Communal Participation in Payment for Environmental Services (PES): Unpacking the Collective Decision to Enroll.

Payment for Environmental Service programs are increasingly applied in communal settings where resource users collectively join the program and agree to limit their shared use of a common-property resource. Who decides to join PES and the degree to which community members agree with the collective decision is critical for the success of said programs. Yet, we have limited understanding of the factors that influence communal participation and the collective decision process. This paper examines communal participation in a national payment for conservation program in Ecuador. We use quantitative and qualitative analysis to (i) identify the attributes of the communities that participate (or not), and factors that facilitate participation (n = 67), and (ii) assess household preference and alignment with the collective decision to participate (n = 212). Household participation preferences indicate varying degrees of consensus with the collective decision to participate, with those using the resource less likely to support participation. At the communal level, however, our results indicate that over time, those communities that depend more heavily on their resource systems may ultimately choose to participate. Our findings suggest that communal governance structures and outside organizations may be instrumental in gaining participation in resource-dependent communities and building consensus. Findings also point to the need for further research on communal decision-processes to ensure that the collective decision is based on an informed and democratic process.

Can conservation contracts co-exist with change? Payment for ecosystem services in the context of adaptive decision-making and sustainability.

This paper considers the ability of payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs to operate in the context of dynamic and complex social-ecological systems. Drawing on the experiences of two different PES programs in Latin America, we examine how PES institutions fit with the tenets of adaptive decision-making for sustainable resource management. We identify how the program goals and the connection to the market influence the incentive structure, information gathering, learning and feedback processes, and the structure of decision-making rights, specifically the ability to make and modify resource-use rules. Although limited in their generalizability, findings from the two case studies suggest a tension between the contractual model of PES and adaptive decision-making in natural resource systems. PES programs are not inherently decentralized, flexible management tools, as PES contracts tend to restrict decision-making rights and offer minimal flexibility mechanisms to change resource-use practices over the duration of the contract period. Furthermore, PES design and flexibility is heavily dependent on the goals and mission of the buyer and the respective market. If PES is to facilitate sustainable resource management, greater attention is needed to assess how the institutional design of the PES contracts influence the motivation and capacity of participants and program officers alike to adaptively manage the respective resource systems.

Does external funding help adaptation? Evidence from community-based water management in the Colombian Andes.

Despite debate regarding whether, and in what form, communities need external support for adaptation to environmental change, few studies have examined how external funding impacts adaptation decisions in rural resource-dependent communities. In this article, we use quantitative and qualitative methods to assess how different funding sources influence the initiative to adapt to water scarcity in the Colombian Andes. We compare efforts to adapt to water scarcity in 111 rural Andean communities with varied dependence on external funding for water management activities. Findings suggest that despite efforts to use their own internal resources, communities often need external support to finance adaptation strategies. However, not all external financial support positively impacts a community's abilities to adapt. Results show the importance of community-driven requests for external support. In cases where external support was unsolicited, the results show a decline, or "crowding-out," in community efforts to adapt. In contrast, in cases where communities initiated the request for external support to fund their own projects, findings show that external intervention is more likely to enhance or "crowds-in" community-driven adaptation.