Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries
Introduction
As ecosystems have become increasingly degraded worldwide, and the valuable environmental services (ES) that they provide lost or reduced, there has been a growing search for solutions. Among these, the payments for environmental services (PES) approach has been applied increasingly often in both developed and developing countries. Numerous PES and PES-like initiatives are being implemented, at a wide variety of scales ranging from small watersheds to entire nations. Despite this growing interest, there have been few efforts to systematically document the characteristics and effectiveness of different PES programs, and even fewer efforts to compare them. This Special Issue of Ecological Economics has attempted to fill this gap by providing detailed case studies of some of the most important PES programs.
In this concluding article, we synthesize the information presented in the case studies included in this Special Issue, and make a structural comparison of their characteristics with respect to design, costs, environmental effectiveness, and livelihood outcomes. Finally, we draw lessons from the analysis of these cases for improved PES design.
We begin by briefly reviewing our sample cases of PES programs, highlighting important design characteristics (Section 2). We then examine the available evidence on the effectiveness of PES programs in achieving environmental objectives (Section 3) and in helping reduce poverty (Section 4). We close with some conclusions and policy perspectives (Section 5).
Section snippets
PES case studies
In this Special Issue we follow Wunder (2005) in defining PES as (a) a voluntary transaction where (b) a well-defined environmental service (ES) or a land use likely to secure that service (c) is being ‘bought’ by a (minimum one) service buyer (d) from a (minimum one) service provider (e) if and only if the service provider secures service provision (conditionality).
The sample of PES case studies presented in this Special Issue is built around those presented at the workshop on PES Methods and
Effectiveness and efficiency of PES programs
In the theoretical literature on PES, it has been suggested that the direct nature of the PES transaction induces PES to be both more effective and more cost-efficient than indirect tools such as ICDPs or eco-friendly premiums requiring investments in alternative lines of production (Ferraro and Kiss, 2002, Ferraro and Simpson, 2002, Ferraro and Simpson, 2005). In this section, we examine how effective PES programs have been at achieving their stated objectives of improving ES generation. We
Distributional impacts of PES programs
Although the primary objective of PES programs is to improve the provision of ES, many programs also have additional objectives, as shown in Table 5. In this respect, the differences between user-financed and government-financed programs are striking. While all four user-financed programs have no side objectives,38
Conclusions and perspectives
PES has attracted considerable attention in recent years. Its growing popularity has not yet been matched, however, with careful analysis of how it works, and of its strengths and weaknesses. This Special Issue of Ecological Economics has attempted to help fill this gap by providing detailed case studies of some of the most important PES programs. As the analysis in this paper has shown, these PES programs often differ substantially one from the other. Some of the differences reflect adaptation
Acknowledgments
Funding for this research and the corresponding workshop was provided in part by the Robert Bosch Foundation, the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the European Union (EU), and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). We would like to thank Paul Ferraro and John Dixon for helpful comments on an earlier draft. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the World Bank Group, CIFOR, or IIED.
References (53)
Hydrological functions of moist tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees?
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environments
(2004)- et al.
How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America
World Development
(2005) Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India
World Development
(2002)- et al.
Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America
World Development
(2005) - et al.
Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua
Special Issue on Ecosystem Services and Agriculture, Ecological Economics
(2007) - et al.
Payments for Environmental Services: to whom, for what, and how much?
Working Paper. 30: University of California at Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics
(2004) - et al.
Selling two environmental services: in-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia
Ecological Economics
(2008) - et al.
Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: a comparison
Ecological Economics
(2008) China's sloping land conversion program: institutional innovation or business as usual?
Ecological Economics
(2008)- et al.
An Incentive Based Tool for Ecologically and Economically Efficient Provision of Agrobiodiversity
(2005)