Issues concerning land rights can be problematic. ‘Te poor- est of the poor’ oſten do not own or control any land. Tere are also issues relating to overlapping and disputed claims to land – as is the case in many poor communities and indigenous communities around the world – or where land is owned col- lectively by various groups. Tis highlights the need to look at the way property rights are defined and implemented through community-based use rights or access rights.
At present PES schemes are oſten easier – and less costly – to implement when they involve only a few big landowners. In view of prevailing practice on land and property rights, there may be a need to reconsider how PES schemes are framed and implemented, in such a way as to allow communities, not just individuals, to register as service providers too.
It may be important to guard against wealthy landowners us- ing entry to PES schemes as a way of securing claims over dis- puted land, thus going against the interests of the poor. Anoth- er issue is that many rural poor live and work on land which is environmentally sensitive and, at the same time, economically marginal. PES pricing systems need to take this into account.
Payment systems must be transparent and the flow of funds easily traceable – not weighted in favour of either buyer or sell- er. It is essential to show that such payments to communities can make a difference to household incomes: otherwise people
are unlikely to take part or follow through on commitments. Risk factors should be taken into consideration when framing payment proposals. Under the PES system, payments are oſten based on the delivery of specific ecosystem services yet adverse factors beyond the control of those selling the services such as wildfires, insect infestations or changes in rainfall might re- sult in failure to meet contractual obligations. PES contracts should take into account the potential for such events.
Poor families are unlikely to live on PES payments alone. Depending on the context and type of PES scheme, fam- ily incomes can be supplemented through activities such as agroforestry, collection of non-timber forest products and possibly limited logging, though it is important to make sure such activities do not compromise carbon storage require- ments. Additional compensation may also be provided in the form of capacity training or support for alternative income- generating enterprises
Tough PES and poverty alleviation are interlinked, buyers tend to view poverty reduction as a separate issue. Asking buyers to pay an additional sum to ensure a PES programme is more pro-poor may lessen the attraction of becoming in- volved and could be viewed as a tax on conservation efforts. It may therefore be necessary to look for additional, specific sources of funding for schemes where a PES scheme is com- bined with poverty alleviation
VITAL GRAPHICS ON PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 67