In the early 1990s, agri-environmental programs were introduced into the
European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), with the aim of rewarding
farmers who engage in less intensive forms of agriculture and preserve cultural
landscapes and agro-ecosystem services for the benefit of society as a whole and of
future generations. Under the new CAP system, and as agreed upon by member
states in June 2003, direct income payments to farmers – decoupled from agricultural production – are based on compliance with environmental, food safety and
animal welfare standards, creating incentives to counteract the deterioration of
cultural landscapes and to enhance environmental services provided by land
managers (Terwan and van der Weijden 2005; Hartmann and Petersen 2005).
Most PES schemes in the Southeast Asian uplands have been applied at pilot
sites and at the individual project level. The Rewarding the Uplands Poor for
Environmental Services (RUPES) program initiated by the World Agroforestry
Centre (ICRAF); for instance, has launched several pilot PES projects in Southeast
Asian and South Asian watersheds (see; for example, Arifin 2006; van Noordwijk
and Leimona 2010). However, the largest program among developing and
emerging economies is the Sloping Land Conversion Program in China, in which
farmers are offered grain and cash payments in order to convert agricultural land
into rehabilitation forests and other types of conservation areas (Bennet 2008).
9.4.2 Major Actors and Processes in PES Schemes
Three major actors usually come together within PES schemes (see Fig. 9.6):
1. The providers or sellers of environmental services – usually local communities or
individual resource managers. While they may produce a variety of environmental
services through the conservation of forests, biodiversity and soils, through the
rehabilitation of watershed functions and the preservation of landscape diversity
and integrity, they are usually also consumers of environmental services, e.g.,
using water for irrigation and household consumption, and collecting wood and
non-timber forest products. Not all providers of environmental services may be
eligible, able and/or willing to participate in a PES scheme.
2. The beneficiaries or buyers of environmental services – who may be actors from
the private sector (e.g., a hydroelectric or drinking water company), a particular
group (e.g., lowland residents who are protected from floods and landslides), the
whole society of a country (e.g., citizens enjoying a beautiful landscape) or the
global community (e.g., citizens benefitting from the potential of forests to
sequester carbon). The awareness and willingness-to-pay of these actors is an
essential prerequisite of well-functioning PES schemes.
3. Intermediaries - these actors are important in bringing the demand and
supply side of a PES market together, building trust among providers and
buyers of environmental services, and mediating in the case of conflict between
two parties. Intermediaries may be national governments, non-governmental
9 Participatory Approaches to Research and Development in the Southeast. . .
343
European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), with the aim of rewarding
farmers who engage in less intensive forms of agriculture and preserve cultural
landscapes and agro-ecosystem services for the benefit of society as a whole and of
future generations. Under the new CAP system, and as agreed upon by member
states in June 2003, direct income payments to farmers – decoupled from agricultural production – are based on compliance with environmental, food safety and
animal welfare standards, creating incentives to counteract the deterioration of
cultural landscapes and to enhance environmental services provided by land
managers (Terwan and van der Weijden 2005; Hartmann and Petersen 2005).
Most PES schemes in the Southeast Asian uplands have been applied at pilot
sites and at the individual project level. The Rewarding the Uplands Poor for
Environmental Services (RUPES) program initiated by the World Agroforestry
Centre (ICRAF); for instance, has launched several pilot PES projects in Southeast
Asian and South Asian watersheds (see; for example, Arifin 2006; van Noordwijk
and Leimona 2010). However, the largest program among developing and
emerging economies is the Sloping Land Conversion Program in China, in which
farmers are offered grain and cash payments in order to convert agricultural land
into rehabilitation forests and other types of conservation areas (Bennet 2008).
9.4.2 Major Actors and Processes in PES Schemes
Three major actors usually come together within PES schemes (see Fig. 9.6):
1. The providers or sellers of environmental services – usually local communities or
individual resource managers. While they may produce a variety of environmental
services through the conservation of forests, biodiversity and soils, through the
rehabilitation of watershed functions and the preservation of landscape diversity
and integrity, they are usually also consumers of environmental services, e.g.,
using water for irrigation and household consumption, and collecting wood and
non-timber forest products. Not all providers of environmental services may be
eligible, able and/or willing to participate in a PES scheme.
2. The beneficiaries or buyers of environmental services – who may be actors from
the private sector (e.g., a hydroelectric or drinking water company), a particular
group (e.g., lowland residents who are protected from floods and landslides), the
whole society of a country (e.g., citizens enjoying a beautiful landscape) or the
global community (e.g., citizens benefitting from the potential of forests to
sequester carbon). The awareness and willingness-to-pay of these actors is an
essential prerequisite of well-functioning PES schemes.
3. Intermediaries - these actors are important in bringing the demand and
supply side of a PES market together, building trust among providers and
buyers of environmental services, and mediating in the case of conflict between
two parties. Intermediaries may be national governments, non-governmental
9 Participatory Approaches to Research and Development in the Southeast. . .
343