TY - JOUR
T1 - The practice of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in the Tropical Andes
T2 - Evidence from program administrators
AU - Bauchet, Jonathan
AU - Asquith, Nigel
AU - Ma, Zhao
AU - Radel, Claudia
AU - Godoy, Ricardo
AU - Zanotti, Laura
AU - Steele, Diana
AU - Gramig, Benjamin M.
AU - Chong, Andrea Estrella
N1 - Funding Information:
Most PES programs are not paid for by service users but are funded primarily by external donations or general taxation. Comparing international and domestic support for PES, 12 of 17 respondents (71%) said their program had multiple sources of funding in the past five years. The average number of sources of funding reported was 3.2 (range: 1–7; SD = 2.1). The following sources were commonly identified: international donors (14 programs, or 82%); domestic non-governmental donors (10 programs, or 59%); private local ecosystem service users (nine programs, or 53%); local governments that benefit from ecosystem services produced (eight programs, or 47%); and providers of drinking water, sewage treatment plants, and other private companies (six programs, or 35%). Only two administrators (12%) reported their program had received funding from national governments.
Funding Information:
We thank Lourdes Barranco-Cort?s for assisting in survey administration. We are grateful for all program administrators who took time to respond to our survey. We also thank the following individuals for reviewing drafts of our survey instrument, providing feedback to our inventory of PES programs in our study area, and helping us better understand the reality of program implementation: Alejandro Calvache from The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Colombia; Silvia Ben?tez and Jaime Camacho from TNC Ecuador; Jensen Montambeault from TNC's Science for Nature and People Partnership, USA; Marta Echavarr?a from EcoDecisi?n Ecuador; Genevieve Bennett from Forest Trends, USA; Oscar Zapata from the University of Regina, Canada; Marcela Quintero from the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Colombia; Amy Rosenthal from the McArthur Foundation, USA; Roger Loyola from the Ministry of Environment of Peru; Maria Teresa Vargas from Fundaci?n Natura Bolivia. This study would have not been possible without the help from all these individuals. We are grateful for the helpful comments and suggestions by three anonymous referees. This research was supported by a seed grant from Purdue University's Center for the Environment, USA. Analysis and manuscript development were also supported by an award from National Science Foundation's Geography and Spatial Sciences (GSS) Program, USA (#1660481).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2020/10
Y1 - 2020/10
N2 - Studies of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) have focused on the theory, design, and impact of programs while paying less attention to program implementation. We surveyed 18 administrators from 39 active PES programs across the Tropical Andes about their views on program design and implementation. We found that (1) all programs have both ecological and social goals, (2) few programs pay cash, (3) most programs’ primary source of financial support are international organizations, (4) barriers to participation are perceived as behavioral more than economic, and (5) conditionality exists on paper in all programs but is seldom enforced. To explore the “why” behind these findings, we conducted follow-up key-informant interviews with administrators of Watershared, one of the largest in-kind conservation incentives programs in the region. Watershared's characteristics – dual goals, in-kind transfers, a focus on non-economic motivations, and compliance enforcement – are fundamental to its theory of change and sustainability. Together, these survey and interview results show how PES has been adapted and reinvented to fit different philosophies, institutions, and cultures across the Tropical Andes. Our work highlights the importance of collaboration between academics and PES practitioners for addressing the disparities between academically promoted design principles and on-the-ground implementation.
AB - Studies of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) have focused on the theory, design, and impact of programs while paying less attention to program implementation. We surveyed 18 administrators from 39 active PES programs across the Tropical Andes about their views on program design and implementation. We found that (1) all programs have both ecological and social goals, (2) few programs pay cash, (3) most programs’ primary source of financial support are international organizations, (4) barriers to participation are perceived as behavioral more than economic, and (5) conditionality exists on paper in all programs but is seldom enforced. To explore the “why” behind these findings, we conducted follow-up key-informant interviews with administrators of Watershared, one of the largest in-kind conservation incentives programs in the region. Watershared's characteristics – dual goals, in-kind transfers, a focus on non-economic motivations, and compliance enforcement – are fundamental to its theory of change and sustainability. Together, these survey and interview results show how PES has been adapted and reinvented to fit different philosophies, institutions, and cultures across the Tropical Andes. Our work highlights the importance of collaboration between academics and PES practitioners for addressing the disparities between academically promoted design principles and on-the-ground implementation.
KW - Conditionality
KW - Conservation incentive
KW - Market-based conservation
KW - Payments for environmental services
KW - Program implementation
KW - Social equity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090158779&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85090158779&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101175
DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101175
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85090158779
SN - 2212-0416
VL - 45
JO - Ecosystem Services
JF - Ecosystem Services
M1 - 101175
ER -