, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 285–297 | Cite as

Payments for Environmental Services in Latin America as a Tool for Restoration and Rural Development

  • Florencia Montagnini
  • Christopher Finney


Payments for Environmental Services (PES) can encourage projects that enhance restoration, production, and rural development. When projects promote differentiated systems by paying farmers for the provision of services, the application of PES requires evaluation of the environmental services provided by each system. We present evaluations of carbon stocks and biodiversity in pure and mixed native tree plantations in Costa Rica. To illustrate how monetary values can be assigned, we discuss a project that awarded PES to silvopastoral systems in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Colombia based on carbon stocks and biodiversity. PES can promote positive environmental attitudes in farmers. Currently this project is being scaled up in Colombia based on their positive experiences with PES as a tool to promote adoption. Compared to PES systems that include only one environmental service, systems that incorporate bundling or layering of multiple services can make sustainable land uses more attractive to farmers and reduce perverse incentives.


Adoptability Biodiversity Bundled PES Carbon Degraded land Layering 



This project was financed by the Program in Tropical Forestry of the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. We thank Hester Barres for his generous sharing of data and information on Reforest the Tropics; Daniel Piotto and Alicia Calle for providing useful pictures and information; and colleagues at CATIE (Costa Rica), for providing useful documentation.


  1. Agência Nacional de Águas. 2010. Programa Produtor de Água. (in Portuguese). Accessed 2 Nov 2010
  2. Alix-García, J., A. de Janvry, and E. Sadoulet. 2008. The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services. Environment and Development Economics 13: 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butler, R., F. Montagnini, and P. Arroyo. 2008. Woody understory plant diversity in pure and mixed native tree plantations at La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 2251–2263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calle, A. 2008. Using PES and technical assistance to promote silvopastoral systems in Quindío, Colombia: Attitude change as a key to permanent adoption. MS Thesis, Yale University, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven.Google Scholar
  5. Calle, A., F. Montagnini, and A.F. Zuluaga. 2009. Farmer’s perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion in Quindío, Colombia. Bois et Forets des Tropiques 300(2): 79–94.Google Scholar
  6. Campos, J.J., F. Alpízar, B. Louman, and J. Parrotta. 2005. An integrated approach to forest ecosystem services. In Forest in the global balance—changing paradigms. IUFRO World Series vol. 17, ed. G. Mery, R. Alfaro, M. Kaninnen, and M. Lobovikov, 97–116. Helsinki: IUFRO.Google Scholar
  7. Chambers, R., and M. Leach. 1990. Trees as savings and security for the rural poor. Unasylva 41: 39–52.Google Scholar
  8. CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research). 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Infobrief No.9. Accessed 31 Oct 2010.
  9. Cuenca Capa, P.R. 2009. Evaluation of productivity in volume and potential for carbon fixation by mixed plantations in the Caribbean region of Costa Rica. MS Thesis, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  10. Dagang, A.B.K., and P.K.R. Nair. 2003. Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: recent findings and recommendations for future directions. Agroforestry Systems 59: 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engel, S., S. Pagiola, and S. Wunder. 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65: 663–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ESPH—Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia. 2008. Environmental commitment. (in Spanish). Accessed 31 Oct 2010.
  13. Evans, J. 1999. Planted forests of the wet and dry tropics: their variety, nature and significance. New Forests 17: 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FAO. 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  15. Ferraro, P.J. 2008. Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 65: 810–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. FONAFIFO. 2008. Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal. Environmental Services—processes and requirements for PES. (in Spanish). Accessed 30 Oct 2010.
  17. FUNDECOR. No Date. FUNDECOR and market based conservation in Costa Rica: a global innovative approach. Accessed 30 Oct 2010.
  18. Goldstein, J.H., G.C. Daily, J.B. Friday, R.L. Naylor, and P. Vitousek. 2006. Business strategies for conservation on private lands: Koa forestry as a case study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(26): S10140–S10145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. González, E., and R. Fisher. 1994. Growth of native species planted on abandoned pasture land in Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Management 70: 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haggar, J.P., C.B. Briscoe, and R.P. Butterfield. 1998. Native species: a resource for the diversification of forestry production in the lowland humid tropics. Forest Ecology and Management 106: 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harvey, C., C. Villanueva, J. Villacís, M. Chacón, D. Muñoz, M. López, M. Ibrahim, R. Gómez, et al. 2005. Contribution of live fences to the ecological integrity of agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 111: 200–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ibrahim, M., M. Chacón, C. Cuartas, J. Naranjo, G. Ponce, P. Vega, F. Casasola, and J. Rojas. 2007. Carbon storage in soil and biomass in land use systems of ranchlands of Colombia, Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Agroforestería en las Américas 4: 27–36. (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  23. Ibrahim, M., F. Casasola, C. Villanueva, E. Murgueitio, E. Ramírez, J. Sáenz, and C. Sepúlveda. 2010. Payment for environmental services as a tool to encourage the adoption of silvo-pastoral systems and restoration of agricultural landscapes dominated by cattle in Latin America. In Restoring Degraded Landscapes with Native Species in Latin America, ed. F. Montagnini, and C. Finney. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. IPGSCC. 2009. Anchorage declaration of the Indigenous Peoples’ global summit on climate change, April 24, 2009. Accessed 30 Oct 2010.
  25. Lamb, D., P.D. Erskine, and J.A. Parrotta. 2005. Restoration of degraded forest landscapes. Science 310: 1628–1632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Madrigal Ballestero, R., and F. Alpízar Rodríguez. 2008. The design and adaptive management of a payment for environmental services system in Copán Ruinas, Honduras. Investigación Agraria: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales 17(1): 79–90 (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  27. Magellan, T.M., F. Montagnini, and J. Montero. 2010. Diversity of Lepidoptera in pure and mixed plantations of eight native tree species at La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica. In Restoring Degraded Landscapes with Native Species in Latin America, ed. F. Montagnini, and C. Finney. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Mejías Esquivel, R., and O. Segura Bonilla. 2002. Payment for environmental services in Central America. World Resources Institute White paper, 94 pp. (in Spanish). Accessed 30 Oct 2010.
  29. Montagnini, F. 2008. Management for sustainability and restoration of degraded pastures in the Neotropics. In Post-agricultural succession in the neotropics, ed. R. Myster, 265–295. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Montagnini, F., and R. Mendelsohn. 1997. Managing forest fallows: improving the economics of swidden agriculture. AMBIO 26(2): 118–123.Google Scholar
  31. Montagnini, F., E. González, C. Porras, and R. Rheingans. 1995. Mixed and pure forest plantations in the humid neotropics: a comparison of early growth, pest damage and establishment costs. Commonwealth Forestry Review 74(4): 306–314.Google Scholar
  32. Pagiola, S., J. Bishop, and N. Landell-Mills (eds.). 2002. Selling Forest Environmental Services. Market-Based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  33. Pagiola, S., E. Ramírez, J. Gobbi, C. de Haan, M. Ibrahim, E. Murgueitio, and J.P. Ruiz. 2007. Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecological Economics 64(2): 374–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pagiola, S., A.R. Ríos, and A. Arcenas. 2008. Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral project in Nicaragua. Environment and Development Economics 13: 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parrotta, J.A., J.W. Turnbull, and N. Jones. 1997. Introduction—catalyzing native forest regeneration on degraded tropical lands. Forest Ecology and Management 99: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Piotto, D., E. Víquez, F. Montagnini, and M. Kanninen. 2004. Pure and mixed forest plantations with native species of the dry tropics of Costa Rica: a comparison of growth and productivity. Forest Ecology and Management 190(2–3): 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Piotto, D., D. Craven, F. Montagnini, and F. Alice. 2010. Silvicultural and economic aspects of pure and mixed native tree species plantations on degraded pasturelands in humid Costa Rica. New Forests 39: 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Point Carbon. 2009. Point Carbon EUA OTC assessment 29 July 2009. Accessed 29 July 2009
  39. Porras, I., M. Grieg-Gran, and M. Neves. 2008. All that glitters. A review of payments for watershed services in developing countries, 138. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).Google Scholar
  40. Redondo-Brenes, A. 2007. Growth, carbon sequestration, and management of native tree plantations in humid regions of Costa Rica. New Forests 34: 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2009. Voluntary carbon offset market may compromise ‘environmental integrity’ of mandatory programs to limit emissions. Accessed 30 Oct 2010.
  42. Wadsworth, F.H. 1997. Forest Production for Tropical America. Agriculture Handbook 710. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service.Google Scholar
  43. Wassenaar, T., P. Gerber, P.H. Verburg, M. Rosales, M. Ibrahim, and H. Steinfeld. 2007. Projecting land use changes in the Neotropics: the geography of pasture expansion into forest. Global Environmental Change 17: 86–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wuenscher, T., S. Engel, and S. Wunder. 2006. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica: increasing efficiency through spatial differentiation. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 45: 319–337.Google Scholar
  45. Wunder, S., S. Engel, and S. Pagiola. 2008. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65: 832–854.Google Scholar
  46. Yamamoto, W., I. Dewi, and M. Ibrahim. 2007. Effects of silvopastoral areas on milk production at dual-purpose cattle farms at semi-humid old agricultural frontier in central Nicaragua. Agricultural Systems 94: 368–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.The Nature ConservancySão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations