Gender and payments for environmental services 849
TABLE 6 Use of PES money within households and across household head types in 2011 and 2015. Variation in the number reporting reflects households who reported having received a payment in the previous year.
What were payments spent on (% of households)?1
Direct forest care costs (e.g. seedlings, hired labour)
Food
Agricultural production Household goods School fees
House construction Other
Overall (n = 92), 2011
8
90 17 32 26 2
21
Overall (n = 70), 2015
79 14 39 23 3
19
Female-headed households (n = 15), 2011
Male-headed households (n = 77), 2011
13 40 26 0 0
90 18 30 25 3
Female-headed households (n = 11), 2015
82 45 45 36 0
Male-headed households (n = 59), 2015
1 090 2 93
78 8
37 17 3
25 1Multiple categories could be chosen and therefore columns do not necessarily sum to 100%.
TABLE 7 Opinions on benefit distribution across household types in Lâm Đồng and Sơn La combined in 2015. Opinions on benefit distribution
Female-headed households (n = 11)
Feel current payment amount is sufficient (% of households) Higher amount would be sufficient, average suggestion (VND/ha) Provide land tenure certificate (% of households) Provide community investment (% of households) Provide in-kind food donations (% of households) Other (% of households)
Sơn La). More female-headed households were also inter- ested in food supplies in lieu of cash payments, and men requested additional subsidies of fuel (for motorbikes for forest patrolling) and uniforms. Additionally, in several areas of Sơn La, payments were made to collective organiza- tions in addition to individuals, and the Women’s Union was one such beneficiary. These small sums of money were used to fund the association’s activities, such as sup- port for ill members, and this collective benefit was strongly supported by women in focus groups.
Does PES induce different conservation activities between households?
A comparison between female- and male-headed house- holds participating in PES showed that the former spent more labour days on PES work in 2015: the 12 female-headed households in the sample with PES contracts reported spending on average 40 days/year on PES activities (includ- ing both meetings and patrolling), whereas 64 male-headed households with PES contracts reported spending 31 days/ year. This was despite the fact that the women had less land to protect in their contracts (25.6 ha on average for female-headed households vs 30.7 ha for male male-headed households ). There were also differences between female- and male- headed households in terms of changing their land use
16
725,000 25 0
42 17
18 19
Male-headed households (n = 59)
21
750,000 17 2
16 19
practices after receiving payments for environmental services (Table 8). In particular, 46% of female-headed households who had received payments in 2011 reported they had done nothing differently after receiving them, confirming lowcon- ditionality in early implementation (McElwee et al., 2014); in other words, female-headed households went to PES meet- ings and on patrols, but still may have used lands as they did previously, such as for firewood collection. Yet by 2015, the women reported more behaviour change than male- headed households, including higher self-reporting that they did not participate in logging or had reduced their fuelwood collection.
Discussion
Our unique panel data gives us some indicative findings regarding the impacts of PES on gender issues over time. Although there are other issues that can affect conservation actions, our focus on gender has allowed us to highlight where PES projects may need to pay attention in the future. In all sites, natural resource use varied between men and women, and PES activities resulted in restrictions on forest use, particularly around fuelwood and NTFP collection, dis- proportionately the realm of women. Yet the large payments at one site (Lâm Đồng) had allowed women to make up for a loss of fuelwood by the purchase of gas cookers, which had also freed up women’s time and was viewed positively.
Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 844–852 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320000733
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
