The rising global urgency to protect ecosystems has led to increased interest in Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) as a potential solution. PES initiatives financially incentivize landowners and communities for preserving ecosystems. However, applying PES schemes to indigenous communities raises both opportunities and significant challenges. This article critically examines these complexities, emphasizing the unique cultural and social values of indigenous populations that PES frameworks often overlook.
Indigenous Cultural Values and Environmental Virtue
Indigenous communities frequently hold worldviews that profoundly differ from market-based perceptions of natural resources. For these communities, nature often represents more than a commodity; it holds cultural, spiritual, and ancestral significance. This intrinsic relationship to nature contrasts sharply with the commodification that PES programs entail. Studies by Johnson et al. (2018) indicate that PES schemes might “crowd out” traditional environmental values by monetizing conservation efforts, thus eroding the community’s intrinsic motivation to protect their land out of a sense of duty rather than for financial gain.
The commodification of ecosystem services presents a neoliberal approach to conservation, one often criticized for imposing external values on indigenous lands. For instance, among the Hopi in the United States, land stewardship is an integral part of their identity, and monetizing these practices can diminish their cultural connection to nature. Bennett and Gosnell (2015) argue that such schemes may alter societal values toward nature, pushing landowners to expect payment for practices traditionally considered as social or moral obligations.
However, not all research aligns with this critique. Greiner and Stanley (2013) suggest that PES can strengthen community values by providing indigenous groups with resources to engage in conservation efforts without compromising cultural practices. In Australia, Aboriginal involvement in land management programs under PES has reportedly boosted indigenous self-esteem and pride, aligning environmental conservation with cultural continuity. This suggests that, when tailored carefully, PES can empower indigenous communities, enhancing their stewardship practices rather than replacing them.
Institutional and Jurisdictional Challenges
Implementing PES programs within indigenous communities also faces institutional challenges, particularly regarding land tenure and jurisdictional rights. Many indigenous territories lack formalized land titles, complicating PES initiatives that typically require clear land ownership. Johnson et al. (2018) highlight that in cases like the Hopi Reservation, where land governance is managed communally and led by traditional authorities, PES initiatives must navigate complex approval processes, often slowing implementation.
Contrasting perspectives arise from Aboriginal communities in Australia, where Traditional Owner Elders and rangers oversee land management. Robinson et al. (2016) discuss a successful PES program in which Aboriginal leaders were engaged in decision-making for a fire management initiative that aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This example demonstrates that, when PES programs respect indigenous governance and integrate traditional ecological knowledge, they can effectively support environmental and community goals. Such collaborative approaches can bridge cultural values with conservation policies, underscoring that flexible, culturally-informed PES models are more likely to succeed.
Addressing Asymmetrical Information
Another pressing issue is the problem of asymmetrical information. Indigenous communities may lack access to the same level of information as other stakeholders, potentially leading to unequal benefits and misunderstandings within PES agreements. This information gap can lead to market inefficiencies, where one party—often the community providing ecosystem services—may not fully understand contract terms or the ecological impacts of their actions under PES.
In Chile’s Panguipulli region, for instance, Nahuelhual et al. (2018) found that local indigenous communities struggled with the concept of ecosystem services, which hindered their effective participation in PES schemes. The asymmetrical information made it challenging for communities to align their conservation efforts with PES program objectives.
Solutions to this issue include introducing intermediaries who can facilitate communication and ensure equitable information sharing among all stakeholders. In Indonesia, the Rekonvasi Bhumi program around the Cidanau watershed successfully bridged this gap by involving a local NGO to act as an intermediary. This initiative led to a tripartite agreement between service providers, buyers, and mediators, allowing local farmers to participate in conservation efforts with informed decision-making. While intermediaries can increase transaction costs, they are often crucial in fostering transparency and facilitating inclusive agreements.
Conclusion
While PES schemes present promising frameworks for funding conservation, they are not without complications, particularly in indigenous contexts. Indigenous values often resist the commodification that PES implies, viewing conservation as a moral obligation rather than a financial transaction. For PES to succeed, programs must adapt to and respect the unique cultural and social dynamics of each community.
Flexible PES models that include indigenous governance and knowledge can potentially harmonize environmental goals with indigenous values, turning PES from a purely transactional tool into a means of empowering communities. Similarly, addressing asymmetrical information and incorporating intermediaries can facilitate clearer communication and equitable participation. By rethinking and adapting PES to indigenous contexts, policymakers and conservationists can create programs that protect ecosystems while respecting the cultures of those who have stewarded these lands for generations.
Photo credit: Photo by Meressa Chartrand on Unsplash
References
Bennett, D.E. and H. Gosnell (2015) ‘Integrating Multiple Perspectives on Payments for Ecosystem Services through a social–ecological Systems Framework’. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915002001> (ID: 271867).
Cole, D.H. and P.Z. Grossman (1999) ‘When is Command-and-Control Efficient-Institutions, Technology, and the Comparative Efficiency of Alternative Regulatory Regimes for Environmental Protection’, Wis.L.Rev. : 887.
Cook, H., L. Couldrick and L. Smith (2017) ‘An Assessment of Intermediary Roles in Payments for Ecosystem Services Schemes in the Context of Catchment Management: An Example from South West England’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 19(01): 1750003.
Greiner, R. and O. Stanley (2013) ‘More than Money for Conservation: Exploring Social Co-Benefits from PES Schemes’. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837712000348> (ID: 271740).
Johnson, M.K., A.M. Lien, N.R. Sherman and L. López-Hoffman (2018) ‘Barriers to PES Programs in Indigenous Communities: A Lesson in Land Tenure Insecurity from the Hopi Indian Reservation’. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617306897> (ID: 282079).
Monica Gratani, Stephen G. Sutton, James R.A. Butler, Erin L. Bohensky, Simon Foale & Mark Stevenson (2016) Indigenous environmental values as human values, Cogent Social Sciences, 2:1, DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2016.1185811
Muradian, R. , Arsel, M. , Pellegrini, L. , Adaman, F. , Aguilar, B. , Agarwal, B. , Corbera, E. , Ezzine de Blas, D. , Farley, J. , Froger, G. , Garcia‐Frapolli, E. , Gómez‐Baggethun, E. , Gowdy, J. , Kosoy, N. , Le Coq, J. , Leroy, P. , May, P. , Méral, P. , Mibielli, P. , Norgaard, R. , Ozkaynak, B. , Pascual, U. , Pengue, W. , Perez, M. , Pesche, D. , Pirard, R. , Ramos‐Martin, J. , Rival, L. , Saenz, F. , Hecken, G. , Vatn, A. , Vira, B. and Urama, K. (2013), Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win‐win solutions. Conservation Letters, 6: 274-279. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00309.x
Nahuelhual, L., G. Saavedra, F. Henríquez, F. Benra, X. Vergara, C. Perugache and F. Hasen (2018) ‘Opportunities and Limits to Ecosystem Services Governance in Developing Countries and Indigenous Territories: The Case of Water Supply in Southern Chile’. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901118300042> (ID: 271991).
Robinson, C.J., G. James and P.J. Whitehead (2016) ‘Negotiating Indigenous Benefits from Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) Schemes’. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300152> (ID: 271866).
Sangha, K.K., A. Le Brocque, R. Costanza and Y. Cadet-James (2015) ‘Ecosystems and Indigenous Well-being: An Integrated Framework’, Global Ecology and Conservation 4: 197-206.
Sattler, C. and B. Matzdorf (2013) ‘PES in a Nutshell: From Definitions and Origins to PES in practice—Approaches, Design Process and Innovative Aspects’. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221204161300082X> (ID: 282079).
Sweeting, A. (1998) ‘Discuss the Reasons Why Asymmetric Information can be a Source of Market Failure: Use Examples to Illustrate Your Answers”. Accessed 4 July 2018. < https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15037612589776206683&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&sciodt=0,5>
Indonesian 
English