Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB

involvement. Sources and mechanisms for payments
vary as do the providers (e.g. communities, farmers,
forest owners, agribusinesses, timber companies) and
the beneficiaries. Figure 5.4 provides a generic outline
of the basic structure for most PES.
5.1.3 APPLICATIONS, BENEFITS AND
LESSONS LEARNT
APPLICATION OF PES TO DIFFERENT
CONTEXTS
REWARDING BENEFITS THROUGH PAYMENTS AND MARKETS
PES can be implemented at different geographic
scales, depending on the nature of the beneficiaries, the
providers and the spatial relationship between them.
If a site provides a service that is mainly useful locally
(e.g. pollination of crops), then a local PES makes sense.
If it provides national benefits (e.g. pest control), then it
is arguably for national government to initiate the appropriate
PES or to use legal measures to secure a public
good or service. Provision of global benefits (e.g. as in
the case of biodiversity and carbon services) may require
an internationally coordinated approach (see Section 5.2
below on REDD).
The first national PES schemes in developing countries
were pioneered in Costa Rica (see Box 5.2) and Mexico
(Programme for Hydrologic-Environmental Services
(PSA-H) focused on threatened forests to maintain
water flow and quality). The Costa Rican programme is
amongst the best-known and studied PES examples
and has proved very popular with landowners (requests
to participate have outstripped funding). The scheme
presents impressive results, at least at first sight. The
instrument, its design, sources of funding and engagement
are periodically reviewed and adjusted.
Box 5.2: An evolving nationwide scheme: the Pagos por Servicios Ambientales, Costa Rica
Background: Set up in 1997, the national PSA programme remunerates landholders for providing carbon sequestration
services, and hydrological services via watershed protection and for preserving biodiversity and
landscape beauty. From 1997-2004, Costa Rica invested some US$ 200 million, protecting over 460,000
hectares of forests and forestry plantations and providing additional income to over 8,000 forest owners. By
2005, the programme covered 10% of national forest areas.
Level of payments: US$ 64 per hectare/year were paid for forest conservation in 2006 and US$ 816 per
hectare over ten years for forest plantations.
Source of funds: The programme is based on partnerships at national and international level, contributing to
long-term financial sustainability. The primary source of revenues is a national fossil fuel tax (US$ 10 million/year)
with additional grants from the World Bank, Global Environment Facility and the German aid agency (Kreditanstalt
für Wiederaufbau (KFW)). Funds are also provided through individual voluntary agreements with water
users (US$ 0.5 million/year) which will increase with the gradual introduction of a new water tariff and potential
new opportunities from carbon finance.
Lessons learnt: The PSA programme has helped slow deforestation, added monetary value to forests and
biodiversity, increased understanding of the economic and social contribution of natural ecosystems and is generally
considered a success. However, recent assessments suggest that many areas covered through the
programme would have been conserved even without payments, for three main reasons: deforestation pressures
were already much reduced by the time PSA was introduced; the use of uniform payments (fixed prices);
and limited spatial targeting of payments in the early stages of implementation. The programme is being adjusted
in response to these lessons.
Source: Portela and Rodriguez 2008; Pagiola 2008 in Wunder and Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2009;
and personal communication, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, former Minister of Environment of Costa Rica
TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 5: PAGE 11