Abstract
Global climate change and environmental degradation highlight the need for institutions of sustainability. In particular, there is increased interest in the potential of payments for environmental services (PES) to improve incentives for sustainable land management. Although smallholder land users can be efficient producers of environmental services of value to larger communities and societies, experience shows that the international and national institutions that govern PES are often designed in ways that entail transaction costs that cannot be feasibly met by individual smallholders. This chapter presents a conceptual framework to examine the inter-linkages between property rights, collective action, payment for environmental services, and the welfare of smallholder land users, examining how these play out in the contexts of carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and watershed functions. Greater consideration of the linkages between PES and other rural institutions can lead to more equitable outcomes, particularly by (1) suggesting how collective action can be used to overcome transaction costs and barriers to participation by smallholders and (2) identifying mechanisms through which managers of small private parcels or areas of common property can be rewarded for environmental stewardship through PES.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aggarwal, S. (2001). Supernatural sanctions in commons management: Panchayat forest conservation in the Central Himalayas. Honolulu: Dissertation, University of Hawaii.
Appleton, A. (2004, November). How New York City used an ecosystem services strategy carried out through urban-rural partnership to preserve the pristine quality of its drinking water and save billions of dollars. Paper presented at the World Conservation Forum, Bangkok.
Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R. E., et al. (2002). Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297, 950–953.
Beukema, H. J., & van Noordwijk. M. (2004). Terrestrial pteridophytes as indicators of a forest-like environment in rubber production systems in the lowlands of Jambi, Sumatra. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 104, 63–73.
Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2004). Hydrological functions of tropical forests: Not seeing the soil for the trees? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 104, 185–228.
Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance. (2004) Climate, community and biodiversity design standards (Draft 1.0), CCBA, Washington DC, from: http://www.climatestandards. org.
Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Wang, H., & Wheeler, D. (2002). Confronting the environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 147–168.
Donald, P. F. (2004). Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural commodity production systems. Conservation Biology, 18, 17–37.
DTZ Pieda Consulting. (2000). An evaluation of FRP’s carbon sequestration project in Southern Mexico. (Consultancy report for DfID).
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65, 663–674.
Escobal, J., & Torero, M. (1999). How to face an adverse geography? The role of private and public assets. Lima, Peru: UNU-WIDER and Grupo de Anà lisis para el Desarrollo (GRADE), from: http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-2002-2/papers/escobal%20&%20torero.pdf.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2007). The state of food and agriculture 2007: Paying farmers for environmental services.Rome: FAO.
Fay, C., & Michon, G. (2003, May). Redressing forestry hegemony: When a forestry regulatory framework is best replaced by an agrarian one. Paper presented at the International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity, Bonn.
Frost, P. G. H., & Bond, I. (2008). The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: Payments for wildlife services. Ecological Economics, 65, 777–787.
Grieg-Gran, M., & Bann, C. (2003). A closer look at payments and markets for environmental services. In P. Gutnam (Ed.), From goodwill to payments for environmental services: A survey of financing options for sustainable natural resource management in developing countries(pp. 27–40). Washington, DC: WWF.
Hagedorn, K. (1993). Institutions and agricultural economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 27, 849–886.
Hagedorn, K. (1996). Das Institutionenproblem in der agrarökonomischen Politikforschung. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Hagedorn, K, Arzt, K., & Peters, U. (2002). Institutional arrangements for environmental cooperatives: A conceptual framework. In K. Hagedorn (Ed.), Environmental cooperation for institutional change: Theories and policies for European agriculture (pp. 3–25). Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Horan, R. D., Shogren, J. F., & Gramig, B. M. (2008). Wildlife conservation payments to address habitat fragmentation and disease risks. Environment and Development Economics, 13, 414–439.
Jindal, R, Swallow, B., & Kerr, J. M. (2008). Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges. Natural Resources Forum, 32, 116–130.
Krey, M. (2005). Transaction costs of unilateral CDM projects in India: Results of an empirical survey. Energy Policy, 33, 2385–2397.
Kuuluvainen, J. (2002). Value of nature conservation: The good or the context? Journal of Forest Economics, 2, 101–103.
Landell-Mills, N., & Porras, I. T. (2002). Silver bullet or fool’s gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
McNeely, J. A., & Scherr, S. J. (2001). Common Ground Common Future. How Ecoagriculture Can Help Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Future Harvest.
McNeely, J. A., & Scherr, S. J. (2003). Ecoagriculture. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Merino, L., & Robson, J. (Eds.). (2006). Managing the commons: Payment for environmental services.Mexico City: Instituto Nacional De Ecologia (INE).
Miles, L., & Kapos, V. (2008). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: Global land-use implications. Science, 320, 1454–1455.
Miranda, M., Porres, I., & Luz Moreno, M. (2003). The social impacts of payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Environmental Economics Programme, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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 Development, 33, 237–253.
Pires, M. (2004). Watershed protection for a world city: The case of New York. Land Use Policy, 21, 161–175.
Place, F., Roth, M., & Hazell, P. (1994). Land tenure security and agricultural performance in Africa: Overview of research methodology. In J. W. Bruce, & S. Migot-Adholla (Eds.), Searching for land tenure security in Africa(pp. 15–39). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Ranieri, S. B. L., Stirzaker, R., Suprayogo, D., Purwanto, E., de Willigen, P., & van Noordwijk, M. (2004). Managing movements of water, solutes and soil: From plot to landscape scale. In M. van Noordwijk, G. Cadisch, & C. K. Ong (Eds.), Belowground interactions in tropical agroecosystems(pp. 329–347). Wallingford: CAB International.
Rosales, R. M. P. (2003). Developing pro-poor markets for environmental services in the Philippines.London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
Rosenbaum, K. L., Schoene, D., & Mekouar, A. (2004). Climate change and the forest sector: Possible national and subnational legislation. FAO Forestry Paper 144. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Ruttan, V.W., & Hayami, Y. (1984). Toward a theory of induced institutional innovation. Journal of Development Studies 20, 203–233.
Schroth, G., Da Fonseca, A. B. G., Harvey, C. A., Gascon, C., Vasconcelos, H. L., & Izac, A. M. N. (2004). Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Stern, D. (2004). The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Development, 32, 1419–1439.
Suyanto, S., Khususiyah, N., & Leimona, B. (2007). Poverty and environmental services: case study in Way Besai watershed, Lampung Province, Indonesia. Ecology and Society, 12, from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art13/
Swallow, B., Garrity, D. P., & van Noordwijk, M. (2002). The effects of scales, flows and filters on property rights and collective action in catchment management. Water Policy, 4, 449–455.
Swallow, B., Meinzen-Dick, R., & van Noordwijk, M. (2006). Localizing demand and supply of environmental services: Interactions with property rights, collective action and the welfare of the poor. In L. Merino & J. Robson (Eds.), Managing the commons: Payment for environmental services(pp. 35–49). Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (INE).
Tecsen, E. (2004). Indigenous peoples amidst clashing cultures and conflicting laws. Farm News and Views, second quarter 2004, from: http://www.ppi.org.ph/ publications/fnv/current_issues/fnv_5.htm.
Tomich, T. P., van Noordwijk M, Budidarsono, S., Gillison, A., Kusumanto, T., Murdiyarso, D., et al. (2001). Agricultural intensification, deforestation and the environment: Assessing tradeoffs in Sumatra, Indonesia. In D. R. Lee & C. B. Barrett (Eds.), Tradeoffs or synergies? Agricultural intensification, economic development and the environment (pp. 221–244).Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Turpie, J. K., Marais, C., & Blignaut, J. N. (2008). The working for water programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecological Economics, 65, 788–798.
Van Noordwijk, M., Chandler, F., & Tomich, T. P. (2004). An introduction to the conceptual basis of RUPES: Rewarding upland poor for the environmental services they provide. ICRAF-Southeast Asia, Bogor, from: http://www.worldagroforestry.org /sea/Networks/RUPES/abs_13.htm
Van Noordwijk, M., Tomich, T. P., de Foresta, H., & Michon, G. (1997). To segregate or to integrate? The question of balance between production and biodiversity conservation in complex agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Today,9, 6–9.
Wunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics, 65, 834–852.
Yatich, T. (2007). Status and potential of payments schemes for wildlife conservation in Africa. In F. Waswa, S. Otor, G. Olukoye, & D. Mugendi (Eds.), Environment and sustainable development: A guide for higher education in Kenya (pp. 224–246). Nairobi: Kenyatta University School of Environmental and Human Studies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Swallow, B., Meinzen-Dick, R. (2009). Payment for Environmental Services: Interactions with Property Rights and Collective Action. In: Beckmann, V., Padmanabhan, M. (eds) Institutions and Sustainability. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9690-7_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9690-7_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9689-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9690-7
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)