Both environmental protection and poverty alleviation are high on the international policy agenda for developing countries. We examine whether conditional environmental cash transfer programs contribute to the social protection of the beneficiaries, using data from a randomized controlled trial on reforestation, implemented in cooperation with the government of Burkina Faso. Randomly selected farmers were invited to undertake maintenance activities to increase the survival rate of trees that were planted on degraded forest lands. Compensation, in the form of monetary payments, varied with the number of trees still alive nine months after the tree planting. The timing of the conditional payments coincided with the lean season, when most farmers needed cash for food consumption and agricultural inputs. Six months after the transfers, the recipient households reported 12% higher food consumption expenditures compared to the control group, as well as a 35 and 60% reduction in, respectively, moderate and severe food insecurity. Our data indicate that the transfers received during the lean season were not only used to address immediate consumption needs but also to invest in crop and livestock production. The investments resulted in subsequent increases in agricultural outputs and income. We thus conclude that conditional environmental cash transfers, when paid in the lean season, can not only support consumption smoothing in the short run but can also improve livelihoods in the longer run.

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Policy Research Working Paper 8974 Does financial compensation for providing environmental conservation, improve the food security of the rural poor in the drylands of Sub-Saharan Africa? This paper explores this question using data from a randomized controlled trial of a large scale reforestation implemented by the Government of Burkina Faso. Members of communities located around selected protected forests were invited to plant indigenous tree species on degraded areas, and to take care of their maintenance. The financial compensation they would receive depended on the number of trees still alive a year later. The vast majority of the community members participating in the project were farmers, and the timing of the payments coincided with the lean season, when most farmers were at risk of food insecurity. Compared with the control group, the project's participants' households reported 12 percent higher food consumption expenditures, and a reduction in moderate and severe food insecurity by 35 percent to 60 percent. The transfers received were spent mostly on cereals, meat, and pulses, with no evidence of increased consumption of temptation goods. This paper is a product of the Development Impact Evaluation Group, Development Economics. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world.

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.