_edited_edited_edited_edited_jp.jpg)
A newly published article by Kemigisha et al. (2023) in Ecological economics bearing the title "Payment for environmental services to reduce deforestation: Do the positive effects last?" addresses the question whether forest conservation practices are sustained after Payment for Environmental Services (PES) programmes end. Arild Angelsen, member of the steering committee of the Tropical Forest Arena is one of the co-authors. The authors thereby advance the knowledge regarding one out of three commonly raised criticism to PES effectiveness, namely the issue of permanence, which refers to the fact that achieved reductions need to be lasting instead of just postponing emissions/deforestation etc. to the future (the other two common criticisms are additionality (that the environmental conservation would not have occurred anyway, also without PES) and leakage (that unsustainable practices are not just relocated elsewhere)).
In order to answer the question the authors look at 268 (former) PES recipients and non-recipients from the Budongo-Bugoma PES programme in Western Uganda, employing the before-after-control–intervention (difference-in-difference) approach to estimate the PES programme outcome on their privately owned forests. Kemigisha et al. show that PES are associated with less deforestation while in operation. However, after the programme is terminated, practices that were adopted under the PES programme are quickly abandoned. Therefore, permanence is weak. Nevertheless, gains (like relatively higher forest cover) achieved during the operational period of the PES are maintained. The authors conclude, that PES needs to be combined with other approaches in order to achieve more permanent reductions in deforestation.
Read the article here:
Kemigisha, E., Babweteera, F., Mugisha, J., & Angelsen, A. (2023). Payment for environmental services to reduce deforestation: Do the positive effects last? Ecological Economics, 209, 107840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107840