Ecosystems and Poverty

Everyone is going PES crazy these days, myself included, but Esteve Corbera and colleagues took a step back from creating new PES schemes to analyse the success of some schemes already in place.  They chose four case studies in meso-America, and through stakeholder interviews and critical analysis tried to get to grips with the factors that promote success or generate failure in the scheme.  Their findings were fascinating.  Looking at the two water-related PES schemes, the numbers alone should ring alarm bells. 

In their Las Escobas case study in Guatemala, a PES scheme was established between the local hydroelectric company and a local NGO managing a protected area.  The PES is designed to support protection or forest areas, promote sustainable agricultural practices and agroforestry systems, and generate low-impact eco-tourism activities.  The PES pays US$17.86/Ha/year, and local water-users contribute US$0.20/month to the fund.  The fund covers just 6% of the total expenditure of the NGO, and 40% of the cost of protecting and managing the reserve.  Local land-owners are frustrated by the PES, and many stakeholders expressed frustration over the lack of involvement in the negotiation and implementation of the PES.

In the San Pedro del Norte case study in Nicaragua, farmers receive US$26/Ha/year to protect water resources by avoiding fires, developing organic agriculture, agroforestry and soil conservation practices and promote forest regeneration through improved management of livestock.  Water users pay US$0.31/month to contribute to the fund.  When the authors compare the funds that land-owners receive to protect water resources, it accounts for less than 10% of on- and off- farm income.  That is a lot of responsibilities for very little monetary benefit, but land-owners actually reported that other benefits aside from monetary compensation such as technical assistance made it worthwhile.

From a poverty alleviation perspective, it is hard to see that any rural communities can actually benefit from such PES schemes.  The monetary benefits are so small, and the commitments they have to comply with to receive that money seem fairly extensive and restrictive.  Add in social and cultural contexts such as property rights and long-running land-use conflicts and it is difficult to see how these PES schemes were established in the first place.  However, the devil might be in the detail.  In the case of San Pedro del Norte the direct monetary benefits are small, but the direct effects of technical assistance and agricultural support that accompanies the PES seem to have positive impacts.  Unfortunately there is no analysis of the increased (or decreased?) income from converting to organic farming. 

I’m curious as to the criteria for selecting these case studies – are they representative of the many PES out there?