Abstract
Payment for environmental services – in short PES – has become a prominent topic in the tropics, especially in Latin America where Costa Rica is considered a pioneer in the field. This chapter introduces PES by providing the theoretical basis underpinning the topic in a first step, followed by a description of the PES landscape and implementation essentials. As PES lives from examples on the ground, five concrete PES cases are introduced, ranging from the Vittel water brand in France over the ICMS Ecológico in Brazil to the 1996 established Costa Rican PES scheme. Described cases are finally used to derive a set of lessons-learnt from the PES experience.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Besides the termini payments for ecosystem services, also payments for environmental services can frequently be encountered in the literature. Even though individual scholars argue for a differentiation between the two (cf. Wunder 2008), they generally refer to the same concept and are used interchangeably here.
- 2.
It should be noted that forest cover serves as a proxy for the environmental services defined by law. Thus, it is assumed that the modalities for which compensation payments can be obtained deliver some or all of the outlined services, representing a simplification.
- 3.
Over the years, new financial sources were made accessible to finance the program, such as World Bank funds (Ecomercados I and II) or funds from semipublic or private entities. An innovative example for the latter is “green” debit cards, where 10 % of the bank’s commissions are transferred to Fonafifo.
- 4.
Roughly 40 % of all active contracts and 60 % of total active hectares contracted in 2013 referred to forest protection contracts. Between 1997 and 2005, around 80 % of total funds available were spent on this modality (Wünscher et al. 2008).
- 5.
In 2006, payments were raised to US$64 ha/year, running for a 5-year period. With Decree No. 36935 passed in 2012, the contract period was extended to 10 years.
- 6.
The clean development mechanism (CDM) will be discussed in chapter “The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)”.
- 7.
For a full listing of all modalities available including their financial compensation, consult the latest decree available at http://www.fonafifo.go.cr/paginas_espanol/servicios_ambientales/sa_decreManua.htm (Spanish only).
- 8.
Payments can also follow other criteria, e.g., a “min-max” criterion where “payments aim to maximize the net benefit to the poorest landholders, even at a cost of efficiency loss. Payments are differentiated according to the income of providers” (Pascual et al. 2010: 1240).
- 9.
- 10.
A comprehensive synthesis of the Mexican, Costa Rican, and Ecuadorian PES experience can be found in “Lessons Learned for REDD+ from PES and Conservation Incentive Programs,” a World Bank-sponsored report who explains in great detail 29 lessons learned in five key areas: (a) legal aspects of PES, conservation incentives, and REDD+ programs through the lens of participation agreements; (b) poverty reduction, livelihoods, and other equity issues; (c) evaluating and managing trade-offs and synergies between programs, sectors, and incentives; (d) monitoring, reporting, and verification of activities and outcomes; and (e) financial mechanisms, targeting, and controlling administrative costs (IBRD/WB (2012).
References
Arriagada R, Sills E, Pattanayak S, Ferraro P (2009) Combining qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate participation in Costa Rica’s program of payments for environmental services. J Sustain For 28(3):343–367
Arroyo J, Jiménez J, Mussi C (2012) Revenue sharing: the case of Brazil’s ICMS. United Nations Economic Development Division (UN-ECLAC), Santiago
Bracer C, Scherr S, Molnar A, Sekher M, Ochieng BO, Sriskanthan G (2007) Organization and governance for fostering pro-poor compensation for environmental services: CES scoping study issue paper no 4, ICRAF working paper no 39, World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi
Brink P (2011) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in national and international policy making. Earthscan, London
Forest Trends, The Katoomba Group, UNEP (2008) Payments for ecosystem services: getting started – a primer. Forest Trends, The Katoomba Group, UNEP, Nairobi
Hartshorn G, Ferraro P, Spergel B, Sills E (2005) Evaluation of the World Bank – GEF Ecomarkets project in Costa Rica. Available at the North Carolina State University. http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwcec/docs/doc%20updates/NCSU_Blue_Ribbon_Panel_Final.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2014
IBRD/WB (2012) Lessons learned for REDD+ from PES and conservation incentive programs, examples from Costa Rica, Mexico, and Ecuador. Available at FONAFIFO, CONAFOR and Ministry of Environment Ecuador. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/03/17634356/lessons-learned-redd-pes-conservation-incentive-programs-examples-costa-rica-mexico-ecuador. Accessed 3 Feb 2014
Marchand S, Sauquet A, José F (2012) Ecological fiscal incentives and spatial strategic interactions: the case of the ICMS-E in the Brazilian state of Paraná. Working paper no 201219 from the Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches sur le Développement International (CERDI), Clermont-Ferrand
Michel J (2012) Neighbourhood effects of payments for environmental services: case study in the Sarapiquí region, Heredia Province, Costa Rica. Available at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/187891. Accessed 28 Jan 2014
Pagiola S, Arcenas A (2013) TEEB case: regional integrated silvopastoral ecosystem management project – Costa Rica, Colombia and Nicarágua, Version 1.1. Available at TEEBWEB. http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PES-experience-in-Costa-Rica_-Colombia_-Nicaragua_05122013.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2014
Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev 33(2):237–253
Pagiola S, Rios A, Arcenas A (2008) Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral project in Nicaragua. Environ Dev Econ 13(3):299–325
Pascual U, Muradian R, Rodríguez L, Duraiappah A (2010) Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecol Econ 69(6):1237–1244
Perrot-Maître D (2006) The Vittel payments for ecosystem services: a “perfect” PES case. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Department for International Development (DFID), London
Pfaff A, Robalino J, Sanchez-Azofeifa G (2008) Payments for environmental services: empirical analysis for Costa Rica. Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham
Porras I (2013) Payments for environmental services: lessons from the Costa Rican PES programme. Paper presented at fair ideas conference, Rio de Janeiro, 16–17 June 2012
Porras I, Miranda M, Barton D, Chacón A (2006) Developing markets for watershed protection services and improved livelihoods, active learning from Costa Rica’s payment for environmental services. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London
Porras I, Miranda M, Barton D, Chacón A (2012) De RIO a RIO+: Lecciones de 20 años de experiencia en servicios ambientales en Costa Rica. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London
Prokofieva I, Wunder S, Vidale E (2012) Payments for environmental services: a way forward for Mediterranean forests? EFI Policy Brief 7. Available at EFI. http://www.efi.int/files/attachments/publications/efi_policy_brief_7_eng_net.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2014
Ring I (2008) Integrating local ecological services into intergovernmental fiscal transfers: the case of the ecological ICMS in Brazil. Land Use Policy 25(4):485–497
Sánchez-Azofeifa G, Pfaff A, Robalino J, Boomhower J (2007) Costa Rica’s payment for environmental services program: intention, implementation, and impact. Conserv Biol 21(5):1165–1173
Schomers S, Matzdorf B (2013) Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst Ser 6:16–30
Sierra R, Russman E (2006) On the efficiency of environmental service payments: a forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 59(1):131–141
Sills E, Arriagada R, Pattanayak S, Ferraro P, Carrasco L, Ortiz E, Cordero S (2006) Impact of the PSA program on land use (Chapter 9). In: Platais G, Pagiola S (eds) Ecomarkets: Costa Rica’s experience with payments for environmental services. Available at World Bank. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/EXTEEI/0,,contentMDK:21647925~menuPK:1187844~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:408050~isCURL:Y~isCURL:Y,00.html. Accessed 22 Jan 2014
Stanton T, Echavarria M, Hamilton K, Ott C (2010) State of watershed payments: an emerging marketplace. Available at ecosystem marketplace. http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2438.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2013
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) (2009) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for national and international policy makers. Available at TEEBWEB. http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/National%20and%20International%20Policy%20Making/TEEB%20for%20National%20Policy%20Makers%20report/TEEB%20for%20National.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2014
UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section (2011) Payments for forest–related ecosystem services: what role for a green economy. Available at UNECE. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/meetings/20110704/06062011pes_background_paper.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec 2013
Vaessen J, van Hecken Gert (2009) GEF impact evaluation: assessing the potential for experimental evaluation of intervention effects: the case of the regional integrated silvopastoral approaches to ecosystem management project (RISEMP). Global environmental facility (GEF) Impact evaluation information document no 15, Washington, DC
Van Hecken G, Bastiaensen J (2009) The potential and limitations of markets and payments for ecosystem services in agricultural landscape restoration. Institute of Development, Policy and Management, Antwerp
Vatn A (2010) An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69(6):1245–1252
Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR occasional paper no 42. Available at CIFOR. http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2014
Wunder S (2007) The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conserv Biol 21(1):48–58
Wunder S (2008) Necessary conditions for ecosystem services payments. Paper presented at the economics and conservation in the tropics – a strategic dialogue, San Francisco, 31 Jan–1 Feb 2008
Wünscher T, Engel S, Wunder S (2008) Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol Econ 65(4):822–833
Zbinden S, Lee D (2005) Paying for environmental services: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica’s PSA program. World Dev 33(2):255–272
Recommended References
International Institute for Environment and Development: http://www.iied.org/
Journal on Ecosystem Services, Science, Policy and Practice (Elsevier)
Payments for Ecosystem Services: Getting started-A primer: http://www.unep.org/publications/search/pub_details_s.asp?ID=3996
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this entry
Cite this entry
Michel, J., Kallweit, K., von Pfeil, E. (2016). Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). In: Pancel, L., Köhl, M. (eds) Tropical Forestry Handbook. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54601-3_233
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54601-3_233
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54600-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54601-3
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesReference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences