Payments for Hydrologic Environmental Services and Environmental Perceptions - Bustamante

Payments for Hydrologic Environmental Services and Environmental Perceptions of

Forest landowners of the Iztaccihuatl – Popocatepetl Region in the State of Puebla,

Mexico

70th SWCS International Annual Conference, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA, July 26-29, 2015

Angel Bustamante González Samuel Vargas López

Diego Armando Martínez Cruz

Colegio de Postgraduados, Mexico

FOREST DEGRADATION IN MEXICO

34% of the country (about 140 million hectares) is covered by forests

Forests have been lost at an average rate of 490 thousand hectares per year

Removal and degradation of the forest cover: degradation of the soils and their productive function, loss of biodiversity, and the reduction of environmental services

Source: SEMARNAT, 2007

PAYMENTS FOR HYDROLOGIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (PSAH) PROGRAM

2003 the program began operating Nationwide The program seeks to provide economic incentives to avoid forest cover loss in areas with forests in good conservation and where there is a risk of deforestation or land use change of forestry to agriculture or livestock production, in order to maintain the hydrologic functions of these areas The owners of the forestry lands receive a payment (originally $36/ha) for forest protection and avoiding the change of the land use. It is required to keep their land in good conditions, without a change of the land use, during the period when the agreement is established by December 2011, 2.42 million hectares were enrolled under PSAH agreement It is part of the protection of the basins, the conservation of the forests and the biodiversity, and the carbon sequestration

IZTACCIHUATL – POPOCATEPETL REGION

50% of the forest has been degraded 10% was lost in the last two decades PSAH began in 2003

Forest cover changes are assessed using satellite images and visual field

assessment, but little attention has been paid to the economic and social impacts of the program

POLICY QUESTIONS ON THE PAYMENTS FOR HIDROLOGIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ON THE REGION

How the program is doing in conserving forest cover? What is the program impact on the landowner income? Is there any impact of the program on the landowners perceptions and willingness to accept payments for the maintenance of the hydrologic environmental services?

Assess the impacts of the PSAH program on forestry

landowners attitudes and perceptions to forest conservation

Assess the eagerness of forest landowners to participate in the PSAH program

OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

A questionnaire with 22 items measuring: landowner perception on awareness of the importance of forest conservation and environmental forest problems PHAS perceived benefits and intend of participation on conservation programs and willingness to offer hydrologic environmental services to downstream communities was administrated to 67 participants and 47 non-participants landowners

PARTICIPANTS NON- PARTICIPANTS

Agree (%) Desagree (%) Agree (%) Desagree (%)

Forests serve only to graze cattle, collect firewood, remove wood or charcoal

67.1 32.8 40.5 59.6 **

Water is abundant and inexhaustible in the forests of my community

86.5 12.5 89.4 10.7

I have no problems in the

forest soils of my community

46.3 53.8 55.4 44.7

I do not think that my

community forests have

significant changes in the

future

73.2 26.9 74.5 25.5

Although many trees were cut

I think the forest will always

have trees

80.6 19.4 85.1 14.9

** Mann Whitney U test

Forest conservation attitudes

Perception of the severity of forest deterioration


Agree(%) Desagree (%) Agree (%) Desagree (%)

Some wild animals in the forests of my community are extinct

82.1 17.9 89.4 10.6

Some plants have completely disappeared from the forests of my community

38.8 61.2 74.5 25.5 **

The rains have damaged the forest soils of my community

17.9 82.5 31.9 68.1 **

Some springs of my community have disappeared

82.1 17.9 91.5 8.5

Some forest land in my community have been damaged so much that the plants do not grow as before

58.3 41.8 55.3 44.7

Willingness to participate in forest conservation programs



I would be willing to not cut trees even if the government does not give me any money

10.5 89.5 72.3 27.6 **

I would be willing to not cut the forest trees of my community if I get a payment for it

95.6 4.5 74.5 25.6

I will never participate in any government program if I do not get a benefit

94.0 6.0 93.6 6.4

I would plant trees in the forests of my community even if I do not get paid for it

92.5 7.5 91.4 8.5

I prefer a crop or cut wood from my forest instead of 300 pesos per hectare for forest conservation

86.6 13.4 59.6 40.4 **

Perceived benefits of the program



Payments for not cutting forest trees in my community have benefited me

97 3 72.3 27.7

Leaving the forest without timber extraction does not benefit me

83.6 16.4 55.3 44.7 **

Government programs always benefit me

94 6 91.5 8.5

Importance of water yield to be used in other areas (cities)



I worry that others outside of my community does not have enough water

97 3 91.5 8.5 **

If my community gives water to other towns, they have to pay for it

16.5 83.6 12.8 87.3

If other people use water from the forests of my community, they must be responsible for their preservation

7.5 92.5 29.8 70.2 **

If other towns or cities have no water, they must obtain it from other communities not in my community

52.2 46.9 38.3 61.7

Non-participants landowners tend to emphasize non-use value over use value, they are aware of forest degradation, and they are willingness to participate in conservation programs even if they were not paid to do so Participant landowners tend to emphasize economic forest value over forest conservation, they intend to participate in conservation programs only if they obtain an economic benefit, and are aware that they are in position to provide hydrologic environmental services to downstream communities

Both groups believe that the forest resource is inexhaustible

The study provides some evidence indicating that the PHAS has influenced the landowner perception on the value of forest resources and hydrologic environmental services, promoting the perception that both have an economic value and can be traded

However it can be concluded that the payment does not necessarily promote good practices or attitudes to forest conservation. The PSAH has led to an utilitarian view of resources