The Investigation of Legal, Social, and Economic Feasibility of Payment for Water Services in Golestan Province

فصلنامه آب و توسعه پایدار

Article 7, Volume 6, Issue 3 - Serial Number 14, March 2020, Pages 51-62   

Document Type: Applied Article

DOI: 10.22067/jwsd.v6i3.84449

Authors

Jalil Karami^{* 1}; Khadije Kiapasha²; Hamid Reza Niyazifar³

¹Gorgan University of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources

²University of Tehran,

³Kharazmi University

Abstract

Water ecosystem service, as a natural resource for direct and indirect consumption, and a limited and scarce production source is of great interest among all types of ecosystem services. Based on Iran’s situation and taking into account the characteristics of the Golestan province and Chehel Chai watershed, as well as the increasing use of payment mechanisms in exchange for ecosystem services worldwide, highlights the necessity of using an efficient management tool for ecosystem financial values. The present study seeks to examine legal, social, and economic challenges of enforcing payment for water services. Furthermore, practical solutions aimed at localising the payment mechanism for water in sustainable development and conservation of natural resources are proposed. Therefore, primarily, the characteristics of the study area and the payment mechanism for water service in Chehel Chai watershed were introduced. Its implementation framework and the challenges facing the implementation of the mechanism were also identified. Finally, based on the applied studies in different parts of the world and according to the economic, social, political, and legal status of the study area, practical solutions for the implementation of payment for water ecosystem services are provided.

Keywords

Legal requirements; Ecosystem services; Water tariffs; Chehel Chai; Golestan

References

ارباب، ح. و عباسی‌فرد، ز. 1391. بررسی رابطه آلودگی آب و رشد اقتصادی در کشورهای در حال توسعه و توسعه‌یافته. فصلنامه اقتصاد محیط‌زیست و انرژی، 1(3): 1-16.

پناهی، م. 1395. ارزش‌گذاری اقتصادی خدمات اکوسیستمی منتخب در پایلوت‌های چهارگانۀ جنگل‌های هیرکانی. گزارش پروژه چندمنظوره جنگل‌های هیرکانی. 322 ص.

بی‌نام. 1395. گزارش پروژه مدیریت چندمنظوره جنگل‌های هیرکانی، جوامع توانمند، جنگل‌های پایدار، میراث جهانی. 102 ص.

دانه‌کار، ا.، نوبخت، ع.، عطایی، ا.، بیات، د.، کرمی، ج.، داوودی، ی. و جوانمیری‌پور، م. 1398. پهنه‌بندی ‌کاربری‌ها بر اساس توان اکولوژیک برای مدیریت چندمنظوره در جنگل‌های‌هیرکانی شمال ایران. مطالعات علوم محیطی، 4(1): 965-978.

درخشان، ه. داوری، ک، هاشمی‌نیا، م. ضیایی، ع.ن. 1396. حداکثر خشکسالی محتمل مبنایی برای تخمین و حفظ ذخایر استراتژیک آب زیرزمینی. نشریه آب و توسعه پایدار، 4(2): 121-130.

ظفرزاده، ع. 1385. تعیین کیفیت شیمیایی آب در آب‌انبارهای روستایی استان گلستان. مجله علمی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی گرگان، 8(1): 51-54.

قربانی، م. و فیروززارع، ع. 1390. ارزش‌گذاری آلودگی هوای مشهد (کاربرد رهیافت ارزش‌گذاری مشروط)، دو فصلنامه اقتصاد و توسعه منطقه‌ای، 18(2): 72-89.

نگارش، ح. و ویسی، ج. 1392. تجزیه و تحلیل اثرات تغییر بارش در سیل‌خیزی حوضه‌آبریز رودخانه راوند (منطقه اسلام‌آباد غرب-استان کرمانشاه). فصلنامه علمی- پژوهشی برنامه‌ریزی منطقه‌ای،3(11): 79-98.

Camison C. and Villar-Lopez A. 2011. Non-technical innovation: Organizational memory and learning capabilities as antecedent factors with effects on sustained competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 40: 1294–1304.

De groot R.B.A. and Hermans L.M. 2009. Broadening the picture: negotiating payment schemes for water-related environmental services in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 68(11): 2760-2767.

Dobbs T.L. and Prretty J.N. 2004. Agir-Environmental Stewardship scheme and multifunctionality. Review of Agriculture Economics, 26(2): 220-237.

Dong X., Do X., Li K., Zeng S. and Bledsoe B. 2018. Benchmarking sustainability of urban water infrastructure systems in China. Journal of clear production, 170: 330.-338.

Fripp E. 2014. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): A practical guide to assessing the feasibility of PES projects. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.

Hazen B. and Terry A. 2012. Toward creating competitive advantage with logistics information technology. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(1): 8-35.

Landell-Mills N. and Porras IT. 2002. Silver Bullet or Fools’ Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and their Impacts on the Poor. Instruments for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry Series. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Lovejoy Th. and Ferarro P. 2010. Payments for environmental services and the global environment facility, A stop advisory document. 2th publication. 22 p.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. available at: www.maweb.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf.

Velasco-Munoz J., Aznar-Sanchez J., Belmonte-Urena L. and Roman-Sanchez I. 2018. Sustainable Water Use in Agriculture: A Review of Worldwide Research. Journal of sustainability, 10(4): 1084.

Nigel M., Asquith M, and Wunder S. 2008. Selling two environmental services: in-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecological Economics, 65(4): 675-684.

Savy CE. and Turpie JK. 2004. Payments for Ecosystem Services: A Review of Existing Programmes and Payment Systems – Appendix. Rhodes Gift, South Africa: Anchor Environmental Consultants CC.

Smith S., Rowcroft P., Everard M., Couldrick L., Reed M., Rogers H., Quick T., Eves C. and White C. 2013. Payments for Ecosystem Services: A Best Practice Guide. London: Defra.

Turpie J.K., Marias C. and Blignaut J.N. 2008. The working for water programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecological Economics, 65 (4): 788-798.

Daivis L. Watson R. and Winter M. 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

UNEP. 2008. Payment for ecosystem services- UN environment document repository home. 73 pp.

Wunder S. 2006. Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics?. Ecology and Society, 11(2): 23- 35.

Wunder S. and Alban M. 2008. Decentralized: the cases of pimampiro and PROFAFOR Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 65(4): 685-698.