Are We Putting the Money in the Right Pocket? Ascertaining the Eventual Relationship between Silvoagricultural Subsidies, Ecosystem Threats, and Ecosystem Services in Chile

Cristian Pérez (), Patricio Pliscoff and Javier A. Simonetti
Additional contact information
Cristian Pérez: Departamento de Ciencias Ecológicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Las Palmeras 3425, Santiago 7800003, Chile
Patricio Pliscoff: Facultad de Historia, Geografía y Ciencia Política, Instituto de Geografía, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avenida Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago 7820436, Chile
Javier A. Simonetti: Departamento de Ciencias Ecológicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Las Palmeras 3425, Santiago 7800003, Chile

Sustainability, 2022, vol. 15, issue 1, 1-12

Abstract: Due to the Aichi targets, the international community committed to the sustainable management of silvoagricultural activities and to the elimination or reform of detrimental subsidies relative to biodiversity conservation. In this context, countries should have implemented specific actions to address these commitments. In Chile, the Instruments of Productive Promotion to Finance Field Work (IPP-FFW) framework was used to fund activities related to silvoagricultural systems, including, irrigation, plantations with exotic species, and the recovery of soils. However, concerns have been raised that are associated with the need for evaluating their effectiveness, including whether impact assessments should be carried out systematically. Considering that these subsidized activities may negatively impact nature, whether IPP-FFWs had been allocated is analyzed regardless of the threat degree of terrestrial ecosystems at the commune level in Chile using the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) ecosystem risk assessment methodology; moreover, the eventual relationship between changes in land use and ecosystem service provisions in case study for the Biobio region in Chile is also examined, for which the monetary consequences of the loss of ecosystem services—via the analysis of benefit transfers—are calculated. Evidence reveals that higher amounts of IPP-FFWs are allocated in communes with higher levels of threats and that a decrease in ecosystem service provision is associated with IPP-FFW’s allocation.

Keywords: biodiversity risks; instruments of productive promotion; ecosystem threats; land-use change; silvoagricultural systems (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/744/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/744/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:744-:d:1021515

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().