Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Applied Methods for Agriculture and Natural Resource Management

Part of the book series: Natural Resource Management and Policy ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Using the 2008 yearly average exchange rate of 1US$ = 1.5BR$ provided by the Brazilian Central Bank.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomitz, K. (2004). Transferable development rights and forest protection: An exploratory analysis. International Regional Science Review, 27(3), 348–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Pagiola, S., & Platais, G. (2007). Payments for environmental services: From theory to practice. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Wunder, S., & Alban, M. (2008). Decentralized payments for environmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 685–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcelo Torres .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Torres, M., Howitt, R.E. (2019). Payment for Environmental Services: How Big Must Be the Check to Multiproduct Farmers?. In: Msangi, S., MacEwan, D. (eds) Applied Methods for Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 50. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13487-7_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics