The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services

Abstract

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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Rescuing environmentalism. The Economist (21 April 2005).

  2. 2.

    Chen, C. 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. Sustainability 7, 5564–5591 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Salzman, J. What is the emperor wearing? The secret lives of ecosystem services. Pace Environ. Law Rev. 28, 591–613 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wunder, S. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 117, 234–243 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Vatn, A. Markets in environmental governance. Theory Pract. Ecol. Econ. 117, 225–233 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Engel, S., Pagiola, S. & Wunder, S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues.Ecol. Econ. 65, 663–674 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Liu, J. et al. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 9477–9482 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Ouyang, Z. et al. Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science 352, 1455–1459 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Daily et al. Securing natural capital and human well-being: innovation and impact in China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 33, 677–685 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Bremer, L. et al. One size does not fit all: natural infrastructure investments within the Latin American Water Funds Partnership. Ecosyst. Serv. 17, 217–236 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Vogl, A. et al. Mainstreaming investments in watershed services to enhance water security: barriers and opportunities. Environ. Sci. Policy 75, 19–27 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Maron, M. et al. Conservation: stop misuse of biodiversity offsets. Nature 523, 401–403 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Salzman, J. & Ruhl, J. B. Currencies and the commodification of environmental law. Stanf. Law Rev. 53, 607–694 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Ruhl, J. B. et al. The effects of wetland mitigation banking on people. Natl Wetl. Newsl. 28, 2 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    National Research CouncilCompensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Pattanayak, S. K., Wunder, S. & Ferraro, P. J. Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 4, 254–274 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Brouwer, R., Tesfaye, A. & Pauw, P. Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services. Environ. Conserv 38, 380–392 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Miteva, D. A., Pattanayak, S. K. & Ferraro, P. J. Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn’t? Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 28, 69–92 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Ferraro, P. J. et al. Estimating the impacts of conservation on ecosystem services and poverty by integrating modeling and evaluation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7420–7425 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Alix-García, J. & Wolff, H. Payment for ecosystem services from forests. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 6, 361–380 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Jayachandran, P. et al. Cash for Carbon: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Payments for Ecosystem Services to Reduce Deforestation NBER Working Paper 22378 (NBER, 2016).

  22. 22

    Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A. et al. Costa Rica’s Payment for Environmental Services program: intention, implementation, and impact. Conserv. Biol. 21, 1165–1173 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Alix-Garcia, J. M., Shapiro, E. N. & Sims, K. R. E. Forest conservation and slippage: evidence from Mexico’s national Payments for Ecosystem Services program. Land Econ. 88, 613–638 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Heilmayr, R. & Lambin, E. F. Impacts of non-state, market-driven governance on Chilean forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 2910–2915 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Lambin, E. F. et al. Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 129–140 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Gullison, G. E. Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? Oryx 37, 153–165 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Zheng, H. et al. Benefits, costs, and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 16681–16686 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Richards, M. What Do We Know about Gender and Other Social Impacts of IWS Projects? A Literature Review (Forest Trends, Washington DC, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Wunder, S. Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environ. Dev. Econ. 13, 279–297 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Alix-Garcia, J. M., Sims, K. R. & Yañez-Pagans, P. Only one tree from each seed? environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in Mexico’s Payments for Ecosystem Services program. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 7, 1–40 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Samii, C., Lisiecki, M., Kulkarni, P., Paler, L. & Chavis, L. E. Effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on deforestation and poverty in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 10, https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2014.11 (2014).

  32. 32

    Sims, K. & Alix-Garcia, J. Parks versus PES: evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico. J. Environ. Econ. Managem. 86, 8–28 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Rodríguez de Francisco, J. C., Budds, J. & Boelens, R. Payment for environmental services and unequal resource control in Pimampiro, Ecuador. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26, 1217–1233 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Bottazzi, P. et al. Carbon sequestration in community forests: trade-offs, multiple outcomes and institutional diversity in the Bolivian Amazon. Dev. Change 45, 105–131 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Huettner, M. Risks and opportunities of REDD+ implementation for environmental integrity and socio-economic compatibility. Environ. Sci. Policy 15, 4–12 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Jindal, R., Kerr, J. M. & Carter, S. Reducing poverty through carbon forestry? Impacts of the N’hambita Community Carbon Project in Mozambique. World Dev. 40, 2123–2135 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Poudel, M., Thwaites, R., Race, D. & Dahal, G. R. Social equity and livelihood implications of REDD+ in rural communities—a case study from Nepal. Int. J. Commons 9, 177–208 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Naeem, S. et al. Get the science right when paying for nature’s services. Science 347, 1206–1207 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Ferraro, P. J. & Pressey, R. L. Measuring the difference made by conservation initiatives: protected areas and their environmental and social impacts. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20140270 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Jayachandran, S. et al. Cash for carbon: a randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science 357, 267–273 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    Maron, M. et al. The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy. Nat. Sustain. 1, 19–27 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42

    Madsen, B., Carroll, N. & Moore Brands, K. State of Biodiversity Markets 2010 (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2010); http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com.

  43. 43

    Madsen, B., Carroll, N., Kandy, D. & Bennett, G. State of Biodiversity Markets 2011 Update (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2011); http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com.

  44. 44

    Bennett, G., Gallant, M. & ten Kate, K. State of Biodiversity Mitigation 2017 (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2017); http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com.

  45. 45

    Wilkinson, J. & Thompson, J. 2005 Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the United States. (Environmental Law Institute, Washington DC, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the fellowship support of Resources for the Future and the Rockefeller Foundation, as well the gift to the Duke University School of Law from the Eugene T. Bost, Jr. Research Professorship of The Cannon Charitable Trust No. 3. Research support was provided by K. Hamrick, A. Cooper, K. Silverman-Roati and D. Carpenter-Gold.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.S. conceived the project, analysed the data and wrote the paper. G.B. performed data collection and analysis and wrote the paper. N.C. and A.G. performed data collection and analysis. M.J. edited the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Salzman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

4 pages with supplementary methods description, 1 suppl. Table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N. et al. The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nat Sustain 1, 136–144 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.
Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing