Advertisement

Payment for Environmental Services: How Big Must Be the Check to Multiproduct Farmers?

  • Marcelo TorresEmail author
  • Richard E. Howitt
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 50)

Abstract

Environmental conservation policies based on the payment for environmental services (PES) are being increasingly adopted around the world. Among several factors that may dictate the success of a PES conservation program is the payment or monetary compensation level. As participation in the program is voluntary, if payments are not enough to compensate for the eventual economic losses faced by the users, users will not participate, and conservation goals will not be achieved. Also if payments are set significantly higher than the users’ opportunity costs, conservation goals are more likely to be achieved, but the program will not be cost-effective. In this context, by using primary data from a watershed in the Brazilian Savannah, this contribution calculates opportunity costs using an agricultural net-revenue multiproduct model, parameterized with the use of positive mathematical programming (PMP) method and coupled with a hydrological model. It is shown that land and water opportunity costs not only vary from farmer to farmer due to differences in crop and input mix but also the variations in water supply affect land use opportunity costs. And, in turn, land supply affects water use opportunity costs. Given this, researchers and policy makers should not be surprised that agricultural PES programs that rely on a flat, crop-and-farmer invariant compensation value per hectare often result in failure and cost-ineffectiveness.

References

  1. Alix-Garcia, J., de Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (2008). The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services. Environment and Development Economics, 13(03), 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Börner, J., & Wunder, S. (2008). Paying for avoided deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: From cost assessment to scheme design. International Forestry Review, 10(3), 496–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd, R., & Newman, D. H. (1991). Tax reform and land-using sectors in the US economy: A general equilibrium analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(2), 398–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chomitz, K. (2004). Transferable development rights and forest protection: An exploratory analysis. International Regional Science Review, 27(3), 348–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garcia, M. A. B. (2015). Effectiveness of payment for environmental services in Mexico. All Dissertations. Paper 1484. 5-2015. Clemson University TigerPrints. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.873.6366&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  6. Gomez, C. M., Tirado, D., & Rey Maquieira, J. (2004). Water exchanges versus waterworks: Insights from a computable general equilibrium model for the Balearic Islands. Water Resources Research, 4, W10502.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grima, N., Singh, S. J., Smetschka, B., & Ringhofer, L. (2016). Payment for ecosystem services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies. Econsystem Services, 17, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Liebe, J., van de Giesen, N., Andreini, M. S., Walter, M. T., & Steenhuis, T. (2009). Determining watershed response in data poor environments with remotely sensed small reservoirs as runoff gauges. Water Resources Research, 45, W07410.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ly, N. T. Y., & Nam, P. T. (2014). Payment for environmental services in Southeast Asia: A regional review of policy implementation, EEPSEA, 2014-RR10.Google Scholar
  10. Medellín-Azuara, J., Harou, J. J., & Howitt, R. (2010). Estimating economic value of agricultural water under changing conditions and the effects of spatial aggregation. Science of the Total Environment, 408(23), 5638–5648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Muñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., & Torres, J. M. (2005). Payment for the hydrological services of Mexico’s forests: Analysis, negotiations and results. Instituto Nacional de Ecología.Google Scholar
  12. Pagiola, S., Carrascosa von Glehn, H., & Taffarello, D. (2013). Brazil’s experience with payments for environmental services, PES Learning Paper 2013-1, World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  13. Pagiola, S., & Platais, G. (2007). Payments for environmental services: From theory to practice. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
  14. Pagiola, S., Rios, A., & Arcenas, A. (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
  15. Porras, I., Grieg-Gran, M., & Neves, N. (2008). All that glitters: A review of payments for watershed services in developing countries. London: The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).Google Scholar
  16. Rodrigues, L. N., Sano, E. E., Steenhuis, T. S., & Passo, D. P. (2012). Estimation of small reservoir storage capacities with remote sensing in the Brazilian Savannah Region. Water Resources Management, 26(4), 873–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Salhofer, K. (2001). Elasticities of substitution and factor to supply elasticities in European agriculture: A review of past studies. Market Effects of Crop Support Measures September 12, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  18. Serra, R., & Russman, E. (2006). On the efficiency of environmental service payments: A forest conservation assessment in the OSA Peninsula, Costa Rica. Ecological Economics, 59(1), 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Seung, C. K., Harris, T. R., McDiarmid, T. R., & Shaw, W. D. (1998). Economic impacts of water reallocation: CGE analysis for the Walker River basin of the Nevada and California. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 28(2), 13–34.Google Scholar
  20. Torres, M. O., Howitt, R., & Rodrigues, L. N. (2016). Modeling the economic benefits and distributional impacts of supplemental irrigation. Water Resources and Economics, 14, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. World Bank, (2014). GEF investments on payment for ecosystem services schemes. Global Environment Facility (GEF). World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/674691468155116353/GEF-investments-on-payment-for-ecosystem-services-schemes.
  22. Wunder, S., & Alban, M. (2008). Decentralized payments for environmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 685–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 834–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of BrasíliaBrasíliaBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations