Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions (Conservation Letters)

Muradian, R et al / Conservation Letters journal / January 2013

The authors cover current debates around the impact of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes. They assess claims that PES are “market-based” instruments which reduce ecosystem services to just another commodity.

According to this perspective PES are part of the “neoliberalization of nature” that places the preservation of the environment at the mercy of market forces.

However, the authors point out that very few PES programmes are markets where market transaction take place between buyers and sellers for specific goods/services. Instead PES often involve voluntary exchanges based on incentives.

The authors go on to say that the design and implementation of PES schemes are influenced by local political power dynamics. This also impacts on which actors receive payments (e.g. landowners and/or local communities). Therefore it cannot be assumed that PES is the most cost-effective measure to conserve the environment and improve living standards.

The authors also observe that for PES to be effective in preserving the environment it has to compete with (currently high) commodity prices because otherwise the opportunity cost of conservation is too high.

In conclusion PES should be context specific and not simply viewed as an easy quick-fix solution.