Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
environmental payments, as those payments would not result in additional envi-
ronmental services. Additionally, an environmental services program involving
communities of smallholders would have high transaction costs and thus be less
attractive to investors. The tier system discussed by Lasco et al. (Chapter 17, this
volume) makes distinctions regarding how environmental service payments are
justified and determined. The system acts as a guide in comparing the quality of
the environmental services offered for “sale” by various projects or providers;
increasing competition between buyers and sellers. Such sobering analysis dem-
onstrates that environmental service programs are not necessarily beneficial to
smallholder communities. Many efforts may have negative impacts for local com-
munities, particularly the poor, by restricting land access or landuse options.
Unless local residents receive additional benefits, they are not likely to accept
restriction on their current activities or options. Such a logical response threatens
the success of environmental services program. It is important to identify the ena-
bling conditions that will favor a flow of local benefits from an environmental
service program, thus facilitating program success. Reviewing various types of
smallholder tree planting systems to address carbon storage, Roshetko et al.
(2007a) identify four enabling conditions that are of universal application to all
environmental service programs: integrated planning and project design; establish-
ing clear, stable and enforceable rules for access to land and trees; managing high
transaction costs; and ensuring dynamic flexibility for co-generating other envi-
ronmental services. Their discussion is summarized here along with additional
relevant citations.
21.7.1
Integrated Planning and Project Design
Smallholders invest in trees as one component of their overall on-farm and off-farm
income/livelihood generation system. The following factors are found to be posi-
tively correlated with successful smallholder tree planting activities - adequate
food security; off-farm employment; sufficient household labor; higher education
levels; access to land that is not needed for food crop production, and lower risks
(Predo 2002; Yuliyanti and Roshetko 2002; Tyynela et al. 2002; Schuren and
Snelder, Chapter 3, this volume; Barney, Chapter 13, this volume). As smallholders
are not likely to be solely interested in environmental services, such a program
should integrate its activities into the household's and community's broader devel-
opment plans (Bass et al. 2000; Desmond and Race 2003; Tyynela et al. 2002),
particularly agriculture and agroforestry productivity. Efforts should be made to
identify the community's development priorities, even when such priorities do not
formally exist. While an environmental service program might not be able to
directly address priorities regarding infrastructure, health care or education, it
should show awareness of these issues and when possible provide support or at
least not impede those priorities. The program should also help to strengthen
community institutions and build their capacity in relation to: agroforestry;
Search WWH ::
Custom Search