Welcome To Website IAS

Hot news
Achievement

Independence Award

- First Rank - Second Rank - Third Rank

Labour Award

- First Rank - Second Rank -Third Rank

National Award

 - Study on food stuff for animal(2005)

 - Study on rice breeding for export and domestic consumption(2005)

VIFOTEC Award

- Hybrid Maize by Single Cross V2002 (2003)

- Tomato Grafting to Manage Ralstonia Disease(2005)

- Cassava variety KM140(2010)

Centres
Website links
Vietnamese calendar
Library
Visitors summary
 Curently online :  9
 Total visitors :  7438286

The cost of oversimplification
Friday, 2017/01/06 | 08:22:26

Study shows that when policymakers take shortcuts, the likelihood for under-performance of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) schemes is greater

 

Let’s assume you want to conserve a large, widely-forested watershed by compensating people for not cutting down trees. Would it be more effective to choose the most threatened, erosion-prone areas first? Would it be best to offer higher payments for the most strategic spots? Or should you offer the same payment per hectare to everyone, to avoid jealousy and keep transaction costs down?

 

Einstein once said: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” This quest for the right level of sophistication also applies to payments for environmental services (PES).

 

A recent meta-study of 55 PES schemes from around the world sheds some light on what payment strategies work best, under particular circumstances, to bring about optimal environmental impacts.

 

The study found some surprising patterns, says Sven Wunder, a scientist at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and co-author of the report.

 

“Considering the large diversity of experiences worldwide, we found that PES schemes fell into three neat clusters,” Wunder says. Some are implemented by governments, others are coordinated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and still others are private commercial ventures. The three groups all have different characteristics.

 

“Previous studies focused largely on public versus private models, but we also found a difference between private, commercial, and typical NGO schemes in terms of focus, relationship with markets, and other factors,” Wunder says. “The type of implementer and the characteristics of the PES scheme tend to go hand in hand.”

 

See http://blog.cifor.org/47551/the-cost-of-oversimplification?fnl=

 

Back      Print      View: 636

[ Other News ]___________________________________________________
  • Beyond genes: Protein atlas scores nitrogen fixing duet
  • 2016 Borlaug CAST Communication Award Goes to Dr. Kevin Folta
  • FAO and NEPAD team up to boost rural youth employment in Benin, Cameroon, Malawi and Niger
  • Timely seed distributions in Ethiopia boost crop yields, strengthen communities’ resilience
  • Parliaments must work together in the final stretch against hunger
  • Empowering women farmers in the polder communities of Bangladesh
  • Depression: let’s talk
  • As APEC Concludes, CIP’s Food Security and Climate Smart Agriculture on Full Display
  • CIAT directly engages with the European Cocoa Industry
  • Breeding tool plays a key role in program planning
  • FAO: Transform Agriculture to Address Global Challenges
  • Uganda Holds Banana Research Training for African Scientists and Biotechnology Regulators
  • US Congress Ratifies Historic Global Food Security Treaty
  • Fruit Fly`s Genetic Code Revealed
  • Seminar at EU Parliament Tackles GM Crops Concerns
  • JICA and IRRI ignites a “seed revolution” for African and Asian farmers
  • OsABCG26 Vital in Anther Cuticle and Pollen Exine Formation in Rice
  • Akira Tanaka, IRRI’s first physiologist, passes away
  • WHO calls for immediate safe evacuation of the sick and wounded from conflict areas
  • Farmer Field School in Tonga continues to break new ground in the Pacific for training young farmers

 

Designed & Powered by WEBSO CO.,LTD