Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice

  • Rebecca L. Goldman-Benner (a1), Silvia Benitez (a2), Timothy Boucher (a1), Alejandro Calvache (a2), Gretchen Daily (a3), Peter Kareiva (a4), Timm Kroeger (a1) and Aurelio Ramos (a5)...

Abstract

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) are emerging worldwide as important mechanisms to align investments in human and natural well-being. PES projects are often defined as voluntary transactions where well-defined environmental/ecosystem services (or land uses likely to secure those services) are bought by a minimum of one service buyer, from a minimum of one service provider, if and only if the service provider continuously secures service provision (conditionality). Further criteria of PES include limiting additional objectives and ensuring that payments reward behaviour that would otherwise not occur (additionality). Together these best practices for PES are increasingly accepted as the most efficient means to achieve desired outcomes and are guiding funding for PES projects. We used a series of water funds (watershed-oriented PES projects based on a trust fund model) to examine how theoretical best practices could inform and improve practice and also how theory could learn from practical efforts. We conclude that thoughtful consideration is required when evaluating the promise of a PES approach against a theoretical ideal. We found that requiring conditionality may limit the use of creative finance mechanisms such as trust funds that can provide long-term benefits for conservation and human well-being, and that requiring additionality can exclude benefits from social diffusion and result in the inefficient targeting of PES funds. Finally, public–private partnerships in water funds lead to multiple additional/side objectives but partnerships are likely to lower transaction costs and provide transparent, long-term landscape-scale watershed management.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

(Corresponding author) E-mail rebeccagoldman@stanfordalumni.org

References

Hide All
Asquith, N. & Wunder, S. (eds) (2008) Payments for Watershed Services: The Bellagio Conversations. Fundación Natura Bolivia, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia.
AtKisson, A. (1999) Believing Cassandra: An Optimist Looks at a Pessimist's World. Chapter 9 – The Innovation Diffusion Game. Chelsea Green Publishing Company, Vermont, USA.
Boucher, T. (in press) A Terrestial Ecological Impact Assessment of the Quito Waterfund. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, USA.
Buytaert, W., Celleri, R., De Bièvre, B., Cisneros, G.W., Deckers, J. & Hofstede, R. (2006) Human impact on the hydrology of the Andean páramos. Earth-Science Reviews, 79, 5372.
Buytaert, W., Iñiguez, V. & De Bièvre, B. (2007) The effects of afforestation and cultivation on water yield in the Andean páramo. Forest Ecology and Management, 251, 2230.
Buytaert, W., Wyseure, B., De Bièvre, B. & Deckers, J. (2005) The effects of land-use changes on the hydrological behaviour of Histic Andosols in south Ecuador. Hydrological Processes, 19, 39853997.
CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research) (2006) What are “payments for environmental services”? Http://www.cifor.org/pes/_ref/about/index.htm [accessed 7 September 2011].
Daily, G. (1997) Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Daniels, A.E., Bagstad, K., Esposito, V., Moulaert, A. & Rodriguez, C.M. (2010) Understanding the impacts of Costa Rica's PES: are we asking the right questions? Ecological Economics, 69, 21162126.
Dillaha, T., Ferraro, P., Huang, M., Southgate, D., Upadhyaya, S. & Wunder, S. (2007) Payments for Watershed Services: Regional Syntheses. USAID PES Brief 7, Washington, DC, USA.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S. & Wunder, S. (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65, 663674.
Farley, J. & Costanza, R. (2010) Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecological Economics, 69, 20602068.
Ferraro, P.J. & Pattanayak, S. (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology, 4, e105.
Forest Trends, The Katoomba Group & UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2008) Payments for Ecosystem Services Getting Started: A Primer. Forest Trends and The Katoomba Group. Http://www.katoombagroup.org/documents/publications/GettingStarted.pdf [accessed 7 September 2011].
Fundación Natura (2010) Fundación Natura Bolivia y Fondo de Agua para Santa Cruz (FONACRUZ), Ganadores del Premio Internacional ReSource 2010 por el manejo sostenible de cuencas hidrograficas del Parque Nacional Amboro. Naturalia, El boletin de Fundacion Natura Bolivia, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.
Goldman, R.L., Benitez, S., Calvache, A. & Ramos, A. (2010) Water Funds: Protecting Watersheds for Nature and People. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, USA.
Goldman, R.L. & Tallis, H. (2009) A critical analysis of ecosystem services as a tool in conservation projects: the possible perils, the promises, and the partnerships. In The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology (eds Ostfeld, R.S. & Schlesinger, W.H.), pp. 6378. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Massachusetts, USA.
Goldman, R.L., Tallis, H., Kareiva, P. & Daily, G.C. (2008) Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 94459448.
Jack, B.K., Kousky, C. & Sims, K.R.E. (2008) Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 94659470.
Koellner, T., Sell, J. & Navarro, G. (2010) Why and how much are firms willing to invest in ecosystem services from tropical forests? A comparison of international and Costa Rican firms. Ecological Economics, 69, 21272139.
Landell-Mills, N. & Porras, I. (2002) Silver Bullet or Fools' Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and their Impact on the Poor. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.
Pagiola, S., Landell-Mills, N. & Bishop, J. (2002) Making market-based mechanisms work for forests and people. In Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-based Mechanisms for Conservation (eds Pagiola, S., Bishop, J. & Landell-Mills, N.), pp. 261289. Earthscan, London, UK.
Pagiola, S., Ramirez, E., Gobbi, J., de Haan, C., Ibrahim, M., Murgueitio, E. & Ruiz, J.P. (2007) Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecological Economics, 64, 374385.
Pagiola, S., Rios, A. & Arcenas, A. (2008) Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the silvopastoral project in Nicaragua. Environment and Development Economics, 13, 299325.
Porras, I., Greig-Gran, M. & Neves, N. (2008) All that Glitters: A Review of Payments for Watershed Services in Developing Countries. Natural Resource Issues No. 11. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.
Reynolds, T.W., Farley, F. & Huber, C. (2010) Investing in human and natural capital: An alternative paradigm for sustainable development in Awassa, Ethiopia. Ecological Economics, 69, 21402150.
Sommerville, M.M., Jones, J.P.G. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2009) A revised conceptual framework for payments for environmental services. Ecology and Society, 14, 3447.
Southgate, D. & Wunder, S. (2007) Paying for Watershed Services in Latin America: A Review of Current Initiatives. Working paper No. 07-07. USAID, Washington, DC, USA.
Stanton, T., Echavarria, M., Hamilton, K. & Ott, C. (2010) State of Watershed Payments: An Emerging Marketplace. Ecosystem Marketplace. Http://www.foresttrends.org/documents/files/doc_2438.pdf [accessed 2 September 2011].
Tallis, H., Goldman, R., Uhl, M. & Brosi, B. (2009) Integrating conservation and development in the field: implementing ecosystem services projects. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 1220.
Wunder, S. (2005) Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts. Occasional paper. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Wunder, S. (2006) Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics? Ecology and Society, 11, 2334.
Wunder, S. (2007) The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology, 21, 4858.
Wunder, S. & Alban, M. (2008) Decentralized payments for environmental services: the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 65, 685698.
Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. & Ferraro, P. (2010) Payments for Environmental Services and the Global Environment Facility: A STAP Advisory Document. UNON Publishing Services Section, Nairobi, Kenya. Http://www.unep.org/stap/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=N1-tMo87PkA%3d&tabid=2912&language=en-US [accessed 2 September 2011].
Wünscher, T., Engel, S. & Wunder, S. (2008) Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecological Economics, 65, 822833.
Yates, S.M. & Aronson, E. (1983) A social psychological perspective on energy conservation in residential buildings. American Psychologist, 38, 435444.

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed