Market based Conservation Programs and non-market Motivations for Participation: Evidence from Landowners in two Payments for Ecosystems Services programs in Veracruz, Mexico

Market based conservation policies, such as Payments for Ecosystems Services (PES), are premised on the assumption that compensating service ‘providers’ (i.e. landowners) through livelihood support for their conservation... [ view full abstract ]

Market based conservation policies, such as Payments for Ecosystems Services (PES), are premised on the assumption that compensating service ‘providers’ (i.e. landowners) through livelihood support for their conservation practices will generate benefits for service ‘users’ (i.e. downstream households), through provision of ecosystem benefits, specifically available and clean drinking water. Recent research has shown that many PES programs do not function as truly market based programs, as compensation is often quite minimal for households providing ecosystem services and programs often do not result in additionality.  Critical social science scholars have highlighted many shortcomings of PES programs:  for assuming PES can provide ‘win’ win scenarios’ for conservation and poverty alleviation; for not adequately compensating providing households, especially in poor communities in developing countries; and for ‘green grabbing’ more generally.  However, little research has investigated why households do participate in PES programs, since often payment levels are well below the opportunity cost of other land uses.  This exploratory paper will draw on approximately 60 interviews with landowners in two proximate watersheds with PES programs in Veracruz, Mexico to investigate their knowledge about and motivations for participation in the programs.  Findings will contribute to the literature on PES by providing more nuanced information from landowners related to their knowledge about PES programs, and their reasons for participation beyond financial compensation.