Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T08:29:47.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the potential for synergies in the implementation of payments for environmental services programmes: an empirical analysis of Costa Rica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

WEI ZHANG  and
STEFANO PAGIOLA
WEI ZHANG*
Affiliation:
Environment and Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2033 K Street NW, Washington DC 20006, USA
STEFANO PAGIOLA
Affiliation:
Latin America Sustainable Development Department, World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433, USA
*
*Correspondence: Dr Wei Zhang e-mail: w.zhang@cgiar.org, zhangwe9@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Payments for environmental services (PES) have been recognized as a promising mechanism for conservation, with the potential to contribute to social objectives such as poverty reduction. This paper outlines a simple framework for assessing the potential for synergies in the implementation of PES programmes, used to analyse the new watershed conservation funding (WCF) channelled through Costa Rica's national PES programme, Pago por Servicios Ambientales (PSA). The WCF financing can only be used in a limited number of watersheds. Given this constraint, the paper examines the mechanisms by which the WCF may potentially contribute to biodiversity conservation and to reducing social development gaps. Although there is significant spatial correlation among the priority areas targeted for the objectives of watershed conservation, biodiversity conservation and social development, the availability of the WCF per unit of land in most watersheds is limited compared to the PSA programme's prevailing payment rate of US$ 64 ha−1, potentially hindering the impact of the WCF on conservation and social development. The analysis helps guide the allocation of the PSA budget in a way that complements the WCF and improves the cost-effectiveness of the PSA budget.

Keywords

biodiversity conservationCosta Ricapayments for ecosystem services (PES)poverty reductionspatial correlationsynergywatershed conservation
Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Payments for Ecosystem Services in Conservation: Performance and Prospects
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 38 , Issue 4: Thematic section. Payments for Ecosystem Services in Conservation: Performance and Prospects , December 2011 , pp. 406 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bruijnzeel, L.A. (2004) Hydrological functions of moist tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104: 185–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calder, I. (1999) The Blue Revolution: Land Use and Integrated Water Resource Management. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Chomitz, K. & Kumari, K. (1998) The domestic benefits of tropical forests: a critical review. World Bank Research Observer 13: 13–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CBD (2004) Opportunities for synergies in planning and implementing projects in the framework of the programmes of work on biological diversity of dry and sub-humid lands and agricultural biological diversity. UNEP/CBD/WS-Syn.Afr/1/4 [www document]. URL http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/agr/wsagdl-01/official/wsagdl-01-04-en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Engel, S., Pagiola, S. & Wunder, S. (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65 (4): 663–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallas, J. (2006) Identificación de zonas de importancia hídrica y estimación de ingresos por canon de aguas para cada zona. Report, FONAFIFO, San José, Costa Rica.Google Scholar
FONAFIFO (2007) Montos asignados por hectáreas y/o árboles para el Pago de los Servicios Ambientales por modalidad, periodo 1997–2007. Report, FONAFIFO, San José, Costa Rica.Google Scholar
Grieg-Gran, M., Porras, I. & Wunder, S. (2005) How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Development 33 (9): 1511–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INBio (2008) Biodiversity in Costa Rica. Heredia, Costa Rica: INBio.Google Scholar
Kerr, J. (2002) Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India. World Development 30 (8): 1387–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. Report, IIED, London, UK [www document]. URL http://pubs.iied.org/9066IIED.htmlGoogle Scholar
MIDEPLAN (2001) Índice de Desarrollo Social. Report, MIDEPLAN, San José, Costa Rica.Google Scholar
MIDEPLAN (2007) Índice de Desarrollo Social 2007. Report, MIDEPLAN, San José, Costa Rica.Google Scholar
Miranda, M., Porras, I. & Moreno, M.L. (2003) The social impacts of carbon markets in Costa Rica: A case study of the Huetar Norte region. Report, IIED, London, UK [www document]. http://pubs.iied.org/9244IIED.htmlGoogle Scholar
Muñoz-Piña, C., Rivera, M., Cisneros, A. & García, H. (2011) Pago por los servicios ambientales hidrológicos en América Latina, un reto para la focalización. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Ecología.Google Scholar
Nelson, A. & Chomitz, K. (2007) The forest-hydrology-poverty nexus in central America: an heuristic analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability 9 (4): 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortiz Malavasi, E., Sage Mora, L. & Borge Carvajal, C. (2003) Impacto del programa de Pago de Servicios Ambientales en Costa Rica como medio de reducción de la pobreza en los medios rurales. San José, Costa Rica: RUTA.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S. (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 65 (4): 712–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S. & Platais, G. (2007) Payments for Environmental Services: From Theory to Practice. Washington DC, USA: World Bank.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S. & Zhang, W. (2012) Payments by water users. In: Ecomarkets: Costa Rica's Experience with Payments for Environmental Services, ed. Platais, G. & Pagiola, S. (in press). Washington, DC, USA: World Bank.Google Scholar
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 Development 33 (2): 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S., Platais, G., Ducassi, L. & Zhang, W. (2012) Paying for biodiversity: the trust fund for sustainable biodiversity conservation. In: Ecomarkets: Costa Rica's Experience with Payments for Environmental Services, ed. Platais, G. & Pagiola, S. (in press). Washington, DC, USA: World Bank.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S., Rios, A.R. & Arcenas, A. (2008 a) Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua. Environment and Development Economics 13 (3): 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S., Zhang, W. & Colom, A. (2008 b) Assessing the potential for payments for watershed services to reduce poverty in Guatemala. Poster presented at American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, USA, 27–29 July 2008 [www document]. URL http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/42932/2/AAEAposter_Guatemala_WeiZhang_21July08ll.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S., Zhang, W. & Colom, A. (2010) Can payments for watershed services help save biodiversity? An empirical analysis of highland Guatemala. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 2 (1): 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porras, I., Miranda, M. & Salas, F. (2012) Social impacts of the PSA Program. In: Ecomarkets: Costa Rica's Experience with Payments for Environmental Services, ed. Platais, G. & Pagiola, S. (in press). Washington, DC, USA: World Bank.Google Scholar
Ravnborg, H.M., Damsgaard, M.G. & Raben, K. (2007) Payments for ecosystem services: issues and pro-poor opportunities for development assistance. DIIS Report No.2007:6, Danish Institute for International Studies, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Tattenbach, F., Obando, G. & Rodríguez, J. (2006) Mejora del excedente nacional del pago de Servicios Ambientales. Report, FONAFIFO, San José, Costa Rica.Google Scholar
Turpie, J.K., Marais, C. & Blignaut, J.N. (2008) The working for water programme: evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecological Economics 65 (4): 788–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank (2000) Project appraisal document on a proposed IBRD loan of US$ 32.6 million and a grant from the Global Environment Facility trust fund of SDR 6.1 million (US$ 8 million equivalent) to the government of Costa Rica for the Ecomarkets project. Report No: 20434-CR, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA [www document].URL http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/repository/Costa_Rica-new1.pdfGoogle Scholar
World Bank (2007 a) Costa Rica poverty assessment: Recapture momentum for poverty reduction. Report No. 35910-CR. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
World Bank (2007 b) World Development Indicators Database. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA [www document]. URL http://go.worldbank.org/1SF48T40L0Google Scholar
Wunder, S. (2005) Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper No.42. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
Wunder, S., Pagiola, S. & Engel, S. (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65 (4): 834–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zbinden, S. & Lee, D. (2005) Paying for environmental services: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica's PSA Program. World Development 33 (2): 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar