Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:01:51.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-effectiveness targeting under multiple conservation goals and equity considerations in the Andes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2011

ULF NARLOCH ,
UNAI PASCUAL  and
ADAM G. DRUCKER
ULF NARLOCH*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy, 19 Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK
UNAI PASCUAL
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy, 19 Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3) and IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Alameda Urquijo, 48011 Bilbao, Spain
ADAM G. DRUCKER
Affiliation:
Bioversity International, Via dei Tre Denari 472/a, 00057 Maccarese, Rome, Italy
*
*Correspondence: Ulf Narloch e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Internationally, there is political impetus towards providing incentive mechanisms, such as payments for ecosystem services (PES), that motivate land users to conserve that which benefits wider society by creating an exchange value for conservation services. PES may incorporate a number of conservation goals other than just maximizing the area under a certain land use, so as to optimize multiple benefits from environmental conservation. Environmental additionality (conservation services generated relative to no intervention) and social equity aspects (here an equitable distribution of conservation funds) of PES depend on the conservation goals underlying the cost-effective targeting of conservation payments, which remains to be adequately explored in the PES literature. This paper attempts to evaluate whether multiple conservation goals can be optimized, in addition to social equity, when paying for the on-farm conservation of neglected crop varieties (landraces), so as to generate agrobiodiversity conservation services. Case studies based on a conservation auction in the Bolivian and Peruvian Andes (through which community-based groups identified the conservation area and the number of farmers taking part in conservation, as well as the payment required), identified significant cost-effectiveness tradeoffs between alternative agrobiodiversity conservation goals. There appears to be a non-complementary relationship between maximizing conservation area under specific landraces (a proxy for genetic diversity maintenance) and the number of farmers conserving such landraces (a proxy for agricultural knowledge and cultural traditions maintenance). Neither of the two are closely connected with maximizing the number of targeted farming communities (a proxy for informal seed exchange networks and hence geneflow maintenance). Optimizing cost-effectiveness with regard to conservation area or number of farmers would also be associated with a highly unequal distribution of payments. Multi-criteria targeting approaches can reach compromise solutions, but frameworks for these are still to be established and scientifically informed about the underlying link between alternative conservation goals and conservation service provision.

Keywords

AndesBoliviaconservation auctioncost-effectivenesscrop genetic diversityfairnesspayment for environmental servicesPeruquinoatargeting
Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Payments for Ecosystem Services in Conservation: Performance and Prospects
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 38 , Issue 4: Thematic section. Payments for Ecosystem Services in Conservation: Performance and Prospects , December 2011 , pp. 417 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2011

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., De Janvry, A. & Sadoulet, E. (2008) The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services. Environment and Development Economics 13: 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babcock, B.A., Lakshminarayan, P.G., Wu, J.J. & Zilberman, D. (1996) The economics of a public fund for environmental amenities: a study of CRP contracts. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 961–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellon, M. (2009) Do we need crop landraces for the future? Realizing the global option value of in-situ conservation. In: Agrobiodiversity, Conservation and Economic Development, ed. Kontoleon, A., Pasqual, U. & Smale, M., pp. 56–72. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berrens, R.P. (2001) The safe minimum standard of conservation and endangered species: a review. Environmental Conservation 28: 104–116.Google Scholar
Börner, J., Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Rügnitz Tito, M., Pereira, L. & Nascimento, N. (2010) Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: scope and equity implications. Ecological Economics 69: 1272–1282.Google Scholar
Brush, S. (1989) Rethinking crop genetic resource conservation. Conservation Biology 3: 19–29.Google Scholar
Canahua, A., Tapia, M., Ichuta, A. & Cutipa, Z. (2002) Gestión del espacio agrícola y agrobiodiversidad en papa y quinoa en las comunidades campesinas de Puno. In: Peru: El Problema Agrario en Debate, ed. Pugal Vidal, M., Zegarra, M. & Urrutia, J., pp. 286–316, SEPIA 9. Lima, Peru: SEPIA.Google Scholar
Castillo, D., Bousquet, F., Janssen, M.A., Worrapimphong, K. & Cardenas, J.C. (2011) Context matters to explain field experiments: results from Colombian and Thai fishing villages. Ecological Economics 70: 1609–1620.Google Scholar
Chen, X., Lupi, F., Viña, A., He, G. & Liu, J. (2010) Using cost-effective targeting to enhance the efficiency of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services. Conservation Biology 24: 1469–1478.Google Scholar
Coomes, O. (2010) Of stakes, stems, and cuttings: the importance of local seed systems in traditional Amazonian societies. The Professional Geographer 62: 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbera, E., Brown, K. & Adger, W.N. (2007) The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Development and Change 38: 587–613.Google Scholar
Drucker, A.G. (2006) An application of the use of safe minimum standards in conservation of livestock biodiversity. Environment and Development Economics 11: 77–94.Google Scholar
Engel, S., Pagiola, S. & Wunder, S. (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issue. Ecological Economics 65: 663–674.Google Scholar
FAO (2009) Second Report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome, Italy: Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Ferraro, P.J. (2001) Global habitat protection: limitations of development interventions and a role for conservation performance payments. Conservation Biology 15: 990–1000.Google Scholar
Ferraro, P. J. (2003) Assigning priority to environmental policy interventions in a heterogeneous world. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 22: 27–43.Google Scholar
Ferraro, P.J. (2008) Asymmetric information and contract design for payment for environmental services. Environmental Economics 65: 810–821.Google Scholar
Ferraro, P.J. & Kiss, A. (2002) Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298: 1718–1719.Google Scholar
Hajjar, R., Jarvis, D.I. & Gemmill-Herren, B. (2008) The utility of crop genetic diversity in maintaining ecosystem services. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 123: 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajkowicz, S., Higgins, A., Miller, C. & Marinoni, O. (2008) Targeting conservation payments to achieve multiple outcomes. Biological Conservation 141: 2368–2375.Google Scholar
Hellin, J. & Higman, S (2005) Crop diversity and livelihood security in the Andes. Development in Practice 15: 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honey-Róses, J., Lopéz-García, J., Rendon-Salinas, E., Peralta-Higuerra, A. & Galindo-Leali, C. (2009) To pay or not to pay? Monitoring performance and enforcing conditionality when paying for forest conservation in Mexico. Environmental Conservation 36: 120–128.Google Scholar
Jack, B.K., Leimona, B. & Ferraro, P.K. (2009) A revealed preference approach to estimating supply curves for ecosystem services: use of auctions to set payments for soil erosion control in Indonesia. Conservation Biology 23: 359–367.Google Scholar
Jackson, L.E., Pascual, U. & Hodking, T. (2007) Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture Ecosystems Environment 121: 196–210.Google Scholar
Kleijn, D. & Sutherland, W.J. (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 947–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosoy, N. & Corbera, E. (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 69: 1228–1236.Google Scholar
Kosoy, N., Martinez-Tuna, M., Muradian, R. & Martinez-Alier, J. (2007) Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecological Economics 61: 446–455.Google Scholar
Latacz-Lohmann, U. & Van der Hamsvoort, C.P.C.M. (1997) Auctioning conservation contracts: a theoretical analysis and an application. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79: 407–418.Google Scholar
McAfee, K. & Shapiro, E.N. (2010) Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: nature, neoliberalism, social movements, and the state. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100: 579–599.Google Scholar
Muñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., Torres, J.M. & Braña, J. (2008) Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics 65: 725–736.Google Scholar
Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N. & May, P.H. (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69: 1202–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naidoo, R. & Ricketts, T.H., (2006) Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biology 4: 2153–2164.Google Scholar
Narloch, U., Drucker, A. & Pascual, U. (2011) Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for the sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources. Ecological Economics (in press).Google Scholar
Norgaard, R. (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69: 1219–1227Google Scholar
Pagiola, S., Ramirez, E., Gobbi, J., de Haan, C., Ibrahim, M., Murgueitio, E. & Ruiz, J.P. (2007) Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecological Economics 64: 374–385.Google 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: 1237–1244.Google Scholar
Pattanayak, S.K., Wunder, S. & Ferraro, P.J. (2010) Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economic Policy 4: 254–274.Google Scholar
Redford, K.H. & Adams, W.M. (2009) Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conservation Biology 23: 785–787.Google Scholar
Rojas, W., Valdivia, R., Padulosi, S., Pinto, M., Soto, J.L., Alcocer, E., Guzmán, L., Estrada, R., Apapza, V. & Bravo, R. (2009) From neglect to limelight: issues, methods and approaches in enhancing sustainable conservation and use of Andean grains in Peru and Bolivia. JARTS Supplement 92: 1–32.Google Scholar
Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A., Pfaff, A, Robalino, J.A. & Boomhower, J.P. (2007) Costa Rica's payment for environmental services program: intention, implementation, and impact. Conservation Biology 21: 1165–1173.Google Scholar
Schilizzi, S. & Latacz-Lohmann, U. (2007) Assesing the performance of conservation auctions: an experimental study. Land Economics 83: 497–515.Google Scholar
Sierra, R. & Russman, E. (2006) On the efficiency of environmental service payments: a forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 59: 131–141.Google Scholar
Smale, M., Bellon, M.R., Jarvis, D. & Sthapit, B. (2004) Economic concepts for designing policies to conserve crop genetic resources on farms. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 51: 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerville, M., Jones, J.P.G., Rahajaharison, M. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2010) The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based payment for environmental services interventions: a case study from Menabe, Madagascar. Ecological Economics 69: 1262–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stromberg, P., Pascual, U. & Bellon, M. (2010) Seed systems and farmers’ seed choices: the case of maize in the Peruvian Amazon. Human Ecology 38: 539–553.Google Scholar
Stoneham, G., Chaudhri, V., Ha, A. & Strappazzon, L. (2003) Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria's BushTender trials. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47: 477–500.Google Scholar
Tapia, M.E. & Fries, A.M. (2007) Guía de Campo de los Cultivos Andinos. Lima, Peru: FAO y ANPE.Google Scholar
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers. Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature.Wesseling, Germany: Welzel+Hardt.Google Scholar
Trawick, P. (2001) The moral economy of water: equity and antiquity in the Andean commons. American Anthropologist 103: 361–379.Google Scholar
van de Wouw, M., Kik, C., van Hintum, T., van Treuren, R. & Visser, B. (2009) Genetic erosion in crops: concept, research results and challenges. Plant Genetic Resources 8: 1–15.Google Scholar
VSF (2009) Quinua y Territorio. Experiencias de Acompanamiento a la Gestion del Territorio y a la Autogestion Comunal en la Zona Intersalar del Altiplano Boliviano. Agronomes Veterinaires Sans Frontieres. La Paz, Bolivia: Ruralter.Google Scholar
Weitzman, M.L. (1998) The Noah's Ark problem. Econometrica 66: 1279–1298.Google Scholar
Windle, J. & Rolfe, J. (2008) Exploring the efficiencies of suing competitive tenders over fixed price grants to protect biodiversity in Australian rangeland. Land Use Policy 25: 388–398.Google Scholar
Wunder, S. (2007) The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 21: 48–58.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: 834–852.Google Scholar