ambiental de la ganadería de leche en Colombia y alternativas de solución. Livestock Research for Rural Development 15(10)Google Scholar
  32. Nelson A, Chomitz K (2007) The forest-hydrology-poverty nexus in Central America: an heuristic analysis. Environ Dev Sustain 9: 369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nkonya E, Schroeder T, Norman D (1997) Factors affecting adoption of improved maize seed and fertiliser in Northern Tanzania. J Agric Econ 48: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nowak PJ (1987) The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: economic and diffusion explanations. Rural Sociol 52: 208–220Google Scholar
  35. 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 JoséGoogle Scholar
  36. Pagiola S (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 65: 712–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pagiola S, Platais G (2007) Payments for environmental services: from theory to practice. World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. 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, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. 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, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. 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: 237–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pagiola S, Zhang W, Colom A (2007) Assessing the potential for payments for watershed services to reduce poverty in Guatemala. World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. 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: 374–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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: 299–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills E, Yang J-C (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor Syst 57: 173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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: 203–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  47. Rajasekharan P, Veeraputhran S (2002) Adoption of intercropping in rubber smallholdings in Kerala, India: A tobit analysis. Agrofor Syst 56: 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ravallion M (1992) Poverty comparisons: a guide to concepts and methods. LSMS working paper no.LSM 88. World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. 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, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  50. Thacher T, Lee DR, Schelhas JW (1997) Farmer participation in reforestation incentive programs in Costa Rica. Agrofor Syst 35: 269–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48: 817–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. World Bank (2002) Colombia poverty report. Report No.24524-CO. World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  55. Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR occasional paper No.42. CIFOR, BogorGoogle Scholar
  56. Wunder S, Albán M (2008) Decentralized payments for environmental services: the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecol Econ 65: 685–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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: 834–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zbinden S, Lee DR (2005) Paying for environmental services: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica’s PSA Program. World Dev 33: 255–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ziberman D, Lipper L, McCarthy N (2008) When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor?. Environ Dev Econ 13: 255–278Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Pagiola
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ana R. Rios
    • 2
  • Agustin Arcenas
    • 3
  1. 1.World BankWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Inter-American Development BankWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.School of EconomicsUniversity of the PhilippinesDiliman, Quezon CityPhilippines

Personalised recommendations