Adding rewards to regulation: The impacts of watershed conservation on land cover and household wellbeing in Moyobamba, Peru


Autoři: Javier Montoya-Zumaeta aff001;  Eduardo Rojas aff003;  Sven Wunder aff002
Působiště autorů: Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia aff001;  Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia aff002;  Faculty of Geography and History, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain aff003;  European Forest Institute (EFI), Barcelona, Spain aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225367

Souhrn

We estimate the effects of Peru’s oldest watershed payments for environmental services (PES) initiative in Moyobamba (Andes–Amazon transition zone) and disentangle the complex intervention into its two main forest conservation treatments. First, a state-managed protected area (PA) was established, allowing sustainable use but drastically limiting de facto land use and land rights of households in the upper watershed through command-and-control interventions. Second, a subset of those environmentally regulated households also received incentives: PES-like voluntary contracts with conditional in-kind rewards, combined with access to participation in sustainable income-generating activities of the integrated conservation and development project (ICDP) type. To evaluate impacts, we perform matching procedures and adjustment regressions to obtain the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) of each intervention. We investigate impacts on plot-level forest cover and household welfare for the period 2010–2016. We find that both treatments—command-and-control restrictions and the incentive package—modestly but significantly mitigated primary forest loss. Incentive-induced conservation gains came at elevated per-hectare implementation costs. We also find positive effects on incentive-treated households’ incomes and assets; however, their self-perceived wellbeing counterintuitively declined. We hypothesise that locally frustrated beneficiary expectations vis-a-vis the ambitiously designed PES-cum-ICDP intervention help explain this surprising finding. We finalise with some recommendations for watershed incentives and policy mix design in Moyobamba and beyond.

Klíčová slova:

Conservation science – Deforestation – Forests – Land use – Payment – Trees – Water resources – Agroforests


Zdroje

1. Sutherland W.J., Pullin A.S., Dolman P.M., and Knight T.M., The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2004. 19(6): p. 305–308. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.018 16701275

2. Cook C.N., Hockings M., and Carter R., Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2010. 8(4): p. 181–186. doi: 10.1890/090020

3. Ferraro P.J. and Pattanayak S.K., Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol, 2006. 4(4): p. e105. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105 16602825

4. Baylis K., Honey-Rosés J., Börner J., Corbera E., Ezzine-de-Blas D., Ferraro P.J., et al., Mainstreaming Impact Evaluation in Nature Conservation. Conservation Letters. Vol. 9. 2016. 58–64.

5. Jayachandran S., de Laat J., Lambin E.F., Stanton C.Y., Audy R., and Thomas N.E., Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science, 2017. 357(6348): p. 267–273. doi: 10.1126/science.aan0568 28729505

6. Pattanayak S.K., Wunder S., and Ferraro P.J., Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2010. 4(2): p. 254–274. doi: 10.1093/reep/req006

7. Miteva D.A., Pattanayak S.K., and Ferraro P.J., Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn’t? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2012. 28(1): p. 69–92. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grs009

8. Samii C., Lisiecki M., Kulkarni P., Paler L., and Chavis L., Effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on deforestation and poverty in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2014. 10(11). doi: 10.4073/csr.2014.11

9. Börner J., Baylis K., Corbera E., Ezzine-de-Blas D., Ferraro P.J., Honey-Rosés J., et al., Emerging Evidence on the Effectiveness of Tropical Forest Conservation. PLOS ONE, 2016. 11(11): p. e0159152. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159152 27806043

10. Finer, M. and S. Novoa. Importancia de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas de la Amazonía Peruana. MAAP: Imagen #9. 2015; http://maaproject.org/2015/08/imagen-11-importancia-de-la-areas-naturales-protegidas.

11. Börner J., Wunder S., and Giudice R., Will up-scaled forest conservation incentives in the Peruvian Amazon produce cost-effective and equitable outcomes? Environmental Conservation, 2016. 43(4): p. 407–416. doi: 10.1017/S0376892916000229

12. Giudice R., Börner J., Wunder S., and Cisneros E., Selection biases and spillovers from collective conservation incentives in the Peruvian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters, 2019. 14(4). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aafc83

13. Miranda J.J., Corral L., Blackman A., Asner G., and Lima E., Effects of Protected Areas on Forest Cover Change and Local Communities: Evidence from the Peruvian Amazon. World Development, 2016. 78: p. 288–307. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.026

14. Schleicher J., Peres C.A., Amano T., Llactayo W., and Leader-Williams N., Conservation performance of different conservation governance regimes in the Peruvian Amazon. Scientific Reports, 2017. 7(1): p. 11318. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-10736-w 28900182

15. Blackman A., Corral L., Lima E.S., and Asner G.P., Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2017. 114(16): p. 4123–4128. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1603290114 28373565

16. MINAM, Compensación por servicios ecosistémicos: Lecciones de una experiencia demostrativa. Las microcuencas Mishiquiyacu, Rumiyacu y Almendra de San Martín, Perú. 2010: Cooperación Alemana al Desarrollo—GTZ.

17. Quintero, M. and P. Pareja, Estado de avance y cuellos de botella de los mecanismos de retribución por servicios ecosistémicos hidrológicos en Perú. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), 2015: p. 40.

18. Ferraro P.J. and Simpson R.D., The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments. Land Economics, 2002. 78(3): p. 339–353. doi: 10.2307/3146894

19. Wunder S., The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation biology, 2007. 21(1): p. 48–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00559.x 17298510

20. Landell-Mills N. and Porras I.T., Silver bullet or fools’ gold?: a global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. 2002, London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development—IIED.

21. Pagiola S., Arcenas A., and Platais G., Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America. World Development, 2005. 33(2): p. 237–253. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011

22. Lambin E.F., Meyfroidt P., Rueda X., Blackman A., Börner J., Cerutti P.O., et al., Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Global Environmental Change, 2014. 28: p. 129–140. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.007

23. Robalino J. and Pfaff A., Ecopayments and Deforestation in Costa Rica: A Nationwide Analysis of PSA’s Initial Years. Land Economics, 2013. 89(3): p. 432–448. doi: 10.3368/le.89.3.432

24. Arriagada R.A., Ferraro P.J., Sills E.O., Pattanayak S.K., and Cordero-Sancho S., Do payments for environmental services affect forest cover? A farm-level evaluation from Costa Rica. Land Economics, 2012. 88(2): p. 382–399. doi: 10.3368/le.88.2.382

25. Arriagada R.A., Sills E.O., Ferraro P.J., and Pattanayak S.K., Do Payments Pay Off? Evidence from Participation in Costa Rica’s PES Program. PLOS ONE, 2015. 10(7): p. e0131544. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131544 26162000

26. Pagiola S., Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics, 2008. 65(4): p. 712–724. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.033

27. Alix-Garcia J.M., Shapiro E.N., and Sims K.R.E., Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program. Land Economics, 2012. 88(4): p. 613–638. doi: 10.3368/le.88.4.613

28. Alix-Garcia J.M., Sims K.R.E., and Yañez-Pagans P., Only One Tree from Each Seed? Environmental Effectiveness and Poverty Alleviation in Mexico’s Payments for Ecosystem Services Program. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2015. 7(4): p. 1–40. doi: 10.1257/pol.20130139

29. Costedoat S., Corbera E., Ezzine-de-Blas D., Honey-Rosés J., Baylis K., and Castillo-Santiago M.A., How Effective Are Biodiversity Conservation Payments in Mexico? PLOS ONE, 2015. 10(3): p. e0119881. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119881 25807118

30. Sims K.R.E. and Alix-Garcia J.M., Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2017. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2016.11.010

31. Le Velly G., Sauquet A., and Cortina-Villar S., PES Impact and Leakages over Several Cohorts: The Case of the PSA-H in Yucatan, Mexico. Land Economics, 2017. 93(2): p. 230–257. doi: 10.3368/le.93.2.230

32. Arriagada R., Villaseñor A., Rubiano E., Cotacachi D., and Morrison J., Analysing the impacts of PES programmes beyond economic rationale: Perceptions of ecosystem services provision associated to the Mexican case. Ecosystem Services, 2018. 29: p. 116–127. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.007

33. Uchida E., Rozelle S., and Xu J., Conservation Payments, Liquidity Constraints, and Off-Farm Labor: Impact of the Grain-for-Green Program on Rural Households in China. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2009. 91(1): p. 70–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01184.x

34. Fu G., Uchida E., Shah M., and Deng X., Impact of the Grain for Green program on forest cover in China. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2018: p. 1–19. doi: 10.1080/21606544.2018.1552626

35. Jones K.W., Holland M.B., Naughton-Treves L., Morales M., Suarez L., and Keenan K., Forest conservation incentives and deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Environmental Conservation, 2016. 44(1): p. 56–65. doi: 10.1017/S0376892916000308

36. Cuenca P., Robalino J., Arriagada R., and Echeverría C., Are government incentives effective for avoided deforestation in the tropical Andean forest? PLOS ONE, 2018. 13(9): p. e0203545. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203545 30212511

37. Ferraro P.J. and Hanauer M.M., Advances in Measuring the Environmental and Social Impacts of Environmental Programs. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2014. 39(1): p. 495–517. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-101813-013230

38. Zheng H., Robinson B.E., Liang Y.-C., Polasky S., Ma D.-C., Wang F.-C., et al., Benefits, costs, and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013. 110(41): p. 16681–16686. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1312324110 24003160

39. Clements T. and Milner-Gulland E.J., Impact of payments for environmental services and protected areas on local livelihoods and forest conservation in northern Cambodia. Conserv Biol, 2015. 29(1): p. 78–87. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12423 25492724

40. Jones K.W., Muñoz Brenes C.L., Shinbrot X.A., López-Báez W., and Rivera-Castañeda A., The influence of cash and technical assistance on household-level outcomes in payments for hydrological services programs in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecosystem Services, 2018. 31: p. 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.04.008.

41. Rodríguez D., Análisis de cuencas, in Gestión Integral de Cuencas. La experiencia del Proyecto Regional Cuencas Andinas, Díaz A. Moreno and Renner I., Editors. 2007, Centro Internacional de la Papa—CIP: Lima, PE. p. 78–101.

42. Moreno Díaz A. and Renner I., eds. Gestión integral de cuencas: la experiencia del proyecto regional Cuencas Andinas. 2007, Centro Internacional de la Papa—CIP: Lima, PE. 234.

43. Aspajo, F., Mecanismo de Pago por Servicios Ambientales en la ciudad de Moyobamba. 2006: International Potato Center.

44. Quintero M., Wunder S., and Estrada R.D., For services rendered? Modeling hydrology and livelihoods in Andean payments for environmental services schemes. Forest Ecology and Management, 2009. 258(9): p. 1871–1880. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.04.032

45. SUNASS. Diagnóstico Hídrico Rápido—DHR. Herramienta de apoyo al diseño de MRSE. 2015 01/02/2018]; http://www.sunass.gob.pe/doc/ConversatorioInfra2015/dia3/25_Diagnostico%20hidrico%20basico%20y%20catalogo%20de%20interveciones,%20Luis%20Acosta.pdf.

46. Mesia Vásquez, J., Mecanismo de retribución por servicios ecosistémicos en Moyobamba. Informe de sistematización. 2016: Moyobamba, PE.

47. MINAM. FICHA MRSEH: Retribución por Servicios Ecosistémicos en las microcuencas de Rumiyacu, Mishquiyacu y Almendra. 2016 2018]; http://serviciosecosistemicos.minam.gob.pe/rseh_ficha/12.

48. Hughes R. and Flintan F., Integrating conservation and development experience: a review and bibliography of the ICDP literature. 2001: London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

49. McShane T.O. and Newby S.A., Expecting the unattainable: the assumptions behind ICDPs, in Getting biodiversity projects to work: towards more effective conservation and development, McShane T.O. and Wells M., Editors. 2004, Columbia University Press: New York, US. p. 49–74.

50. GORESAM, Plan de Gestión del Predio Estatal denominado ZoCRE “Rumiyacu-Mishquiyacu-Almendra y Baños Sulfurosos”. 2013, Moyobamba, Peru: Gobierno Regional de San Martín. 183 p.

51. Shanee N. and Shanee S., Land Trafficking, Migration, and Conservation in the “No-Man’s Land” of Northeastern Peru. Tropical Conservation Science, 2016. 9(4): p. 1940082916682957. doi: 10.1177/1940082916682957

52. Chiarella J., Sistematización de aprendizajes del Mecanismo de Retribución por Servicios Ecosistémicos de Moyobamba. 2015, Lima: MINAM, Incubadora de Mecanismos de Retribución por Servicios Ecosistémicos.

53. INEI. Censos Nacionales 2017: XII de Población, VII de Vivienda y III de Comunidades Indígenas. Sistema de Consulta de Bases de Datos REDATAM. 2018; http://censos2017.inei.gob.pe/redatam/.

54. DPA-DRASAM, Diagnostico de la cadena de valor del cultivo de café. 2016, Dirección de Productividad Agraria—Dirección Regional de Agricultura de San Martín: Tarapoto, Perú.

55. GORESAM-IIAP, Zonificación Ecológica Económica de la Cuenca del Alto Mayo. 2007: Gobierno Regional de San Martín.

56. MINAGRI, Anuario Estadístico de Producción Agrícola y Ganadera 2015. 2016: http://siea.minagri.gob.pe/siea/?q=publicaciones/anuarios-estadisticos.

57. EPS-Moyobamba, Proyecto de Inversión Pública: “RECUPERACIÓN DEL SERVICIO ECOSISTÉMICO DE REGULACION HIDRICA EN LAS MICROCUENCAS RUMIYACU, MISHQUIYACU Y ALMENDRA, PROVINCIA DE MOYOBAMBA, REGION SAN MARTÍN”. 2016: Archivos EPS Moyobamba, Perú.

58. Potapov P.V., Dempewolf J., Talero Y., Hansen M.C., Stehman S.V., Vargas C., et al., National satellite-based humid tropical forest change assessment in Peru in support of REDD+ implementation. Environmental Research Letters, 2014. 9(12): p. 124012. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124012

59. Simonet G., Subervie J., Ezzine-de-Blas D., Cromberg M., and Duchelle A.E., Effectiveness of a REDD+ Project in Reducing Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon*. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2018: p. aay028. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aay028

60. Stuart E.A., Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward. Statist. Sci., 2010. 25(1): p. 1–21. doi: 10.1214/09-STS313 20871802

61. Leuven, E. and B. Sianesi, PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Statistical Software Components. Boston College Department of Economics. 2003.

62. Rubin D.B., Using Multivariate Matched Sampling and Regression Adjustment to Control Bias in Observational Studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1979. 74(366): p. 318–328. doi: 10.2307/2286330

63. Rosenbaum P.R., Sensitivity to Hidden Bias, in Observational Studies. 2002, Springer New York: New York, NY. p. 105–170.

64. Pfaff A. and Robalino J., Spillovers from Conservation Program. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2017. 9(2017).

65. Sommerville M.M., Jones J.P.G., and Milner-Gulland E.J., A Revised Conceptual Framework for Payments for Environmental Services. Ecology and Society, 2009. 14(2). doi: 10.5751/ES-03064-140234

66. Wunder S., Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 2015(117): p. 234–243. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016

67. Wunder S., Brouwer R., Engel S., Ezzine-de-Blas D., Muradian R., Pascual U., et al., From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nature Sustainability, 2018. 1(3): p. 145–150. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0036-x

68. MINAM, Compensación por servicios ecosistémicos: Guéa de monitoreo de impactos. Las microcuencas Mishiquiyacu, Rumiyacu y Almendra de San Martén, Perú. 2010, Lima, PE: Ministerio del Ambiente con el apoyo de Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH Programa Desarrollo Rural Sostenible.

69. Asquith N.M., Vargas Ríos M.T., and Smith J., Can Forest-protection carbon projects improve rural livelihoods? Analysis of the Noel Kempff Mercado climate action project, Bolivia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 2002. 7(4): p. 323–337. doi: 10.1023/A:1024712424319

70. Kowler L.F., Ravikumar A., Larson A.M., Rodriguez-Ward D., and Burga C., Analyzing multilevel governance in Peru: Lessons for REDD+ from the study of land-use change and benefit sharing in Madre de Dios, Ucayali and San Martin. 2016, Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

71. van Noordwijk M., Leimona B., Jindal R., Villamor G.B., Vardhan M., Namirembe S., et al., Payments for Environmental Services: Evolution Toward Efficient and Fair Incentives for Multifunctional Landscapes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2012. 37(1): p. 389–420.

72. Suyanto S., Lessons on the conditional tenure and RiverCare schemes in Sumberjaya, Indonesia: conditionality in Payment for Environmental Services. Insights: Notes from the field. Vol. 2. 2007. 29–35.

73. MINAM. Pre Registro de Mecanismos de Retribución de los Servicios Ecosistémicos. 2016 04/25/2018]; http://serviciosecosistemicos.minam.gob.pe/buscador.

74. Comité Gestor M., Acuerdos de Conservación de Servicios Ecosistémicos. 2013, Proyecto Especial Alto Mayo—PEAM: Moyobamba, PE. p. 83.

75. Porras, I.T., M. Grieg-Gran, and N. Neves, All that glitters: A review of payments for watershed services in developing countries. 2008: IIED.

76. Salzman J., Bennett G., Carroll N., Goldstein A., and Jenkins M., The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nature Sustainability, 2018. 1(3): p. 136–144.

77. Ferraro P.J., Global Habitat Protection: Limitations of Development Interventions and a Role for Conservation Performance Payments. Conservation Biology, 2001. 15(4): p. 990–1000.

78. Ferraro P.J. and Kiss A., Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science, 2002. 298(5599): p. 1718–1719. doi: 10.1126/science.1078104 12459569

79. Grieg-Gran M., Porras I., and Wunder S., How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Development, 2005. 33(9): p. 1511–1527. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.05.002

80. Honey-Rosés J., López-García J., Rendón-Salinas E., Peralta-Higuera A., and Galindo-Leal C., To pay or not to pay? Monitoring performance and enforcing conditionality when paying for forest conservation in Mexico. Environmental Conservation, 2009. 36(2): p. 120–128. doi: 10.1017/S0376892909990063

81. Bartels W.-L., Schmink M., Borges E.A., Duarte A.P., and Arcos H.d.S., Diversifying livelihood systems, strengthening social networks and rewarding environmental stewardship among small-scale producers in the Brazilian Amazon: lessons from Proambiente, in Payments for environmental services, forest conservation and climate change: livelihoods in the REDD?, Tacconi L., Mahanty S., and Suich H., Editors. 2010, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK. p. 82–105.

82. Börner J., Wunder S., Reimer F., Bakkegaard R.Y., Viana V., Tezza J., et al., Promoting forest stewardship in the Bolsa Floresta Programme: local livelihood strategies and preliminary impacts. 2013, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: CIFOR, Fundação Amazonas Sustentável (FAS) and Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung (ZEF). 70p.

83. de Koning F., Aguiñaga M., Bravo M., Chiu M., Lascano M., Lozada T., et al., Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. Environmental Science & Policy, 2011. 14(5): p. 531–542. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.007

84. Naeem S., Ingram J.C., Varga A., Agardy T., Barten P., Bennett G., et al., Get the science right when paying for nature’s services. Science, 2015. 347(6227): p. 1206–1207. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa1403 25766222

85. Ferraro P.J., Hanauer M.M., Miteva D.A., Nelson J.L., Pattanayak S.K., Nolte C., et al., Estimating the impacts of conservation on ecosystem services and poverty by integrating modeling and evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015. 112(24): p. 7420–7425. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1406487112 26082549


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11