GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING AND DESIGNING PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SCHEMES

Guerra, Bartira Rodrigues; Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima

doi:10.1590/1809-4422asoc20220060r1vu2023L1OA

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Ambient. soc. 26 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc20220060r1vu2023L1OA copy

This document is related to:

10.1590/1809-4422asoc20220060r1vu2023L1AOerrata

This document is related to:

10.1590/1809-4422asoc20220060r1vu2023L1AOerrata

GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING AND DESIGNING PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SCHEMES

DIRECTRICES PARA LA PLANIFICACIÓN Y DISEÑO DE ESQUEMAS DE PAGO POR SERVICIOS AMBIENTALES

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Payment for Environmental Services (PES) is an economic instrument that aims to reconcile the conservation of ecosystem services (ES) with the economic interests of the actors involved. In order to guide decision-makers in the process of structuring and planning PES schemes, this article analyzed Brazilian schemes against the best practices recommended in the scientific literature. As a result, monitoring the ES provision or its proxies and spatial segmentation were practices observed in Brazilian schemes in line with literature recommendations. The same did not happen with practices: flexible and/or adaptable contracts and payments greater than provision costs. These results are useful to reinforce strengths and point out possible vulnerabilities in the design of PES schemes, contributing to the improvement of both new and ongoing initiatives.

Keywords:
Ecosystem services; Environmental policies; PES; Best practices; Brazil

Topic	Questions	Possible Answers
Definition of eligible/priority areas	Is there additionality in the scheme?	Yes; Partially; No; I do not know.
	What ES are/is involved in the scheme?*	Carbon; Biodiversity; Water; Landscape; Others.
	What criteria/criterion are/is used to select the participating areas?*	Ecological; Social; Economic; Order of arrival; Other; I do not know.
Type of participation	Is the participation of those involved in the scheme voluntary?	Yes; Partially; No; I do not know.
	Are contracts accessible?	Yes; Partially; No; I do not know.
	Are contracts flexible?	Yes; Partially; No.
Payments	What is the payment value considered?*	Opportunity cost; Transaction cost; Others.
Payments	How is the payment amount defined?*	Fixed amount; Varying amount (opportunity cost); Varying amount (ES quantity); Varying amount (ES quality); Others.
Conditionality	Is there monitoring of the ES?	Yes; Partially; No; I do not know.
Conditionality	Are there sanctions?	Yes; Partially; No; I do not know.
Institutional arrangement	Was the involvement and negotiation with stakeholders sufficient/adequate?	Yes; No; I do not know.
	What is the decision-making process like in the scheme?*	Everyone participates; Commission with some actors; Management board of the scheme; Others.
	Are the rights and duties of the providers clearly defined?	Yes; No; I do not know.
	Do providers receive any support to execute the actions?	Technical; Financial; Financial and technical; No; I do not know.
	Is there a communication channel between the actors involved?	Yes; No; I do not know.

	CATEGORIES
	Institutional	Payment	Type of participation	Definition of eligible/priority areas	Conditionality	Associated Benefits
BEST PRACTICES	- Involvement and negotiation with stakeholders (31) - Clearly identified property rights (25) - Technical and budgetary support to participants (16) - Strengthening trust, dialogue, and collaboration between scheme actors (18) - Clear definition of actors responsibility (8) - Financial arrangement (5) - Assessment of the complexity (e.g., presence of intermediaries) in transactions between user/beneficiary and provider (3) - Strengthening of organizations and institutions that participate in the scheme (3) - Equity regarding the participation of the actors involved (2)	- Payments greater than provision costs (20) - Varying payments (14) - Payment method (i.e., payments made directly to the user or a group of owners) (4) - Updating opportunity cost values, payments, or investments in scheme infrastructure (3) - Duration of payment (3) - Sustainable financing for the scheme (2) - Assessment of the types of rewards (i.e., payments made in assets, services, and money, or in just one of these options) (2) - The use and perfecting of competitive price agreements (i.e., auctions and bids) (1) - Payments for building environmental assets instead of payments to prevent damage (1) - Payments without taking into account social criteria (1)	- Voluntary participation (22) - Transparency of information in contracts (10) - Flexible and/or adaptable contracts (9) - Contract time (4)	- Well-defined environmental services (25) - Additionality of the scheme (23) - Spatial segmentation (11) - Assessment of the willingness to participate of the actors involved (8) - Selection of areas to participate in the PES scheme, taking into account their ecological and/or threat level (i.e., of the ES) (7) - Assessment (with estimates) of the ES provision costs (2) - Assessment of the scheme results regarding its costs and benefits (1)	- Monitoring of the delivery of the ES or their proxies (40) - Sanctioning the non-compliance with the provision of the ES or activity provided for in the contract (10) - Payment based on compliance with the contract (3) - Well-defined metrics for measuring the scheme performance (2)	- Creation of means to promote greater equity (7) - Positive contribution to local livelihoods (6) - Scheme that encompasses more than one theme (e.g., environmental, social, economic), creating benefits in all these areas (1)

Number of schemes	Percentage	Responses obtained from those responsible for the schemes
3	7.5%	The people responsible stated that the schemes were not PES.
2	5%	The people responsible stated that the schemes were not deployed.
16	40%	The people responsible committed themselves to answering the questionnaire, but did not do so and, in some cases, gave an explanation for not doing so (e.g. lack of time).
12	30%	The people responsible answered the questionnaire (6 respondents for 12 schemes).
7	17.5%	We were not able to contact the people responsible.
1	-	Scheme was not originally found on the Forest Trends platform, but was included after being mentioned by one of the respondents.

Schemes	ES involved	Geographic location by biome	Source of funding
A	Biodiversity and Carbon	Amazon	Private resources
B	Carbon	Amazon	Private resources
C	Carbon	Atlantic Forest	Private resources
D	Carbon	Amazon	Private resources
E	Water and Biodiversity	Cerrado (brazilian savanna)	Public resources
F	Water, Landscape, Biodiversity, and Carbon	Amazon	Public and private resources
G	Water and Biodiversity	Atlantic Forest	Public and private resources

Best Practices	Schemes
Best Practices	A	B	C	D	E	F	G
Monitoring of the delivery of the ES or their proxies	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Involvement and negotiation with stakeholders	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Clearly identified property rights	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Additionality of the scheme	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	P
Voluntary participation	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Payments greater than provision costs	N	N	Y	N	P	P	Y
Well-defined environmental services	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Technical and budgetary support to participants	P	Y	Y	P	P	Y	Y
Varying payments	Y	Y	P	Y	N	Y	Y
Strengthening of trust, dialogue, and collaboration between scheme actors	P	Y	Y	P	N	N	Y
Spatial segmentation*	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Sanctioning the non-compliance with the provision of the ES or activity provided for in the contract	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y
Transparency of information in contracts	N	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y
Flexible and/or adaptable contracts	P	N	N	N	P	P	Y

ANPPAS - Revista Ambiente e Sociedade Anppas / Revista Ambiente e Sociedade - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistaambienteesociedade@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Bartira Rodrigues Guerra ✉ bartirarguerra@usp.br