One size does not fit all: Natural infrastructure investments within the Latin American Water Funds Partnership
One size does not fit all: Natural infrastructure investments within the Latin American Water Funds Partnership
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.006
复制
发表时间：
2016-02-01
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
Tiepolo, Gilberto
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bremer, Leah L.;Auerbach, Dan A.;Tiepolo, Gilberto
水基金力求促进长期的流域保护，为生物多样性和人类福祉带来多重利益。这一方法发展迅速，特别是在拉丁美洲，到2014年已有30多个水基金在运作或发展。为了满足对证据的需求，以指导正在进行的决策，我们评估了与拉丁美洲水基金伙伴关系在2013-2014年运作的16个项目的目标和战略。我们的研究结果强调了流域服务投资方法的多样性。这些方案采用的各种财政、治理和管理机制反映了其独特的生物物理、社会经济和政治背景。所有16个水基金都旨在确保水质（15/16）和/或水量（包括流量的时间）（14/16）。大多数项目还明确争取对当地生计（9/16）和生物多样性（11/16）的共同利益。迄今为止，通过立法获得的公共资金提供了最多的资金，但私人、非政府组织和开发银行来源对一些方案也很重要。虽然这些方案积极吸引了农村土地管理者，但在16个基金中，只有4个基金的治理委员会有这一利益攸关方群体的代表。此外，虽然大多数在实地开展活动的水基金（13/16）报告了生物物理和社会影响监测（8/16），但许多基金在实施方面面临重大的后勤、技术和资金挑战。我们建议将更多的农村土地管理者纳入治理委员会，增加私营部门的参与，并持续致力于以证据为基础的方法，以增加项目实现目标的可能性。(C)2015爱思唯尔B. V.保留所有权利。
Water funds seek to promote long-term watershed conservation with multiple benefits for biodiversity and human well-being. This approach has grown rapidly, particularly in Latin America where more than 30 water funds were in operation or development by 2014. To meet the need for evidence to guide ongoing decisions, we assessed the goals and strategies of 16 programs that were operating in 2013-2014 in association with the Latin American Water Funds Partnership. Our findings underscore the diversity within this approach to investment in watershed services. The various financial, governance, and management mechanisms adopted by these programs reflected their distinct biophysical, socio-economic, and political contexts. All 16 water funds aimed to secure water quality (15/16) and/or quantity (including the timing of flows) (14/16). The majority of programs also explicitly strived for co-benefits to local livelihoods (9/16) and biodiversity (11/16). Public funding secured through legislation provided the most funding to date, but private, NGO, and development bank source were also important for some programs. While programs have actively engaged rural land stewards, this stakeholder group was represented on governance boards in just 4 of 16 funds. Additionally, while the majority of water funds with activities on the ground (13/16) reported biophysical and social impact monitoring (8/16), many faced significant logistical, technical, and funding challenges to its implementation. We recommend greater inclusion of rural land stewards on governance boards, increased engagement of the private sector, and a sustained commitment to an evidence-based approach to increase the likelihood that programs will attain their goals. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.