Exploring Environmental Services Incentive Policies for the Philippines Rice Sector: The Case of Intra-Species Agrobiodiversity Conservation

  • Nobuhiko Fuwa
  • Asa Jose U. Sajise
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 31)


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.


Rice Variety Poverty Reduction Payment Scheme Modern Variety Traditional Variety 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



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.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Antle JM, Stoorvogel JJ (2006) Agricultural carbon sequestration, poverty and sustainability. Available at http://www.tradeoffs.montana.edu.
  3. Feng H, Kling CL, Gassman PW (2004) Carbon sequestration, co-benefits, and conservation. CARD Working Paper No. 04-WP379.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Heckman J (1974) Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply. Econometrica 42:679–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heckman J (1976) Varieties of selection bias. Am Econ Rev 80:313–318.Google Scholar
  7. Heckman J, Robb R (1985) Alternative methods for estimating the impact of interventions. J Econom 30:239–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) (2004) IRRI’s environmental agenda: An approach toward sustainable development. International Rice Research Institute, Los Banõs, Philippines.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Lankoski J, Ollikainen M (2003) Agri-environmental externalities: A framework for designing targeted policies. Eur Rev Agric Econ 30:51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lohr L, Park TA (1995) Utility-consistent discrete-continuous choices in soil conservation. Land Econ 71:474–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Wu J, Zilberman D, Babcock BA (2001) Environmental and distributional impacts of conservation targeting strategies. J Environ Econ Manag 41:333–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FAO 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nobuhiko Fuwa
    • 1
  • Asa Jose U. Sajise
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsChiba UniversityMatsudo CityChiba
  2. 2.University of the Philippines Los Baños, CollegeLos BañosPhilippines

Personalised recommendations