Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:04:42.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Will up-scaled forest conservation incentives in the Peruvian Amazon produce cost-effective and equitable outcomes?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2016

JAN BÖRNER ,
SVEN WUNDER  and
RENZO GIUDICE
JAN BÖRNER*
Affiliation:
Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, Walter-Flex-Str. 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), C/O Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP), Av. La Molina 1895, La Molina, Peru
SVEN WUNDER
Affiliation:
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), C/O Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP), Av. La Molina 1895, La Molina, Peru
RENZO GIUDICE
Affiliation:
Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, Walter-Flex-Str. 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH, Prolongacion Arenales 801, Miraflores, Lima, Peru
*
*Correspondence: J. Börner e-mail: jborner@uni-bonn.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Deforestation and forest degradation in the Peruvian Amazon represent a major threat to biodiversity-related ecosystem services and the global climate. In 2010, the Peruvian Ministry of Environment launched the National Forest Conservation Program for Climate Change Mitigation, an innovative approach to maintaining forest cover of over 54 million hectares of land in protected areas and indigenous and peasant communities. A key component is a payments for environmental services scheme encouraging investments in sustainable land and forest uses in community-controlled territories. We conducted an ex-ante assessment of how the program would play out in terms of conservation cost–effectiveness, income effects and distributional (equity) outcomes if payments were up-scaled, as intended, to all native communities in the Peruvian Amazon. Our spatially explicit impact assessment relied on remotely sensed deforestation data and field data-supported estimates of conservation opportunity costs. We found that the spatially heterogeneous distribution of forestland and economic returns to multiple land uses across communities results in important tradeoffs between hypothetical cost–effectiveness, poverty alleviation and equity outcomes. Nevertheless, our scenario analyses suggested that alternative design options for payment schemes could improve both cost–effectiveness and equity outcomes simultaneously.

Keywords

deforestationimpact assessmentpayments for environmental servicespolicy designREDD+
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 407 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alix-Garcia, J. M., Shapiro, E. N. & Sims, K. R. (2012) Forest conservation and slippage: evidence from Mexico's national payments for ecosystem services program. Land Economics 88(4): 613–638.Google Scholar
Angelsen, A. (2010) Policies for reduced deforestation and their impact on agricultural production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(46): 19639–19644.Google Scholar
Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, W., Sunderlin, D. & Verchot, L. (2012) Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
Armas, A., Börner, J., Tito, M. R., Cubas, L. D., Coral, S. T., Wunder, S., Reymond, L. & Nascimento, N. (2009) Pagos por Servicios Ambientales para la conservación de bosques en la Amazonía peruana: Un análisis de viabilidad. Lima, Perú: SERNANP.Google Scholar
Babigumira, R., Angelsen, A., Buis, M., Bauch, S., Sunderland, T. & Wunder, S. (2014) Forest clearing in rural livelihoods: household-level global-comparative evidence. World Development 64(Suppl. 1): S67–S79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börner, J., Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Tito, M. R., Pereira, L. & Nascimento, N. (2010) Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: scope and equity implications. Ecological Economics 69: 1272–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börner, J., Wunder, S., Reimer, F., Bakkegaard, R. Y., Viana, V., Tezza, J., Pinto, T., Lima, L. & Marostica, S. (2013) Compensação por serviços ambientais, meios de vida e conservação: o Programa Bolsa Floresta. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Fundação Amazonas Sustentável (FAS) and Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung (ZEF) [www document] URL www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BBorner1301.pdf Google Scholar
Börner, J., Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Hyman, G. & Nascimento, N. (2014) Forest law enforcement in the Brazilian Amazon: costs and income effects. Global Environmental Change 29: 294–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, M. S., Soares-Filho, B. S., Merry, F. D., Nepstad, D. C., Rodrigues, H. & Almeida, O. T. (2012) Persistence of cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: a spatial analysis of the rationale for beef production. Land Use Policy 29(3): 558–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. & Zarin, D. (2013) What does zero deforestation mean. Science 342(805807): 31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CEPES (2001) Cultivo del Café. Lima, Perú: Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego.Google Scholar
Corbera, E., Kosoy, N. & Martinez Tuna, M. (2007) Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Global Environmental Change 17(3–4): 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Koning, F., Aguiñaga, M., Bravo, M., Chiu, M., Lascano, M., Lozada, T. & Suarez, L. (2011) Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. Environmental Science & Policy 14(5): 531–542.Google Scholar
FDA (1997) Cultivo de Yuca. Lima, Perú: Fundación para el Desarrollo Agrario.Google Scholar
Gil, J. & Santos, R. (2007) Costos de producción por hectárea de plátano. Ucayali, Perú: Gobierno Regional de Ucayali.Google Scholar
Gil, J. & Santos, R. (2008) Plan orientador para la ganadería tropical en Pozuzo y Palcazu. Lima, Peru: Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura.Google Scholar
GTZ (2005) Manual de Manejo Tecnificado de Maiz. Lima, Perú: Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit.Google Scholar
IIAP (1998) Delimitación del territorio amazónico con criterio ecológico y criterio hidrográfico. Loreto, Perú: Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana.Google Scholar
IIAP (2009) Ordenamiento Territorial y Amazonia. Iquitos, Perú: Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana.Google Scholar
INFOVIAS (2008) Base de datos de redes viales: carreteras nacionales, departamentales y vecinales, Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones. Lima, Perú [www document] URL www.mtc.gob.pe/transportes/caminos/normas_carreteras/mapas_viales.html Google Scholar
Jack, B. K., Kousky, C. & Sims, K. R. E. (2008) Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(28): 9465–9470.Google Scholar
Kindermann, G., Obersteiner, M., Sohngen, B., Sathaye, J., Andrasko, K., Rametsteiner, E., Schlamadinger, B., Wunder, S. & Beach, R. (2008) Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(30): 10302–10307.Google Scholar
Labarta, R., White, D., Leguia, E., Guzman, W. & Soto, J. (2007) La Agricultura en la Amazonia Ribereña del Río Ucayali. ¿Una Zona Productiva pero Poco Rentable? Acta Amazónica 37(2): 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MINAG (2003) Estudio de la competitividad de la producción de arroz en selva. Lima, Perú: PROAMAZONIA: Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego.Google Scholar
MINAGRI (2012) Base de datos de producción agrícola a nivel distrital del Perú para los años desde el 2004 hasta el 2010. Lima, Perú: Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego.Google Scholar
MINAM (2014) Programa Nacional de Conservación de Bosques Para La Mitigación del Cambio Climático. RM-N°-015-2014-MINAM. Lima, Peru: Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM).Google Scholar
MINAM (2015) Annual Deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon 2000–2010. PNCBMCC (MINAM) DGFFS (SERFOR/MINAGRI) and the OTCA based on a methodology developed by the University of Maryland. Lima, Perú: Ministerio del Ambiente.Google Scholar
Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Adaman, F., Aguilar, B., Agarwal, B., Corbera, E., Ezzine de Blas, D., Farley, J., Froger, G., Garcia-Frapolli, E., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gowdy, J., Kosoy, N., Le Coq, J. F., Leroy, P., May, P., Méral, P., Mibielli, P., Norgaard, R., Ozkaynak, B., Pascual, U., Pengue, W., Perez, M., Pesche, D., Pirard, R., Ramos-Martin, J., Rival, L., Saenz, F., Van Hecken, G., Vatn, A., Vira, B. & Urama, K. (2013) Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win–win solutions. Conservation Letters 6(4): 274–279.Google Scholar
Newton, P., Nichols, E. S., Endo, W. & Peres, C. A. (2012) Consequences of actor level livelihood heterogeneity for additionality in a tropical forest payment for environmental services programme with an undifferentiated reward structure. Global Environmental Change 22(1): 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S. (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 65(4): 712–724.Google Scholar
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 Development 33(2): 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Rodríguez, L. C. & Duraiappah, A. (2010) Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecological Economics 69(6): 1237–1244.Google Scholar
Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Gomez-Baggethun, E. & Muradian, R. (2014) Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience biu146.Google Scholar
Persson, M. U. & Alpízar, F. (2013) Conditional cash transfers and payments for environmental services – a conceptual framework for explaining and judging differences in outcomes. World Development 43: 124–137.Google Scholar
Reutemann, T. (2014) Theoretical and experimental insights for the case of cattle driven deforestation in Brazil. Doctorate. Zürich, Switzerland: ETH Zürich.Google Scholar
Rosa da Conceição, H., Börner, J. & Wunder, S. (2015) Why were upscaled incentive programs for forest conservation adopted? Comparing policy choices in Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru. Ecosystem Services 16: 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rugnitz Tito, M. (2014) Diretrizes para a Política Nacional de Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais. p. 40. Brasilia, Brazil: WWF-Brasil.Google Scholar
Samii, C., Lisiecki, M., Kulkarni, P., Paler, L. & Chavis, L. (2014) Effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on Deforestation and poverty in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 10(11).Google Scholar
Santiago, A. (2008) Mercado de Arroz en el Perú. Reporte técnico no publicado. La Molina 15024, Peru: Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina.Google Scholar
Vosti, S. A., Braz, E. M., Carpentier, C. L., d'Oliveira, M. V. N. & Witcover, J. (2003) Rights to forest products, deforestation and smallholder income: evidence from the western Brazilian Amazon. World Development 31(11): 1889–1901.Google Scholar
Weber, J. G., Sills, E. O., Bauch, S. & Pattanayak, S. K. (2011) Do ICDPs work? An empirical evaluation of forest-based microenterprises in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Economics 87(4): 661–681.Google Scholar
Wunder, S. (2008) Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics 13(3): 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, S. (2013) When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conservation Letters 6(4): 230–237.Google Scholar
Wunder, S. (2015) Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 117: 234–243.Google Scholar
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(4): 834–852.Google Scholar
Wünscher, T., Engel, S. & Wunder, S. (2008) Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecological Economics 65(4): 822–833.Google Scholar