Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations- FAO
Payments for Environmental Services (PES) from Agricultural Landscapes
Targeting providers and accomplishing additionality
Targeting the most efficient providers and making sure that the scheme does result in an improvement in the ecosystem service provision remains the greatest challenge.
Win-win strategies for PES programme development
Win-win strategies for PES programme application are those where improved land management can generate environmental benefits and increase the returns to the farmer's activity (Strategy A - Agriculture development PES schemes) or where areas of low value for agriculture overlap with high conservation value (Strategy B - Conservation PES schemes).
Strategy A - Agri-development PES Schemes
In cases where PES programme-fostered measures can result in an increase in the farmers' returns, farmers may only require training in the adoption phase or financial support while the benefits of these new measures aren't yet visible. For example, soil and water conservation measures can result in a loss of a small share of cropping area require investment in the form of labour, time and materials, while improvements in water and soil quality may only be seen a few years down the line (5).
Thus a PES programme would be required only to bridge the gap between adoption of the measures and the time they would become privately profitable. After that, it could be in the farmer's best interest to continue using the new more environmentally friendly and privately profitable measures. In some cases, a small incentive payment could remain to encourage maintenance (see strategy A above)
In lands with low potential for agriculture (with low soil fertility or water scarcity) or restrictions to land use change (e.g. laws against deforestation), farmers may require very little to convert to more environmentally friendly land uses (e.g.. natural regeneration) in return for a long-term payment (see strategy B below). Map 4.1 gives a rough indication of where croplands poorly suited for rainfed agriculture coincide today with areas of high biodiversity conservation.Strategy B- Conservation PES Schemes
Thinking ahead, one could also target the providers with lands under risk of future conversion, but that are unlikely to generate benefits in the long run. Map 4.2 highlights this opportunity by giving an approximate picture of the areas where the projected expansion of cropland and pasture coincides with lands that are poorly suited for rainfed agriculture.
Even more important than the method used to target providers, is the capacity to properly implement its resolutions and ensure that the final result does reflect the technical considerations used to screen the participants. It is vital that the environmental goals of the scheme are not moved to the background throughout the many negotiations that take place during the design process. (6)
Map 4.1 Biodiversity hotspots in croplands poorly suited to rainfed agriculture (7) click on the picture to enlarge
Map 4.2 projected expansion of cropland and pasture to lands poorly suited to rainfed agriculture (8)
(5)for more on watershed management for increase environmental service delivery see section 2 on The Role of Agriculture
(6)for more on how difficult this process can be see FAO. 2005. An assessment of Mexico's payment for environmental services programme. Mexico country case study report. Roles of agriculture project (ROA). Environment services, by J. Alix-Garcia, A.d. Janvry, E. Sadoulet, J.M. Torres, J. Braña & M.Z. Ramos. Rome , FAO
(7)FAO.2007. The State of Food and Agriculture 2007 . Part I: Paying farmers for environmental services. Rome
(8)ibid.
