Social equity matters in Payments for Ecosystem Services.
A presentation by Unai Pascual, Basque Centre for Climate Change.
This presentation was given at the Expert Workshop on Equity, Justice and Well-being in Ecosystem Governance, held at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in London, March, 2015.
Call Girls Ramtek Call Me 7737669865 Budget Friendly No Advance Booking
Equity workshop: Social equity matters in Payments for Ecosystem Services
1. Social equity matters in
Payments for Ecosystem Services
Unai Pascual
unai.pascual@BC3research.org
Equity, Justice and Well-being in Ecosystem Governance
IIED, March 26-27th, 2015
2. outline
Why does equity matters in PES?
Can auctions based PES be equitable and cost-
effective?
2
4. Environmental governance must account for landscapes of institutional
conflicts (confronted values and interests), also in PES.
Widespread concern that PES programs are likely to change/reinforce
existing power structures and inequalities in access to resources
PES typically envisioned und under an aura of economic efficiency
Growing body of evidence suggests that equity considerations should be
integrated into PES. But the debate remains hot.
• E.g., if equity not accounted for properly, PES may crowd out intrinsic motivations for
conservation
4
6. Economic efficiency of PES is rarely evaluated as it requires diverse
valuation$
cost-effective targeting approach & min. transaction costs
if there exist legitimacy and developmental concerns, then negotiated
re-targeting occurs
muddling cost effectiveness & equity criteria tends to be the norm in
public PES.
6
7. Fairness criteria: equity vs efficiency concerns in PES
7
Egalitarian
Compensation/opportunity cost
Maxi-min
Expected provision
Status quo
PES design favoring efficiency concerns
PES
design
favoring
distributi
onal
equity
concerns
Pascual et al 2010, Ecological Economics
8. Some argue that environmental goals must not be conflated with
social objectives At most conservation schemes should either
adopt:
A ‘do not harm’ approach that seeks to attain conservation without
worsening equity (safeguards approach) or/and
externalise equity considerations to be addressed through separate policy
instruments (one goal, one policy instrument) (Kingzig et al 2011)
Others argue that interdependencies exist between economic
efficiency and social equity in PES
• 1. PES creates equity impacts which can feedback into env. outcomes.
• Equity blind PES is more likely to create negative feedbacks that would
require ex-post enforcement, mitigation and compensation. increased
operational costs. Erode sought after efficiency Undermine the
robustness/sustainability of PES
8
10. Examples (positive feedbacks)
Greater autonomy over monitoring and enforcement enhances project
legitimacy (Kanowski et al., 2011), stronger accountability and improved
compliance
Deliberative conflict management strategies improve ecological outcomes
(Redpath et al., 2013; Raymond et al. 2013)
Respecting local perceptions of fairness linked to greater scheme credibility
and effectiveness, sometimes more important to scheme success than the
amount paid (Gross-Camp et al., 2012)
Rule-breaking (inc. corruption and manipulation of conservation rules),
sabotage and protest (Brockington and Igoe, 2006),
Cancellation of PES contracts (Ibarra et al. 2011),
Delayed project implementation, required mitigation, and local resistance
10
Examples (negative feedbacks)
11. Can auction-based PES be fair?
Agrobiodiversity conservation auctions
in 2010 based on farmer groups in
Bolivia (18) and Peru (20)
Bids ranked based on effectiveness in
terms of (i) conservation area, (ii)
number of farmers and (iii) number of
groups (40-40-20 weighs)
8000 US$ Budget
Discriminatory vs. Uniform payment
rules
In kind rewards (e.g., productive
assets)
Monitoring ex post.
11
12. In Bolivia (12 groups) 55 bids and in Peru (13 groups) 45 bids were received
given 5 priority landraces to be conserved
relatively poorer farmers (richer) in Bolivia (Peru) were among those selected
for payments
12
Bolivia
(discriminatory)
13 ha 8 ha 8 ha
Gini: 0.4 Gini: 0.6 Gini: 0.7
Peru
(conditional)
1 ha 1 ha 1 ha
Gini: 0.6 Gini: 0.6 Gini: 0.6
13. Some concluding remarks about rescuing equity in PES
Equity blind PES schemes run the risk of failure as a result of applying
single-objective tools to complex social ecological phenomena
Beyond moral arguments, the available evidence suggests that equity
matters for ecological effectiveness.
Need to capitalize on positive equity feedbacks to achieve more robust
outcomes that can be sustained over time.
Research priority: We need to move from individual case studies to a
systematic data mining or meta-analysis of equity risk/opportunities on
cost-effectiveness in PES schemes
13
14. Some recent research papers
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
64(11): 1027-1036
Narloch, U., Pascual, U., Drucker, (2013). How to achieve fairness in payments for ecosystem
services? Empirical insights from agrobiodiversity conservation auctions. Land Use Policy 35:
107-118.
Garmendia, E. and Pascual, U. (2013) A justice critique of environmental valuation for
ecosystem governance. Chapter 8 in Sikor, T. “Justices and Injustices of Ecosystem Services”
Routledge. London, UK
Corbera, E., and Pascual, U., (2012). Ecosystem services: heed social goals, Science, 335(6069):
655-656.
Narloch, U., Pascual, U., Drucker, A.G. (2011) Cost-effectiveness targeting under multiple
conservation goals and equity considerations in the Andes. Environmental Conservation. 38(4):
417-425
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.
14