Mens man før i tiden straffede småbønder for miljøødelæggelser har man de senere år i stedet forsøgt sig med guleroden. De fattige småbønder får betaling for at undlade at forurene vandet i floderne af eksempelvis hoteller eller lokalregeringer, der nyder godt af de renere dråber.
Metals, excess nutrients, and sediment are processed and filtered out as water moves through forests, wetlands, natural grasslands and riparian zones, writes International Institute for Environment and Development Friday.
It is usually easier to prevent pollution harnessing the forces of nature than to clean up the mess with costly technology. However, unchecked human activities continue to compact the soil and reduce its natural capacities. Is there a solution at hand, or is it all water under the bridge?
Cleaner water, steadier flows, less sediments, better capture of rainwater that prevents flash floods– these are some benefits provided by healthy ecosystems that are becoming increasingly threatened by the way land is managed.
Payments for Watershed Services
Many factors drive unsustainable land use including misaligned incentives for farmers and industries, lack of access to technology, knowledge of resources and investment capabilities.
Traditional responses have included evictions and prohibitions that lay the burden of the cost on the farmers, who are often least able to bear them. But this past decade has seen a rise of a more participative instrument, Payments for Watershed Services (PWS).
Here, those who manage the land (service providers) and those who benefit from cleaner and better watershed services (service users) are brought together. “Providers” receive payments from downstream “users” (which includes local governments, the private sector and other interest groups) to invest in better management, and often representatives of both groups meet to discuss problems and solutions leading to better water governance.
Interest in the instrument is growing, but this should not distract us from questioning its usefulness. For PWS to be effective, payments or rewards must translate into a change in the farmer’s behaviour that will, ultimately, affect the provision of ecosystem services.
But monitoring the performance of PWS is extremely difficult.
Going beyond simple remedies
At IIED we have been following the waves behind PWS in developing countries through the years and we have joined others highlighting the need to go beyond simple remedies based more on expectations than science (e.g. “more trees, more water”).
In a recent paper, we discuss how monitoring and evaluation is used in PWS to help achieve environmental success along with lessons accumulated since our first review in 2002.
In practice, monitoring PWS tends to fall in two categories:
1. Compliance monitoring: do farmers stick to the agreed contract?
2. Effectiveness monitoring: is there a change in the level of the ecosystem services?
Læs mere her: http://www.iied.org/will-payments-for-watershed-services-fuel-protection-ecosystem-services-0
Begynd ved: “While ideally the focus should be…”
