The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services

Recent decades have witnessed a considerable increase in Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)—programmes that exchange value for land management practices intended to provide or ensure ecosystem services—with over 550 active programmes around the globe and an estimated US$36–42 billion in annual transactions. PES represent a recent policy instrument with often very different programmes operating at local, regional and national levels. Despite the growth of these programmes, comprehensive and reliable data have proven difficult to find. This Analysis provides an assessment of the trends and current status of PES mechanisms—user-financed, government-financed and compliance—across the domains of water, biodiversity, and forest and land-use carbon around the world. We report the various dimensions of growth over the past decade (number of programmes, geographical spread, dollar value) to understand better the range of PES mechanisms over time and to examine which factors have contributed to or hindered growth. Four key features stand out for scaling up PES: motivated buyers, motivated sellers, metrics and low-transaction-cost institutions.A unique dataset of over 550 programmes of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) worldwide, grouped into water, forest- and land-use carbon, and biodiversity programmes, is used to assess the trends and the current status of such policy instruments.

[1]  S. Wunder.  Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence , 2008, Environment and Development Economics.

[2]  Christoph Nolte,et al.  Estimating the impacts of conservation on ecosystem services and poverty by integrating modeling and evaluation , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Cyrus Samii,et al.  Effects of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) on Deforestation and Poverty in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review , 2014 .

[4]  J. Boyd.  Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act , 2002 .

[5]  J. Kerr,et al.  Reducing Poverty Through Carbon Forestry? Impacts of the N’hambita Community Carbon Project in Mozambique , 2012 .

[6]  S. Rist,et al.  Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade‐offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon , 2014 .

[7]  G. Sánchez‐Azofeifa,et al.  Costa Rica's Payment for Environmental Services Program: Intention, Implementation, and Impact , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[8]  Katharine R. E. Sims,et al.  Only One Tree from Each Seed? Environmental Effectiveness and Poverty Alleviation in Mexico's Payments for Ecosystem Services Program , 2015 .

[9]  P. Ferraro,et al.  Measuring the difference made by conservation initiatives: protected areas and their environmental and social impacts , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  Katharine R. E. Sims,et al.  Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico , 2017 .

[11]  L. Zhen,et al.  The Institutional Challenges of Payment for Ecosystem Service Program in China: A Review of the Effectiveness and Implementation of Sloping Land Conversion Program , 2015 .

[12]  James E. M. Watson,et al.  The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy , 2018, Nature Sustainability.

[13]  R. Brouwer,et al.  Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services , 2011, Environmental Conservation.

[14]  E. Lambin,et al.  Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions , 2014 .

[15]  Michael Huettner.  Risks and opportunities of REDD+ implementation for environmental integrity and socio-economic compatibility , 2012 .

[16]  N. Thomas,et al.  Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation , 2017, Science.

[17]  E. Lambin,et al.  Impacts of nonstate, market-driven governance on Chilean forests , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  S. Wunder.  Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services , 2015 .

[19]  J. Budds,et al.  Payment for Environmental Services and Unequal Resource Control in Pimampiro, Ecuador , 2013 .

[20]  Bingfang Wu,et al.  Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital , 2016, Science.

[21]  R. Gullison.  Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? , 2003, Oryx.

[22]  A. Vatn.  Markets in environmental governance — From theory to practice , 2014 .

[23]  Paul J. Ferraro,et al.  Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn't? , 2012 .

[24]  S. Wunder,et al.  Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues , 2008 .

[25]  Jianguo Liu,et al.  Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China's policies for ecosystem services , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  James E. Salzman.  What is the Emperor Wearing? The Secret Lives of Ecosystem Services , 2011 .

[27]  R. Thwaites,et al.  Social equity and livelihood implications of REDD+ in rural communities – a case study from Nepal , 2015 .

[28]  Fernando Veiga,et al.  One size does not fit all: Natural infrastructure investments within the Latin American Water Funds Partnership , 2016 .

[29]  Working Paper.  Payment for Ecosystem Services from Forests , 2014 .

[30]  G. Daily,et al.  Mainstreaming investments in watershed services to enhance water security: Barriers and opportunities , 2017 .

[31]  M. Feldman,et al.  Securing Natural Capital and Human Well-Being: Innovation and Impact in China , 2013 .

[32]  Stephen Polasky,et al.  Benefits, costs, and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  E. Lambin,et al.  Cash for Carbon: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Payments for Ecosystem Services to Reduce Deforestation , 2016 .

[34]  James E. Salzman,et al.  Currencies and the Commodification of Environmental Law , 2000 .

[35]  Katharine R. E. Sims,et al.  Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program , 2012, Land Economics.

[36]  James E. Salzman,et al.  The Effects of Wetland Mitigation Banking on People , 2006 .

[37]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Conservation: Stop misuse of biodiversity offsets , 2015, Nature.

[38]  A. Kinzig,et al.  Get the science right when paying for nature's services , 2015, Science.

[39]  Paul J. Ferraro,et al.  Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries? , 2010, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.