Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies
Background
The concept of "ecosystem services" has gained prominence in global environmental research and policy, particularly with assigning economic value to these services. While economic valuation can raise awareness about conservation, it also risks commodifying nature. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) compensates ecosystem stewards for providing benefits such as biodiversity conservation, watershed services, carbon sequestration, and landscape beauty. Despite critics questioning its effectiveness and the high costs of implementation, practitioners and governments have expanded PES schemes globally, reflecting their appeal as a tool for addressing social and environmental challenges. However, researchers have made relatively few efforts to evaluate their on-the-ground performance. This gap is particularly evident in Latin America, where policymakers pioneered PES but have yet to conduct comprehensive impact analyses.
Goals and Methods
The study takes a broader perspective on understanding the criteria that determine why PES schemes succeed. To achieve this, the authors analyzed 40 PES case studies from Latin America. They measured success by evaluating how well a scheme achieved its stated goals and contributed added value to the region’s overall improvement beyond its original objectives. Using criteria such as ecosystem services traded, spatiotemporal scales, transaction types, and actors involved, the authors explored the relationship between these factors and the degree of success for each case. This approach helped them identify patterns and commonalities that make PES schemes succeed.
Conclusions and Takeaways
PES schemes focused on water provision and watershed protection consistently achieve high success rates. Local or regional-scale implementations outperform national-level schemes, and those with secured mid- to long-term funding (10–30 years or more) prove to be more effective. Schemes that offer in-kind contributions, such as infrastructure projects, technical assistance, or training, succeed more often than those relying solely on cash payments. Additionally, cases where private actors serve as sellers and negotiate directly with buyers tend to achieve better outcomes. Future research should analyze unsuccessful cases to identify the causes of failure and examine how the identified factors interact to influence PES outcomes. Researchers should also expand the geographic scope to include other regions, gaining insights into how cultural and political contexts shape PES success and enabling the development of region-specific best practices. Furthermore, integrating PES schemes with poverty reduction initiatives is essential to ensure they contribute meaningfully to broader sustainable development goals.
Reference:
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies. Ecosystem Services. 2016;17:24 - 32. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.010.
.