Payment for Environmental Services (PES) has become an important strategy to manage common pool resources. Crux of the strategy is summaries in a CIFOR paper: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdf
Let us imagine the classical problem of regenerating a river, that was dead because of 'tragedy of the commons'. How are the differential benefits in up-lands and low-lands creating a new collective action problem when we regenerate this river? Do you think PES is the right solution to commons management?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Due to regeneration of the river; more availability of water to lowlands will result in more usage if they go for planting of water intensive crops. Expectation of high returns to lowland users and PES for upland users encourages their participation in the collective action.
Most potential PES recipients (land users in uplands) are assumed to be poor. Whereas it actually depends on the degree to which PES programs are spatially targeted. Thus PES is not a silver bullet that can be used to address any commons problem but it’s only a second best solution.
Regeneration of river results in providing incentives to peasants. But, generally it is assumed that lowland farmers will have edge over upland farmers, in terms of benefits being received. This is not always true, as we need to know that how much water upland farmers require and in case the river is not able to fulfil their demand then only they should be compensated.
PES has several issues such as distribution of opportunity costs and taking decision on who should be compensated and how much compensation should be distributed, which makes PES implementation an uphill task.
Regenerating the river can pose a threat in collective action by providing unequal incentives to upland and lowland farmers in the form of more water availability to lowland farmers. The upland farmers can be attracted to the scheme with either equitable share of resources and cost or through PES by lowland farmers. But PES cannot be the only tool in tackling the problem of collective action because in case where the interests clash, the incentives to be offered might offset the cost and thus the beneficiaries might not be willing to pay the price for sustaining the environment.
PES is effective if external agency is ready for the payment, but, in our case, lowland farmer community is supposed to pay for extra benifits to the upland farmers. such payments may hamper collective action in long run as feeling of ownership may develop among lowland farmers. also upland farmers will surely reap the benifits in one or other way.when in future if any plan is made for upland farmers then support from lowland farmers may be minimal.
PES is a useful strategy for managing the common property resources but we have to ensure that the distribution of cost is done proportionate to the benefits. In this case the lowland farmers will have a slight advantage over the upland farmers. As regenerating the river would be beneficial in the long run to both parties, they should arrive at a solution keeping their interests intact.
Payments for environmental services (PES) seeks to
support positive environmental externalities by providing financial resources.Up-lands people will receive less benefits as compared to low land,but some formula could be reached at, for providing equal gains.PES is necessary as the regeneration would need some payments and sustained income flow
The strategy needs to be chalked out so that upland farmers don't feel cheated or exploited in long run. Either it can be part payment by env agencies and part by farmers..or if fully by farmers then amount of water required or used by them and divide the cost accordingly. The crux is it should be win-win for both upland and lowland farmers.
Post a Comment