Assessing the Feasibility of Wetlands Conservation: Using Payments for Ecosystem Services in Pallisa, Uganda

  • Imelda Nalukenge
  • John Antle
  • Jetse Stoorvogel
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 31)


This chapter reports on a study of the potential for payments for ecosystem services to encourage the adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices in the Pallisa district in southeastern Uganda. Due to low productivity and population pressure, the subsistence agriculture that dominates the upland areas is increasingly encroaching on wetland areas critical to a many ecosystem services. While encroachment is illegal, enforcement has not been effective, raising the possibility that a positive incentive mechanism might be a more effective approach to wetlands protection. This study began with a workshop designed to learn about the potential importance of wetlands and their services from local and national stakeholders, and to assess the legal and institutional setting in which environmental policy is being implemented. The next step was to implement a quantitative analysis of ecosystem service supply, to estimate the possible rates of participation by farmers in contracts for wetlands conservation and the impact on farmers’ incomes. The analysis suggests that payments for ecosystem services could be a viable alternative to conventional environmental regulation if local institutions can manage contracts with farmers at a reasonable cost, and if national and international beneficiaries are willing to pay for wetlands protection.


Ecosystem Service Wetland Area Upland Rice Lowland Rice Ecosystem Service Supply 
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.


  1. Antle JM, Stoorvogel JJ (2006) Predicting the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture. Am J Agric Econ 88(5):1174-1180.Google Scholar
  2. Antle JM, Valdivia RO (2006) Modeling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture: A minimum data approach. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 50:1-15.Google Scholar
  3. Antle JM, Nalukenge I, Stoorvogel JJ, Claessens L (2006) Payments for ecosystem services as a new approach to tackle land degradation in Pallisa district: Workshop report. Available at http://www.tradeoffs.montana.eduGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackman A, Harrington W (2000) The use of economic incentives in developing countries: International experience with industrial air pollution. J Environ Dev 9:5-44.Google Scholar
  5. Cattaneo A, Claassen R, Johansson R, Weinberg M (2005) Flexible conservation measures on working land: What challenges lie ahead? U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. 5. Available at Scholar
  6. Fuglie KO, Kascak CA (2001) Adoption and diffusion of natural-resource-conserving agricultural technology. Rev Agric Econ 23(2):386-403.Google Scholar
  7. National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) (2001) State of the environment report. Government of Uganda.Google Scholar
  8. National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) (2003) State of the environment report. Government of Uganda.Google Scholar
  9. Stoorvogel JJ, Antle JM, Crissman CC, Bowen W (2004) The tradeoff analysis model: Integrated bio-physical and economic modeling of agricultural production systems. Agric Syst 80(1):43-66.Google Scholar
  10. Sunding D, Zilberman D (2001) The agricultural innovation process: Research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector. In: Gardner BL, Rausser GC (eds.), Handbook of agricultural economics, Vol. 1A: Agricultural production. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  11. Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton SM (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ 64(2):253-260.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FAO 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Imelda Nalukenge
    • 1
  • John Antle
    • 2
  • Jetse Stoorvogel
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Agriculture, Makerere UniversityKampala Uganda
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural Economics and EconomicsMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA
  3. 3.Department of Environmental SciencesWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations