4.3 Article

To pay or not to pay? Monitoring performance and enforcing conditionality when paying for forest conservation in Mexico

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 120-128

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0376892909990063

Keywords

direct payment; logging; Mexico; monarch butterfly; payment for environmental services; photointerpretation; protected areas

Funding

  1. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  2. WWF UK

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Paying landowners to conserve forests is a promising new strategy to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. However to succeed with this approach, programme managers need reliable monitoring data to make informed payment decisions. This includes withholding payment from landowners who do not meet conservation objectives. The monitoring method used for the Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund compared aerial photographs and conducted field sampling to identify forest changes. The comparison of aerial photographs showed that 161 hectares of forest were degraded in the central core zone of the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico between 2001 and 2003. As a result, payment was withheld from one of 13 landowners. Analysis of high resolution (0.6 m) digital aerial photographs did not detect finer scale changes, despite obtaining an average pixel resolution 1000 times greater than Landsat satellite imagery. This suggests that current payment for ecosystem services programmes are underestimating environmental change and overpaying non-compliant participants. In addition, selecting a decision rule to enforce payment conditionality raised new questions about how much ecosystem degradation should be permitted before withholding payment. Sound decisions about withholding payment cannot be developed until the marginal value of ecosystem services is better understood. Until then, payment thresholds can be based on specific policy objectives.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available