Abstract
Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is a market-based policy approach intended to foster land use practices, such as forest conservation or restoration, that protect and improve the benefits from healthy, functioning ecosystems. While PES programs are used globally, they are an especially prominent environmental policy tool in Latin America, where the vast majority are payment for hydrological services (PHS) programs, which incentivize the conservation and restoration of ecosystems associated with water production and clean water for clearly defined water users. As a market mechanism, PHS approaches involve a transactional relationship between upstream and downstream water users who are connected by a shared watershed. While existing literature has highlighted the important role of non-state actors in natural resource management and program effectiveness, few studies have explored the role of stakeholder participation in the context of PHS programs. Building on the collaborative learning approach and the Trinity of Voice framework, we sought to understand how and to what extent PHS program stakeholders are engaged in PHS design, implementation, and evaluation. In this paper we explored (1) the modes of stakeholder engagement in PHS programs that program administrators use, and (2) the degree to which different modes of stakeholder participation allow PHS stakeholders to have decision power with which to influence PHS policy design and expected outcomes. To better understand the role of stakeholder participation, and the different ways participation occurs, we used a comparative multiple-case study analysis of three PHS program administration types (government, non-profit, and a mixed public–private organization) in Mexico and Colombia that have incorporated stakeholder engagement to achieve ecological and social goals. Our analysis draws on institutional interviews to investigate the modes of stakeholder engagement and understand the degree of decision space that is shared with other PHS stakeholders. Across all cases, we found that the trust between key actors and institutions is an essential but underappreciated aspect of successful collaboration within PHS initiatives. We conclude with recommendations for ways in which program administrators and governmental agencies can better understand and facilitate the development of trust in PHS design and implementation, and natural resources management more broadly.
Highlights
Payment for hydrological services (PHS) is a market-based strategy used to incentivize the conservation of forests and ecosystems by providing financial incentives to hydrological service providers, especially to low-income landowners [1–7]
To fulfill our interest in comparing the different types of payment for hydrological services (PHS) program administrations, we focus on PICB Buga whose administration consists of a mixed private-public ownership organization
We have explored how program administrators and other institutional actors engage diverse publics in PHS program decision making and environmental planning
Summary
Payment for hydrological services (PHS) is a market-based strategy used to incentivize the conservation of forests and ecosystems by providing financial incentives to hydrological service providers, especially to low-income landowners [1–7]. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8562 central Veracruz, Mexico, have shown that two PHS programs produced limited socioeconomic impacts and low forest cover [8–11]. Critical social science scholars have argued that addressing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation requires innovative multidisciplinary methods to understand the complexity, controversy, and uncertainty of coupled human and natural systems [12–14]. In order to deal with the complexity of coupled human and natural systems, researchers in sustainability science and environmental conflict analysis have suggested the use of the collaborative learning approach integrated into participatory research tools, such as participatory modeling, community mapping, public forums, scenario building, and roleplay simulation to face situations in which multiple parties with different identities, values, and goals dispute environmental issues or ecological attributes that are characterized by technical complexity and scientific uncertainty [13–17]. Genuine participation of diverse stakeholders is key in collaborative processes [18,21,22]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call