Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:53:38.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2008

DAVID ZILBERMAN ,
LESLIE LIPPER  and
NANCY MCCARTHY
DAVID ZILBERMAN*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3310, USA. Tel: (510) 642-6570. Email: [email protected]
LESLIE LIPPER
Affiliation:
Economist, Agricultural and Development Economics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N., Rome, Italy
NANCY MCCARTHY
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Environment and Production Technology, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 20006–1002, USA
*
Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since modification of agricultural production choices in developing countries often provides positive environmental externalities to people in developed countries, payment for environmental services (PES) has become an important topic in the context of economic development and poverty reduction. We consider two broad categories of PES programs, land-diversion programs, where lands are diverted from agriculture to other uses, and working-land programs, where agricultural production activities are modified to achieve environmental objectives. PES programs are generally good for landowners. The distribution of land and land quality is critical in determining poverty impacts. Where ES and agricultural productivity are negatively correlated and the poor own lands of low agricultural quality, they stand to gain from PES programs. Consumers and wage laborers may lose where food supply is inelastic and programs reduce labor demand. Working-land programs may have better distributional effects than diversion programs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 3: Payment for ecosystem services , June 2008 , pp. 255 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Babcock, B.A., Lakshminarayan, P.G., Wu, J., and Zilberman, D. 1997, ‘Targeting tools for the purchase of environmental amenities’, Land Economics 73: 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacho, O. and Lipper, L. 2006, ‘Abatement and transaction costs of carbon-sink projects involving smallholders’, ESA working paper No. 06-13, Agricultural and Development Economics Division of the FAO http://www.fao.org/es/esaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, R. 1960, ‘The problem of social costs’, Journal of Law and Economics 44: 1–44.Google Scholar
Dixon, J. and Gulliver, A. with Gibbon, D. 2001, Farming Systems and Poverty, Rome and Washington, DC: FAO and World Bank.Google Scholar
Just, R.E., Hueth, D.L., and Schmitz, A. 2004, The Welfare Economics of Public Policy: A Practical Approach to Project and Policy Evaluation, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Just, R.E. and Zilberman, D. 1988, ‘The effects of agricultural development policies on income distribution and technological change in agriculture’, Journal of Development Economics 28: 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landell-Mills, N. and Porras, I.T. 2002, ‘Silver bullet or fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor’, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.Google Scholar
Lipper, L. and Cavatassi, R. 2004, ‘Land use change, poverty and carbon sequestration’, Environmental Management 33 (S1): 374–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mussa, M. and Rosen, S. 1978, ‘Monopoly and product quality’, Journal of Economic Theory 18: 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A., and 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: 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfaff, A., Robalino, J., and Sanchez-Azofeifa, A. 2006, ‘Payments for environmental services: empirical analysis for Costa Rica’, paper presented at the International Conference on Economics of Poverty, Environment and Natural Resource Use, 17–19 May 2006 Wageningen University, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Singh, I., Squire, L., and Strauss, J. 1986, Agricultural Household Models, Extensions, Applications and Policy, Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University Press for the World Bank.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, J. 1956, Economic Policy: Principles and Design, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Wu, J., Zilberman, D., and Babcock, B. 2001, ‘Environmental and distributional impacts of conservation targeting strategies’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41: 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar