Payment for environmental services in low‐and middle‐income countries: effects on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes
Citation: Snilsveit B, Stevenson J, Langer L, et al. Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector—the effects of payment for environmental services on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes in low‐and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2019;44:e1045.
What is this? Unsustainable practices in the land use sector contribute to climate change through the release of greenhouse gases. Economic incentive-based programmes aim to change behaviour to preserve or restore ecosystems services. Payment for Environmental Services (PES) is an approach where users of an environmental service pay the owners of the service, conditional on the change in behaviour.
In this mixed-methods systematic review, the authors searched for studies of PES in low- and middle-income countries on populations living in or near to forests, agricultural land, wetlands, grasslands and mangroves. They did not restrict their searches by language or status of publication and did the search in September 2017. They included 44 impact evaluations and 60 qualitative studies.
What was found: There is low and very low quality evidence that PES programmes might increase household income from non-agricultural sources and agricultural sources, reduce deforestation and improve forest cover.
PES programmes might improve environmental outcomes in some settings and contexts.
The effects of PES programmes vary, depending on where and to whom projects are targeted, the quality of implementation, presence of governance structures, contextual factors, and attitudes towards environmental protection and towards PES itself.
Uptake of PES programmes is determined by many factors including income, land size, availability of labour, opportunity cost, social norms and capital and the state of the ecosystem service.
The cost-effectiveness of PES programmes for socio-economic outcomes is uncertain.
The effects of PES programmes on greenhouse gas emissions or forest condition are uncertain.
Disclaimer: This summary has been written by staff and volunteers of Evidence Aid in order to make the content of the original document accessible to decision makers who are searching for the available evidence on humanitarian response but may not have the time, initially, to read the report in full. This summary is not intended as a substitute for the medical advice of physicians, other health workers, professional associations, guideline developers, or national governments and international agencies. If readers of this summary think that the evidence presented within it is relevant to their decision-making, they should refer to the content and details of the original article, and the advice and guidelines offered by other sources of expertise, before making decisions. The text can be shared and re-used without charge, citing Evidence Aid as the source and noting the date on which you took the text.
If you have found this summary helpful, please consider making a donation. If everyone who looked at our COVID-19 resources gave us just £2 per month, it would fund Evidence Aid’s life-saving work.