Popular in Economics

Banks and Policy Organisations

Macroeconomic modelling of CBDC: a critical review

European Central Bank Ulrich Bindseil

Banks and Policy Organisations

Financing Private Credit

Federal Reserve Bank of New York Nina Boyarchenko

Economics

Failing Banks

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Emil Verner

Economic History

Golden Fetters

UC Berkeley Barry Eichengreen

Economic Inequalities

Visions of Inequality

City University of New York Branko Milanovic

Economics

School Finance Equalization Increases Intergenerational Mobility

Yale University Barbara Biasi

Economics

Olivier Blanchard on U.S. Pandemic-Era Inflation

Peterson Institute for International Economics Olivier Blanchard

Assessing Community Readiness for Payments for Ecosystem Service Schemes

View more insights in Social Sciences - Economics - Development Economics

View more figures from Griffith University

View the page of Christopher Fleming

Read the Study

Next in Development Economics

The Economic Impact of Depression Treatment in India

Manuela Angelucci | The University of Texas at Austin

Deindustrialization and Industry Polarization

Michael Sposi | Southern Methodist University

Primary forest conservation is crucial for combating climate change, achieving conservation goals, and meeting Sustainable Development Goals. Compensation schemes for communities are key policy tools but require insight into local deforestation drivers and community preferences. Using Q-methodology, Christopher Fleming explores discourses in three communities in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Image courtesy of interviewee. September 24, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video discusses the challenges and potential of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes aimed at promoting conservation in developing countries, particularly in regions rich in natural resources like the Congo. It highlights the historical context where developed nations seek conservation while relying on developing nations to manage and protect vital ecosystems. Despite substantial funding (around $40 billion annually), PES schemes have not performed as expected, mainly due to a lack of understanding of the needs and desires of local communities.

This video describes a collaborative study that utilized Q Methodology to assess community perspectives in the Congo regarding PES schemes. This video approach involved creating a set of statements related to forest conservation, which community members ranked based on their agreement. Three distinct groups emerged from the analysis:

1. **Conservationists**: Open to new conservation ideas and preferred collective over individual payments.
2. **Aspirational Artisans**: Strongly connected to the forest and desired involvement in governance of conservation efforts.
3. **Passive Conflicted Farmers**: Concerned about agricultural income and environmental impacts, but disinterested in governance.

The findings emphasize the necessity of designing PES schemes that resonate with community values, particularly intergenerational legacies, and favor collective benefits over individual compensation. It advocates for localized governance of these schemes and suggests that further research should define attributes of successful PES frameworks and involve communities in selecting and designing these initiatives. The conclusion stresses that understanding local priorities is crucial for the effective implementation of conservation initiatives.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video regarding the challenges and potential improvements in payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes:

1. **Disparity in Conservation Responsibilities**: The developed world values conservation and desires a sustainable approach, but much of the responsibility falls on developing nations, which contain vital natural resources such as tropical forests and biodiversity.

2. **Limitations of PES Schemes**: Although around $40 billion annually is allocated to PES schemes, their effectiveness has been limited due to donor-driven agendas that often do not align with the needs and preferences of recipient communities in developing countries.

3. **Community Engagement through Q Methodology**: The research involved Q methodology to uncover community perspectives on forest conservation and PES schemes by generating statements through expert solicitation and focus groups, allowing community members to rank their priorities on these topics.

4. **Diverse Community Attitudes**: The study identified three distinct community groups—conservationists, aspirational artisans, and passive conflicted farmers—each with differing views on conservation, governance involvement, and desired payment methods for PES. Across all groups, there was a shared preference for social and collective payments over individual payments.

5. **Need for Convideoual Understanding**: For PES schemes to succeed, it’s essential to understand community desires and prioritize aspects like intergenerational legacy over cash incentives in scheme design. Effective governance is likely to be community-led, and future research should focus on identifying specific attributes of successful PES models tailored to local needs.

Export as PDF
Here are the key quotes extracted from the video, focusing on core ideas and themes:

1. **Value of Conservation**:
- "We've known for a very long time that the developed world values conservation and would like to see the world get on a more sustainable path."

2. **Responsibility of Developing Countries**:
- "We're asking the developing world to do a lot of the heavy lifting... much of the world's natural resources, tropical forests, biodiversity... are located in the developing world."

3. **Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)**:
- "There's been this idea of how do we transfer the value that the developed world has for conservation to the people who actually bear the costs of conserving these landscapes."
- "Despite around $40 billion a year being transferred through these types of schemes... they haven't worked as well as we would like."

4. **Understanding Local Needs**:
- "...we haven't really understood what the receiving country wanted or the receiving communities wanted out of the scheme."

5. **Findings from the Study**:
- "One of the key questions we were trying to explore was if there were going to be payments under a PES scheme to this community, how did they want 'em delivered?"
- "...all of the groups really favored social payments, collective payments as opposed to individual..."

6. **Group Classifications**:
- "The first group we've called the conservationists... open to new ideas."
- "The second group we've called aspirational artisans... strongly culturally connected to the forest..."
- "The third group... the passive conflicted farmers... concerned about their ability to earn income from agriculture."

7. **Universal Concerns**:
- "They all thought it was really important to be able to hand down the forest to their children and grandchildren."

8. **Points of Consensus**:
- "If you can find points of consensus, that gives you an opening for some conversations."
- "Start from a base of a solid base of consensus."

9. **Recommendations for PES Schemes**:
- "If we want these schemes to work, we need to better understand what the recipient communities want out of these schemes."
- "The place to start is the legacy to the intergenerational story."

10. **Future Research Directions**:
- "Let's really hone down on specific attributes of a scheme."

These quotes highlight the complexity of implementing conservation efforts through PES schemes and underline the importance of understanding local community perspectives and preferences.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.000 --> 00:02.165
We've known for a very long time that

00:02.825 --> 00:06.685
the developed world values conservation,

00:06.985 --> 00:09.365
and would like, you know, would like to see the worth,

00:09.585 --> 00:11.365
the world get on a more sustainable path.

00:12.145 --> 00:14.485
But really we're asking the developing world to do a lot

00:14.485 --> 00:17.205
of the heavy lifting in that, you know, much

00:17.205 --> 00:20.045
of the world sort of natural resources, tropical forests,

00:20.045 --> 00:21.605
biodiversity and so forth and,

00:21.745 --> 00:25.525
and huge carbon sinks are located in the developing world.

00:26.225 --> 00:27.245
Um, and,

00:27.265 --> 00:29.125
and so there's been this idea of

00:29.125 --> 00:32.685
how do we transfer the value that the developed world has

00:32.685 --> 00:35.325
for conservation to the people who actually bear the costs

00:35.385 --> 00:37.125
of, of conserving these landscapes.

00:38.065 --> 00:40.765
And, and so one of the things that have come up

00:40.765 --> 00:43.485
with is this idea of payments for ecosystem services or,

00:43.485 --> 00:44.725
or PES schemes

00:45.185 --> 00:48.285
and PES schemes are very much this idea that,

00:48.285 --> 00:51.165
international organizations funded from by,

00:51.225 --> 00:52.445
mostly from the developed world,

00:52.835 --> 00:56.165
will pay people in the developing world to

00:56.725 --> 00:57.885
conserve natural assets,

00:57.885 --> 00:59.765
conserve forests and and and so forth.

01:01.065 --> 01:05.585
But despite around $40 billion a year being transferred

01:05.815 --> 01:08.385
through these types of schemes,

01:08.735 --> 01:10.345
they haven't worked as well as we would like.

01:10.685 --> 01:15.365
And, and so I guess on, on, on,

01:15.405 --> 01:17.445
on balance, you would say these PE schemes

01:17.445 --> 01:18.725
haven't lived up to expectations.

01:20.115 --> 01:25.015
Why the Congo? Um, well, huge tracks of, of tropical forest.

01:25.285 --> 01:27.975
They're the largest, tech,

01:28.295 --> 01:29.935
tropical forest after the Amazon.

01:30.555 --> 01:33.295
Um, and, you know, right at the front

01:33.395 --> 01:35.895
and center of this trade off this,

01:35.895 --> 01:40.295
this conflict if you like, between, development extract,

01:40.575 --> 01:42.575
resource extraction and, and, and conservation.

01:42.755 --> 01:45.895
So a really good pla exactly the kind of place the payment

01:45.955 --> 01:48.335
for ecosystem services scheme is supposed to work.

01:48.515 --> 01:50.935
One of the findings that are extra to one of the failings

01:50.935 --> 01:55.415
of PES schemes has been that we haven't really understood

01:55.485 --> 01:58.335
what the, the receiving country wanted

01:58.355 --> 02:00.695
or the receiving communities wanted out of the scheme.

02:00.835 --> 02:02.815
So they've been very donor driven.

02:03.955 --> 02:07.215
Uh, and, and so if you look at this, a piece of work by,

02:07.275 --> 02:10.295
you know, POR and colleagues who study 20 years

02:10.315 --> 02:12.015
of these schemes in Costa Rica,

02:12.435 --> 02:14.615
and she basically found that they were, were costly,

02:14.615 --> 02:17.775
they were complex, and they were always donor

02:17.795 --> 02:19.135
led, not community led.

02:19.715 --> 02:20.735
Um, and, and she

02:20.735 --> 02:22.615
and her colleagues were pretty clear that she felt

02:22.615 --> 02:25.655
that was the, the primary driver of the lack of uptake

02:26.035 --> 02:27.175
of these types of schemes.

02:27.335 --> 02:28.735
I guess this, this paper, this piece

02:28.735 --> 02:31.615
of work was a collaboration between colleagues

02:31.615 --> 02:33.495
of mine here at Griffith University,

02:33.515 --> 02:36.255
but also colleagues at the Wood Well Climate Research

02:36.255 --> 02:37.495
Center based in Massachusetts.

02:37.715 --> 02:39.095
And, the people at Wood,

02:39.205 --> 02:42.335
well have been working in the Congo for quite some time,

02:42.515 --> 02:44.335
as well as other parts of Africa and South America.

02:44.915 --> 02:47.935
Um, so they were sort of our entry into the location,

02:47.995 --> 02:50.775
if you like, of, of the study study we bought the,

02:51.315 --> 02:53.735
the research method, which was something

02:53.735 --> 02:54.775
called Q Methodology.

02:55.075 --> 02:59.565
Uh, so Q is a method that tries

02:59.705 --> 03:04.285
to unpick the key discourses or the dominant discourses or,

03:04.305 --> 03:07.125
or, mindsets of communities.

03:07.465 --> 03:10.205
So what do they think about this, this PS thing?

03:10.205 --> 03:12.685
What do they think about forest conservation, the use

03:12.685 --> 03:14.085
of forests and, and so forth.

03:14.825 --> 03:17.205
And so the method involves,

03:18.925 --> 03:20.085
creating a set of statements.

03:20.865 --> 03:24.405
And these statements are, we have 37 in this, in this case.

03:24.865 --> 03:28.045
Um, and these statements are essentially created by,

03:28.185 --> 03:31.525
expert solicitation plus focus groups in the communities.

03:31.945 --> 03:34.605
And these statements are all around, you know,

03:34.605 --> 03:36.645
things like the design of the scheme, the use

03:36.645 --> 03:37.725
of forests and so forth.

03:38.545 --> 03:40.405
And then we ask respondents,

03:40.425 --> 03:43.165
so the people in the communities on a one-to-one basis.

03:43.225 --> 03:46.765
So at an individual level to, rank

03:46.985 --> 03:50.045
or place these statements in a, in a spectrum from sort

03:50.045 --> 03:51.765
of most agree with, to least agree with.

03:52.825 --> 03:54.685
And we force them to do it in something

03:54.685 --> 03:56.645
that looks a little bit like a normal distribution,

03:57.135 --> 04:00.125
which means they can only place a very small number of cards

04:00.225 --> 04:01.605
as, as the most degree

04:02.025 --> 04:04.725
and very small number of cards as the least degree.

04:04.745 --> 04:06.125
And, and most of the,

04:06.345 --> 04:08.525
the other ones end up in the middle of the distribution.

04:10.385 --> 04:12.245
So we derive these statements with things.

04:12.825 --> 04:15.085
You know, a couple of examples of statements is that the,

04:15.085 --> 04:16.405
the forest is a great asset.

04:16.865 --> 04:19.245
We should use more of its resources to improve livelihood.

04:19.265 --> 04:23.125
So that's printed on the card, in English and French

04:23.385 --> 04:24.805
and, and also illustrated.

04:24.805 --> 04:27.005
We had an illustrator, you know,

04:27.005 --> 04:28.485
make these cards a little bit more engaging

04:28.505 --> 04:30.605
and also help with, with low literacy rates.

04:31.505 --> 04:33.845
Um, and then the person would receive that card

04:33.845 --> 04:35.405
and go, well, I'm gonna place that

04:35.455 --> 04:36.845
where I think it is on this,

04:36.875 --> 04:39.005
this c continual move most to least degree.

04:39.785 --> 04:42.325
And when people do this, we typically find they, they agree

04:42.325 --> 04:43.325
with everything to begin with.

04:43.345 --> 04:45.685
So they get the first card, yeah, over that side, that side,

04:45.685 --> 04:46.685
that side, keep putting them,

04:46.825 --> 04:48.845
and then they realize they've filled up the, the,

04:48.905 --> 04:51.525
the agree side of, of the, the,

04:51.715 --> 04:54.085
what we call the, the sorting mat.

04:54.345 --> 04:57.005
And then they have to bring, bring them back slowly

04:57.065 --> 04:59.165
and really look at them relative to each other.

05:00.145 --> 05:02.845
Um, once we do that, once we've done that, we take a photo

05:02.865 --> 05:04.325
to every individual, puts them onto the

05:04.325 --> 05:05.365
sorting mat, all these cards.

05:05.825 --> 05:08.365
We take a photo, and then we transfer

05:08.365 --> 05:10.605
that data into basically to excel.

05:11.145 --> 05:13.205
Um, so we can do some further analysis.

05:13.945 --> 05:15.845
Um, and what the analysis does, it's,

05:15.845 --> 05:16.845
it's called factor analysis.

05:16.845 --> 05:19.645
It basically groups people, into

05:20.315 --> 05:22.485
like-minded segments of the community.

05:23.305 --> 05:26.085
Um, and so in this case, we found three groups, essentially.

05:26.225 --> 05:29.085
So three groups, that, you know,

05:29.115 --> 05:32.125
each group thinks roughly the same about the big issues.

05:32.785 --> 05:34.325
Um, and,

05:34.425 --> 05:37.965
and once we've done that, the next step really

05:38.745 --> 05:39.845
is more qualitative.

05:39.955 --> 05:41.765
It's like, okay, well, we know

05:42.265 --> 05:44.205
how this group have sorted their cards.

05:45.435 --> 05:46.725
What does that tell us about them?

05:46.805 --> 05:49.045
What we learned from that? What can we draw out of that?

05:49.665 --> 05:52.855
Uh, and so we came up with three, three groups.

05:53.915 --> 05:56.935
So the first group we, we've called the conservationists,

05:57.145 --> 05:58.845
and they, and they were open to new ideas.

05:59.785 --> 06:02.445
So statements that were around forest conservation,

06:02.635 --> 06:05.715
they ranked very highly, statements

06:05.715 --> 06:06.795
around forest clearing.

06:06.825 --> 06:08.075
They, they disagreed with,

06:08.495 --> 06:11.115
and they showed strong support for, for skill building,

06:11.115 --> 06:12.355
new technologies and so forth.

06:12.535 --> 06:15.515
One of the, the key questions we were trying to explore

06:16.135 --> 06:19.955
was if there were going to be payments under a PES scheme

06:19.975 --> 06:22.915
to this community, how did they want 'em delivered?

06:23.135 --> 06:26.035
Did they want them, as individual payments

06:26.055 --> 06:27.395
or as collective payments?

06:27.775 --> 06:28.835
Did they want them in cash

06:28.975 --> 06:30.995
or did they want it in terms of better infrastructure,

06:31.025 --> 06:32.475
medical facilities, for example?

06:33.055 --> 06:36.515
Or did they want it in terms of agricultural, inputs,

06:37.245 --> 06:38.875
seeds, fertilizer, and so forth?

06:39.615 --> 06:43.625
Um, it turned out across all of the groups,

06:43.685 --> 06:45.225
and I'll talk to the other two groups shortly,

06:45.325 --> 06:47.385
but it turned out that all of the groups really

06:47.975 --> 06:50.585
favored social payments, collective payments as opposed

06:50.585 --> 06:53.345
to individual, which again, is, is probably something that

06:54.085 --> 06:55.945
us coming from a, a western viewpoint,

06:55.945 --> 06:57.705
from a developed world viewpoint,

06:57.745 --> 06:59.265
wouldn't have thought upfront.

06:59.405 --> 07:01.945
We we're all very used to individually focused payments.

07:02.445 --> 07:05.025
Um, and so that may be one of the reasons some of the,

07:05.025 --> 07:07.025
these schemes aren't going as well as we would've liked.

07:07.285 --> 07:09.185
So they, so the first group was conservationists.

07:09.285 --> 07:13.625
The second group we've called aspirational Artisans,

07:14.505 --> 07:17.025
strongly culturally connected to the forest,

07:17.445 --> 07:19.465
and quite confident in their ability

07:20.245 --> 07:22.145
to earn income from agriculture.

07:22.175 --> 07:24.985
They weren't concerned about the impacts so much

07:24.985 --> 07:27.745
of agriculture and farmer farming on the forests.

07:28.325 --> 07:30.625
Um, and they were very clear they wanted

07:30.625 --> 07:33.705
to be involved in the governance of any, any kind

07:33.705 --> 07:35.865
of conservation or, or PE scheme.

07:36.725 --> 07:39.065
And that was another one of, the things we were trying

07:39.065 --> 07:40.265
to find out was how do they want

07:40.265 --> 07:41.305
their schemes to be managed?

07:41.325 --> 07:43.105
Do they want them to be managed by the,

07:43.325 --> 07:46.305
the international donor, by, you know,

07:46.305 --> 07:48.505
the local government by a central government

07:48.505 --> 07:49.625
or at the community level?

07:50.165 --> 07:52.105
Uh, and it's interesting

07:52.105 --> 07:53.705
because across the groups, some didn't want

07:53.705 --> 07:54.905
to be involved in governance at all.

07:55.645 --> 07:59.505
Um, but this factor two, these, these aspirational artisans,

07:59.695 --> 08:01.705
they were very clear they wanted to be involved

08:01.725 --> 08:03.585
and in charge of the governance of such a scheme.

08:05.015 --> 08:06.155
And then we had a third group

08:06.655 --> 08:09.515
who we've labeled the passive conflicted farmers.

08:10.795 --> 08:12.725
They were concerned about their ability

08:12.745 --> 08:15.325
to earn income from agriculture and get access to markets.

08:16.345 --> 08:18.965
Um, but they were also concerned about environmental effects

08:19.225 --> 08:20.725
on their yields

08:20.725 --> 08:24.445
and their ability to, to grow, strong support

08:24.505 --> 08:27.405
for social compensation over private or individual.

08:28.145 --> 08:29.845
Um, but we've called them passive

08:29.845 --> 08:31.245
because they had no interest in

08:31.245 --> 08:32.565
being involved in, in governance.

08:33.265 --> 08:37.245
Um, they were also concerned about the connection

08:37.245 --> 08:38.805
with the forest and what it would mean for

08:39.315 --> 08:41.205
next generation's children and, and grandchildren.

08:41.465 --> 08:45.475
The final step really was to tease out the,

08:45.475 --> 08:47.715
the key lessons in terms of PS design,

08:48.775 --> 08:51.675
but also tease out statements where

08:52.465 --> 08:55.765
everybody almost agreed or disagreed.

08:56.265 --> 08:59.235
Because the idea is if you can find points of consensus,

09:00.205 --> 09:02.375
that gives you an opening for some conversations.

09:02.955 --> 09:04.855
If you are trying to introduce something new into a

09:04.855 --> 09:06.815
community, don't open with something

09:06.815 --> 09:09.255
that we know people would, don't have consensus on

09:09.285 --> 09:10.935
because you'll just end up in a fight and,

09:10.935 --> 09:13.335
and it won't get the community support.

09:13.555 --> 09:15.695
So the fact that we could look at the statements

09:15.695 --> 09:18.695
and go, which, which statements were pretty much ranked the

09:18.695 --> 09:21.215
same by everybody in the community,

09:21.605 --> 09:23.535
then you could start from a, a base

09:23.535 --> 09:25.175
of a solid base of consensus.

09:25.755 --> 09:27.685
Um, so some

09:27.685 --> 09:29.525
of those statements were things like the young people are

09:29.525 --> 09:30.925
better off getting educated and,

09:30.925 --> 09:33.205
and leaving, leaving the village and finding work.

09:33.865 --> 09:36.565
Um, it is something we often find in developing communities

09:36.565 --> 09:38.445
across the globe when we do these kind of things.

09:39.175 --> 09:41.245
Older people are looking at younger generations and,

09:41.245 --> 09:42.925
and they don't often don't see a future

09:42.945 --> 09:44.365
for them in those local communities.

09:45.885 --> 09:47.065
But they also thought it was really,

09:47.065 --> 09:48.265
and this is another consensus statement,

09:48.265 --> 09:50.625
they all thought it was really important to be able

09:50.625 --> 09:54.145
to hand down the forest to their children and grandchildren.

09:55.395 --> 09:58.375
Um, so that's suggests to me that could be

09:58.375 --> 09:59.775
where you would start a conversation

10:00.515 --> 10:02.295
around introducing a PES scheme.

10:05.825 --> 10:08.925
And in terms of statements that they didn't agree with the,

10:08.925 --> 10:11.285
the disagreement statements, there was a real mix

10:11.285 --> 10:13.285
around market access.

10:13.315 --> 10:15.205
Some felt market access was a real problem

10:15.345 --> 10:17.085
for agricultural sustainability.

10:17.225 --> 10:18.805
Others were quite confident in their

10:18.805 --> 10:20.005
ability to, to access markets.

10:20.865 --> 10:22.645
And there was also a real disagreement around

10:23.555 --> 10:26.345
whose responsibility it was to pay for conservation.

10:27.005 --> 10:31.065
So some groups were, yes, the, the developed world

10:31.935 --> 10:35.225
have a responsibility to help us conserve these forests.

10:35.525 --> 10:37.225
Others were of the opinion that no,

10:37.245 --> 10:39.505
we shouldn't be relying on outsiders to pay for it.

10:40.405 --> 10:41.985
So that's a, a hard,

10:41.985 --> 10:43.865
that's probably not the place to start there.

10:44.205 --> 10:45.905
If you are having a conversation about the introduction

10:45.905 --> 10:49.265
of a scheme in this community, start with the high,

10:49.265 --> 10:51.585
handing it down to children and grandchildren story.

10:51.955 --> 10:53.705
Don't start with who pays story,

10:54.565 --> 10:56.425
and then you're more likely to, I think,

10:56.445 --> 10:58.145
to get this thing sort of up and running.

10:58.385 --> 11:01.425
I think the conclusion is if we want these schemes to work,

11:01.485 --> 11:02.665
we need to better understand

11:02.665 --> 11:05.745
what the recipient communities want out of these schemes.

11:06.325 --> 11:08.465
And, and coming in with a, a,

11:08.665 --> 11:11.545
a western developed world mindset, if it's all about cash

11:11.645 --> 11:14.945
and, and, and payments in this community at least, and,

11:14.945 --> 11:16.065
and this is quite consistent

11:16.095 --> 11:18.265
with other things we've seen in other parts of the world,

11:18.885 --> 11:19.985
that's not the place to start.

11:20.045 --> 11:22.825
The place to start is the, the, the legacy

11:23.365 --> 11:24.985
to the intergenerational story.

11:25.485 --> 11:28.145
So let's start with that and design a scheme from there.

11:28.525 --> 11:29.545
In terms of governance,

11:30.535 --> 11:33.185
most likely local governance will work better.

11:33.185 --> 11:35.025
Community level governance will work better,

11:35.365 --> 11:37.065
but not everybody wants to necessarily be

11:37.225 --> 11:38.345
involved, but that's probably okay.

11:39.325 --> 11:44.265
Um, I think the next step in research wise is

11:44.365 --> 11:49.225
to more precisely define the attributes

11:49.225 --> 11:50.545
of what a good scheme looks like.

11:51.245 --> 11:55.245
So perhaps design some can candidate schemes go into the

11:55.245 --> 11:57.765
community and say, if you could choose between scheme A

11:57.765 --> 11:59.405
or B, which would you choose?

11:59.425 --> 12:01.445
And, and why? So really narrow down.

12:01.445 --> 12:04.165
We've got a, we've got a broad picture now of, of things

12:04.165 --> 12:05.485
that are important or not important

12:05.545 --> 12:07.205
and things that, that have consensus and don't.

12:07.665 --> 12:10.125
Um, but let's really hone down on specific

12:10.125 --> 12:11.485
attributes of a scheme.

12:12.025 --> 12:14.325
Um, and then ultimately we would love to have the funding

12:14.385 --> 12:16.125
to implement such a scheme and see how it goes.

"Challenges and Insights in Implementing Payments for Ecosystem Services in Developing Countries"

00:00:00 - We've known for a very long time that the developed world values conservation, and would like, you know, would like to see the worth, the world get on a more sustainable path. But really we're asking the developing world to do a lot of the heavy lifting in that, you know, much of the world sort of natural resources, tropical forests, biodiversity and so forth and, and huge carbon sinks are located in the developing world. and, and so there's been this idea of how do we transfer the value that the developed world has for conservation to the people who actually bear the costs of, of conserving these landscapes. And, and so one of the things that have come up with is this idea of payments for ecosystem services or,
00:00:45 - and PES schemes are very much this idea that, international organizations funded from by, mostly from the developed world, will pay people in the developing world to conserve natural assets, conserve forests and and and so forth. But despite around $40 billion a year being transferred through these types of schemes, they haven't worked as well as we would like. And, and so I guess on, on, on, on balance, you would say these PE schemes haven't lived up to expectations. Why the Congo? well, huge tracks of, of tropical forest.
00:01:28 - tropical forest after the Amazon. and, you know, right at the front and center of this trade off this, this conflict if you like, between, development extract, resource extraction and, and, and conservation. So a really good pla exactly the kind of place the payment for ecosystem services scheme is supposed to work. One of the findings that are extra to one of the failings of PES schemes has been that we haven't really understood what the, the receiving country wanted or the receiving communities wanted out of the scheme. So they've been very donor driven. and, and so if you look at this, a piece of work by,
00:02:10 - of these schemes in Costa Rica, and she basically found that they were, were costly, they were complex, and they were always donor led, not community led. and, and she and her colleagues were pretty clear that she felt that was the, the primary driver of the lack of uptake of these types of schemes. I guess this, this paper, this piece of work was a collaboration between colleagues of mine here at Griffith University, but also colleagues at the Wood Well Climate Research Center based in Massachusetts. And, the people at Wood, well have been working in the Congo for quite some time, as well as other parts of Africa and South America. so they were sort of our entry into the location,
00:02:51 - the research method, which was something called Q Methodology. so Q is a method that tries to unpick the key discourses or the dominant discourses or, or, mindsets of communities. So what do they think about this, this PS thing? What do they think about forest conservation, the use of forests and, and so forth. And so the method involves, creating a set of statements. And these statements are, we have 37 in this, in this case. and these statements are essentially created by,
00:03:31 - And these statements are all around, you know, things like the design of the scheme, the use of forests and so forth. And then we ask respondents, so the people in the communities on a one-to-one basis. So at an individual level to, rank or place these statements in a, in a spectrum from sort of most agree with, to least agree with. And we force them to do it in something that looks a little bit like a normal distribution, which means they can only place a very small number of cards as, as the most degree and very small number of cards as the least degree. And, and most of the, the other ones end up in the middle of the distribution.

"Understanding Community Perspectives on Forest Conservation: Insights from Q Methodology"

00:04:12 - You know, a couple of examples of statements is that the, the forest is a great asset. We should use more of its resources to improve livelihood. So that's printed on the card, in English and French and, and also illustrated. We had an illustrator, you know, make these cards a little bit more engaging and also help with, with low literacy rates. and then the person would receive that card and go, well, I'm gonna place that where I think it is on this, this c continual move most to least degree. And when people do this, we typically find they, they agree with everything to begin with. So they get the first card, yeah, over that side, that side, that side, keep putting them, and then they realize they've filled up the, the, the agree side of, of the, the,
00:04:54 - And then they have to bring, bring them back slowly and really look at them relative to each other. once we do that, once we've done that, we take a photo to every individual, puts them onto the sorting mat, all these cards. We take a photo, and then we transfer that data into basically to excel. so we can do some further analysis. and what the analysis does, it's, it's called factor analysis. It basically groups people, into like-minded segments of the community. and so in this case, we found three groups, essentially. So three groups, that, you know, each group thinks roughly the same about the big issues.
00:05:34 - and once we've done that, the next step really is more qualitative. It's like, okay, well, we know how this group have sorted their cards. What does that tell us about them? What we learned from that? What can we draw out of that? and so we came up with three, three groups. So the first group we, we've called the conservationists, and they, and they were open to new ideas. So statements that were around forest conservation, they ranked very highly, statements around forest clearing. They, they disagreed with, and they showed strong support for, for skill building, new technologies and so forth. One of the, the key questions we were trying to explore
00:06:19 - to this community, how did they want 'em delivered? Did they want them, as individual payments or as collective payments? Did they want them in cash or did they want it in terms of better infrastructure, medical facilities, for example? Or did they want it in terms of agricultural, inputs, seeds, fertilizer, and so forth? it turned out across all of the groups, and I'll talk to the other two groups shortly, but it turned out that all of the groups really favored social payments, collective payments as opposed to individual, which again, is, is probably something that us coming from a, a western viewpoint, from a developed world viewpoint,
00:06:59 - We we're all very used to individually focused payments. and so that may be one of the reasons some of the, these schemes aren't going as well as we would've liked. So they, so the first group was conservationists. The second group we've called aspirational Artisans, strongly culturally connected to the forest, and quite confident in their ability to earn income from agriculture. They weren't concerned about the impacts so much of agriculture and farmer farming on the forests. and they were very clear they wanted to be involved in the governance of any, any kind of conservation or, or PE scheme. And that was another one of, the things we were trying
00:07:40 - their schemes to be managed? Do they want them to be managed by the, the international donor, by, you know, the local government by a central government or at the community level? and it's interesting because across the groups, some didn't want to be involved in governance at all. but this factor two, these, these aspirational artisans, they were very clear they wanted to be involved and in charge of the governance of such a scheme. And then we had a third group who we've labeled the passive conflicted farmers. They were concerned about their ability to earn income from agriculture and get access to markets. but they were also concerned about environmental effects

"Building Consensus for Sustainable Conservation: Insights from Community Perspectives on PES Schemes"**

00:08:20 - and their ability to, to grow, strong support for social compensation over private or individual. but we've called them passive because they had no interest in being involved in, in governance. they were also concerned about the connection with the forest and what it would mean for next generation's children and, and grandchildren. The final step really was to tease out the, the key lessons in terms of PS design, but also tease out statements where everybody almost agreed or disagreed. Because the idea is if you can find points of consensus,
00:09:02 - If you are trying to introduce something new into a community, don't open with something that we know people would, don't have consensus on because you'll just end up in a fight and, and it won't get the community support. So the fact that we could look at the statements and go, which, which statements were pretty much ranked the same by everybody in the community, then you could start from a, a base of a solid base of consensus. so some of those statements were things like the young people are better off getting educated and, and leaving, leaving the village and finding work. it is something we often find in developing communities across the globe when we do these kind of things. Older people are looking at younger generations and,
00:09:42 - for them in those local communities. But they also thought it was really, and this is another consensus statement, they all thought it was really important to be able to hand down the forest to their children and grandchildren. so that's suggests to me that could be where you would start a conversation around introducing a PES scheme. And in terms of statements that they didn't agree with the, the disagreement statements, there was a real mix around market access. Some felt market access was a real problem for agricultural sustainability. Others were quite confident in their ability to, to access markets. And there was also a real disagreement around
00:10:27 - So some groups were, yes, the, the developed world have a responsibility to help us conserve these forests. Others were of the opinion that no, we shouldn't be relying on outsiders to pay for it. So that's a, a hard, that's probably not the place to start there. If you are having a conversation about the introduction of a scheme in this community, start with the high, handing it down to children and grandchildren story. Don't start with who pays story, and then you're more likely to, I think, to get this thing sort of up and running. I think the conclusion is if we want these schemes to work, we need to better understand what the recipient communities want out of these schemes.
00:11:08 - a western developed world mindset, if it's all about cash and, and, and payments in this community at least, and, and this is quite consistent with other things we've seen in other parts of the world, that's not the place to start. The place to start is the, the, the legacy to the intergenerational story. So let's start with that and design a scheme from there. In terms of governance, most likely local governance will work better. Community level governance will work better, but not everybody wants to necessarily be involved, but that's probably okay. I think the next step in research wise is to more precisely define the attributes
00:12:14 - So perhaps design some can candidate schemes go into the community and say, if you could choose between scheme A or B, which would you choose? And, and why? So really narrow down. We've got a, we've got a broad picture now of, of things that are important or not important and things that, that have consensus and don't. but let's really hone down on specific attributes of a scheme. and then ultimately we would love to have the funding to implement such a scheme and see how it goes.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Faculti

Popular in Economics

Macroeconomic modelling of CBDC: a critical review

Financing Private Credit

Failing Banks

Golden Fetters

Visions of Inequality

School Finance Equalization Increases Intergenerational Mobility

Olivier Blanchard on U.S. Pandemic-Era Inflation

Assessing Community Readiness for Payments for Ecosystem Service Schemes

Next in Development Economics

Guide

Platform and Category Pages

Contact Us

FAQs

What is Faculti?

How do you select interviews?

Interview Process

Page Structure

Popular in Economics

Guide

Platform and Category Pages

Contact Us

FAQs

What is Faculti?

How do you select interviews?

Interview Process

Accessibility Options

Contrast Adjustment

Text Size Adjustment

Text Spacing Adjustment

Line Height Adjustment

Cursor Size Adjustment

Page Structure Options

Page Structure