Can Payments Improve Environmental Services on Farmland? (2010)

Please fill the following information to request the publication in hardcopy. We will get in touch with you shortly.

* are required.

The ILEA paper compares the ecosystem services in the Gafsa oasis in Tunisia, provided by mono-cropping families with those of multi-cropping families. it contains an hypothesises about what impacts various PES mechanisms – direct payments and subsidies; ecolabels; and tax mechanisms and tradable permits -  might have and draws lessons from that.
Lessons learnt are
  • The multi-cropping system binds carbon more than mono cropping system
  • The family with long term lease contract replicated traditional farming methods with good ecosystem services, the family with a short term contract was in no position to invest in different crop layers and even destroyed them to get at least a short term benefit from the land they had in use;
  • in general, more than de jure land rights, de facto control is decisive for a PES scheme
Year: 2010
Language: English
In: Mountain Forum Bulletin, Volume X, Issue 1, January 2010,



 Record created 2011-12-21, last modified 2013-01-17