Font size:

Contact us:

Re: Payments for environmental services (PES) in theory and practice: Lessons learned and way forward

Marcus Vinicius Alves Finco Federal University of Tocantins, Brazil
01.03.2013
Marcus Vinicius

As the ‘forest standing’ has no economic value to the smallholders, their opportunity costs might lead towards deforestation. A ‘win-win’ approach could be achieved by paying farmers to sequester carbon, which sets up a situation where: CO2 is removed from the atmosphere (mitigation); high soil organic matter increases agro ecosystem resilience (adaptation); and improved soil fertility leads to better yields (production and income generation). If a carbon market successfully allows the trade of sequestered carbon on the international market, deforestation of native forests in tropical countries might decrease. If deforestation is business-as-usual (or the baseline scenario), then the conservation of native forests by farmers would implement change and generate additional positive externalities. Thus, REDD+ project would create a stimulus for the conservation of native forests and increase the amount of carbon sequestered and, therefore, decrease the amount of carbon that is emitted to the atmosphere.

Bellow you find the link of paper of mine that I sent to FAO couple of years ago about REDD+, payment for environmental services, social inclusion, food security and climate change in the Brazilian Amazon region.
 
http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/Bioenergy_and_Sustainable_development_Brazil.pdf
 
 
Best regards
 
Marcus Finco, PhD
Professor at Federal University of Tocantins, Brazil