Track 3-02: Benefits from Ecosystem Services Derived from Grasslands
Description
Payment for ecosystem services (PES) has been adopted by the Chinese government over the past decade as a mechanism to combat regional-scale rangeland degradation. We analyzed some fundamental problems associated with PES application in rangeland management from the perspective of social-ecological system (SES) resilience by using as a case study he PES project of “retire livestock to restore rangeland” in Inner Mongolia. The study findings demonstrated that PES project resulted in obvious negative impacts on local pastoralists’ livelihood and society networks without achieving any substantial rangeland restoration. Such failures are rooted in that PES strategy in which the logic of using cash to purchase ecological services, fragmented and simplified the localized and diverse relationship within the SES thereby weaken its resilience. We concluded that PES should be aimed at SES function and improve its resilience during disturbances, and not just simply focus on maintaining ecological service. In this sense, we argue for the use of Payment for SES Resilience instead of Payment for Ecological Services in the future.
Citation
Li, Wenjun and Li, Yanbo, "Application of Payment for Ecosystem Services in China’s Rangeland Conservation: A Social-Ecological System Resilience Perspective" (2020). IGC Proceedings (1993-2023). 5.
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc/22/3-2/5
Included in
Application of Payment for Ecosystem Services in China’s Rangeland Conservation: A Social-Ecological System Resilience Perspective
Payment for ecosystem services (PES) has been adopted by the Chinese government over the past decade as a mechanism to combat regional-scale rangeland degradation. We analyzed some fundamental problems associated with PES application in rangeland management from the perspective of social-ecological system (SES) resilience by using as a case study he PES project of “retire livestock to restore rangeland” in Inner Mongolia. The study findings demonstrated that PES project resulted in obvious negative impacts on local pastoralists’ livelihood and society networks without achieving any substantial rangeland restoration. Such failures are rooted in that PES strategy in which the logic of using cash to purchase ecological services, fragmented and simplified the localized and diverse relationship within the SES thereby weaken its resilience. We concluded that PES should be aimed at SES function and improve its resilience during disturbances, and not just simply focus on maintaining ecological service. In this sense, we argue for the use of Payment for SES Resilience instead of Payment for Ecological Services in the future.
