Sharing Date7 Jun, 2023
There exists multiple tools and strategies through which people seek to engage with their natural surroundings. Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) is a globally growing concept which further integrates nature into socio-economic dynamics of the modernity. Here, the term “modernity” is used as the timeline in which we currently establish institutions and networks in relation to developing economic relations and prosperity – to the extent that nature is discussed under an economic reality (e.g. processes of commodification, marketization).
Ecosystem services can be categorized under 4 subtopics and those include watershed services, carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation and landscape beauty. There are multiple diverging approaches to achieve the desired environmental outcomes; nevertheless, PES distinguishes from those (e.g. indirect payments) in terms of cost-effectiveness and the volume of gains it provides, and most importantly differing from the cases where polluters are expected to make payments for their actions which have “external environmental costs”1. Here, we can view buyers and sellers, who are referred to as beneficiaries and providers, that form an economic relationship to sustain the continuity of environmental services, and foster development goals by creating relevant job opportunities and lead to other social impacts.
There are multiple reasons why PES schemes have gained popularity for conservation and development goals. Some scholars in the literature describe PES as schemes where the “common goal is to address the global environmental challenge by making ecosystem and biodiversity loss visible through monetization using a holistic cost-benefit analysis”2. This means that such programmes that allow nature into the market system would consequently establish the sustainable management of the environment. In many cases, PES is generally referred to as a conservation method or a form of a biodiversity financing method which may involve both public and private actors (e.g. local and national governments, landowners, farmers, NGOs). PES schemes are essentially viewed as a way to reconcile both development goals and conservation efforts, and it requires a redefinition of socio-ecological rights and responsibilities3.
Even though these payments have the capacity to respond to several challenges, it has to be implemented very meticulously and requires high-level of strategic planning.
From within the wider literature, the general findings indicate following disadvantages:
- Ethical implications where putting a price on nature seems not viable as an option4
- Implementation process of these schemes may have issues with their functionality5
- Difficult to suggest what could be achieved (Comparing the achievements between programs from different regional and national scales may be inconsistent, or could be impossible to predict the results as PES schemes in developed countries would reasonably have different progress than others)6
- The concept of value in both economic and social terms may lead to undermining the uniqueness of local perspectives
- Lack of scientific studies for the predictions may result in unexpectedly lower outcomes and eventually cease of payments7
This list may be extended or reduced depending on specific cases. However, the main concerns stand out as the overarching power of economic goals, that is stressed to replace social and environmental concerns. Therefore, one question here emerges as to find out whether these programmes are really something more than adapting nature into the market rationality?
In order to answer this question, we could look a bit deeper into the results of PES schemes, by specifically highlighting their social impacts.
One shall acknowledge that each stakeholder here may have differing motivations whilst taking part of PES schemes, and respectively for landowners, it is crucial to note that their ambitions are not solely depending on the economic claims, rather their connection to these lands may have socio-cultural roots. Social identities and nature are so embedded to each other in certain cultures that this link is inevitably the main driver for sustainable relationships with the environment8. This calls us to rethink (pre-existing) more-than-economic relations between society and the nature and reconsider in what ways conservation practices may simply already be part of their connection with nature.
As mentioned above, PES schemes are mostly preferred particularly in developing countries as they are able to establish a framework for both nature conservation and development goals. There are studies demonstrating positive and negative impacts of such schemes over the society. A research has shown that one particular PES programme has succeeded in terms of fostering social interactions and further social progress was reached within an agrarian community in comparison to other communities who were not selected for the scheme9. This shows us that these schemes could have a capacity for meeting the social goals in addition to economic and environmental goals.Another research where the social and ecological outcomes of the PES was not equally satisfactory like the previous example shows us that when the communities have expressed the extent to which their water systems have been affected by some physical risks (reduced water flow, use of herbicides, landslides), those local concerns were not acknowledged10. Therefore, it should be highlighted that there is a need for all PES activities to improve the balance between all actors involved and foster cooperation between them in order to achieve sustainable results.
Referring back to the title of this piece, where a new perspective was accentuated for defining the nature-human relationship, one may conclude that defining PES schemes by using the terms “payment” and “services” actually indicates a sort of complexity.. It shows the importance of rethinking environmental boundaries and ecological capacity as well as the social dimension that these schemes may transform. As a result, it is of crucial importance to consider the regional disparities and carefully identify the expected social outcomes while devising the PES schemes.
Footnotes
1) (2013). Payments for ecosystem services. Scaling-up Finance Mechanisms for Biodiversity, OECD Publishing, Paris, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264193833-6-en
2) 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. Ecosystem Services, 17, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.010
3) Rodríguez-de-Francisco, J. C., & Budds, J. (2015). Payments for environmental services and control over conservation of natural resources: The role of public and private sectors in the conservation of the Nima watershed, Colombia. Ecological Economics, 117, 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.003
4) Grima et al., ibid.
5) Grima et al., ibid.
6) Grima et al., ibid.
7) Lima, L. S., Ramos Barón, P. A., Villamayor-Tomas, S., & Krueger, T. (2019). Will PES schemes survive in the long-term without evidence of their effectiveness? exploring four water-related cases in Colombia. Ecological Economics, 156, 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.09.005
8) Strang, V. (2005). Knowing me, knowing you: Aboriginal and European concepts of nature as self and other. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology, 9(1), 25–56. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568535053628463
9) Gaworecki , M. (2018). Payments for ecosystem services can boost social capital in addition to forest management: Study. Mongabay Environmental News. https://news.mongabay.com/2018/07/payments-for-ecosystem-services-can-boost-social-capital-in-addition-to-forest-management-study/
10) Rodríguez-de-Francisco & Budds, ibid.
