Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations- FAO
Payments for Environmental Services (PES) from Agricultural Landscapes
Pro-poor PES options
PES schemes are not a poverty alleviation tool per se and can only be implemented where communities already have rights over their natural resources (property, access and/or use rights). PES schemes can then build on these.
PES schemes can contribute to improve livelihoods of the participants in the form of additional income, stronger land tenure claims and better environmental conditions. This depends on whether the poor are located within the environmental priority area and have the possibility of accessing and participating in the scheme. Setting up a PES scheme can be a lengthy process, requiring institutional change, extensive negotiations and substantial start-up funding, all of which are greater obstacles for poorer groups, generally with less access to information, negotiation channels and finance options.
Pro-poor PES programme options - participation requirements and types of payment
Often eligibility criteria exclude poorer farmers simply by requiring that only participants with larger properties can enter the scheme. In Mexico, for example, to enter the national PES programme, the minimum size to be eligible in 2004 was 50 ha of forest (the smallest area that can be observed with satellite images)(28).Costs of application may also exclude poorer groups as this may require clarification of property rights (or agree on use rights to allow for long term commitments) along with preparing all the necessary information and paperwork.
The most important costs however, are often the costs of participation. For land managers with smaller parcels and few extra money for investment, this may be the most limiting factor. Restricting use of limited land resources (and consequently of work opportunities) or introduced new techniques to the few land in use may considerably increase risk to food security and reduce access to insurance assets (such as the possibility of selling wood in time of crisis or moving cattle into land set aside from grazing in times of draught).
Certainly, as in every PES scheme, participation should be voluntary (although some PES schemes have used an “entire village” approach), and compensation offered for the farmers' investment and participation should cover these costs. However, especially in poverty-oriented PES schemes, payments can be designed to maximize their multiplier effects. Channelling the payments towards women has been shown to be particularly effective in increasing spending on education, health and nutrition. In cases of strong community ties, channelling the payment in to a fund for communal improvement in land management might also be a way of reducing costs and spread benefits to landless members of the community.(28) Alix-Garcia, J., de Janvry, A. & Sadoulet, E. n.d.. The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services (available at http://are.berkeley.edu/~sadoulet/papers/PES_EDE.pdf)
